Sitting of 13 May 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LAND DRAINAGE (SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVE DITCH IMPROVEMENT)) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Surrey County Council Act, 1936, for the execution of works for the improvement of the Rive Ditch in the county of Surrey and for other purposes, "presented by Sir Thomas Dugdale; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SHIPBUILDING

    Steel Supplies, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the supplies of steel allocated to the shipyards of Aberdeen are insufficient for their needs; what steps he is taking to increase the allocation to them; and by how much.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): The shortage of steel at Aberdeen shipyards was due not to inadequate allocations but to the shipbuilders' inability to obtain the steel which they had been authorised to acquire. I hope that the new steel plate distribution scheme announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply on 20th April will effect an improvement in the plate supplies to these firms.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that, whether it is due to shortage of allocation or to any other reason, the result is the same for the shipbuilding yards,
    1218
    and that leaders in the shipbuilding industry say that they have full order books which they are unable to discharge owing to shortage of steel, that Britain is in that way losing her place as a shipbuilding nation and that unemployment is being created? Will the Minister see that adequate supplies of steel are forthcoming to enable Britain to maintain her place in the world's shipbuilding markets?
    Mr. Digby: The question of the supply of steel is, of course, one for the Ministry of Supply and not for me. With regard to the case of Aberdeen, I am aware of the difficulty there has been there, and Aberdeen will get its share of the 10, 000 tons of plate which are being imported by the British Iron and Steel Federation from Austria.

    Repairs (Foreign Ports)
    Mr. Keenanasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ship-repairing refits and overhauls were carried out on British merchant ships in foreign ports during the years 1951, 1952 and to date in 1953, expressed in tonnage and costs; and what were the tonnage and costs of foreign merchant ships refitted and overhauled in Great Britain by ship-repairing firms during the years 1951, 1952 and to date in 1953.
    Mr. Digby: Since 1949 there have been no restrictions on British merchant ships carrying out repairs in soft currency countries abroad, and the information asked for in the first part of the Question is therefore not available. As regards the second part of the Question, I have no information on the cost of repairs to foreign ships in the United Kingdom, nor can I give the annual tonnage handled. I have available, however, figures showing the tonnage of foreign ships in hand at the end of each month. The average gross tonnage was: in 1951, 193, 000; in 1952, 178, 000; and in the first three months of 1953, 166, 000. These figures represented about 8 per cent. of the total load in the ship-repairing yards.
    Mr. Keenan: Will the Minister not agree that it is, to say the least, unfortunate that we have not the figures, since it is the contention of ship-repair workers, or those responsible for them, that we send a lot of repair work abroad because

    1219
    it is done there more cheaply, which is against our ship-repair workers here? Can the Minister do anything to get those figures so that we can know whether there is that balance of one as against the other?
    Mr. Digby: Such figures as I have available would not go to show that, but rather that the balance of advantage lies with the repair yards in this country.
    Mr. Logan: Could the Minister say whether there has been any diversion from English to foreign ports, and if so, whether these have been only emergency measures adopted at the ports where the ships were?
    Mr. Digby: As regards diversion, I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Owners are free—
    Mr. Logan: I want to know whether we are diverting work from English ports to foreign ports or whether the repairs that have taken place in foreign ports have been emergency repairs which could not be avoided.
    Mr. Digby: Under the last Government restrictions were taken off the repair of British ships abroad but, as far as we know, these are considerably less than the foreign ships which are being repaired here. The 8 per cent. represents something in the nature of 30 ships.
    Mr. Ede: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the fall in each of the three years he quoted for work in English yards?
    Mr. Digby: No, Sir. That might be partly due to the end of the very big repair programme after the war which has now been completed.

    Foreign Orders
    Mr. Callaghanasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what he attributes the decline in foreign orders for British ships; and how much work British yards now have on their order books, excluding yards specialising in tankers.
    Mr. Digby: Orders for ships from foreign owners have declined, as have orders from British owners. The decline may be due both to the expansion of capacity abroad and also the late delivery dates that can be offered by British yards, owing to their full order books and to the shortage of steel plate in the last
    1220
    few years. It is difficult to distinguish between yards specialising in tankers and other yards, as most larger yards now build some tankers. Orders for ships other than tankers now stand at 2, 717, 000 tons of which 905, 000 tons are for foreign owners.
    Mr. Callaghan: Though there has been a general decline in new shipbuilding orders, is it not the case that our proportion of export work is lower, according to the latest list, than for the last six years? Is there any particular reason why British shipbuilding yards are not building as great a proportion as they were for export?
    Mr. Digby: All ships are built strictly in rotation and the order is that in which they are placed on the order books. The proportion of foreign ships being built will go up in the near future, as will be seen from the figures I have given.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that we are not losing any orders because of the difficulty of obtaining sufficient steel plate, particularly on the Tyne and the Wear? We know that the ending of the steel control is to take place, but there is the difficulty of the voluntary control. Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Ministry of Supply to ensure that there is sufficient steel plate going to our shipbuilding yards to keep this very important industry at home?
    Mr. Digby: The Admiralty have been in constant touch with the Ministry of Supply on this question of steel plate and everything possible is being done, but we must remember that the order books are still very long, representing something between three and four years' work, which must affect new orders.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Coronation (Ships' Visits)
    Mr. Gowerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ships of Her Majesty's Fleet will visit Welsh ports during the summer months in connection with the Coronation.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): A total of 18 ships will be visiting 15 Welsh towns this summer in connection with the Coronation celebrations.

    1221
    I am letting my hon. Friend have a list giving details of these visits.
    Mr. Gower: Is the Minister aware that the officers and men of these ships will have a splendid welcome in these ports, as I am sure they will if the answer to Question No. 7 is as satisfactory as the answer to this Question?
    Mr. Callaghan: Do the "Welsh towns" include the City of Cardiff?
    Commander Noble: Yes, there is a ship going to Cardiff.
    Mr. Ede: Are any ships going to the Tyne, where they are built?
    Commander Noble: I am having a list placed in the Library, giving all the details of all the ships and all the visits, as I feel sure that it will interest hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    Mr. C. Hughes; Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman making certain that North Wales is not forgotten?
    Mr. Hoy: If there are any which require large repairs, will they be sent to Leith?
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ships of Her Majesty's Fleet will visit Scottish ports during the summer months in connection with the Coronation.
    Commander Noble: A total of 41 ships will be visiting 37 Scottish towns this summer in connection with the Coronation celebrations. I am letting my hon. and gallant Friend have a list giving details of these visits.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that this announcement will give much satisfaction in Scotland? Would he consider publishing the list rather than giving it to individual hon. Members?
    Commander Noble: As I said in answer to an earlier Question, I will put the list in the Library.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Could not my hon. and gallant Friend publish it, because putting it in the Library is not quite the same thing?
    Commander Noble: I will certainly give consideration to that.

    Naval Review (Members of Parliament)
    Mr. Lewisasked the First Lord of the Admiralty on which previous occasions when Members of Parliament have been invited to attend the Royal Naval Review at Spithead they have had to ballot for tickets; and what is the reason for the ballot for tickets for the forthcoming Naval Review.
    Commander Noble: There is no question of Members of Parliament not being able to attend the Coronation Review at Spithead this year; the only ballot that took place was to decide for reasons of economy which Members should go in the liners and which in one of Her Majesty's ships. A ballot has been held on a number of occasions in the past to allot the available accommodation for Members at a Naval Review; the Reviews held in 1902 and 1924 are examples.
    Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that this is for economy, can the Minister say how much money he anticipates saving by this method, as I understand there will be about £2 million spent nationally in connection with the whole of the Coronation?
    Commander Noble: I cannot give the exact figure because it is not normal to give these figures for chartering liners, but, as the hon. Member will know, to charter additional liners would cost a considerable sum.

    Leave
    Mr. Wiggasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements are being made for leave to be granted to the crews of ships concentrating for the Coronation Review, particularly in cases where ships have been based in remote ports.
    Commander Noble: Arrangements have been made for the ships' companies of ships returning from foreign service to be given seven days' leave in the United Kingdom before the Naval Review.
    Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into account the fact that many of the ships concentrating in Portsmouth will have members of crews who could live ashore whilst the ships are there? Will he take that into account

    1223
    and provide special facilities, particularly where families have been separated for considerable periods?
    Commander Noble: Yes, that certainly will be given every consideration, and I am quite sure that as much leave as possible will be given while the ships are in port.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Facilities, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the new field radar link system demonstrated near Southampton recently which serves adequately to confirm the success of radio-relayed radar, and which by 20-mile hops can be extended over an indefinite distance; if he is aware that this system is similar to a television radio-link and has been developed by Decca Radar; and if he will take steps to use it to relay television to viewers in the city of Aberdeen.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): The principle referred to is well known. I am afraid that these developments in no way affect my previous statements on television policy.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it not terribly invidious that the latest devices of science can be used to bring Coronation television to foreign countries, but not to North-East Scotland? Will the Assistant Postmaster-General stop ostracising North-East Scotland in this way?
    Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I am not ostracising anyone. The principle of the radio link is well known. That is the type of link between Manchester and Kirk o'Shotts. The factor which decides this problem is not the type of link but the question of capital investment.

    B.B.C. Overseas Services
    Mr. Fellasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what foreign broadcasts are given by the British Broadcasting Corporation, the country or area for which each service is intended, and the daily duration of each service.
    Mr. Gammans: I would refer my hon. Friend to the information given in Appendix VII of the B.B.C.'s Annual Report and Accounts for 1951–52 (Cmd. 8660) on pages 115 and 116. The information there given will, I hope, serve my hon. Friend's purpose. There has been little change since the Report was published.
    Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still a wavelength allocated for broadcasts to Northern France, which seems quite useless when we in Northern Ireland share a wavelength with the north-east of England?
    Mr. Gammans: I think that goes outside the original Question.
    Mr. Fellasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what broadcasts the British Broadcasting Corporation makes for our Forces overseas; and what is the approximate locality for which each service is intended.
    Mr. Gammans: Since the information is lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Fell: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether there is a service provided for the Forces in Korea in this lengthy list?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir. The question of the number of hours of service to each place rests with the War Office or with the Service Department concerned. But in the case of Korea I understand there is a service every day of 4¾ hours.
    Following is the information:
    The B.B.C. inform me that four regular programmes are included in the General Overseas Service specifically for the benefit of listeners in British Forces overseas. They are as follows:
    "The Forces' Show" (1 hour); On Sundays and Tuesdays for Forces in all main areas.
    "Forces Favourites" (½ hour); Tuesdays and Saturdays, primarily for Forces in the Far East.
    "Sporting Record" (¼ hour); Thursdays, primarily for Forces in the Far East.
    "Sports Review" (¼ hour); Mondays, primarily for Forces in the Far East.
    Apart from the above, numerous other programmes of news, information and entertainment are included in the General Overseas Service with the Forces audience closely in mind. Such programmes are known to be heard by listeners in the Forces overseas but

    1225
    they are included in the service for the benefit of listeners generally and not specifically for listeners in the Forces.
    There are two major weekly items at present broadcast in the Light Programme primarily for listeners in the Forces in Germany. They are as follows:
    "Family Favourites" (1 hour or 1¼ hours); On Sundays. This programme provides a two-way traffic of tunes and messages played at the request of Forces listeners in Germany and civilian listeners at home. It is relayed to Germany by the British Forces Network.
    "Forces All-Star Bill" alternating with "The Forces Show" (each 1 hour); On Tuesday evenings. These are major variety programmes intended for listeners, especially Forces listeners, in the U.K. and reaching the British Army of the Rhine through the British Forces Network.
    Numerous other items in the Light Programme are relayed for Forces listeners by the British Forces Network in Germany.

    Sponsored Programmes
    Sir R. Grimstonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation is departing from its obligatory impartiality by presenting in its programmes and publications only those views opposed to sponsored and/or commercial television; and, as this matter has become a party political issue, if he will consider what remedial action should be taken.
    Mr. Gammans: I am not aware that the B.B.C. has acted partially in this matter, but if my hon. Friend has any evidence on the point I shall be glad to consider it.
    Sir R. Grimston: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in a matter of a party political controversy, which this question of commercial television is, the B.B.C. must not broadcast or publish a view of its own; and further, that if it does publish the views of anybody else, either in its broadcasts or publications, it must publish both sides with impartiality?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir, that is correct.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General know that the last time I was invited to take part in a B.B.C. programme the suggested discussion with a Conservative was sponsored
    1226
    television, but we had to call it off, because the Conservative Member concerned was not in favour of sponsored television?
    Later—
    Mr. Braine: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order which concerns Questions. I was not in my place at the beginning of Question time today, but I have been advised that during Question time the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) alleged that when he last appeared on television a Conservative hon. Member refused to discuss sponsored television on the ground that the said Conservative hon. Member was against sponsored television.
    I do not wish to raise the rights or wrongs of an hon. Member of this House discussing private conversations with a B.B.C. producer, but if the allegation applies to me, and I did appear with the hon. Gentleman in his last television programme, it attributes bad faith to me in that I voted in this House for sponsored television. I would like your guidance as to whether I can put it on record that I did not decline to discuss this question because of lack of faith in sponsored T.V. Any assertion to the contrary is quite untrue and I would ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East to withdraw it.
    Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman was not in his place, but it will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that the supplementary question I asked was to this effect: "Whether the Assistant Postmaster-General was aware that on the last occasion when I was asked to have a discussion"—but not on the television or on the radio. I purposely did not identify the hon. Gentleman, and I did not indicate whether this was in connection with television or sound radio; not did I say that the broadcast actually took place. I said that the subject had to be dropped. There was nothing to be concluded from what I said, until the hon. Gentleman chose to wear the cap, whether it was he that was concerned or whether in fact the discussion actually took place.
    As the hon. Gentleman now chooses to identify himself, let me say at once that it is quite true that the occasion in question, which would not have been known had not the hon. Gentleman made this

    1227
    intervention, was when we both appeared together on television last time. If he now asserts that he is in favour of sponsored television, I certainly accept that. We must take it up in another place. It would be wrong for me not to. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when he reads HANSARD he will agree with me that there was no way of identifying him in this connection.
    Mr. Speaker: I heard the supplementary question asked, and I do not think anyone was identified by it. I hope that the hon. Members will contrive to clear this matter up between themselves.
    Mr. Braine: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, surely when vague allegations are thrown out in this fashion and advantage is taken of the Privilege of this place to make a charge which is, when it appears in black and white, one of bad faith, the hon. Gentleman who makes the charge should have the good grace to withdraw it when an explanation is afforded?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot take that view. I heard no charge made against the hon. Gentleman, and for my part I should not have thought that he was connected with this matter at all. Points of order regarding charges of this sort must be supported more specifically than that. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will come to an understanding about this matter and clear it up. I cannot allow the time of the House to be occupied any further with it.
    Mr. Callaghan: I certainly accept what the hon. Gentleman says about commercial television, and I put it on record that the reason why we had the discussion was that I understood that the hon. Gentleman did not support the priniciple of commercial television.
    Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was misinformed.

    Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what additional capital will be made available to the British Broadcasting Corporation in the near future to enable them to extend their television facilities.
    Mr. Gammans: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer on 6th May to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards).
    Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister confirm that his reply means the B.B.C. will be allowed to use their capital resources for developing both their low frequency stations and high velocity programmes—
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: High velocity?
    Mr. Fletcher: —before any facilities are given for commercial television?
    Mr. Gammans: That was not the question I was asked. I gave a full answer to the question I was asked last Wednesday.

    Bad Reception Areas
    Mr. Popplewellasked the Assistant Postmaster-General for an assurance that the provision of a separate wavelength for the North-East will take precedence over a wavelength allocation for sponsored television.
    Mr. Gammans: I would suggest the hon. Gentleman should await the first report of the Television Advisory Committee and the decisions taken on it, but I see no reason why there should be any competition between sound and television broadcasting.
    Mr. Popplewell: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects that report to be published? Will he also be a little more specific, because there is great feeling in the North-East on this matter? They desire an adequate wavelength to serve their purposes and are much more interested in that service being provided first before sponsored television.
    Mr. Gammans: The report is in the hands of the printers. So far as I can gather there will be ample space on different bands for television whether commercial or B.B.C. programmes and also v.h.f. broadcasting.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not this a matter of the allocation of resources, and surely my hon. Friend's Question is a reasonable one? He asks that the allocation of resources to the provision of a separate wavelength should take precedence over commercial television.
    Mr. Gammans: What the hon. Gentleman has asked is that the provision of a separate wavelength for v.h.f. broadcasting shall not be interfered with by sponsored television. I think I can give him that assurance.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would my hon. Friend consider laying a copy of the report of the Television Advisory Committee in the Library, if there is to be delay in the printing of the report.
    Mr. Gammans: If there is likely to be any unreasonable delay I will consider that.
    Mr. Popplewellasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether the British Broadcasting Corporation has yet made any proposal for a very high frequency scheme whereby the present bad reception areas will be assured of adequate sound radio reception.
    Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. have made tentative proposals: firm plans for v.h.f. broadcasting must await the decisions ultimately taken on the question of modulation after the Television Advisory Committee has reported.
    Mr. Popplewell: When does the Minister expect that report to be to hand?
    Mr. Gammans: That is the second report of the Television Advisory Committee. They are now considering that technical question as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Popplewell: Can the Minister indicate when he hopes the Committee will arrive at some decision?
    Mr. Gammans: I would not like to be definite, but we hope it will be before very long.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it not a fact that this is a very serious matter? There cannot be any development of v.h.f. until the type of modulation is determined, and unless we get that very quickly, this promise about commercial television is far from being implemented.
    Mr. Gammans: I do not anticipate that there will be any undue delay. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) is quite right. The first thing to be decided is which type of modulation shall be used.
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if, when national re-
    1230
    sources allow, he will give precedence to the provision of very high frequency sound broadcasting for bad reception areas such as Anglesey over the licensing of commercial television.
    Mr. Gammans: I cannot at present add anything to the Government's statements in its White Paper on Broadcasting (Cmd. 8550), and in the debates on the subject.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that sound reception in many parts of Wales. including Anglesey, is very bad indeed? Will he consult now with his engineers to see if there is any improvement which can be effected?
    Mr. Gammans: There are many parts of the country in which reception is not good. It is due to a variety of reasons. One is interference from abroad.
    Mr. Bowen: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no technical reason why this problem cannot be solved if it is tackled with a will to solve it?
    Mr. Gammans: There is no technical reason why all sorts of problems should not be solved. One of the difficulties in this and other directions is the amount of our capital resources we are prepared to devote to the subject.
    Mr. Ede: Can the hon. Gentleman say which foreign station interferes with Anglesey?
    Mr. Gammans: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottomasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what estimate the British Broadcasting Corporation has made of the capital cost of providing adequate sound radio reception over the whole of the United Kingdom, including a separate wavelength for each region.
    Mr. Gammans: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the use of very high frequencies. The B.B.C. has not yet sent to my noble Friend any reliable estimate of the cost of providing V.H.F. stations for those parts of the country where reception is unsatisfactory nor will they be asked to do so until the Television Advisory Committee has recommended the type of modulation which in their opinion should be adopted, and a final decision has been taken on this matter.
    Mr. Winterbottom: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General agree that adequate sound broadcasting should be provided for every region in the country in preference to any attempt to provide sponsored broadcasting?
    Mr. Gammans: The plans of the Government on that matter have been set out specifically in Command Paper 8590.
    Captain Orr: Can my hon. Friend say, on a technical point, whether his mind is moving on amplitude or frequency modulation lines?
    Mr. Gammans: My mind does not propose to move on either line until the Television Advisory Committee has given its technical advice.

    Television Receivers (Wave Length Adaptors)
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottomasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if, before licensing sponsored television, he has sought an estimate of the cost of an adaptor to enable existing television receivers to obtain more than one programme; and what the estimate was.
    Mr. Gammans: No definite figure can yet be provided by the radio industry, but I understand the cost would not be large compared with the price of the set itself.
    Mr. Winterbottom: Could the Assistant Postmaster-General be more precise in his reply? I understand that the cost of the adaptor will be about £17 per set. Will he please tell us whether that is the correct figure?
    Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Member understands the figure to be £17, then he knows far more about it than I do, because we have had no communication whatever from the radio industry that it is likely to be anything like that sum.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is absolutely impossible to work out the price for such an adaptor until the technical information is available and that it is quite unreasonable for hon. Members opposite to publish false information to try to deceive the House and the country?
    Mr. Winterbottom: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General give an assurance to the House that as soon as a price for the
    1232
    adaptor has been arrived at and communicated to the B.B.C., the House will have the information?
    Mr. Gammans: The price will not be communicated to the B.B.C. It will be a question of offering the adaptor to the public, and if the public do not want it they need not buy it.

    "Code of the Air"
    Mr. J. Rodgersasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what action his Department has taken on the "Code of the Air," drawn up by a Committee of the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners in Advertising and the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, which was recently submitted to his Department.
    Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend has read this code with very great interest and is grateful to the advertising interests for having submitted it. It will be of great assistance to him in setting out the responsibilities of the controlling body.
    Mr. Rodgers: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this code sets a very high standard, a higher standard than that which is maintained by most newspapers and certainly by the B.B.C., and does he not think that if it is adhered to it should set at rest the doubts which have been expressed by hon. Members opposite and, in particular, by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison)?
    Mr. Gammans: I should not like to make comparisons with newspapers or the B.B.C., but it is certainly a very strict code which the advertising interests have set out and I imagine that it would remove all reasonable misgivings which hon. Members opposite may have that commercial television is likely to lead to a debasement of standards.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In considering the weight to be attached to these recommendations, will the hon. Member cause investigations to be made into whether either or both of these organisations, or the individual members of them, are subject to foreign control, because that will definitely be a factor which ought to be considered in deciding upon the future of commercial television?
    Mr. Gammans: I think the hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood my answer. The question concerns the standard to be set by my noble Friend for the controlling body to exercise when they are controlling commercial television.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the Minister say why, if sponsored television is such a good thing in itself, a code of this sort is at all necessary?
    Mr. Gammans: Because a pledge was given by the Government that if commercial television were established there would be some controlling body, and because we wish to carry out the pledge. If the right hon. Gentleman will study the code, then if he is fair-minded he will agree that it removes all his misgivings that commercial television must lead to a debasement of standards.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Do we understand that this code submitted by the associations has the approval of the Assistant Postmaster-General?
    Mr. Gammans: It is not a question of my approval or non-approval. The code is submitted to my noble Friend and he proposes to make use of it when he is setting out the duties and responsibilities of the controlling body.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that there is no system of enforcement even suggested in the proposals made by the advertising associations? Is he further aware that the code is less strict than that of the United States and is likely to prove just as much eyewash here as it has proved there?
    Mr. Gammans: Before the hon. Gentleman makes such very sweeping statements about sanctions and control I suggest that he should await the full proposals about the powers as well as the responsibilities of the controlling body, which, in due course, we propose to lay before the House.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Southampton
    Mr. Morleyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many telephones were newly installed in Southampton from April, 1952, to April, 1953; and how many applications for telephones are still outstanding.
    Mr. Gammans: 945 telephones were installed during the year ended 31st March, 1953. At that date there were 1, 671 applications outstanding, including over 400 in course of provision.
    Mr. Morley: Would the Minister say if those whose applications for telephones are still outstanding may expect to receive telephones before very long?
    Mr. Gammans: Additional equipment is being supplied and provided in three of the exchanges that serve Southampton this year and, by the end of this year, there should be an appreciable reduction in the waiting list. In the other three exchanges additional equipment will be supplied next year.

    Kiosk, Eton Wick (Lighting)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will arrange for lighting the telephone kiosk at Eton Wick, Buckinghamshire.
    Mr. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the rights of hon. Members to ask Questions regarding such trivial details affecting the day-to-day administration of such a minute area when much more important questions about other nationalised industries cannot be asked?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is for the hon. Member to judge the relevance and importance of his Question.
    Mr. Gammans: The answer to the Question is, "Yes, Sir." The work has already been started.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I would not have raised this trivial question were it not for the fact that local representations were made more than a year ago? May I congratulate the Minister on having now started this operation?

    Whitchurch and Rhiwbina Areas
    Mr. Gowerasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he will take to expedite the improvement of the telephone exchanges in the Whitchurch and Rhiwbina areas of Glamorgan, and the provision of telephones in those areas.
    Mr. Gammans: Since my hon. Friend's Question on 17th December last, there has been steady progress in overtaking arrears, and the waiting list for telephones has been reduced by 204. I wish it were possible to decrease the waiting list still more quickly. The limiting factor here, as elsewhere, is the amount of capital resources which can be devoted to telephone extension.
    Mr. Gower: Can my hon. Friend say anything about the improvement of existing exchanges?
    Mr. Gammans: I think the hon. Member is concerned about the exchange at Whitchurch. There was faulty service— the service deteriorated for a short time —because there was a very extensive plan of cable laying going on.

    ANMER SUB-POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDER FACILITIES)
    Commander Scott-Millerasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what extra expense and staff would be involved in providing Anmer village sub-post office with money order facilities.
    Mr. Gammans: About £6 a year, assuming that the number of transactions was small.
    Commander Scott-Miller: Will my hon. Friend reconsider his decision not to extend these facilities to this post office, particularly in view of the fact that I have forwarded to him a petition from the majority of the parishioners who are most desirous of having this facility?
    Mr. Gammans: I will certainly do that. But I must point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that if we extended these facilities to all villages of this size—and it would be difficult to refuse to do so— it would cost £150, 000 to £200, 000 per year.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    United States Airfields, U.K. (Cost)
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total maintenance expenditure on airfields constructed in Great Britain for the
    1236
    United States Air Force during the years 1951–52 and 1952–53; what are the estimates for 1953–54; and what proportion of this expenditure has been borne by the United States Government.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The United States Government are bearing the whole cost of work done since 1st July, 1951. The figures requested are £850, 000, £900, 000 and £1, 300, 000, respectively.
    Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the fact that our own housing programme and factory development is being thwarted by lack of supplies of cement and other materials, would the Minister put it to the United States that it might be helpful if they brought some of the material for the construction of these aerodromes from the United States and thus left more material for our own essential purposes?
    Mr. Ward: This is all part of the defence programme and it does not interfere with our housing programme.
    Mr. Davies: Could not the Minister in future, in Vote 8, in presenting the House with the Air Estimates, include these figures rather than put in parenthesis the fact that these costs are included in the overall set of figures? Could he do that for the benefit and information of the House?
    Mr. Ward: I will certainly take advice on that and consider it, but of course it is only an estimate.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total capital expenditure on construction of airfields in Great Britain for the United States Air Force in the years 1951–52 and 1952–53; what are the estimates for 1953–54; and what proportion of this expenditure has been borne by the United States Government.
    Mr. Ward: The figures are £9 million, £11 million and £22 million, respectively. The United States Government are bearing about half the cost for the first two years and will probably bear nearly three-quarters of the cost in 1953–54.

    National Service Men (Intake)
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Undersecretary of State for Air how many National Service men, desiring to enter the

    1237
    Royal Air Force during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1953, were accepted for service; and how many were rejected.
    Mr. Ward: In this period 33, 264 young men who wished to do their National Service in the Royal Air Force were accepted for the statutory period of two years, and 45, 431 were rejected, about one-third of them on medical grounds.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this is a startling number of rejections? Is he further aware that these rejections are very discouraging to the A.T.C. as an organisation and to the young men concerned, many of whom are members of the A.T.C?
    Mr. Ward: I know there are a lot of rejections, but entry into the Royal Air Force for National Service is competitive and far more people want to enter than we can take. We are therefore able to take only the best.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Member be quite fair to the House over this matter? When 45, 000 men who are called up are rejected by the R.A.F., is there not some other reason for the rejection? Is it not true to say that the R.A.F. generally do not require men for only two years' service and try to persuade them to join up as Regulars, and that when they refuse to do so they are transferred to the Army? Is not that the case?
    Mr. Ward: No, it is not. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not true. As I said, we are entitled to pick only the best when so many boys want to get into the Air Force and we cannot take them all. We have to reject those we do not want.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that this allegation was made: that under the call-up for the three Services the Admiralty want very few, the Army want most and the Royal Air Force want a modicum of the number; and that the R.A.F. do not require such a large number of two-year men but want men to join up as Regulars? Is not that the position?
    Mr. Ward: Of course we want men to join as Regulars, if they will join. We welcome them if they will join as Regulars.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister fair in this matter? Have I not sent him a case
    1238
    of a man who wanted to enlist for three years, was sent to a camp in England and, because he would not enlist for five years, was put on the road, given no warrant, and compelled to walk home?
    Mr. Ward: I find that very hard to believe. Of course there are certain trades in which it takes so long to teach a man that it is not worth teaching him that trade if he stays for only two years, because we do not get any productive service out of him. Certain trades of that sort must therefore be reserved for people who are prepared to stay longer. There is nothing unfair about that.
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Undersecretary of State for Air what conditions National Service men must fulfil, and what qualifications they must possess, before they are accepted into the Royal Air Force for the statutory two-year period of service.
    Mr. Ward: There is keen competition among young men to carry out their National Service in the Royal Air Force. We can, therefore, accept only those who on the basis of personal interviews, experience, ability tests and their medical examination appear to us most suitable to fill the vacancies which exist at the time.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend is perfectly correct when he says that recruiting officers are telling recruits that they must join for three years if they want to join the R.A.F., and that they are persuading them to join for three years? Is he further aware that this causes very great difficulty and embarrassment to these boys of 18, because, when they get back to their homes, they find that their civilian jobs are not open to them after service for three years? Will he make that known to the general public, and also make known what the conditions are, in order to avoid unnecessary travel and the waste of time and money in going to recruiting centres?
    Mr. Ward: Recruiting officers do not persuade men to join for three years, but they would obviously be very bad recruiting officers if they did not point out to the men the advantages of doing so. There are many advantages. There are advantages in pay and leave periods, and

    1239
    a wider choice of trades, and many men, having had this pointed out to them, prefer to go in for three years. We have been very careful in every case to ask these people not to give up their civilian jobs until they are certain that they have been enlisted.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recruiting officers have nothing to do with it at all? The men who are called up do not go before recruiting officers. They are called up, and when they are told there is no room for their services in the Air Force, they are asked to join up as Regulars, which the recruiting officer, I agree, has a perfect right to do. If they refuse, are they not told that their only course is to join the Army, which they do not wish to do?
    Mr. Ward: Certainly, when they arrive, they are interviewed by a recruiting officer. They also have to pass the ability tests, and, according to the results obtained from the ability tests and as a result of conversation and consideration of their previous experience and so on, we can then tell what trades they are able to do. If they are able to do the trade of their choice, then they are perfectly happy, but, if they are not able to do the trade of their choice, they can either come in for a longer period and do a more interesting trade, or they can say "I am sorry, I only want to come in for two years," when we cannot accept them, and so they have to go into the Army.

    PRESTWICK AIRPORT (DEVELOPMENT)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Civil Aviation how far the plans for the development of Prestwick Airport have been advanced.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): Plans for a new runway at Prestwick are well advanced, and my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be able to announce when work can proceed.
    Mr. Rankin: May we expect a full answer from the Minister if I put down a Question after Whitsun; and, in the meantime, could he say if most of the major difficulties which have been created by the proposed plans for the development of the airport have now been overcome?
    Mr. Profumo: In answer to the first part of the Question, may I say that if the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question shortly, my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a full reply? In answer to the second part of the Question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a great number of difficulties to be overcome, and they are at present under consideration by the Department of Health for Scotland and the local authorities. It is because they have made some headway that I gave the answer I have just given.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the House what the proposed new development will cost ultimately? Has he any estimate of the total cost?
    Mr. Profumo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the statement which my right hon. Friend hopes to make shortly.

    REFUGEES
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many countries, apart from Denmark, have now notified the United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Apart from Denmark, Norway is the only country which has ratified the Convention so far.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could the hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken by our own Government to encourage the ratification and to do so by setting an example ourselves, in view of the long time that has elapsed since the decision to ratify and actual ratification?
    Mr. Nutting: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that a considerable time has elapsed, and I will certainly look into this matter again. We are consulting with the Governments of the overseas territories for whose international relations we are responsible to make quite sure that we can ratify subject to the minimum amount of reservations in accordance with Article 42 of the Convention. We should like to ratify, but we want to do so with the minimum of reservations.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that he should

    1241
    make inquiries in 'respect of the 8, 000-10, 000 European refugees who settled in China; and make representations to the Chinese People's Republic with a view to their assistance or transference to other countries.
    Mr. Nutting: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees already has full information about the European refugees in China, and is doing all he can to help them. I have discussed personally with the High Commissioner the question of resettling these refugees, and he is considering various possibilities.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can we have an assurance that everything is being done helpfully to deal with these most unfortunate people?
    Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir; I can certainly give that assurance. I can also say that we have made a little progress in this matter, but I do not want to raise too many hopes, for fear that we may not be able to bring them to fruition.

    MiG FIGHTERS (SURRENDER REWARDS)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received from the United Nations in Korea about the number of MiG fighters that have reached South Korea since the 100, 000 dollar offer was made by the United Nations Command.
    Mr. Nutting: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that there has been no response from Soviet pilots to this 100, 000 dollar offer? Would he give some explanation, and could he further teil us if he has received a protest from Mr. Chiang Kai-shek about the Prime Minister's statement that it is better to be bribed than to be killed, because of the devastating effect it has had on Chiang Kai-shek's Army?
    Mr. Nutting: It would appear that, so far, there has been no response to the offer made by the United Nations Command, but, of course, hope springs eternal.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Canadian Foodstuffs (Purchases)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food how much bacon he is buying from Canada this year; and how much Canadian cheese and butter he proposes to buy.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): No purchases of Canadian bacon or butter have been made this year but 2, 300 tons of Canadian cheese were bought last January. It is unlikely that more dollars will be available for the purchase of any of these products this year.
    Mr. Hurd: May we take it that, as opportunity occurs and we have more dollars, we shall seek to restore the traditional trade with Canada in these foods?
    Dr. Hill: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I think he will realise that it is essentially a matter of dollars.
    Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the fact that the British public last year had 81, 000 tons of butter less than they had in 1951, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is time that the Ministry bucked up their ideas and made available to the people in 1953 the same amount of butter that they had in the last year of the Labour Government?
    Dr. Hill: It is also true that, in 1951, the butter issued was substantially in excess of that received, the balance being taken out of stock, and that last year we took occasion to rebuild those stocks.

    Imported Barley (Price)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Food the average price now being paid for imported barley compared with 1939.
    Dr. Hill: Present c.i.f. prices range between £21 and £26 10s. per ton according to source, quality and position. In 1939, they ranged between £4 10s. and £5 5s. per ton.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman's statement reveals that barley is now more than four times the price it was pre-war, will the Minister take this matter into full consideration in the examination which he is making in regard to the export price of whisky, because whisky has gone up by only 1s. 8d. a bottle?
    Dr. Hill: All relevant facts will be taken into account, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I told him on Monday, that imported barley is not used for whisky, and, in fact, last year, only 4 per cent. of our imported barley came from dollar countries.
    Mr. Stokes: Of course, I understand that perfectly well, but, surely, the Parliamentary Secretary understands that, if home-produced barley was not used for whisky, he would not have to import any?
    Dr. Hill: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the allegations which he made in 1947 and 1949, and which were rejected by his right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), are being re-examined afresh at his request, and I suggest that he might content himself with that for the moment.

  KENYA

    Situation
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to make a comprehensive statement on the troubles in Kenya.
    The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend leaves for a short visit to Kenya today and, pending his return, I have nothing to add to the statement he made on 29th April.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not the Colonial Office keeping in constant touch with this life and death struggle in Kenya, and does the Minister realise that it is his duty to keep the House fully informed about what is happening there?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are keeping fully in touch. My right hon. Friend is going out there and has undertaken to do certain things during this visit. I am sure it would be wiser to avoid making any further statement until he gets back?

    Mr. Peter Evans (Visitor's Pass Cancellation)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds Mr. Peter Evans, a London
    1244
    barrister, has been ordered to leave Kenya.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Mr. Evans has been required to leave Kenya, firstly, because he contravened the condition of his visitor's pass by practising his profession in Kenya, and secondly, because he has been deemed an undesirable immigrant.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Peter Evans was informed yesterday by the immigration authorities that he has not been guilty of this contravention since he was paid no fee for his services, and will the Minister say what are the undesirable things which Mr. Evans has done while he has been in Kenya?
    Mr. Hopkinson: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, the fact is that Mr. Evans on arrival on a visitor's pass applied to the Chief Justice for permission to practice, and did not disclose the terms of his entry pass which did not entitle him to do so. This was eventually brought to the notice of the Chief Justice who withdrew Mr. Evan's pass on 9th May, and that, as far as I know, is the position. As regards the question of his being an undesirable immigrant, there is no doubt that since his arrival in the Colony he has been engaged in activities of a sort which could only be regarded as subversive.
    Hon. Members: What are they?
    Mr. Hopkinson: It is known that he urged Odede to persuade members of the Luo tribe to strike or leave their employment, in order, as he put it, "To bring the Europeans to their knees." There is no doubt that he has done tremendous harm to our cause and set us back several months.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the only important activity of Mr. Evans, apart from his appearance in court, was that he reported incidents in which he thought there had been conduct which was not desirable from some of the forces engaged in crushing Mau Mau and which had also been commented upon by responsible observers before and after. Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up the point, which disturbs the public mind, that Mr. Evans has been described as an undesirable immigrant and asked to leave

    1245
    the country because he has called attention to acts which other responsible people from Kenya and responsible newspapers have also noted?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. There is no connection whatever between the decision to cancel Mr. Evans's visitor's pass and his recent report to the Governor of the alleged malpractices of the Security Forces. The decision to cancel the pass was taken on 4th May by the Governor, before he received Mr. Evans's report and on the advice of the Principal Immigration Officer four days earlier. It was subsequently confirmed by the Executive Council which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, includes Asiatic representatives.

    SOUTH PACIFIC CONFERENCE
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the deliberations of the recent South Pacific Conference at Noumea about the problem of over-population and the suggestion from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands that people should be educated in voluntary family limitation; and if he will suggest to all Colonies that this problem should be considered by them with a view to overcoming widespread poverty and in many cases impending famine.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Comment on the Second South Pacific Conference would be premature until its proceedings have been considered and referred to member Governments by the South Pacific Commission, to which the Conference is an auxiliary body. I do not think that any general exhortation to Colonial Governments is necessary.
    Mr. Reid: Does not the Minister realise that this question of over-population is one of the fundamental problems of the Commonwealth, that it can only be solved by the people themselves, and that they must discuss it if they are to solve it?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I am fully aware that it is a social and economic problem in many of the Colonies. It is above all the responsibility of the local Government
    1246
    who are usually sympathetic to any plans of this sort, but the initiative is really for the people themselves.

    HONG KONG (MR. GUIMGAM'S DEATH)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the assault on Mr. C. Guimgam, chairman of the Hong Kong Football Association, which resulted in Mr. Guimgam's death; and what action has been taken by the Government of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Hopkinson: The circumstances of Mr. Guimgam's death are still sub judice and my right hon. Friend could not properly anticipate the inquiry by a magistrate which begins in Hong Kong on 18th May.
    Mr. Rankin: May we take it that in due course, if a Question is put down, the information will be supplied?
    Mr. Hopkinson: Certainly.

    FIJI (POPULATION QUESTION)
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken on the Fiji Legislative Council's request of last December for a commission of inquiry to be sent out from the United Kingdom to inquire into the Colony's population question.
    Mr. Hopkinson: My right hon. Friend has received a despatch from the Governor which he is now considering.

    GOLD COAST (EDUCATION)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement upon the progress that has been made in primary, middle and secondary school education in the Gold Coast; and what has been done to provide teachers and buildings for the increased number of children in the schools.
    Mr. Hopkinson: As the reply is inevitably long and contains many figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Johnson: Is not the Minister aware that the school population is almost doubled and that the number of teachers in training is similarly also doubled? Would he agree that this remarkable advance is mainly due to the fact that colonial peoples are now taking a large share in their own affairs? Would the right hon. Gentleman further agree that this is a lesson which can be learned by other parts of the Colonial Empire in Africa?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I would certainly say that the advance has been extremely satisfactory, and that the facts given by the hon. Gentleman are perfectly correct. It was one of the first major policy decisions of the Gold Coast Government to extend their education programme, and we are certainly satisfied that they have done so, and hope that other people will copy their example.
    Following is the reply:
    In January, 1952, the Gold Coast Government introduced an accelerated development plan for education, a principal feature of which was the abolition of fees for primary education. Good progress has been made in implementing this plan.
    2. The intake of primary school-children in 1952, at 120, 000, was more than double the 1951 intake. Few, if any, children of primary age failed to find places in January, 1953. Two hundred and forty-five new classrooms have already been completed in the towns, and many villages have put up their own buildings.
    3. Local communities have also built and opened 24 new assisted middle schools; 7 new assisted secondary school have been opened, and 10 secondary schools formerly non-assisted now receive Government aid.
    4. Eight of the 14 new teacher training colleges contemplated in the plan have been opened, and the intake of 4 existing colleges doubled. The number of teachers in training, 3, 150, is almost double the number in 1951 and this year's output of trained teachers should exceed 1, 000. Special arrangements for training pupil teachers have been made and selected pupil teachers are undergoing short intensive courses at the first of 4 emergency teacher training colleges.

    NIGERIA (PLANTATION SCHEMES)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give details of the proposed plantation scheme at Asejiri, in Nigeria, to be undertaken jointly by the Western Regional Production Board, native authorities and
    1248
    co-operative societies; in particular, how co-ordination between these bodies is to be achieved; how far responsibility is to be allocated; and how the profits are to be shared.
    Mr. Hopkinson: The Western Regional Production Development Board and farming co-operative societies in the Asejire area are partners, under the general superintendence of the Nigeria Co-operative Department, in several schemes for the cultivation of oil palms and food crops. The Board provides capital equipment, planting material, skilled staff and direction. The Asejire people supply land and labour. The Board plans to recover its expenditure out of profits over an agreed period, and co-operative societies will be encouraged to take over management once the plantations are fully established, and eventually to buy out the Board.

    COLONIAL EMPIRE (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of considerable variation in colonial areas in respect of the minimum age at which juveniles can be treated as criminals and sentenced to imprisonment, what consultations have taken place with a view to securing agreement between all colonial governors and legislatures for a common policy in respect, both of age, and of the most enlightened treatment of juvenile delinquency.
    Mr. Hopkinson: In many Colonial Territories legislation has been enacted similar to the United Kingdom Children's Act, 1933, in which the age of criminal responsibility is laid down as eight. Before 1933, the age in this country was seven and I think it unlikely that it is lower than that in any Colonial Territory. In the United Kingdom the minimum age at which young persons can be imprisoned is 15. In most Colonial Territories it is 14, in a few it is lower and in at least two it is higher. But in practice young persons below the ages of 17 or 18 are seldom imprisoned. My right hon. Friend is in constant touch with Colonial Governments on the subject of introducing the most enlightened treatment of juvenile delinquency their resources permit.
    Mr. Sorensen: While expressing my appreciation for the reply and the information given, may I ask whether anything is being done periodically to draw the attention of all the Colonial Governors to the best treatment now being operated in the Colonies regarding juvenile delinquency, particularly, for instance, in regard to corporal punishment?
    Mr. Hopkinson: It has not specifically been suggested to the Colonial Governments that they should adopt a common policy either in regard to the age of criminal responsibility or the minimum age at which juveniles may be imprisoned, but we are progressing towards a common policy in so far as we are constantly advocating to Colonial Governments that they should adopt the United Kingdom practice in this matter.

    ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the need for greater understanding between this country and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, he will instruct our Ambassador at Moscow to make the proposal that there should be an interchange of Parliamentary delegations.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I do not wish to add at the moment to what I have already said about relations and contacts between this country and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it would be helpful if there were greater contact between public representatives from the Soviet Union coming here to understand what is going on and similar visits paid there by people in this country? Would it not help to create a greater spirit of understanding?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put another Question on the Paper when he returns from Scotland after the Coronation.

    MINISTER OF DEFENCE (CANADA)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the reason for the proposed official visit to Canada of the Minister of Defence.
    The Prime Minister: My noble Friend the Minister of Defence tells me that he has no plans to visit Canada, either officially or unofficially.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in the Press —the only source of information available to me at this moment—to the effect that the Minister of Defence, in reply to an invitation from an organisation in Canada, recently said that he could not go at present, but hoped to go before the end of this year? Has not the right hon. Gentleman been made aware of that?
    The Prime Minister: I think my answer covers that point. It may well be that I have been so much occupied in examining other aspects of the newspaper Press in the last 24 hours that I have missed something, but I have reassured myself by direct contact with the noble Lord.

BECHUANALAND (BAMANGWATO NATIVE AUTHORITY)
Mr. Hopkinson: With your permission and the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the administration of the Bamangwato Reserve. I am making it on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who is at present attending the Council of Europe at Strasbourg. I should add that a similar statement has been made by my right hon. and noble Friend in another place.
At their resumed meeting last week, the Bamangwato again failed to reach agreement about the designation of a new Chief. The appointment of a new Chief acceptable both to the tribe and to the Government remains Her Majesty's Government's aim, but the Government do not intend to impose anyone on the tribe as Chief.

1251
For three years now, in accordance with the policy initiated by the previous Government, the tribe has been administered directly by European District Officers. This system of administration, which was necessary in the circumstances, has had certain drawbacks and limitations. There are many matters coming within the purview of the Native Authority which for their effective discharge require the machinery and the personnel of the Native Authority to be African.
The Government have now decided that the time has come when the conduct of the tribe's affairs can and should be restored to African hands. My right hon. and noble Friend has accordingly authorised the High Commissioner to make an order transferring the functions of the Native Authority from the District Commissioner to an African, Rasebolai Kgamane.
Under Bechuanaland law the office of Native Authority and the office of Chief are not the same. The Chieftainship is the traditional institution endowed with rights and privileges from the past. The Native Authority is the capacity in which the Chief or other person authorised by Government shoulders the functions and responsibilities of day-to-day local administration under the general guidance of the High Commissioner and his officers. Ordinarily the Chief is also the Native Authority, but in the absence of a Chief another person can be appointed to this office, and in that capacity exercise Chiefly powers.
Rasebolai is the senior member of the tribe available for the office, and my right hon. and noble Friend is satisfied that on his, Rasebolai's, war record and on his experience as an administrator he is fully qualified to discharge these duties. He is not being appointed as Chief, but his appointment as Native Authority, which is in accordance with the law of the territory including the Bamangwato Succession Order-in-Council, will enable many activities of native administration contributing to the well-being of the tribe to be revived, for example, the customary daily meetings in kgotla and the native courts. It will also enable development schemes to be pressed forward, with that
1252
full discussion of local African interests which is so important and conducive to smooth working.
Announcements of Her Majesty's Government's decision and of the appointment of Rasebolai as Native Authority are being made today at Serowe and in other centres throughout the Bamangwato Reserve. In these announcements it is being made clear that the Chieftainship remains vacant.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, are the reports in the Press correct that the person now appointed to this rather unprecedented post of Native Authority was rejected by the Bamangwato when his name was suggested as Chief and that therefore it would appear that the Bamangwato are being asked to accept in a new post—if not legally new, then new in practice—a man whom they rejected as Chief? Secondly, I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his statement that the Chieftainship was being kept open. Does that mean that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to reconsider the decision to exclude Seretse Khama permanently?
Mr. Hopkinson: The position is that Rasebolai was one of the candidates at the recent kgotla and the only one among those canvassed who enjoyed appreciable support. On merit as an administrator, and on his war record which the right hon. Gentleman probably knows very well, he is highly qualified to discharge the duties of the post. He is third in line of succession after Seretse and Tshekedi. He has the Government's full confidence and, we believe, he has the respect of his opponents. We hope that this appointment will help to restore tribal unity as well as help the development of the Territory.
With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the position is that under Bechuanaland law there is a clear distinction between the Chief and the Native Authority. The appointment that has been made is without prejudice to the eventual designation of a Chief and it is open at any time for the tribe to return to that. When they do so, their choice will not be limited in any way, except in regard to Seretse. Any person, with all the necessary qualifications,

1253
whom they might designate would no doubt receive the approval of the High Commissioner and my noble friend. As regards Seretse himself, it is quite clear, that the reasons given time and time again in this House on behalf of the previous Government and by the present Government for his exclusion still hold good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I do not think that it is necessary for us to enter into the details today.
Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the previous Administration, of which I was a member, we decided that the exclusion should be for the period of five years, but the present Government made that exclusion permanent? Is it not clear—we judge by reports in the Press—that it is unlikely that any person will be accepted as Chief in future except Seretse? May I ask the Minister to consider the matter again? Perhaps after the lapse of time it might be reconsidered in the light of the experience now gained.
Mr. Hopkinson: I think that the position of Her Majesty's present advisers was made perfectly clear in a statement on 27th March in this House. At that time attention was drawn to the fact that the situation, as left for a period of five years, was causing difficulties and was liable to protract the dispute. It was therefore decided to make permanent the previous Government's decision to withhold recognition, and we believe that the reasons for doing so still hold good today. The fact is that at the recent kgotla opinion was very divided. It is probably true to say that the majority of those present were against any designation at all. Some of them were in favour of Seretse. But the names of Rasebolai, Apele, and Seretse's half-sister, Oratile, were also canvassed. It was because no decision could be reached about any of these that the District Commissioner closed the kgotla and this decision was taken which we believe will be in the interests of the Africans themselves and will eventually settle this dispute.
Mr. C. Davies: Is it not correct that Her Majesty's Government made every effort to try to persuade the tribe to adopt Rasebolai as Chief and in spite of that effort they refused to adopt him? May I
1254
ask, therefore, whether the decision to appoint him to this position is not likely to cause more trouble and disintegration amongst this tribe? Thirdly, has not the time obviously come when the tribe should make their choice freely without any pressure upon them?
Mr. Hopkinson: I would not accept that pressure has been exerted. I do not think that this appointment will prejudice the issue. Certainly it is not intended to do so. The issue is left clear so that the tribe can make their own choice of Chief, and if he has the right qualifications he will be approved by Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision is in line with similar instances in the past 50 years and that it will give an opportunity for all well-wishers of the Bamangwato to pull the tribe together administratively and get on with the practical administration for their benefit?
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement that Rasebolai had considerable support at the recent kgotla will be received with surprise by those who followed the proceedings? Is he aware that "The Times" reported that the one conclusive evidence from the kgotla was that there was very little support for him? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that if Rasebolai is appointed to this position the attitude of non-co-operation among the tribe is only likely to be intensified and the position made more serious?
Mr. Hopkinson: The expression that I used was "appreciable support" and for that I am relying on reports which I have had from our officials, and I think that we must go by those. I do not think that the appointment of a man, held in great respect even by his opponents out there, to a post which is an administrative appointment and will not prejudice the chieftainship at all, will lead to lack of co-operation.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no Question before the House.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing

1255
Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely
" the appointment by Her Majesty's Government as Native Authority in the Bamangwato Reserve, with important duties normally carried out by the Chief, of Mr. Rasebolai whose nomination for the Chieftainship of the Bamangwato was decisively not accepted by the kgotla a week ago."
I urge that this is a matter of definite, urgent, public importance. The tribal representatives have met, they have rejected his nomination as Chief, and now the Government have appointed him to be the Native Authority over the tribe. This is likely to meet with resistance from the members of the tribe, and I submit that this House ought to have the opportunity to discuss it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
" the appointment by Her Majesty's Government as Native Authority in the Bamangwato Reserve with important duties normally carried out by the Chief, of Mr. Rasebolai whose nomination for the Chieftainship of the Bamangwato was decisively not accepted by the kgotla a week ago."
I regret that I cannot find that that is within the terms of the Standing Order.
1256
It is only a step within a long story. I see nothing which would entitle me to accept this Motion under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Fenner Brockway rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given my decision. The matter can be raised on another occasion.
Miss Lee: Further to that point of order. I have just heard the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) for the first time. I have had no previous information of this episode, but if I followed correctly what my hon. Friend has said a step has been taken which may have the most serious repercussions. At a point of time like this may not we, as Members of the House of Commons, have an opportunity of expressing our attitude to this decision?
Mr. Speaker: Not by invoking Standing Order No. 9. There are other methods by which this matter may be discussed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Sandys.]
  3.53 p.m.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: It is a matter of some satisfaction that on this Bill, which is just as controversial as was the Transport Bill, the area or acreage, so to speak, of the Amendments which have come back to this House from their Lordships' House is extraordinarily small as compared with those which came back on the Transport Bill. Here we have Lords Amendments which occupy only a page and a half of an octavo sheet, as compared with about 15 pages on the Transport Bill.
  Moreover, I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that only five of these Amendments are of any real significance and that the others are mainly drafting or consequential Amendments. One may be described as a hybrid—partly a concession to us and partly to meet the convenience of the Minister—and two are complete concessions to the point of view of the Opposition in this House. In those circumstances I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, together with the Government and their supporters, will be able to deal with these Amendments with reasonable expedition.
  There is an explanation for this situation which has arisen. I have indicated that this Bill is a major Bill of the Government who, unhappily, are proceeding to denationalise the iron and steel industry, just as the Transport Bill was a Bill to denationalise road commercial transport and to do certain other things to which we were bitterly opposed. I cannot refrain from drawing comparisons on the proceedings which have taken place on the two Bills. Though we are bitterly opposed to this Bill, I congratulate the Minister of Supply, up to a point, at any rate, on the way in which he has handled it, as compared with the way in which the Minister of Transport handled the Transport Bill. I would
  1258
  suggest that in their spare time, when these two Measures are finished with, the two Ministers might get together. The Minister of Supply might give the Minister of Transport a lesson in Parliamentary methods and the handling of Bills, and also in good manners.
  In this Bill no Guillotine was clamped down—as it was in the case of the Transport Bill—without any consultation. There might have been a Guillotine here, but the right hon. Gentleman consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and they arrived at a fair agreement whereby reasonable time was given to the Committee stage. The result was that adequate discussions took place in Committee and on Report, and the master of the situation and the legislative business was the House of Commons. That is always to be desired.
  Consequently, when the Bill reached the other place there was much less to be undertaken in the way of Amendments, because the House of Commons had been enabled to do its job. The Bill comes back with merely one and a half pages of Amendments, as compared with 15 or more pages on the Transport Bill. We shall therefore not have to go through the shocking and disgraceful experience of the House of Commons, on consideration of the Lords Amendments, being forced to consider Amendments of substance and to do its best to go through Committee and Report stages which ought to have been taken in this House.
  We can handle these Amendments in the way that Lords Amendments ought to be handled—as modest and restricted Amendments limited in number, apart from drafting Amendments, and limited in substance. That is the way legislation should be done. To that extent, and only to that extent, I congratulate the Minister of Supply. I would urge him, in a quiet moment, to take the Minister of Transport out to dinner one night, when they can have a private room, and the Minister of Supply can give the Minister of Transport a lecture or an address on how to handle Parliamentary business in a democratic and Parliamentary way, instead of the way in which the Transport Bill was handled in this House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  IRON AND STEEL BILL

    Clause 5.—(PROVISION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 23, after "ore," insert "or manganese ore."
    Mr. Austen Albu: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after "manganese," to insert "tungsten or molybdenum."
    Mr. Speaker: There are many other Amendments on the same subject. Perhaps the one discussion might cover all those Amendments, if the hon. Member agrees.
    Mr. Albu: Yes, the other Amendments are consequential, Sir. The Lords Amendment arises out of a discussion which took place during the Committee stage of the Bill in this House. As result of that discussion the Minister brought it forward on Report in this House in the sense of the Amendment which I had moved in Committee. It was to give powers to the Minister on the advice of the Board, after they had made suitable inquiries, to undertake the exploitation of iron ore overseas. We accepted the Minister's offer as far as it went at that time, although we pointed out that there were other materials that, it seemed to us, it would be advisable to cover.
    4.0 p.m.
    In another place Lord Wilmot moved again to include these other materials, particularly what are known in the iron and steel trade as additive materials, those materials such as manganese, tungsten, molybdenum, and so on. That Amendment was resisted by Lord Man-croft for the Government on the ground that those materials were used largely outside the iron and steel industry, and that the quantities used in the steel industry were small or even negligible.
    Lord Mancroft was surprised to learn the figures of the actual consumption of those materials. Of the tungsten imported into this country, the figures showed 50 per cent. was used in the iron and steel industry, and 88 per cent. of the molybdenum and 90 per cent. of the manganese. The figures appeared to come as a surprise to the Government at that time, but as a result of hearing them Lord Mancroft, on the Report stage of the Bill in another place, admitted that the case for the inclusion
    1260
    at least of manganese was much stronger than had at first been realised.
    The House is well aware of the very great and increasing importance of these additive materials in the manufacture of iron and steel. It would be no exaggeration to say that modern engineering would be quite impossible without them. Certainly, the manufacture of such modern engineering products as aircraft, particularly aircraft engines, and motor cars, and other products in which iron and steel are particularly highly stressed, would be impossible without the use of those materials.
    It is not only in the production of those things that these materials are becoming of increasing importance. They are of increasing importance not only in machines, but they are becoming of importance also in constructional engineering, chemical engineering, and so on. Incidentally, new materials of this sort are always being discovered. Quite minute quantities of these materials appear to have effects on the physical properties of steel. Small quantities of these materials, when added to steel, make very great increases in the physical strength and properties of steel, and, as a consequence, lead not only to radical changes in design but very considerable reductions in the dimensions, and, consequently, in the weight, of the steel used. The effect of this is very great savings in the use of the basic materials of which steel is made.
    In these days when we are all talking about the necessity to increase the production of the metal-using industries, when we are pressing to raise not only steel production but, what may become even more difficult in the future, the production of coal for producing the coke for steel making, anything which assists in reducing the overall consumption of steel per unit of machine production or constructional engineering production is of very great importance. The rate of progress in this as in many other fields is cumulative. We have every reason to believe that the use of these additive materials will increase very greatly indeed.
    The Paley Report on raw materials, to the President of the United States, estimated that within the next 25 years the consumption of manganese would go

    1261
    up by 60 per cent., of molybdenum by 170 per cent. and of tungsten by 150 per cent. That is in what is described in the Report as the free world. Those figures, particularly those of molybdenum and tungsten, are very substantial indeed. It may be that adequate supplies will not be forthcoming.
    Of course, we hope that the sources of supply will not be restricted to what is at present described as the free world. If we were so restricted we might be in serious difficulties indeed, because something between a quarter and a half of the tungsten in the world has so far been produced in China. We certainly hope that we shall be able to obtain that material from that source. Unfortunately, the Iron Curtain is not the only barrier to the obtaining of raw materials At least, it is not to anybody prepared to face realistically the possibilities and probabilities of the next 25 years to 50 years. The dollar curtain looks like being quite as serious.
    At present, nine-tenths of the molybdenum produced in the world comes from the United States, although I understand that supplies are being or are about to be produced in Norway, French North Africa and in Chile. One cannot merely rely on the existence of sources of supply or on production in other parts of the world for our own use. We have to ask ourselves whether that supply is within our potential capacity to purchase. That is quite as important as the mere existence of the supply, and it may be that we shall have to take much more energetic steps to prospect for some of these materials in areas where we shall be able to make the necessary purchases; in other words, in areas that have, or will have at that time, what for us are soft currencies.
    These are important considerations for any Government of this country today, and I hope that even at this late hour the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider what, after all, would not be a very great further concession from our point of view, and the point of view which was very strongly supported in general in all parts of the Committee during the Committee stage of the Bill here. I myself was surprised at the warmth of the reception that my Amendment received, first of all from the hon. Member for
    1262
    Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) and, after that, from other hon. Gentlemen on both sides. Since that stage of the Bill our anxieties about raw materials supplies, and particularly about supplies from dollar sources, have grown. Certainly, they have not lessened. I cannot see why the Government should not arm themselves with every possible weapon that may be necessary to fight what may be a very serious battle for raw materials in the future.
    The last argument used by the Government on the two or three occasions when we pressed for the inclusion of these materials within the powers taken by the Minister was that the responsibility for them was that of the Minister of Materials and not that of the Minister of Supply. On this side of the House we take it that means—and we are very glad that it does mean—that the Minister of Materials will continue in his office in spite of the attacks made on him by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and some of his hon. Friends. An hon. Friend reminds me that it is the office which I wish to maintain and not the present occupant of that office.
    I think that this is very important, and I hope that it is true, because it would be a most serious thing if the Government were to give up their responsibility for ensuring an adequate supply of raw materials to this country. It is nonsense to think that under present conditions this can be left to private enterprise or ordinary free trade. I do not think that any hon. Member opposite really believes that. We are only asking for these powers to be taken so that they may be used in case of emergency or in default. If private industry and private enterprise will do the work and will do the prospecting and make the plans—well and good.
    But in these matters a fairly long term is needed—a longer term, I think, than any private industry or private firm could possibly take. For myself I do not mind whether the powers are taken by the Minister of Supply or by the Minister of Materials. It seems to me that this is a matter for the Government and I suppose that there is some liaison between them; it would be extraordinary if there was not.
    Figures have shown that the Minister of Supply, who is responsible for the iron

    1263
    and steel industry, has the greatest interest in these materials. Whether that will continue I do not know, but I suspect that it will. I ask the Minister who has had some kind words said to him this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and who has been retreating on this Bill very carefully step by step— one step on the Report stage here and another step on the Report stage in another place—to remember that Lord Mancroft, speaking for the Government, referred to these other materials. I gather from what he said that manganese was to be considered the minimum for which a case had been made out, but it did not appear to me on reading his speech that the Government had finally made up their minds that they should not go rather wider.
    I suggest that the Minister should now go the whole hog. Let him retreat finally and gracefully and accept the Amendment and the intentions of the Amendment which—and I do not want to put him off—was moved in Committee in this House and which I think the Government have come to see, over the course of the past few weeks, are really of extreme importance.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Mclley: I beg to second the Amendment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has given a very clear and detailed picture of the strong economic and technical reasons why these particular ores are of such fundamental importance to the steel industry. I do not suppose that that will be disputed by whoever replies for the Government.
    I must confess that it is a matter of some disappointment that since the two specific ores which we have mentioned are the responsibility of the Minister of Materials, we have not the Minister of Materials with us to participate in this late stage of our debates, but I have no doubt that he will have been already consulted on the point, and I hope that the Government spokesman will not rely on this division of functions between two Ministers as a reason for rejecting the Amendment.
    While these ores are of great importance to the industry as a whole,
    1264
    they have particular importance in the part of the world which I have the honour to represent. In the Sheffield district they have particular reference to special steel. The importance of special steel is best seen by the figures. The Sheffield district, including Rotherham, so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), produces only one-sixteenth of the total volume of steel production but 50 per cent. of the value. It would be a great calamity if, through lack of this provision, there was a hold-up in the special steel production of the Sheffield district.
    We have become accustomed to the Government being a little more reasonable in another place than is sometimes the case here, and I read with very great care the debate on this matter which took place there. It seems to me that the difference between manganese, which was conceded, and molybdenum, which was not, was a difference of only 2 per cent. To say that 90 per cent. of an ore used in the steel industry shall qualify it for inclusion in the Bill and that 88 per cent. of another ore shall not, seems to me a small difference, and I ask that attention should be paid to that point. I will read the remarks which Lord Mancroft made in replying for the Government during the Committee stage of the Bill. He said:
    "Yes; but, as the noble Lord knows, nearly all of that comes from America."
    He was referring to molybdenum, and he seemed to suggest that that was a reason for not putting it in the Bill. He said that he realised the implication of that remark.
    I can see that there may be some difficulties in so far as the major part of the supply comes from the United States, but I think that is an additional reason for having it in the Bill rather than leaving it out because, as my hon. Friend said, in this particular situation we should be making special efforts to find alternative sources of supply. I think that in the case of molybdenum there is as strong a case if not a stronger one than in the case of manganese for its insertion in the Bill.
    In the case of tungsten, it may be argued that there is a less strong case. We did not get in the House of Lords the exact figure of the amount of tungsten

    1265
    which is used in the iron and steel industry. I think that it would not be unreasonable to suggest that we should include in the Bill specifically these raw materials of which over 50 per cent. are consumed by the iron and steel industry. That would, as we suggest in the Amendment, bring in tungsten and molybdenum and leave out cobalt and chrome where the use is about 20 to 30 per cent.
    If the Minister will look at Clause 3 (1, b) of the Bill he will see that the Board are responsible for keeping under review
    "the arrangements for procuring and distributing raw materials and fuel for use in the iron and steel industry;"
    Yet in Clause 5 (1, b) it is stated that the Board shall have power to consult
    "such other persons and such representative organisations as the Board consider appropriate, with a view to securing the provision … of such production facilities."
    It seems unreasonable that they should have the responsibility for having the review of procurement and distribution without having the power to consult the bodies and persons concerned with a view to getting increased production facilities should they be required.
    I think this is a very reasonable Amendment, and I ask the Minister to accept it. In doing so, I would suggest to him that we were very much fortified by the support which we had in another place from the Liberal Party. In the total absence of the Liberal Party today, we are not so well-equipped. I can only hope that they are busy in Sunderland doing what I hope is a very valuable job. I regret that the task in Sunderland is so far advanced that acceptance of the Amendment would not permit the wooing by the Conservative Party of the Liberal electorate there.
    However, it is important that Lord Layton, in another place, went so far as to suggest that if a Division was called on the point he would go into the Lobby against the Government on the issue of having all raw materials inserted in the Clause. In view of the facts and figures which have been given by my hon. Friend and the support we had in another place from the Liberal Party, we ought to have from the Government a very sympathetic reply and, I hope, acceptance of the Amendments.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I hope that I shall satisfy the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) that I am giving them a sympathetic reply even if I finish, as I hope to do, by persuading the House not to accept their Amendments.
    From the very lucid way in which the hon. Member for Edmonton moved the Amendment, it is clear what the effect of it and the consequential Amendments would be. In brief, it would be to extend the power granted to the Minister of Supply in Clause 5 of the Bill, in connection with the development of overseas resources, to include not only manganese ore as well as iron ore, but tungsten and molybdenum also. There is no dispute between us about the importance of tungsten and molybdenum, to our engineering industry in particular, and indeed to other industries as well. That has never been in dispute when we have discussed the matter.
    Nevertheless, in our view it would be a mistake to include tungsten and molybdenum within the responsibility of the Minister of Supply under the Bill. I say that it would be a mistake; it would, in our opinion, be both unnecessary and inappropriate to do so. I will tell the House why it would be unnecessary. The House will remember the Ministry of Materials Act, 1951—certainly the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) will remember it—and the Transfer of Functions (Various Materials) Order, 1951, as a result of which the Minister of Materials has the necessary powers to invest in overseas development of wolfram, the ore from which tungsten is obtained, and molybdenum, and to do all the other things envisaged in Clause 5 of the Bill. We have had a close check made on that point, and I can assure the hon. Member for Edmonton that that is the correct position.
    In stating that, I hope, in view of one thing which he suggested, that he will be satisfied. I have a note that he said, "I do not mind whether the Minister of Materials or the Minister of Supply has these powers." He indicated that what he wanted to make certain of was that the Government as a whole had a reserve power—I think he treated this matter as a reserve power—which related to the

    1267
    overseas development, if necessary, of these important metals.
    Mr. Albu: Provided the Minister gives a guarantee that the Ministry of Materials will continue to exist.
    Mr. Low: I am talking now about the powers which the Government have. The Minister of Materials has those powers by Act of Parliament at the moment. It was a decision not of this Government but of the last Government that he should have those powers, and that the Minister of Supply should not have them. That is why the proposal of hon. Gentlemen opposite is unnecessary. I am sure the House will agree that, in those circumstances, it would be inappropriate. To include another power under this Bill would result in undesirable duplication of functions between the Minister of Supply and the Minister of Materials. That is the case in respect of tungsten and molybdenum.
    I now come to the manganese side of the problem. All my remarks so far have referred to tungsten and molybdenum. On the other hand, in our opinion, manganese ought to be treated in the same way as iron ore. Curiously enough we can here pray in aid the right hon. Gentleman and the previous Government, because they treated manganese ore in the same way as iron ore when they allocated functions between the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Materials. No doubt for good reasons, that was how they decided it.
    There are two very clear distinctions between manganese on the one hand and tungsten or molybdenum on the other. Manganese is essential to all steel making; it is not just an alloying metal. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) made that point very clearly in the course of our discussions. The second distinction is one which I must emphasise again. Manganese ore is expressly excluded from the permanent powers of the Minister of Materials. The curious position which we have found on looking into the matter is that, apart from this Bill, the Minister of Supply has no permanent powers covering the development of manganese ore or, indeed, iron ore overseas. Therefore, in our opinion, the inclusion of manganese ore is both necessary and appropriate. In-
    1268
    deed, it fills a gap which clearly needs filling, whereas, on the other hand, as I hope I have persuaded the House, the inclusion of tungsten and molybdenum is unnecessary and inappropriate.
    For those reasons, I hope that the House will agree with the Government, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite will withdraw their Amendment and will agree with the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. Jack Jones: I am sorry to have to advise the Parliamentary Secretary that the explanation which he has put forward is not acceptable to this side of the House. Had the Government given the same attention to the need in respect of wolfram ore and molybdenum as they have to manganese since we brought it to their attention, they would no doubt have acceded to our request. It is plain now that the Government made a mistake in not including manganese ore in the first instance. We asked that manganese should be included. We said it was essential that this power should exist because manganese is used in all forms of steel making. The Parliamentary Secretary has already referred to my earlier statement.
    Be that as it may, we note that another place has prevailed upon the Government to include manganese. It ought to have been inserted in the Bill in its original form, because without manganese there could be no steel, and without steel there could not be any Bill, and without the Bill there would not have been this controversy. The logic of the situation is that this ought to have been observed, noted and inserted. We now find that their Lordships, who apparently know more about the making of steel than do the Members of Her Majesty's Government, saw the necessity.
    I want, as a practical steelmaker, to make the point as clear as I can. The steel industry, in my opinion—my opinion is only a very humble one, that of a simple individual who has worked in the industry all his life—is akin to the cotton industry. The steel industry will survive in the future by selling, producing and exporting high-conversion, high-quality steels. Anybody in the world who has iron ore deposits and has access to manganese deposits and coal will be able to make the cheaper forms of steel and use them for his own benefit. Those of

    1269
    us in the industry know the difference between the low-quality "muck," as it is termed in the industry, and the very high-quality conversion value steels such as we have been called upon to make. If we are to survive we shall be in world competition with those who can make steel just as well as we can, such as Germany, Japan, America, Russia, Luxembourg and France. I am told that even Egypt is contemplating setting up a steel works to develop the varieties of deposits found in the desert.
    4.30 p.m.
    It is vitally necessary that, having regard to the future of the industry, we make certain that the Government will have access to a fair supply of these scarce materials. They are relatively scarce in the sense that they are the perquisites of different nations. We are not, in this Amendment, asking too much. We are not demanding that the Minister shall do this and that he shall be enforced by this Bill so to do. We are asking that if these wise men, whose names we shall shortly be told, having considered the situation, believe that, having regard to national and international considerations, it will be necessary for the Minister to do as we suggest, then it shall be done. If they find that everything in the steel industry is as it should be, that there is an ample supply and that the future is safeguarded, there will be no need for the provision made by this Amendment to be used: it is to safeguard the situation.
    As has already been said, the supplies of these materials were allocated by Providence in a rather peculiar way. Molybdenum comes in the main, from America. America may, perhaps long after I am dead, determine that we should not have their raw materials. They may find themselves up against world competition, and to maintain their position they may decide to make it hard for their competitors to exist by withdrawing supplies of that very vital raw material. We never know.
    Russia is one of the chief holders and suppliers of manganese ore in the world. If my information is correct—and I claim it to be as correct as that of most people, having used more of this molybdenum than anyone in this House, and I mean in the shovel, not on paper—Russia and India are the main suppliers of manganese. Either may turn funny: either may be
    1270
    friendly with this country or against the interests of this country. Having regard to these peculiar factors, it is very important that we should safeguard the interests of the nation.
    The supply of raw materials is not a political matter. It is a matter of the nation's survival. It does not matter who is in the Government and who is the Opposition if we do not get sufficient steel and coal. All that politicians do is to suggest that people should do certain things. We suggest and hope that people will get on with the job. That is a statement which cannot be refuted. We have never seen Members coming into this Chamber covered in dust from the coal mines or sweat from the steel mills, and we never shall. We suggest that the Government can easily accept this Amendment.
    There is no political animus or venom or unreasonableness about it. It is a matter of making certain that, in the national interest we shall have supplies of these materials safeguarded. All we are asking is that, as the future of the industry is part of the national interest, the industry should be safeguarded particularly having regard to the development of the industry. I could talk for a long time about the new steels which are coming into operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) made a very fine case for this Amendment. He gave many good technical reasons why it should be accepted. No harm can be done by its insertion.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) had something to say about the conduct of this Bill as compared with the misconduct of another, and I hope that our discussion of this Bill will continue in the same strain as previously. This Bill should, so far as possible and practicable, be made to work, for however long it remains in being. We do not like the Bill. We shall repeal it at the first opportunity. That must be perfectly understood by the Government. When that day arrives, be it near or far, we shall want to take over the industry on behalf of the country, and, so far as Amendments at this stage have any bearing on it, we want it to be as perfect as possible.
    I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision. No harm can be done by inserting this Amendment, but a lot of harm

    1271
    can be done if we find that, it having been left out, the national interest suffers.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: There is really little between both sides of the House. We have been met on manganese, and, if I understood the Parliamentary Secretary aright, we would be met on this point, too, but for a question of the powers of the Minister of Materials. The answer that we were given, if I followed it correctly—and I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong—was this, "We fully agree that there ought to be powers, at any rate in certain circumstances, for the Government to invest in and develop tungsten and molybdenum abroad, but the Minister of Materials already has those powers and, therefore, there is no need to put them in."
    That being so, I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of something that at first sight may seem a little remote. We know that the Minister reads "Alice in Wonderland" and, indeed, keeps a copy in the Ministry Library. There is another book called "The Misfortunes of Elphin," which I commend to the Parliamentary Secretary. In that book there was a king who lived in a kingdom surrounded by a pallisade which kept out the waters. He was somewhat careless about this pallisade. I think it was perhaps—and this will appeal to hon. Members opposite—a little over-centralised. Different parts of it were guarded by different warders. The reason was that the sea might break through the pallisade.
    Let me anticipate the end of the story. That is just what happened finally, but the king was reassured—and no doubt Peacock, the author, had the British Constitution in mind—by a somewhat sophistical defence of rottenness and elasticity, and, in particular, he was told that the junction points in the pallisade were not really as dangerous as he thought. Of course, it was through those junction points that the sea finally broke in, where the domain of one warder ended and the domain of another warder began. This was Peacock's criticism of the British Constitution. He was, indeed, repeating some of the arguments that were made at the time of the Reform Bill.
    This is one of the junction points. They are very illogical and they are a bit inelastic at the moment, because for some reason or other—no doubt, in other connections there are reasons—we have one
    1272
    Ministry which looks after manganese and another Ministry which looks after molybdenum and tungsten. It is only because of this separation between substances that are equally necessary, not for making all steel but for making certain very important types of steel, that those two other materials cannot be put into this Bill.
    I suggest that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary ought to go a little further. No doubt, the Minister of Materials has the power to invest, but it is, after all, the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply to look after the iron and steel supplies of this country, and it is in recognition of that that certain emergency powers are given under this Clause. The use of those emergency powers is to be supported by representations from the Board, and by the forming of an opinion by the Board after consultations with the industry.
    It is only when the Board has formed that opinion and is convinced that the industry can do nothing more that these emergency powers come into operation. There are abundant safeguards from the point of view of hon. and right hon. Members opposite against any undue interference with private enterprise. It is only in a national emergency when the Board have come to the conclusion that there is not a sufficient supply of tungsten or molybdenum, that conclusion having been reached after full deliberation and consultation with the industry and all persons concerned, that the question arises whether the Minister should not do something about it.
    It seems to me wholly illogical to say that the question of iron and steel supplies is to be considered by the Board and the Ministry of Supply, but that the only person who is to be allowed to take action about this deficiency is another Minister, the Minister of Materials. I am sure if we cannot make our constitutional arrangements fit the facts a little better than that, we ought to have another look at them and amend them to meet realities.
    Surely the question whether these powers should be used, the question of consultations as to their use and the question of how they should be used when the moment comes are matters which must vitally concern the Ministry of Supply. I am not asking the Minister to

    1273
    do any poaching. I do not ask him to poach with or without a gun on the ground of the Minister of Materials. By all means let the Minister of Materials keep his power if that is more convenient. I am only saying that the existence of those powers in another Ministry is a wholly inadequate answer to the demand that those powers should be given here, subject to safeguards under the conditions for the purposes laid down by this Clause of the Bill.
    It is a wholly inadequate answer, and the absurdity of it comes out best with regard to manganese and molybdenum. Here we have two substances and 90 per cent. of one and 88 per cent. of the other are used in the iron and steel industry. But a distinction is drawn between them. It is an absurdity to suggest that there is no possibility of knowing where the distinction should be drawn. Surely the sensible thing in those circumstances is to say what is the main object of those two materials. In both cases the answer is, to make steel.
    If that is so, let the Minister who is responsible, if any Minister will remain responsible when this Bill has been passed for the supply of steel in this country, deal with both of them. Do not wreck the best arrangement possible because hon. Members opposite cannot settle the matter as between two Ministries.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. John Freeman: I wish to add very little to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said, because I think he has stated the argument with clarity. But there is one further point which I should like to ask the Minister to take into account before he gives us his final reply. My hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that nothing that is contained in our suggestions here could be said to impinge on the objective of the Government, which is the restoration of this industry to private enterprise. At this stage, we do not propose to argue about the principle for we are concerned only with detail.
    This has not to take effect until an emergency has arisen, a fact that was clearly established by my hon. and learned Friend. The Parliamentary Secretary, when he was giving us what I hope will prove to be only an interim answer a
    1274
    few minutes ago, depended entirely for his argument on the division of function between the Ministries. He pointed out that when we in the Labour Government set up the Ministry of Materials we distinguished between manganese and other metals. So be it, but there is a powerful section of opinion in the Tory Party represented, I apprehend, by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has the support of about 100 other black sheep in the party, who want to abolish the Ministry of Materials.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear. Scrap it.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member is not really substituting for argument animal noises of that kind. Reading the political correspondence, I understand that that is his object and that he has a powerful following in his party. Many of us expect that the Ministry of Materials will not survive very long. The Minister himself has just disappeared. For all I know he may have gone to Downing Street to be told that his Ministry no longer exists. I should be very gratified on personal grounds if he were moved to another place on 1st June, but none of us know about that.
    What does seem more than likely is that the Ministry will not continue very much longer, and in the light of that possibility, which the Minister must recognise is in our view a serious possibility, the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments are rather undermined. The great advantage of accepting this Amendment as it stands is that it will not come into operation until there is an emergency for these vital raw materials, which none of us hope will happen.
    I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Materials has returned, but is not now seated on the Government Front Bench.
    "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels"
    I could not have hit the nail more squarely on the head than I did on this occasion. As I was saying, none of this can happen until an emergency has arisen. I see that the Minister of Materials is now again on the Government Front Bench. It seems to be a gratifying afternoon for him. [Laughter.] If my hon. Friends will allow me I should like to develop my argument seriously.

    1275
    The great danger which the Government spokesman has attributed to our Amendment is that while the Minister of Materials and the Minister of Supply are both still with us there might be friction between the two of them, though I think the drafting of the Bill as it already stands at Clause 5 completely eliminates that possibility. Not only have the Board to consult the Minister, and to certify to him that an emergency exists, but the Minister himself must go to the Treasury and can take this action only with their approval. All through our discussions on this Bill we have been arguing about the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am one of those who have criticised the degree of intervention which under this Bill he is likely to have to make in the steel industry. One of the advantages of having him here is that he can hold the ring as between two war Ministers.
    If a crisis arises in the field of supply, and if the Minister of Materials is still with us, the Treasury only have to withhold their consent, which they certainly would, to the Minister of Supply taking any action to prevent any possibility of an overlap of function or friction between the two Departments. If, in the meantime, the Minister or his Ministry disappear—dust to dust and ashes to ashes—then the wording of the Bill will stand that, in the event of an emergency, the Minister of Supply will be able to take over, and he is the natural person to do so in the view of many of us.
    I hope that although circumstances beyond my control have made some of my argument appear more flippant than it was intended to be, the Minister will realise that, in the light of what I have said, merely to say that some of these powers are at present exercised by the Minister of Materials who—in quite different circumstances because we intended to keep a Minister of Materials— had acquired the duties in that way, is not an adequate answer to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Nabarro: I had no intention of intervening in this debate and I do so now for only a few moments because of the repeated references by hon. Gentlemen opposite to my views upon the
    1276
    future of the Ministry of Materials, which is very much concerned with the matter we are discussing in these Amendments.
    I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) mistook my approbation for his surmise that the Ministry of Materials would be wound up at an early date. I have always taken the view that governments should not interfere in time of peace in the legitimate commercial processes of acquiring raw materials from overseas. That is the principle inherent in the Amendment before us. Another place sought to insert one ferro-alloy, manganese, as an additional responsibility of the Board in certain circumstances. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have sought to add to manganese the ferro-alloys, tungsten and molybdenum. They have quoted various percentages of those ferro-alloys as being employed in the steel industry. I am not sure whether those percentages are correct or not. I repeat that, because there are few authoritative statistics available on that matter.
    I find it difficult to comprehend why hon. Gentlemen opposite consider that manganese, tungsten and molybdenum should be referred to specifically in this Bill, whereas such ferro-alloys as vanadium and chrome or wolfram for that matter should not be included and no reference made to them in the Bill, for all those materials are used in greater or less degree, directly or indirectly, in the manufacture of steel of various classes. As the hon. Gentleman will readily confirm, they are used particularly in the manufacture of special and free-cutting steels employed so extensively in the engineering industry.
    Mr. Mulley: If the hon. Gentleman had paid the same attention to this part of the Bill as he did to some others, he would have remembered that originally we asked that raw materials in general should be the phrase in the Bill. That was the original form of the Amendment moved in another place. We were persuaded by the argument of the Government spokesman. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there only a small percentage is used of some of the metals and, therefore, we wanted to press only the outstanding cases of manganese, molybdenum and tungsten. No doubt, when the hon. Gentleman has sorted out

    1277
    the Ministries concerned and got them to put their figures right, if there is time he will get a better decision on this matter.
    Mr. Nabarro: The weakness of that case is that the absence of even a tiny quantity of vanadium could destroy the productive capacity of an immensely larger tonnage of steel. Had the hon. Gentleman the same experience of these ferro-alloys as I gathered during the later war years, he would have realised the force of that argument.
    I think we are accepting here a dangerous principle in including even manganese within the terms of this Bill. I certainly would object to, and resist strongly, the addition of molybdenum and tungsten as well. I believe that the legitimate instrument for acquiring from overseas all raw materials, including those of the steel industry, lies in the hands of private industry and commerce and should not be unnecessarily interfered with by the State.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so that I can ask a question. We all value, of course, the extensive experience he must have had in these matters. With much less experience, I have always thought that tungsten came from wolfram ore, and that to include tungsten and then to jib at wolfram would be a little irrational.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. and learned Gentleman, as a lawyer, ought to be capable of contributing to a good and perfect Act of Parliament. In fact, he is so overwhelmed by his own verbosity that he has failed to discern the technicalities inherent in this argument; but I want to pass to another point.
    The reply of my hon. Friend on behalf of Her Majesty's Government sought, as I understood it, to act as a kind of soporific to those of us who have been severely critical of the present Administration in continuing a Ministry of Materials, at all. While there may be a division of responsibility at present between the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Materials in the acquisition of certain raw commodities from abroad, none of that should detract in any way from the fundamental principle for which hon. Members on this side of the House should stand eternally, that no Govern-
    1278
    ment calling itself a Conservative Government should be concerned with the direct acquisition of raw materials. They should hand that legitimate process to private commercial firms to conduct.
    The 100 hon. Members who are reputed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Watford to support me in this matter —personally, I think there may be nearer 250 than 100—will press their claims, not for the elimination of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Materials, for he is an unexceptionable character in all circumstances; but we shall most certainly press for the elimination of his wretched Ministry which we regard as a barnacle on the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Jack Jones: In view of the assertion of the hon. Gentleman that he, with perhaps 250 supporters, may press for no materials being bought except by private enterprise, can he tell the House when we can expect a Motion to appear on the Order Paper in his name asking for the denationalisation of the coal industry, without which the steel industry could not carry on?
    Mr. Nabarro: I should be out of order—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Yes. Mr. Lee.
    Mr. Frederick Lee rose—
    Mr. Nabarro: I only gave way for a moment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so may I be allowed to say that only a Socialist Government succeeded in importing coal into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lee: As a result of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), the Government are in an even worse dilemma. They have either to relinquish their title of a Conservative Government or else abolish the Ministry of Materials. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that this Government have so long kept the Ministry of Materials and kept the powers which the Parliamentary Secretary has told us reside only in the Ministry of Materials, what the intentions of the Government are in this respect. If the Ministry of Materials goes before the Government goes—they would have to do so very quickly to beat the Government—would it be true that no powers would be left

    1279
    to the Government so far as the importation of these ores is concerned?
    5.0 p.m.
    The fact that they have used these powers and allowed the Ministry of Materials to remain in this key position without seeking in this or any other Bill to confer such powers on the Ministry of Supply seems to imply that they accept the fact that it is essential that some Department of the Government must have these powers. I was about to ask the Solicitor General if he could assist us in this matter. Yesterday the Prime Minister revealed that he did not even know the name of the Solicitor General for Scotland. If the hon. and learned Member who does the job for England had remained it would have given him a chance to let the Prime Minister know his name. We are left with this highly technical point to be answered by the Minister.
    In spite of what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, it is quite wrong in this period, when we see the raw material supplies of the world being used at such a colossal pace and when competition may well grow more and more intense by German and Japan expanding their engineering industries, to leave this country—which is probably more dependent on imports than any other engineering country—to cope with the competition which it will undoubtedly encounter from other manufacturing countries. If the Government are to allow themselves to be denuded of these powers at a time when we are trying to expand our production of steels the country will be left in a most serious position.
    So far as we on this side of the House are concerned we believe that the Government itself may disappear before the Ministry of Materials disappears. If the Government disappear, the Act itself would disappear shortly after, so this problem would not arise. But so long as we have the assurance of the hon. Member for Kidderminster that at least 250 hon. Members of the party opposite—who should be supporting the Government-are of the opinion that the Ministry of Materials should disappear, we ought to have an assurance from the Minister that, if the Ministry of Materials is the only Department which has these powers, then,
    1280
    before its disappearance, the powers will be transferred to the Ministry of Supply.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I was hoping that we should have a reply from the Minister on the very important point that has been raised, as the answer which has been given by the Government is, in brief, that it would be inappropriate for the Minister of Supply to take these powers because they reside at present with the Minister of Materials. There is some force in that argument and I think that is recognised by my hon. Friends, but, because they are so anxious that there should be some definite and concrete power in the hands of the Minister responsible for the industry which has to have these materials, they press these Amendments. If the Government say the Ministry already have the powers we are entitled to ask this: if the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) succeeds in his campaign, or if, at a later date, the Government, for some other reason, decide that the Ministry of Materials should be abolished and, with it, the appropriate powers which were given it by the last Government, what is to happen? Is no one to have the power to step in if emergency threatens and get hold of molybdenum or tungsten?
    Mr. Nabarro: In 1939, and for years before, we had a period of growing emergency when there was no Government intervention at all, but sufficient ferroalloys were put into stock to last for seven years of war without any sort of Government intervention.
    Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member must pursue his argument with the Government, because the Government have decided in this Bill that they are to be given powers to go into the world, develop and bring to this country iron ore or manganese if emergency threatens. That is Government policy and it is no use the hon. Member arguing the matter with me; that should be argued with the Minister.
    It was our suggestion and we think it is quite right. The case is so overwhelming that someone—we think the Minister of Supply—should also have the power when necessary to get other essential materials. Therefore, I say to the Government that it must be part of their case, in answer to ours, if it is to carry any weight at all, that if the powers

    1281
    which the Minister of Materials now possesses are to disappear those powers will be given either to the Ministry of Supply or to some other Government agency so that we can be sure that the Government will retain the power which the Ministry of Materials have at the moment. If we are given that assurance I think it would go far to satisfy my hon. Friends. We recognise that the Government, by accepting manganese and putting it into the Bill, have gone a long way to meet us, but we regret that they have not gone further. If we cannot have that assurance I think my hon. Friend will not desire to press the matter further.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman), who I see has left his place, and one or two others, including the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), asked me to say something about the position of the Ministry of Materials in relation to these two important materials—tungsten and molybdenum—which are used, not wholly but to a considerable extent, in steel making.
    They asked what would be the position if, at some future date, the Ministry of Materials were to come to an end. It would be both outside the scope of this debate and outside my province to speculate as to whether a Government Department is to be wound up at any time, and I should hesitate to make myself the spokesman of such an announcement when the Minister is present himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "He can speak for himself."] I can, however, say that if my right hon. Friend should discharge his functions so efficiently and so completely that he should at any time work himself out of a job, then of course this problem would undoubtedly arise.
    All I would say this afternoon is that in the event of the winding up of the Ministry of Materials at any time it does not necessarily follow that its responsibilities will automatically be abandoned. All it would mean would be that the responsibilities which remained to be discharged were insufficient to justify the existence of a separate Ministry. But I am not speculating about that problem. The responsibilities which were to be retained by the Government would of course have to be transferred to another
    1282
    Government Department. I have no doubt that the lucid and weighty arguments which have been advanced in this debate would be carefully considered by the Government of the day in coming to their decision as to how and where any remaining responsibilities should be distributed, and whether in particular any responsibilities in regard to tungsten and molybdenum should be transferred to the Ministry of Supply.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) criticised the separation of the responsibility for the raw materials used in steel making between two Government Departments. He said that iron ore and manganese were the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply whereas tungsten and molybdenum ores were the responsibility of the Ministry of Materials. I refer to tungsten ore. It is also called wolfram, but I notice that in the White Paper published by the former Government they refer to it as tungsten ore, so I felt I should be in good company in using that expression.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to forget that the Ministry of Supply was responsible for tungsten and molybdenum ore until the former Government decided to transfer that responsibility to the Ministry of Materials.
    Mr. Lee: We are not pressing that the Ministry of Supply should have responsibility for these materials. We prefer that the Ministry of Materials should remain in existence, but unless the transfer comes about the responsibility will cease if the Ministry of Materials goes out of existence.
    Mr. Sandys: I do not understand the point which the hon. Gentleman is making. He must realise that all the powers which he is asking to be vested in the Minister of Supply—because that would be the effect of this Amendment— are vested in the Minister of Materials. He is not asking that additional powers be given to the Government, but that either the powers should be transferred from the Minister of Materials to the Minister of Supply or that the same powers should be given to two Ministers—
    Mr. Lee: No, I am not.
    Mr. Sandys: Whether or not it is a good thing to transfer powers from the Minister of Materials to the Minister of Supply I am sure that it is not a good thing to give to two Ministers the same job, which would result were we to give the Minister of Supply these powers without taking them away from the Minister of Materials. But that is just what the hon. Member said he did not want to do.
    Mr. Lee: The whole of the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary in refuting this Amendment was that these powers are already vested in the Minister of Materials. Now the Minister is saying that we are trying to vest them in two Ministers.
    Mr. Sandys: I am saying that these powers are already possessed by the Government through the Minister of Materials, and that we do not see any advantage in transferring them to the Minister of Supply. Further, we see a grave disadvantage in giving the same powers and responsibility to two Ministers.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I ask one question? The Minister used the word "job" which I think is the right word. Surely powers cannot be allocated in this connection apart from duties, and the Minister of Materials has no duties as regards the iron and steel industry. He has no duty to consult with the industry and no duty to meet an emergency which might affect steel making. All that is the business of the Minister of Supply.
    Mr. Sandys: My right hon. Friend has a general duty to ensure a sufficient supply of raw materials. In any case the machinery of Government must be regarded as a whole. If nothing could be done without all the powers required being vested in one Government Department we should either be in a most awful tangle, or else we should have to reduce the Government machine to a single Department.
    The hon. and learned Member for Kettering referred to a book called "The Misfortunes of Elphin." It is a book with which I am not familiar, but for greater accuracy I have obtained a copy. He
    1284
    said that in this book there was a story about a king who set up a palisade around his castle to keep out the sea. He entrusted this palisade to a number of guards. The only comment I wish to make is that to give two guards the responsibility for looking after the same section of the palisade would be a sure way to create confusion and to let in the sea.
    I have not had time to study this story at length, as it runs into a number of pages, but I did happen to open the book at the chapter entitled, "The Oppression of Gwenhidwy."I hesitate to quote Welsh in the presence of the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) but perhaps I might attempt the first four lines:
    "Nid meddw y dyn a allo
    Cwnu ei hun a rhodio,
    Ac yved rhagor"—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We may only speak English in this House.
    Mr. David Grenfell: May I congratulate the Minister on his choice of reading material and on his pronunciation of the Welsh language?
    Mr. Sandys: Since there is a translation, I will read the remaining two lines in English:
    "But drunk is he, who prostrate lies,
    Without the power to drink or rise."
    I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will agree that is as relevant to this debate as was the rest of the story quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. After those convincing arguments I hope hon. Members opposite will agree not to press this Amendment to a Division.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
    Further Lords Amendments down to page 7, line 9, agreed to [Several with Special Entry.]
    Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 22, at end, to insert:
    (6) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall empower the Minister himself to own. build, or operate seagoing ships.
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The effect of this Amendment is to preclude the Minister himself from owning, building or operating, sea-going ships for the transportation of iron ore and, following the recent set of Amendments, manganese ore. When the House decided, during the earlier stages of the Bill, to extend the Minister's development powers to include overseas development it was decided also to add a power for the provision of transport facilities. That power, of course, included shipping. But I should make it clear that it was not the Government's intention that the Minister himself should directly own and operate cargo vessels. The possibility that the Minister might ever be asked by the Board to do so is, of course, extremely remote since the Board would first try to secure all the necessary shipping from existing shipping companies.
    Further—and this is a consideration which we ask the House to bear in mind —shipping is an international trade and the United Kingdom for many years, in its dealings with other maritime nations, has resisted policies of intervention by Governments in the normal processes of international shipping. That is this country's traditional approach to shipping. It seems to us right, therefore, that the Iron and Steel Bill should contain a specific provision making it clear that the Government itself will not own or operate ships.
    I hope I can satisfy the House on the point by dealing with it quite shortly. It is quite unnecessary for the Minister to own or operate ships. He already has power under the Clause to secure that there are sufficient ships.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I ask the Minister a question? I think we are all agreed, first, that the Government must have some reserve powers so that if the steel industry is held up because there are not sufficient ships to bring the iron ore to this country, the Government can provide the ships for the industry. The House will remember that a serious situation arose a few years ago because of the lack of shipping space. At that stage steps were taken, at the
    1286
    instance of the Iron and Steel Corporation, to ensure that some ships were built to belong to the Federation, which would always be at the disposal of the Federation to carry iron ore. It is generally agreed that the Government should have power to ensure that ships are available in an emergency.
    Secondly, we agree that it is not desirable and rather pointless for the Government to own and run ships themselves for this purpose. The point about which I want to be clear was raised in the House of Lords, but we should also like an assurance in the House of Commons. As the Act stands, have the Government power to charter ships, if necessary? It was stated in the House of Lords that they had such power. Even more important, if the industry is reluctant for one reason or another to buy as many ships as are necessary, can the Government set up a company or make arrangements with another body who will buy ships for the Government and run them for the industry?
    There was some indirect reference to the question in the House of Lords. Lord Salisbury is reported in column 1031 of the OFFICIAL REPORT as saying that it would be possible for the Government to give assurances about long-term contracts for ships to be built for the iron and steel industry. I want to be sure that, if necessary, the Government can set up, or make arrangements with, an organisation to own and run ships for the iron and steel industry, if the industry is unwilling to do so for itself or if there is a serious danger that the industry will suffer because there are insufficient ships to bring the ore to this country. If we can be given an assurance that the Government have full power to take this action, I think we shall be satisfied that the Lords Amendment is reasonable.
    Mr. Sandys: I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that the Government have all the powers they need to get the shipping which might be required in those circumstances. There is a variety of ways in which the Government can obtain these powers. Some have been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and others have been referred to in another place.
    Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 10.—(POWERS OF MINISTER AS TO PRICES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 11, after "products," to insert:
    "to which that section for the time being applies."
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is purely declaratory. It neither adds to nor subtracts from the Minister's power to direct the Board to determine the maximum price. It merely makes clear beyond any possible doubt that in relation to any cast or forged product the Minister can exercise his power under Clause 10 to direct the Board to determine a maximum price only after the procedure set out in Clause 9 has been completed. The House will remember that this procedure culminates in an order by the Minister under Clause 9 (3), bringing the products in question within the scope of the Board's powers under Gauss 8. Until such an order has been made and the Board have the power to fix a maximum price for a cast or forged product, obviously the Minister cannot direct them to use that power.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause 15.—(FURNISHING OF INFORMATION TO BOARD AND MINISTER.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 13, leave out "practicable," and insert:
    "possible and shall in any event, unless the circumstances of the case make this impracticable, inform the Board not less than three months before the proposed date of closure."
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I think that the Amendment will be acceptable to hon. Members opposite. The effect is that while the Board are still required to secure that they are notified of proposed closures of works or substantial parts of works as early as possible, an additional requirement is added that the period of notice to the Board shall be a minimum of three months, unless the circumstances of the case make this impracticable. Hon. Members will recall that we had a very full discussion on this very important matter during the Committee and Report stages. We discussed, in particular, whether we could insert some provision in the Bill requiring a minimum of three months' notice.
    1288
    In replying to the debate on the Report stage, my right hon. Friend told the House how much importance he attached to the giving of the earliest possible notice of intended closure. It is important, not only in order to enable him to make a proper decision in connection with his power under Clause 5 (4), but also for very strong human reasons, to enable plans for alternative employment to be made, and also for general supply reasons.
    In the course of that debate, referring to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), my right hon. Friend said:
    "The hon. Member stressed the importance of that period being at least three months. I agree that is a reasonable and satisfactory time. But, in many cases, it is not practicable to insist on three months' notice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c 1194.]
    When we parted with the Bill, the obligation was to inform the Board of any closure proposals as early as practicable, and it was, in our view, important to have those or similair words in the Bill to make it clear that in suitable cases much longer notice than three months, perhaps notice of several years, should be given of the intention to close down works.
    The Lords Amendment still keeps that provision—that the Board must secure that notice shall be given as early as possible. It adds, and in our view wisely adds, that the Board shall secure that producers shall in any event, unless the circumstances of the case make it impracticable, inform the Board not less than three months before the proposed date of closure. Thus the Bill will provide in effect that anyone who closes his works or a substantial part of his works less than three months after he has given notice to the Board of such intention may be required to prove that it was not practicable in the circumstances for him to give earlier notice.
    5.30 p.m.
    I should add here, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, that this Amendment does not provide that producers must keep their works open longer than they think is right. It is solely concerned with the giving of notice. Since we are mentioning the minimum period of notice, we think that this Amendment strengthens the obligation which is placed on producers to give early notice of their intention to

    1289
    close their works, and we therefore strongly support the Amendment and ask the House to agree with it.
    Mr. Jack Jones: We on this side of the House welcome this Amendment, which fully meets the point of view which we expressed during the Committee stage. It will remove, for all time, we hope, the fear that many men have had about the sudden closing down of any particular works. It will be impossible for anyone on this side of the House, or, indeed, on the Government benches, to accuse some wicked capitalist of closing down his works in the future, because this particular type of works will be still in the possession of the disposal Agency.
    The works that will be the least easy to dispose of will be those nearest to being declared redundant, and it will be the Agency that will still be in possession of this particular type of works. That point of view may not have struck the Minister himself, but that is the position, as I see it. The Agency, in turn, will be backed by the Treasury, which, in turn, will be backed by the taxpayers of this country, and the taxpayers will be very anxious to see that men employed in that particular type of works get as fair a deal as is possible. We are happy to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Robson Brown: We on this side of the House are also very happy to see this Amendment included in the Bill. It is one of those human touches for which we have pressed on many occasions, and I am very glad to see that the period of three months is being incorporated in the Bill. It will be appreciated by the workers in the industry.
    Mr. Lee: May I put a question to the Minister? In the Lords Amendment, we see that the purpose is to "inform the Board." Does that mean that the employers must also inform their workers? I am puzzled as to the reason why, in this Amendment, we make it obligatory upon the employer to inform the Board not less than three months before the probable date of closure. What obligation is placed upon the employer to inform the employees three months before that date? If the intention announced by the Parliamentary Secretary is the reason for the Amendment, why do not we say that the employees
    1290
    of such a works shall also be informed not less than three months before the contemplated date of closure?
    Mr. Sandys: I agree with the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) in his desire that, if the Board are to be informed, the workpeople should also be informed, but, in fact, this Amendment deals with the power of the Board to obtain information from the industry. Therefore, it would be quite inappropriate to put into this Clause anything about the notification of their employees by the firms concerned. One important reason why we want this information to be available at an early stage is to ensure that the Minister's power, given in another part of the Bill, to keep works in being will be a reality and not a formality.
    Mr. Jack Jones: May I have an assurance that the reason why the Board should be informed is to give the Board the opportunity of making the necessary inquiries, so that, after they have reported to the Minister, and it is then decided that, in the national interest, the works should be continued, the workers will not, of necessity, need to be given notice at all?
    Mr. Sandys: I would not support the view that a company should refrain from informing their workpeople because the Government might decide to take over their works. The process of looking into such matters, and of coming to administrative decisions, is not quick, and I am sure that, as a general practice, workpeople should be taken into the confidence of the employers about all matters of importance, and certainly all matters that affect their livelihood, at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. W. Nally: May I put one further question, which is rather important, to the Minister? There are several thousand steelworkers in my division. It is clearly laid down in the Clause, and it has very properly agreed, that there should be an obligation on firms to give notice of their intention to close, and that that notice should be a minimum of three months. Let us suppose that a firm writes to the Board, marking the letter "Private," informing the Board that they propose to close down their works, and that the Board decide that a very good

    1291
    case has been made out for closure. Does this Clause make any difference or not to the circumstances in which, shall we say, the steelworkers in my own division may be told by the employers one Friday that, with the consent of the Board, the firm intend to close down that works? One quite accepts the motive in the Minister's mind, but I would ask him whether or not this Clause envisages the possibility that steelworkers may be told at seven days' notice that, with the consent of the Board, the works will be closed.
    Mr. Sandys: We have made it clear, and I think it was recognised on all sides of the House, and, in particular, very fairly by the hon. Member for Rother-ham (Mr. Jack Jones), that there were practical difficulties in laying down an absolute rule that there must be not less than three months' notice. We have had further examples of that difficulty since the previous debate in this House. In South Wales further mills have been closed down at exceedingly short notice, and one of them affects the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who was here a few moments ago. One was a case of works which had given only seven days' notice to their employees, and there was another case in which I myself, as Minister, was only notified formally after I had already read about it in the newspapers.
    Do not let us imagine that everything is perfect under nationalisation, or that everything will be perfect under any other arrangements. There are great practical difficulties in this matter. By this Amendment we are setting a certain standard which it will be incumbent upon the industry and the Board to see maintained as far as circumstances make that practicable. Beyond that, I do not think we can go. We should like to go further, but those of us who have any knowledge of how the industry works—and other industries work very similarly—see that there are practical difficulties, and that it is no good laying down something in statutes which will not work in practice, but which will merely weaken the structure of a new organisation we are setting up.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 29, at end, insert:
    (4) The Board or the Minister may by notice in writing require any organisation appearing to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister to be representative of iron and steel producers and not to be an organisation wholly or mainly concerned with activities which are not included in the Third Schedule to this Act or are included in paragraph 4 or paragraph 6 of that schedule, to furnish to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister such information relating to the activities of the organisation as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under this Act or, as the case may be, by the Minister for the purpose of his functions under this Act, not being in either case functions relating to activities included in the said paragraph 4 or paragraph 6, and the notice may require any such information to be certified as correct by the Auditors of the organisation.
    A notice under this subsection shall, in the case of an organisation which is not a body corporate, be served on, and take effect as a requirement on, such officer of the organisation as appears to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister to be appropriate.
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It may be for the convenience of the House if we were to discuss, at the same time, the Lords Amendment, in page 31, line 10, at the end, to insert the new Clause "A":
    Service of notices and documents
    A.—Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served on or given to any person, other than a company to which section four hundred and thirty-seven of the Companies Act, 1948, applies, may be served or given by leaving it at or sending it by post to his place of business or, if he has more than one, his principal place of business:
    Provided that nothing in this section applies to any notice under paragraph 15 of the First Schedule to this Act.
    I take it that I may do that with your approval, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House.
    This proposed new subsection empowers the Board or the Minister to get informaition from organisations representative of iron and steel producers, namely trade associations, other than those mainly concerned with casting or forging. In particular, the subsection covers the British Iron and Steel Federation. The information which the Board or the Minister can get under this subsection is information about the activities of the organisation reasonably required by the

    1293
    Board or by the Minister for the purposes of their functions under the Bill.
    The Board or the Minister may require such information to be certified as correct by the organisation's auditors. Hon. Members will remember that we had a very full discussion on this matter during the Report stage. My right hon. Friend explained that there were difficulties about finding suitable wording to exclude the very wide range of associations which might be involved, and, in particular, hon. Members may remember the Metallic Bedstead Manufacturers' Association, which was in danger of being included by an earlier form of words that we were considering. However, the wording of this Amendment seems to get over all those difficulties.
    The last sentence of the subsection is necessary because most trade associations are not bodies corporate, and, having no legal identity, could not be prosecuted for failure to furnish information. For the same reason, it has been necessary to include a service of notice Clause, in page 31, line 10, the Lords Amendment to which I referred a moment ago. It was not necessary to have such a Clause before because the producers concerned were companies, notice to whom was covered by Section 437 of the Companies Act.
    The proviso at the end of the proposed new Clause "A," to which I think I should refer, preserves the requirement of paragraph 15 (7) of the First Schedule. This requires that notices under that paragraph, informing creditors of a publicly-owned company of their rights in the event of a reduction of capital without confirmation by the court, may be served by registered post if not served personally upon the creditors. That requirement, as I have said, is preserved by the proviso.
    I believe that this new subsection and the consequential new Clause will meet the anxieties and wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am sure that they and my hon. Friends will agree that the new subsection and the new Clause enable my right hon. Friend to say that he has amply honoured the statement of good intentions in this respect which he made to the House during the Report stage in March. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I fully agree with the closing words of the Parliamentary Secretary that in putting forward this Amendment which comes to us from the Lords the Minister is fully carrying out the pledge which he gave to the House on the Report stage that he would see whether it would be possible by an Amendment to meet our point of view. He has devised an Amendment which well meets our point of view, and I congratulate and thank him for doing so.
    However, I hope that not only the Government, but the Iron and Steel Federation and everybody concerned will realise how important it is that a public body such as the Iron and Steel Federation—they cannot call themselves a private body—should have a duty to disclose to the Minister and to Parliament all information which is relevant to the well being of the industry over which they watch and for which they have a large responsibility. I have no reason to doubt that the Iron and Steel Federation agreed to the proposals of the Minister when he was drafting this Amendment. Indeed, I am sure they did because, if not, the Minister would not have put the Amendment forward. But the obligation is there.
    In the past we have been exceedingly suspicious about some of the activities of the Federation. That was very largely their own fault because they indulged in politics on a large scale in a way which we found objectionable. We thought it wholly wrong that this body, whose purpose is to look after the steel industry, should use the money produced by a levy on steel to enter politics. If they do so in the future, the Government and the industry can be certain that we will press the Minister for information regarding how much of the production of the labour of the thousands of men in the industry is being used for a political purpose for which the few directors are responsible and in a way in which they, and they alone, think desirable.
    5.45 p.m.
    It is important that everybody should realise that not only the Board and the Minister have power to ask the Iron and Steel Federation for information about their activities, but that any hon. Member can request the Minister to ask the Federation for information, and can press him to do so. If the Minister does not

    1295
    want to ask for that information, he must tell the House why. In other words, the ball is at the foot of hon. Members, who can press for information from the Federation and similar bodies in future.
    I wish to ask the Minister a question which follows upon the case he made to the House when we were discussing this matter on the Report stage. He gave us some very interesting and important information which we had been seeking for a long time, and which had never been vouchsafed to us, about the way in which the Federation dealt with the 1s. a ton levy, amounting to nearly £1 million a year, on all the iron and steel products of the industry. The right hon. Gentleman told us, broadly, how this money was being spent. But his answer, although informative to a certain extent, left us, in a way, in greater darkness than before, because some of the figures he gave puzzled us immensely and required further elucidation.
    I have given the right hon. Gentleman notice that I should like him to give us information on two points. I am sure that the information is available and that the answer is a simple one. It would complete the statements which he made to the House on a previous occasion. No doubt the information has been supplied to him by the Federation. I think its publication would be satisfactory from the point of view of the Minister, of the Federation and of those who sit on these benches, because we want to know what exactly is the situation.
    The Minister told us that out of the 1s. levy, 3½d., which represents over £250,000, was being spent by the Federation on salaries, rent and administrative expenses. That sounds an awful lot of money for this purpose, especially as the statistical services and the research work of the Federation are not included in it. Can the Minister give us some further information as to how this money is being spent?
    Another very large sum, £170,000, is being used by the Federation for taxation purposes. That, surely, requires some further explanation. The Iron and Steel Federation is not a profit-making body. Why, therefore, does it have to pay such substantial sums in taxation? There may be some simple explanation, but we
    1296
    cannot guess what it is. Therefore, I should be most grateful if in reply the right hon. Gentleman would give us that information.
    In conclusion, I wish to say that we appreciate and fully acknowledge that by this Amendment, which originated in the Lords, the right hon. Gentleman is giving us all that we have asked for. We think it highly desirable that the provision should be in the Bill in the interests of the consumers of steel and of the Iron and Steel Federation itself, and certainly in the interests of this House.
    Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman very kindly gave me notice that he would raise these points and I should like to deal with them as briefly as I can, though to give him an effective answer I shall have to go into some detail. One point was that he would like more detailed information on how the Federation's expenditure on salaries and other administrative expenses was made up. I have asked the Federation—of course, I have no right to require this information from them—if they would let me have further details so that I might give them to the House. They most readily made this information available to me.
    I should like to read to the House the details of how the 2⅜d., which is the proportion of the 1s. levy which is included under the heading "Salaries, Rents and Administrative Expenses," is made up.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at his original speech in column 1240 of HANSARD he will see that he there said the amount was 3½d.
    Mr. Sandys: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for correcting me; 3½d. is the total, and 2⅜d. is the amount which relates to salaries. I am sorry if I made a mistake. Let me be quite clear. I am going to give to the House the detailed breakdown of the 3½d., which covers salaries, rents and administrative expenses in the year 1952. Of that sum, 2⅜d. is for salaries for some 300 employees. It includes National Insurance payments, superannuation and group life assurance and a very wide range of duties undertaken by the Federation. The matter was fully discussed, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, with the Federation, as to what common services should continue

    1297
    to be carried on by the Federation after the Corporation came into being. These duties include executive duties, secretariat, steel production and supply, international relations and the export department, raw material matters, what is known as the technical advisers' department, training and labour relations, market development and public relations, costs and finance, transport department, general department and clerical services, and the plant progress department.
    I do not claim to have gone into all these matters and to know exactly how they are made up. All I would say is there is no doubt that the Federation is carrying on a very wide range of duties for the industry as a whole. It is not our business to decide whether they employ the right number of people or pay them the right amount in salaries. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question, and that is the information, the very full information, which I have obtained.
    As for the remainder of the 3½d., it is made up of: travelling expenses, ¼d.; rent, rates, lighting and heating, etc., ⅜d.; telephones, cables, postage, stationery and printing, ¼d.; general office expenses, ⅛d.; and legal and professional charges, ⅛d. That makes up the 3½d. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are indebted to the Federation for providing in such detail the particulars of their internal finance, which we have no right to demand but which they have readily provided. I hope that the statement broadly covers the points about which the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know.
    His other question was why the Federation is liable to taxation at all and how that liability arises. I have consulted both the Federation and the Board of Inland Revenue on this question. The Board informed me—I am not an expert on these things and so I will keep fairly close to what they have told me about it—that companies are entitled for taxation purposes to deduct from their profits such part of their subscriptions to a trade association as is expended by the association for purposes which would have been admis-sable as a deduction from profits if it had been incurred directly by the company itself. However, the literal application of this principle would cause considerable inconvenience to the companies concerned, as well as to the trade association and to the
    1298
    Inland Revenue authorities. Consequently, a trade association is permitted to come to an arrangement with the Board of Inland Revenue, under which sums paid to a trade association by its constituent firms may be treated as trade expenses by those firms.
    On the other hand, the association is assessed for taxation on any surplus of its receipts over its expenditure. I understand that the British Iron and Steel Federation have made an arrangement of this kind with the Board of Inland Revenue, and, as a result, are liable to taxation. The figures I quoted show that a substantial amount of the Federation's receipts had not been expended but had been retained, and are available for capital expenditure on ore ships and similar matters on which the Federation has undertaken substantial commitments. I understand from them that it is this surplus which gives rise to this taxation liability. I hope that this covers the point about which the right hon. Gentleman wanted information.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information, for which we are indebted to the Iron and Steel Federation. My own comment is that there seems to be bad business somewhere. Because the Iron and Steel Federation want capital at a later date, they collect from the iron and steel companies so much more money than they require that they have to pay the Inland Revenue £170, 000 a year surplus. That was because they were collecting more than they required or could spend. They only need the surplus to pay for ships which they have ordered and want to be delivered in a year or two's time. It seems extraordinarily bad and inefficient business, but that is not our affair. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us the figures.
    Mr. Sandys: I think the answer is that if the companies retained that money they themselves would have to pay pre-cisely the same amount in additional taxation. It is merely a question of whether the companies pay the taxation themselves or the Federation pay it on their behalf. I do not suppose they are such bad businessmen as to pay more money than necessary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 34, at end, insert:
    "or to the distribution of such raw materials when imported."
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The proposed Amendment rectifies what we acknowledge is an omission in subsection (4), which relates to common service importers of raw materials. The subsection only provided for information from such bodies about the importation of raw materials. It is obviously important that there should be also information about the distribution of such raw materials, and I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendments down to page 33, line 19, agreed to. [Several with Special Entry.]

    Clause 33.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 44, at end, insert:
    "Whole-time member" means a member who is required by the terms of his appointment to devote himself exclusively or mainly to the performance of his duties as a member of the Board, and includes such a member notwithstanding that his appointment as a member of the Board may not be his only appointment.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Jack Jones: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "or mainly."
    I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss the subsequent Amendment in my name and that of my hon. and right hon. Friends, to leave out from the first "Board" and to add:
    "subject only to the performance of such public or other unpaid duties as will not occupy more than an insignificant part of his time."
    The reason why we on this side seek to insert these Amendments in the Bill must be apparent to the whole House. During the Committee stage we stressed the importance of the work of those who are designated in the Bill as whole-time members of the Board and we suggested to the Government that these members should be people who actually give their time wholly and completely to the services of the Board.
    1300
    The House will remember that we argued for a considerable time about the tremendous range of duties of the Board. I remember quoting a White Paper and pointing out that out of 23 paragraphs in it, 20 referred to the duties of the Board in relation to planning, redundancies, capital investment, distribution of materials, relations with the Schuman Plan, price fixing, education, research and a hundred and one other jobs of a less important character. We always argued, and we still argue, that the duties of this Board merit the whole-time members giving their full time exclusively to the services of the Board.
    The Lords Amendment which we seek to amend is drafted in somewhat contradictory terms. It starts by referring to a "whole-time member," but ends with the words:
    "… notwithstanding that his appointment as a member of the Board may not be his only appointment."
    I am at a loss to understand how a person can have the designation of "whole-time member" and, at the same time, have the facility of paid appointment to some other board or be able to give services to other organisations. We seek to make a new interpretation, to read:
    "subject only to the performance of such public or other unpaid duties as will not occupy more than an insignificant part of his time."
    We seek to have an interpretation which will give the Board the full-time service which its importance merits, but, at the same time, does not debar a person from doing public work. We have in mind a person drawn from the ranks of the trade unions or the Federation who, in his spare time, may be interested in local government, hospital management, or work of that description. We do not want the rules to be so rigid as to preclude a person who has spent his life in public service of that kind acting as a member of the Board.
    We do say, however, that the work of the Board is so far-ranging and important that it would not allow a member to have a divided loyalty. I have read with interest, and I have not seen it contradicted, that the new chairman will be one who was chairman of the interim Board, that is Sir Archibald Forbes. I have read that he has had some conversations with Her Majesty's Government and that he did not want to give his final decision on

    1301
    this appointment unless certain facilities were given him. In other words, Her Majesty's Government are seeking to establish a position where a person—and I am not now speaking of the gentleman whom I have mentioned—could consent to serve on the Board while retaining appointments on other important boards.
    We say that that is wrong. We believe that the work of this organisation is so important that a person so appointed should give his paid time exclusively to the duties which the Bill provides that the Board shall perform. I have tried to visualise the position of certain individuals as time goes on. None of us can be prophets, but we can assess public opinion, and we can now cast our minds back to recent results in certain parts of the country.
    I do not want to rub it in, but I found that in my constituency, where there are so many steelworkers, the electorate were so "enamoured" of iron and steel denationalisation and of the Tory Budget that we have not a Tory, or a Liberal for that matter, on the local council. One can imagine a situation where a man drawn from a trade union might find himself with divided loyalty and undecided whether to continue to work for the Board in the national interest or to give more of his time to something else which might be considered ripe for nationalisation.
    That would create a divided loyalty, and we believe that is wrong. I say that not only in regard to persons drawn from industry, but also those who are drawn from the trade union movement. In my opinion, such a full-time member should serve the national interest and not the interest of any particular section of the trade union movement. His job is to give full-time work to the Board, in the interests of the nation, the whole great trade union movement, and particularly those people working inside the steel industry.
    There is a vast field to be covered— research, training, education, new entrants, redundancies, the allocation of raw materials—all of which have a direct effect on the continued welfare and happiness of the people in the industry. We suggest that this Amendment will satisfy everybody in that respect. It is the full-time members who will serve the public
    1302
    interest, because they are the people who will decide policy.
    I have argued this point of view in another place—not the other place which is generally referred to here, but somewhere very remote from it—and have tried to see how this proposal will work. I can tell the Minister that the trade unions are extremely anxious that any person appointed from a trade union on a full-time basis should sever his connection with his section of the trade union movement.
    We want to make quite certain that when this Board is appointed it shall— for the time it operates, be it short or long—give the greatest satisfaction to the people concerned. I was asked yesterday what was my personal opinion about a certain works which for some time has not been an economic proposition. This is the type of question which is now being asked. People are asking which particular works will be closed down, which will be continued and where new works will be sited. We want the best kind of organisation to be set up, and we think that our Amendment will do it, whereas if the Lords Amendment is left as it stands persons will have the opportunity of taking up so-called full-time appointments when they have obligations to other industries.
    I do not want to be facetious or rude to anybody; that is not my nature; but I cannot conceive how it is possible to mix up the milling and flour industry and that of the dog biscuit manufacturer with the steel industry. The persons on the Board should give full loyalty to the steel industry and to no other. I do not want to belittle anybody. I have a great respect for those people who have done a big job of work for the nation, but we want to make sure that there can be no accusation that, as a result of divided loyalties, the industry will suffer and, following that, our national well-being.
    It is important that we should make a decision which is in the best interests of the industry. I hope the Minister has given very careful consideration to this Amendment and that, in his present courteous mood, he will see the force of our argument and accede to our request with regard to what is probably the last Lords Amendments we have to consider.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This Amendment is concerned with the most important matter we have had to discuss this evening—important though the supply of tungsten, molybdenum and other questions have been. I earnestly hope that whatever the circumstances of any particular appointment may be the Minister will reconsider what is sought to be done by the Lords Amendment and accept our Amendment to it.
    We all recognise that the Board have extremely important functions. We may differ as to how far they have sufficient powers for the purpose, but there is no doubt about the importance of their functions. They have to consider the question of a general review of the industry; production facilities, including the matters which we were discussing earlier today, emergencies and Government or similar actions to meet them; the determination of prices and, equally important, the raw materials and fuel to be procured and distributed for the industry.
    Even right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have shown at times a certain reluctance to strengthen the Board's powers, would not deny that their functions are of the highest importance. They differ from us only in saying that their powers are sufficient to enable them to perform those functions. Let us take their view in this matter. What is the composition of the Board? It is to consist of the chairman and a certain number of members and, though the Bill does not provide a specific number, we were given some indication of what was to be the number of whole-time members.
    I believe the expression "whole-time member" occurs only once in the Bill —in connection with the degree of independence which he has to have. On appointment he must not have any substantial financial interest in an undertaking of an iron and steel producer, and there are provisions to see that that state of affairs continues. This reference is contained in Section 2 (6). There may be other references which I have overlooked but it is in regard to this Section that the definition was introduced.
    I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) that the experience of these boards, partly composed of whole-time members
    1304
    and partly of part-time members, confirms what one would expect from ordinary business experience, that it is the chairman and the whole-time members who constitute the policy-making element, and the part they tend to play compared to the part-time members is larger than one would have expected if one had not had experience of it.
    It is too obvious to need argument. The responsibility that will fall on the full-time members—and the standard of attention and integrity required of them —must be exceedingly high. When I use the word "integrity," I am not suggesting that the kind of person to be appointed as a whole-time member is likely to be dishonest in any sense of the word. What I do mean is that it does seem sound in principle, especially when we are making appointments of this importance, to avoid putting people in a position where there may be some possible conflict of duties.
    I see the Solicitor-General sitting there. He will recognise that that particular maxim runs through a great deal of our law, and that if we were appointing trustees we should first have to consider whether, in the exercise of their functions, they would be put in a position where there would be a conflict of interests or a conflict of duties. It seems to me to apply with full strength to appointments of this sort.
    As the interpretation Clause is drawn, and read with this Lords Amendment, there can be some very remarkable results. First of all, let us take a man who is not, personally, a large shareholder or otherwise a proprietor of any iron and steel concern but who has an interest in it. He has an interest in the sense that he has served as a director. It may, indeed, represent a life's work and a life's achievement to him, and, before his appointment to the Board, he may have virtually lived for that particular piece of work. It is quite obvious that there must be such people. Let us assume that he is now to be considered for appointment as a member of this Board, as a whole-time member. What will he be required to do?
    He will be required not to have a substantial financial interest. One does not know what his director's fees may have amounted to. No doubt, if he were

    1305
    to be mainly occupied in the business of the Board, he might be coining along with director's fees of £100, £200, £300 or £400 retained in the company in which he had served before. I should find it hard to say that that man, so far as financial interest was concerned, had a substantial interest, if that was all it was.
    However, we can go beyond that. The company may pay him no fees to get him to sit on the Board. Or there might be a nominal consideration. In countries engaged in the last war—and if I select a particular currency it is only because it is the one commonly cited in this connection—there were dollar a year men representing, in some respects, large industries in some Government offices closely associated with those industries. We are bound to remember that there is a similar history in this particular industry, and when it was a question of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and even a question of the conduct of this industry during the war, there were certainly people engaged in supervising it for one purpose or another who had previously had a close, intimate, whole-time connection with some unit of the industry, and often reverted to that connection as soon as their public services were ended.
    When we are considering the appointment of whole-time members of a Board of this kind it is absolutely vital to see that there is a clean cut in cases of that sort, and that a man who takes up whole-time service on the Board severs completely his connection with the industry. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say just now, as far as the whole-time members were concerned, that there was every possibility of trade union representatives taking that line. I am neither a trade unionist nor a steelmaster, but as an ordinary citizen I think that the same considerations should apply in the one case and in the other, and I believe that, as has indeed been the practice in the past, trade union officers taking up whole-time employment of this sort would and should sever their connection with the trade union, that the same rule should apply to both the goose and the gander and that the iron and steelmasters should do exactly the same thing and retain nothing whatever.
    I pointed out that the Clause proposed from another place would allow, when read in conjunction with other provisions,
    1306
    a man to spend some of his time as what is quite falsely described as a whole-time member of the Board and a substantial part of it in some perhaps unpaid, perhaps low paid, directorial or similar activity in connection with his own company. That must be absolutely wrong. There can be no circumstances whatever that justify it. By the way, if anyone says to me, "What about his qualifying shares?" I would remind the House that they are very often lent for purposes of this sort.
    I turn now to what seems, perhaps, a less obvious but equally dangerous thing, the case of a man who has an interest in some other industry or financial matters who is called upon to take up whole-time membership of the Board. We were given one particular instance. I am not concerned with that. Let us take some industry that at first sight appears comparatively unconnected, or wholly unconnected even in one sense of the word, with iron and steel. I do not believe that there can be any industry in this country which is really wholly unconnected with iron and steel. It permeates the whole industrial structure.
    Whether it is a matter of building works, or whether it is a matter of containers to put things in, or whether it is a matter of the use to be made of products, one way or another I should be very puzzled indeed to find any single industry or occupation of importance of which we could say, "This has no connection whatsoever with the iron and steel industry and there could not possibly be any question of a conflict of duty there." I cannot think that that is the case. If we were dealing with a rather specialised industry that would not be true, but having regard to the way in which this particular industry in one form or another concerns and directly concerns every one of us and every industry I say that it is really wrong to suggest that there can be any complete independence between the two things.
    Those are two points, and there is a further one. Let us for a moment leave wholly out of the question the matter of a conflict of interest or a conflict of duty. Let us look at it in quite another way. What we are asked to do is to say that "wholly" does not mean "wholly," because in plain English that is just what

    1307
    this means. We talk about a whole-time member and then say he is one if "wholly or mainly" devoted to his duties as a member of the Board. I have a constitutional dislike to defining something or another as the opposite of what it is, and I am quite certain that this place ought not to lend itself to that kind of verbal trickery. It is to be observed, of course, that it came from another place, and about their conduct in the matter I say no more.
    6.30 p.m.
    "Wholly or mainly" is a very dangerous phrase. It can mean all sorts of things. I am not going to try to deliver a lecture on what is a whole-time member, but I happened to find a case where the question was about fishermen's earnings. That seems quite a long way from this matter, but the question was whether they were wholly or mainly dependent on their share of the fishing profits. These men were partly paid by way of fixed wages and partly by a share of the profits. The facts were that out of £12 a week £7 9s. came from the fishing profits, and the court which decided this question said quite plainly that "mainly" means what it says, and 51 per cent. is mainly.
    I do not say that is a particular line of construction which would apply in every case, and I do not want to be involved with hon. and learned Members opposite into any technical discussions as to the niceties of it, but it is just as well to be clear what we mean when we are putting this kind of language into the Statute Book. A whole-time member means, for the ordinary person someone who spends the whole of his time on the job. We start by putting that aside and saying that it does not mean that, it means someone who spends the whole or the main part of his time on his job. If we are asked what we mean by the "main part of the time" on the job, I imagine we should be as much in difficulty as, in connection with another matter, the Financial Secretary found himself the other day when he was asked to define what "substantial" meant.
    This kind of phrase in this connection and context is a shady sort of phrasing and tends to make people think that it conceals a shady sort of transaction. I am not saying that it does, but I am saying that this opens the door and
    1308
    appears to open the door to what if people were dishonest would be a shady transaction, and it is not right to make public appointments and the terms of public appointments depend on the honesty of particular individuals.
    It is our business, I suggest, to draft a Bill of this sort in such a form that it is certain that the people appointed will be wholly devoted to the job which they are supposed to be doing in the whole of their time. If it is said, "You yourself have said in the Amendment that there might be a man spending an insignificant part of his time occupied on public or other unpaid duties," I say frankly to the House that I am not at all certain that these words were worth putting in.
    We put them in because we wished to make it clear that we did not want to prevent people from doing jobs such as serving on a hospital management committee or even digging the famous garden so sedulously attended in his spare time by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). We do not mean to say that we require a man to devote the whole of his 24 hours to eating, sleeping, and doing this job. I would not mind particularly if that part of our Amendment were left out.
    The substantial point is that we cannot in any honesty have a whole-time member wholly or mainly employed on this job and partly, perhaps to a substantial degree, working on some other job, which, though it is not in the iron or steel industry, may be a paid and remunerative one. Equally, we cannot have a man called on to do a job of this importance and employed and sent there on the footing that the whole of his time is required for the purpose, not giving the whole of his time to it. Let us be straight about this matter—when we say whole-time member let us have a whole-time member.
    There are other part-time members. If the Minister has a particular blue-eyed boy in mind whom he wants to appoint to this Board, then, if he wants to appoint him for whole-time employment, let him do so; but if he wants to employ him for what I call main time employment let him call him a part-time member and engage him accordingly. Let us be straight and simple in our language about the matter; straight and simple in what

    1309
    we intend to do and, I hope, straight and simple in the appointments that are to be made.
    Mr. Low: I think that it would be convenient for the House if I intervened now and told the House what is the effect, in our opinion, of the Amendments which we are considering and the Lords Amendment which forms the background to those Amendments. I quite realise that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had important considerations in mind which they wished to put to the House, and I hope that they will pardon me if I try to come down very much to earth and try to describe what is the effect of what they are trying to do and what is the effect of the Lords Amendment.
    We are concerned here with the interpretation of the words "whole-time" members where they appear in this Bill, and, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering told the House, the only place in which these words appear in the Bill is in Clause 2 (6), but he did not seem to me to draw any conclusion from that very right observation which he made to the House, or to follow out the effect of the interpretation upon subsection (6) to which they refer. I should like to do that.
    That subsection prescribes that the chairman or a whole-time member of the Board shall not have a substantial financial interest in any undertaking of an iron and steel producer—a safeguard inserted by this House on the initiative of hon. Gentlemen opposite and supported by hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House.
    The advantage of the definition of "whole-time member" which is incorporated in the Lords Amendment is that it strengthens this safeguard. Without it, as I will show, there would be in our opinion a possibility—and we have to deal with possibilities in legislation—of two loopholes. With it both loopholes are closed. I will explain what I mean.
    The first loophole which is, it may be said, an improbable loophole is that the Minister, if he appointed a man to the "whole-time" nucleus of the Board who holds an outside appointment with his permission, may not feel bound on making the appointment to apply the test
    1310
    of Clause 2 (6). The hon. and learned Member for Kettering, in talking to the House a short time ago about what he called his "main time" members, suggested that such a member should be appointed as a part time member, and I think he would agree with me that the safeguard in Clause 2 (6) does not apply to part time members.
    The second loophole, which is not quite so improbable, is that a man who had been appointed by the Minister to the "whole-time" nucleus of the Board, but who was allowed to have an outside appointment in addition, might claim that he was not a "whole-time member" for the purposes of that subsection and that, therefore, he was not debarred from acquiring a substantial financial interest in the steel industry. That is also a possible loophole. The Lords Amendment, which the hon. Member seeks to amend, closes this loophole—if I mix my metaphors I apologise for doing so— by extending the area of this qualification covered by Clause 2 (6). The wider the area of disqualification, the stronger the safeguard of the subsection.
    The Amendments to the Lords Amendment would have the effect of narrowing that area and of re-opening both loopholes for they would not prevent the Minister, if he so wished, from appointing to the "whole-time" nucleus of the Board persons who have outside paid appointments. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will grant me that the interpretation of the words in the Bill does not have the effect of preventing the Minister, if he so wishes, from appointing to the "whole-time" nucleus of the Board persons who have outside paid appointments. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the phrase "whole-time members" where it appears in the Bill, and the only place where it occurs is in Clause 2 (6).
    The Amendments, if accepted, would merely provide that if the Minister did make such an appointment, even if he appointed as a member a man who drew £100 per annum for an outside appointment, the member would not come within the safeguard of subsection (6). Moreover, there would be no doubt that he did not come within it if the Amendments were accepted. On the face of the definition, such a member would be excluded from the operation of Clause

    1311
    2 (6) and thus excluded from the safeguard.
    Mr. Mitchison: The Parliamentary Secretary has nearly caught his own tail and nothing which I say ought to interfere with that interesting process. Let me assure him that I realise that the Clause does not apply to part-time members. There is no obligation on the Minister to appoint any fixed number of whole-time and part-time members respectively. I appreciate all that. All I am saying is that if one has to do a job with three spades and five hoes one does not do it any better by having two spades and six hoes and calling one of the hoes a spade.
    Mr. Low: If an appointment is made, as "whole-time member" of a man who is allowed to retain an outside appointment, surely it is desirable that the safeguard on which the House insisted at an earlier stage—the hon. and learned Gentleman waxed very eloquent about it, and we all agree with the importance of it— should apply. The curious thing is that, after all that was said about the importance of that safeguard, the Opposition Amendments which are now proposed not only weaken the safeguard as compared with the Lords Amendments but also weaken it as compared with the Bill when it left this House, when without any definition at all there was at least room for argument that a person of the kind we have been discussing was within the subsection.
    As I have said, the Opposition and the whole House attach importance—rightly, in our view—to the principle behind the safeguard now inserted in subsection (6). If the Opposition understand the effect of their Amendments as we understand it, I cannot believe that they will really want now to weaken the safeguard which was inserted on their initiative. If they agree with me in the interpretation of their Amendments and of the Lords Amendment, I am sure that they will now withdraw their Amendment and accept the Lords Amendment.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Mr. Speaker, you and I belong to a profession which is constantly twitted with using the art of tergiversation, but I do not think I have listened for a long
    1312
    time to the expenditure of so many words on so simple and short an issue. The Minister, and several other hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion, have overlaid the point with so many words that its central matter has been completely obscured.
    The Parliamentary Secretary has got this thing completely wrong. He has not hit the essential nail on the point at all in what he has said. [Laughter.] All right then, he has not hit the nail on the head. He has given us an extraordinary excuse. I do not know whether he realises it or not, but it really is an extraordinary excuse. He says that the Lords Amendment will somehow or other aid Clause 2 (6). But Clause 2 (6) is miles away from the point that matters. All that subsection (6) does is to lay down a test, and it is a financial test. It merely represents a qualification as to the interest of the person who is to be appointed to the Board and is not a limitation as to time in any sense at all.
    What the House wants to know is why this Amendment is to go into an interpretation Clause the purpose of which is for clarification and not for obscurity. The Lords Amendment as it stands says, in effect, that "a whole-time member" means that he is not a whole-time member. That is the plain, simple, and undeniable effect of its language. It is true that the expression "whole-time" can have a double meaning, and it is clear that it is intended to have a double meaning in the context of this Amendment. On this point, one cannot bring in Clause 2 (6) to aid the point at all. Let us look at the Lords Amendment. It refers to a whole-time member. The phrase "whole-time" can mean, as it appears to do here, that a person who has a whole-time salary has only a part-time activity. It is not a question of a full-time job at all.
    Mr. J. Freeman: Like the Minister of Materials.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is certainly an example of a whole-time job with a part-time activity. That is exactly the sort of thing to which the Amendment refers. The first limb of the Amendment is as follows:
    "'Whole-time member' means a member who is required by the terms of his appointment to devote himself exclusively or mainly to the performance of his duties as a member of the Board, and includes such a member"—

    1313
    then follow these extraordinary words which absolutely destroy the meaning of what has gone before—
    "notwithstanding that his appointment as a member of the Board may not be his only appointment."
    What is that? That is a plain permission to any person who is appointed a whole-time member, even if he has not got another appointment at the time, to get himself another appointment. The Lords Amendment says in the clearest language that he is still to be regarded for the special purposes of the Clause as a whole-time member even if he receives another appointment. Of course, that contradiction stultifies the whole position. One is amazed at finding that language of this kind is actually going into a statute. It is unbelievable that a Clause of this composition and language should be imported into a Statute.
    I ask the Minister to shake himself up a little. After all, we are making legislation. The Minister ought to have a greater sense of responsibility and not try to pass this off by referring to Clause 2 (6) which, as I have said, is miles away from the point. That subsection is the only excuse that he has tendered to this House for this stultification of English language. [Laughter.] The Minister quite rightly laughs, because it is a comic Clause. I have not come across such a comic Clause for a long time.
    I ask the Minister to assume a sense of responsibility in this matter. If he wants to adopt something of this kind he should try to express it in language which is clear and unequivocal and not to insult the headnote under which it appears. The Measure would be much clearer for the purpose of interpretation if this Lords Amendment did not go into the interpretation Clause at all. I therefore ask the Minister to look at this again and, in this respect at least, to try to make some sense out of the Bill.
    Mr. Lee: The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Government were closing two loopholes. I suggest that in closing those loopholes they are opening the back door. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, if "whole-time" is to have the meaning proposed in this Lords Amendment, then a man working 51 per cent. of the time in this industry is a
    1314
    whole-time person. I wonder how that works out if it is applied to the people working in the steel mills.
    If, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) could be considered a whole-time worker in the steel industry by working for 51 per cent. of the allotted working week, I would agree at once with the Parliamentary Secretary's interpretation of "whole-time." But of course that could not possibly happen. I suggest that he has not given a very good line of thought to the workers in the industry. Recently a number of trade unions—I have one in particular in mind—have suggested that they would like a shorter working week; they have been subjected to abuse of all sorts, and have been called unpatriotic and so on in many organs of the Press.
    The Parliamentary Secretary is giving carte blanche to people who are to occupy what he and I consider to be very important positions to expect that, say, 22 hours a week is the allotted time to be worked by a whole-time person. If 22 hours a week is the amount of time which one can expect a whole-time person to work, will the Parliamentary Secretary say how much time one can expect a part-time worker to work? Is the definition of "part-time worker" one who has no need to turn up and work at all? If we accept "mainly" in the context in which the Parliamentary Secretary has used it, then we cannot expect any attendance at all from one who is employed purely in a part-time capacity.
    I ask the Government to accept our Amendments which, despite anything the Parliamentary Secretary says, make quite clear that we expect a person who is appointed to an extremely important position of this type to devote the whole of his working week to this job. I should have thought that that is in line with what the party opposite have told us is the importance of this type of occupation. I suggest that to let it go out from this House that the Government are to appoint full-time people to be responsible for the Board and are not to expect them to work more than 22 hours a week is not good enough. I ask that our Amendments be accepted in order to give some encouragement to the people working 47 and 50 hours per week in industry to continue doing their full job of work.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Before we close our debate on this matter I should like to make one or two comments. The Government have sought to justify this Lords Amendment by saying that it will close a certain loophole. It may or may not close a loophole. I doubt whether there was a loophole there of any importance at all. What I am quite certain of is that, by putting this Lords Amendment forward, the Government may be closing that loophole but they are opening a vast crater of possible mischief.
    What are the Government saying by the definition Clause? It is the first time that such a definition Clause has been put forward in any measures for denationalising an industry now under public ownership. In all nationalised industries I think that, without exception, there are on the board or corporation a number of full-time members and a number of part-time members, and in the letters of appointment the full-time members are told that they are expected to devote all their time to the task.
    I have not looked at all the Measures, but I do not think that there is a single definition Clause in any of them so far defining a full-time member, because it was obvious common sense: everybody understood it to mean that a man would devote all his time to the work for which he was appointed. Now, for the first time, we are told in this denationalising Bill that the men who are to be appointed full-time to this Board—and it is not only the chairman; there are to be several others—will devote most of their time, 51 per cent. to the work of the Board but that they are free, if they wish, to devote 49 per cent. of their time to other activities. I am advised—and I do not think there can be any doubt about it— that that will be the effect of this Lords Amendment.
    The letter of appointment to such a person will say that he is to work full-time, but later, if someone offers him a job which does not take up more than 49 per cent. of his time he would be perfectly free to take it, and if any question were raised he could say "In the interpretation Clause it is stated that 'wholetime' means working mainly for this job. I am carrying out the letter and the spirit of this Measure if I devoted a good deal of my time to other purposes "—perhaps other remunerative purposes providing
    1316
    him with a bigger salary than he was drawing as a member of the Board.
    I cannot help feeling that the Government know perfectly well that this is to be one of the consequences of inserting this new definition, and we look upon it as a very obnoxious consequence. It seems to me, indeed to all of us on this side of the House, to be not an isolated incident but part of the Government's general policy in this matter. We were told recently that the Chairman of another important Government Corporation, the Colonial Development Corporation, which should be a full-time job, has been told that he can now take other work as well if he wants to so long as the work for which he was appointed in a public capacity is his main concern. That is a most important and responsible job, and yet he is to be allowed to take other work as well. The "Sunday Express, "with which I do not often agree, attacked the Government last Sunday for the permission being given to Lord Reith to do this additional work. It was perfectly right to do so.
    7.0 p.m.
    We stand strongly by the principle— and we warn the House and the country of the dire and evil consequences of this Amendment, which the Government are introducing for the first time in any Measure of this sort—when a man is appointed full-time to a public board or corporation, that man should devote all his energies to it, and should not be permitted and even encouraged, as he is by this new definition, to take outside and possibly remunerative work as long as it takes up only a minor part of his time. We say that that is all wrong and contrary to the public interest, and that that will inevitably be the effect of the Amendment which we are now considering.
    We believe it to be the intention of the Government that it should have that effect, and we suspect that this provision was put in so that the gentleman who is proposed as Chairman of the Board, Sir Archibald Forbes, who has other industrial interests, will be enabled to continue to hold his existing directorships. Whether that is so or not, it will enable him to retain those existing directorships, and in future any full-time member of this Board will be able to hold directorships to which he will be able to devote

    1317
    part of his time. That is wrong and contrary to the public interest, and we think it is a great pity and shameful that the Government should introduce this important principle in another place and put it before the House at this late stage of the passage of the Bill. We intend to divide the House on the proposal.
    Mr. Sandys: A number of points have been raised in this debate, which, of course, go very far beyond the scope of the Amendment, which was very carefully explained by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. Before I deal in general with the points which have been raised, I should like to mention a pertinent issue referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). We can all agree with the hon. and learned Member that there must be no conflict of interest or duty in regard to the full-time membership of these important public bodies. He said that the "whole-time" members of the Board should completely sever their connections with the iron and steel industry, and that rule must apply not only to trade unionists but to the steel-masters, too. I should like to say straight away that I entirely agree with that statement, and that I am glad to have this opportunity to give an absolute assurance on that point.
    There can be no question—and I said this earlier in our debate—of a full-time member who has a direct and continuous influence upon the affairs of the Board retaining any part-time appointment in the industry which it is his job to supervise. Therefore, I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman an unqualified assurance on that important point. He and other hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) were a bit mixed up as to which end of the nail they would have to hit.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I got the point.
    Mr. Sandys: They said it was impossible to define the word "mainly" in the Lords Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was as difficult to define that word as it had been difficult to define the word "substantial," about which we had some discussion earlier. I might remind him that the word "substantial" originated in the Amendment put forward by the right
    1318
    hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice).
    There are difficulties in defining words, and if it is impossible to define the word "mainly" in the Lords Amendment, it is no easier to define the word "insignificant" which appears in the Amendment put forward by the Opposition to take its place. We must accept that there are certain words which it is not possible to define absolutely. In the last resort, the definition has to be left to the courts to decide. If everything were crystal clear and precise in legislation the hon. and learned Gentleman would be out of a job. Certainly, he would not be a whole-time barrister.
    As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained, the Lords Amendment is concerned, in this Bill, with removing a small legal uncertainty in Clause 2 (6). I recognise the anxiety which has been expressed by a number of hon. Members about the wider issue of principle which they have mentioned, and I should like to say a word about this.
    Incidentally, I am pleased and encouraged by the way in which one hon. Member after another from the benches opposite has referred to the importance of this Board and to the responsible functions which it will have to discharge; and that, to discharge those functions, it is essential for the members to devote their whole time to this work. At an earlier stage in our discussions we were told that the whole thing was a sham and that the Board would have nothing to do. Therefore, it would not matter whether the members were whole-time, part-time or no time at all.
    I am glad that in the course of our debate hon. Members opposite have come to recognise the real and important functions which have been entrusted to this Board.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: But does not the Lords Amendment itself show it is a sham?
    Mr. Sandys: I am coming to that in a moment.
    As I have emphasised on many previous occasions, the authority and the effectiveness of the Board will depend to a large extent upon the standing and the

    1319
    competence of the members who compose it. It is particularly important that the whole-time members who will exercise executive functions, should be men of the right calibre. In most cases it should be possible to find suitable people who will be willing to devote themselves exclusively to the work of the Board. However, we must recognise the practical difficulties.
    There may be cases where the services of a particular person with outstanding qualifications cannot be obtained if he is required to sever completely all his industrial and commercial connections. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said it was a contradiction in terms to appoint a man whole-time and, at the same time, to authorise him to retain other appointments outside.
    The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) went even further. He dealt with his own experience in this matter—or his recollection of it. He said that the letters of appointment to whole-time members of public boards had hitherto—he was referring to the time of the previous Government—always specified that the persons concerned must give the whole of their time to this work. He said that this was the first time it had been suggested that a while-time member could also hold other appointments.
    That was certainly not the view he took as Minister of Supply when he set up the Iron and Steel Corporation, in 1949. The letters of appointment, which he addressed to whole-time members of the Iron and Steel Corporation read thus:
    "You will be required to render whole-time service to the Corporation and to devote yourself exclusively to the business of the Corporation except insofar as the Corporation, with my approval, may otherwise permit."
    Mr. G. R. Strauss indicated assent.
    Mr. Sandys: That shows clearly that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the holding of other appointments was not necessarily inconsistent with whole-time membership—[An HON. MEMBER: "Very weak."] I am trying to deal with this factually. In appointing the whole-time chairman of the Corporation the right hon. Gentleman specifically authorised him to retain directorships in two companies. Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that?
    Mr. Strauss: This is exactly the type of insignificant work for which we make exception in our Amendment. As far as I can remember there were two small bodies, entirely nominal, of which the chairman was a member of the Corporation, to which he devoted no time whatsoever but, for some family or technical reason, it was necessary that he should nominally retain his membership of those boards. It is clear from what the Minister has read out that the view I held then as Minister, that there should be exclusive work for the Corporation, with some exceptions to which the Minister might agree, is exactly what we are asking for today.
    Mr. Sandys: To remove any misapprehension, let me say at this stage that when I appoint whole-time members of the Board, I intend to use language which, if not exactly the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman, will, to all intents and purposes, follow the formula which he has used.
    Mr. Strauss: I do not want to interrupt, but does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that now there has been put into this Bill a definition of what is meant by full-time—something quite different from what was commonly agreed and meant and understood by everybody before—and having appointed somebody under the terms under which I appointed them, that person will be able subsequently to take paid work and will be able to refer to the Bill as a justification for doing so.
    Mr. Sandys: Let me continue to examine what the practice has been up to now. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards this problem was further illustrated by another appointment he made to the Iron and Steel Corporation. He appointed as the whole-time Vice-Chairman of the Corporation a person who was already a part-time member of another public board. Part-time membership of an important public board is something which I would have thought took up more than what is described in the Amendment as an insignificant part of a man's time. Again, the problem of defining "insignificant" is one on which different sides of the House can take different views.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Strauss: I inquired into the time it would take up before I agreed to it, and it was literally insignificant—a few hours a month.
    Mr. Sandys: It is very unsatisfactory if that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman specifically authorised this gentleman to retain that appointment. The same view was taken by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman at the Ministry of Supply, Lord Wilmot. In a letter appointing the Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board, in 1946, Lord Wilmot specified that he was to give whole-time service to the Board. At the same time, Lord Wilmot authorised him to retain certain outside directorships carrying directors' fees and other emoluments. I mention that because it has a bearing on the Amendment, which seeks to exclude outside appointments if they are paid.
    Other examples could be quoted. It is clear, therefore, that my predecessors in the late Government did not regard the holding of outside appointments, whether paid or unpaid, as being necessarily, as a matter of principle, inconsistent with whole-time membership. I must claim—and I claim no more—the same latitude as my predecessors enjoyed. On the other hand—this is a matter which has not been raised—I recognise that, in fixing the emoluments of such members, it is proper to take into account the fact that they are doing other work in addition to their work on the Board.
    I do not think we need get very worked up about this question of the definition of "whole-time." Even if we call them main-time members it will come to the same thing. We know what we mean. Let me say that I would not appoint anybody unless he will give all the time that is necessary to the work of the Board, that it will be a first call upon his time and upon his energies, and that he shall not accept or retain any outside appointments which are in any sense incompatible with, or would raise a conflict of loyalties in regard to, his work as a member of the Board.
    The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) referred to the fact that an earlier Amendment which he moved in regard to tungsten and molybdenum had been proposed by Lord Wilmot in another
    1322
    place. I suppose, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall be in order in telling the House that in another place Lord Wilmot expressed himself in favour of this Amendment about whole-time members, which he described as most wise. So, in this matter, we are advancing in harmony with, at any rate, part of the leadership of the party opposite.
    The Bill does not specify how many whole-time members there should be on the Board. Following the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall—and his example has been invaluable to me on many occasions, particularly in the debates on this Bill— I resisted the proposal put forward by him that the proportion of whole-time and part-time members should be laid down by statute. However, when he pressed me during the Committee stage debate, I did agree to outline my personal ideas of how the Board might be composed.
    I suggested that it might have a nucleus of about four full-time members. On a Board of 15 that would represent about one-quarter. I must, however, remind the House that I made it quite clear at the time that those were only my preliminary thoughts, given to the House on the spur of the moment. I stressed the fact—hon. Members who were present will remember—that I was not committing myself definitely in any way to these proportions.
    Since then I have had time to consider this matter more closely and I should take this opportunity to inform the House that, after further reflection, I have come to the conclusion that the ratio I then suggested of one-quarter whole-time to three-quarters part-time is probably just about right. Again without committing myself, I can tell the House that that is the kind of pattern I have in mind for the original appointments to the Board.
    In the light of these explanations, I hope the Opposition—although I know it is a temptation on the last occasion to have a Division—will not press this Amendment, which would only have the effect of weakening the safeguards on financial interests inserted in the Bill at their own request. But, if they wish to have their last Division, we on this side of the House will well understand how they feel about it. May I say once again, as this may be the last occasion on which I shall have an opportunity of speaking on this Bill, that I feel that, with the help

    1323
    of the Opposition, we have conducted the discussions in a satisfactory way. The Amendments which have come from both sides both here and in another place have resulted in the Bill leaving Parliament a distinctly better Bill than when it was introduced.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair to Lord Wilmot. I had the occasion when the Amendment was moved and agreed to and, in fact, Lord Wilmot never spoke on it. It was moved by Lord Hawke and it was observed by another noble Lord on the other side of the House that
    "this clause, which may become known in commerce and possibly in the law as the
    Hawke Clause, is very sensible and imaginative."
    It appears to have been agreed to without any comment from anybody at all on our side of their Lordships' House except that Lord Jowitt said that Lord Hawke was
    "merely following the tradition of his family." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 30th April, 1953; Vol. 182, c. 199.]
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Member will find Lord Wilmot's speech which I referred to in column 161.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 220.

    Division No. 171.]

    AYES

    [7.25 p.m.

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

    Duthie, W. S.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Fell, A.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kaberry, D.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Kerr, H. W.

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

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Baldock Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Fort, R.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Banks, Col. C.

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

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

    Barlow, Sir John

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Gammans, L. D.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Birch, Nigel

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Godber, J. B.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Black C. W.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gower, H. R.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Braine, B. R.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    McAdden, S. J.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    McCallum, Major D.

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

    Grimond, J.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    McKibbin, A. J.

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

    Campbell, Sir David

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

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Carr, Robert

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hay, John

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

    Channon, H.

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Heath, Edward

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Cole, Norman

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Maude, Angus

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Hirst, Geoffrey

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

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Crouch, R. F.

    Holt, A. F.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Digdy, S. Wingfield

    Hulbert, Wing Cdf. N. J.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

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

    Nutting, Anthony

    Donner P. W.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Odey, G. W.

    Drewe, C.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Jennings, R.

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

    Osborne, C.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

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

    Partridge, E.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn.Peter (Monmouth)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Shepherd, William

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Payton, J. W. W.

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

    Turton, R. H.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Stevens, G. P.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Stewart, Henderson, (Fife, E.)

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Storey, S.

    Wellwood, W.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbrdge)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Studholme, H. G.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Summers, G. S.

    Wills, G.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Russell, R. S.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    York, C.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

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

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Redmayne.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    McInnes, J.

    Adams, Richard

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Albu, A. H.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    McLeavy, F.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Fienburgh, W.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Foot, M. M.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Forman, J. C.

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

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Baird, J.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mason, Roy

    Bartley, P.

    Glanville, James

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

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

    Mellish, R. J.

    Bence, C. R.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Messer, F.

    Benson, G.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Beswick, F.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Monslow, W.

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

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Moody, A. S.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Morley, R.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

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

    Boardman, H.

    Hannan, W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Moyle, A.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hastings, S.

    Murray, J. D.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Nally, W.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Burke, W. A.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    O'Brien, T.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Holman, P.

    Orbach, M.

    Carmichael, J.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Oswald, T.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Padley, W. E.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hubbard, T. F.

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

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Clunie, J.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pannell, Charles

    Collick, P. H.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Parker, J.

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Paton, J.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Pearson, A.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Popplewell, E.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Porter, G.

    Daines, P.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Keenan, W.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Deer, G.

    Kinley, J.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Rankin, John

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Rhodes, H.

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

    Lewis, Arthur

    Richards, R.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Edelman, M.

    Logan, D. G.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McGovern, J.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    1326

    1327

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Short, E. W.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Wigg, George

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Thornton, E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Timmons, J.

    Williams, David (Neath)

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

    Tomney, F.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield,)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

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

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Snow, J. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Yates, V. F.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    West, D. G.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.

    Question put, and agreed to.

  THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.35 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I propose to take only a few minutes in commending to the House this Bill, which, in effect, has only two Clauses. The object of the first Clause is to extend the scope of the Penicillin Act, 1947, which has been found to be too narrow in that it applies only to what are known as the group of antibiotics. It is known that there are three major dangers from inexpert use of these drugs. The first is that it is possible to produce resistant strains if the dosage be inadequate. Second, some of these drugs have unexpected and toxic effects; and, third, self-medication can mask the symptoms of a disease without curing it. There is one drug which is very much in our minds at the present time. The full name is Isonicotinic Acid Hydrazide, but for the purposes of this debate it may be referred to as I.N.A.H.
  Clause 1 is extremely wide, and on principle I do not like asking for powers as wide as this. But I think it right to do so because we are in an age of immense advances in chemotherapy and we do not know what sort of substances will be discovered. We think it right, therefore, that we should ask for powers to make, in respect of any substance which appears to myself and the other
  1328
  Health Ministers to be capable of causing danger to the health of the community, regulations similar to those made under the 1947 Act.
  I.N.A.H., which gives rise to Clause 1, is a simple chemical substance, very cheap to make and may be purchased over a chemist's counter. At the moment the Pharmaceutical Society, with a full sense of responsibility, have suggested to their members that they do not supply it except on a doctor's prescription. But that does not discharge my duty to the public in these matters, and it is much more satisfactory that I should be able, by these new powers, to make regulations similar to those that can be made for the antibiotics, because I.N.A.H. is not, in the accepted sense of the word, an antibiotic.
  It is necessary that we should consult the Medical Research Council, and the question has been raised particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) about whether I would also consult manufacturers whose interests are affected. It was the general practice under the Penicillin Act to have such consultations, and I am prepared to give an assurance that in the future there will be such consultations, provided it is clearly understood that the final decision in this matter must be taken only on medical grounds.
  I come to the new part of this Bill—Claue 2, which is known popularly as the "penicillin for pigs" Clause. I am bound to say that this is a difficult problem, and the Prime Minister on Monday found accidentally exactly the right word, because what is proposed is indeed a "pigmeal" solution to this particular difficulty. It has been found by experiment in the United States—and we are advised by the Agricultural Research

  1329
  Council—that a minute quantity of antibiotics put into feedingstuffs can have a most remarkable effect in encouraging growth, and in the fattening, of pigs. The amount of the antibiotic is minute— a proportion between of two and 20 parts in a million.
  When I first heard of this proposal the first consideration which occurred to me was whether this could conceivably have any ill-effects on the human being who would eat the meat thus produced, because although it may well be admirable for the pigs to put on 30 per cent. in weight, I cannot imagine that Parliament would be very popular if some who ate the pork reacted in the same way. I am assured by the Medical Research Council that there is not the slightest danger of this happening and that there will be no adverse effect whatever upon human beings.
  The other danger against which we shall guard is the possibility of creating, by this much wider use of antibiotics, a sort of black market in penicillin. The answer to that is that we shall take steps to ensure that the antibiotics are used in such a way that they cannot be extracted and used for medication.
  At the moment we propose to apply these regulations only to penicillin, since that is the only substance in this class which we have at present in sufficient quantities. But it is possible that in the future both aureomycin and perhaps terramycin will be manufactured, probably in this country, in adequate quantities for us to use them in a similar way, if the advice is suitable. This is mainly an agricultural matter, and we shall, of course, consult the Agricultural Research Council. If necessary—this point was raised in another place—when we consult the Ministry of Agriculture they will consult, in suitable cases, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
  The remainder of the Bill is common form. I have said on a number of occasions recently that I have not introduced any legislation into the House of Commons. In sporting terms, I will award myself a bisque in respect of this Bill, partly on the well-known housemaid's plea—that it is only a little one—and partly because it is not my Bill at all in respect of the innovation in Clause 2. It extends, and I think wisely extends,
  1330
  the 1947 Act, which has been found to be too limited, and it brings forward a new and most interesting use for antibiotics which might have a most important effect on the foodstuffs of this country.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I think we can all give a general welcome to this small but useful Bill and we can thank the Minister for giving us a useful explanation of it. Looking at it as it stands, I must admit that it does not tell us very much of its purpose. It was suggested in another place that there might have been some explanatory notes attached to it, but I think that the Minister's comments have filled that gap. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will wish to discuss some of the implications of the Bill, but I have only one or two points to raise dealing with some of the matters mentioned by the Minister.
  He suggested that one of the difficulties about penicillin and other antibiotics, as well as some of the other substances in which we are now making progress, is that their value may be, if not destroyed, very much limited if they are misused. Our general anxiety is to make absolutely sure that the Bill does not open the way to any wider use than is desirable. I believe there are many who are anxious at present, even with the restrictions, about the effects of too great a use of some of these substances for purposes for which they are not absolutely necessary on medical grounds. There is some danger that even an insistence that there should be proper medical prescriptions sometimes has the result that some of these substances are prescribed for conditions for which they are not medically required, useful though they may be. It will be useful if we let it go out from the House that we are also concerned about this aspect.
  Clause 1 makes a very desirable extension of the existing provisions, widening them considerably. I do not see what else we can do at present, but it means that we must examine with some care any regulations which are laid before the House. The Minister disclaims Clause 2 as his product. On the face of it, the Clause seems to open the way rather dangerously to a wider use than might be desirable, but I think we all

  1331
  accept the fact that there has been proper consultation with the Medical Research Council, and we ought to be prepared to accept the recommendation of that body, as well as the recommendation of the Agricultural Research Council.
  We should not leave the Bill without first stressing our anxiety to ensure that it does not open the way to abuse of the use of these materials and that it is not possible to extract penicillin and use it for purposes other than the very restricted purposes envisaged here. The Minister has already given assurances on the second point—that there will be no ill-effect from eating pig food in one form or another, and that we shall not be endangering ourselves in the years to come. We have had those assurances from the Minister, which I am sure we are prepared to accept. Some of my hon. Friends will probably wish to raise matters of detail as well as some general matters, but on behalf of my hon. Friends I think I can say that we wish the Bill well, and a rapid passage through the House.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Linstead: I should like to commend the Bill to the House and to make one or two very brief comments upon it. The provision in Clause 1 to extend the power of the Minister is one which it is becoming more and more clear that the Minister of Health must possess as the applications of modern medicine become more and more apparent. We have a number of statutes which control the distribution of poisonous substances, but there is nothing on the Statute Book which enables control to be exercised over articles which are not poisonous in the criminal sense of the term but which are, in the words of the Clause,
  "capable of causing danger to health."
  It is very proper therefore that the Minister should take this power.
  When we come to the exemption provisions of Clause 2, we are entering into unknown country. We are still groping as to the effects of feeding penicillin to pigs and other livestock. We have not been doing it long enough, I feel, to know what effect it will produce in the long-term on herds and on meat and, indeed, on human beings who eat the meat. I
  1332
  was very glad to hear the Minister say that he proposes to keep in touch with the manufacturers as he develops his regulations, because the manufacturers are concerned about this question of the distribution of penicillin; not merely from the point of view of their manufacturing interests, but they are also concerned that there shall not be developed, as a result of these exemptions, what might be called a black market in penicillin.
  This drug has acquired a reputation as an efficient and magic cure-all, and, particularly in the veterinary field, there is a real danger that, if farmers can get hold of penicillin without having to pay the fee of a veterinary surgeon, they will be tempted to use it carelessly and in a widespread way on their flocks. The whole essence of the Penicillin Act is to prevent that happening, since what we do not want to do here is to open a door which will place large supplies of penicillin at the uncontrolled disposal of the farming community. I am sure that the manufacturers will want to emphasise that point to the Minister, as they have emphasised to me, as something that needs to be taken care of.
  The Minister also said that he would take steps to ensure that material intended for use as feedingstuffs should be distributed in a safe form, and I hope that, when either he or his Parliamentary Secretary replies, we shall be given an indication at what point in the chain of distribution that barrier is going to be erected. At the moment, there is only the sense of duty on the part of the four or five manufacturers of penicillin which prevents penicillin getting into what I might call the black market. Once we get the manufacturers of agricultural feedingstuffs for a large rural community in possession of penicillin for the purpose of putting it into feedingstuffs, we shall not have the same responsible group of firms who will be taking the greatest care to see that it does not get into improper hands. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate how he contemplates carrying into effect the undertaking which he has just given to the House. It may be, of course, that he can do it by means of a condition attached to the Therapeutic Substances Act licence which all manufacturers have.

  1333
  I am sure that it is wise that large quantities of this material shall not be let loose into the agricultural community unless it is mixed with some other substance which does not affect its potency as a feedingstuff, but which does make it impossible for it to be used improperly for medicinal purposes. With those brief comments, I support the proposals in the Bill.
  7.54 p.m.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: I think that this is a very important Bill in respect of both its two main Clauses. We entirely agree that, so far as the first Clause is concerned, the Minister has every right to ask that the community should entrust his Department with the care of public health in the way which the right hon. Gentleman suggested in his remarks; for it is certainly true that we have not seen the end of these new substances which will come on to the market, and which may be very potent to stave off disease, or to cure it and save life, and which are very dangerous if wrongly applied by people who do not understand either the quantities or the proper mode of application.
  In addition, in the Bill the Minister gives Parliament the safeguard of being able to object to the Statutory Instrument which he must bring forward, and I think we are, therefore, doubly safeguarded. In the first place, we would have said, "You must take this power," and, in the second, it is quite right that we should have the right to have a look at the matter again.
  The second Clause is very interesting and exciting, for we are really treading into strange country. The Minister spoke only of pigs and pig-meal, but he should have said that the pigmeal, to be ideal, must not be intermittently fed but should be of the "creeping feed" type. The right hon. Gentleman forgot table poultry, which really come in as well, for we are satisfied that the same technique can be used for the more rapid putting-on of weight or fattening of table poultry.
  This is not, indeed, what the late H. G. Wells would have termed the "food of the gods," for, although the animal grows more quickly there is no evidence that it will grow bigger than the normal
  1334
  size, and it is at a certain stage of the development of the animal that the best results are obtained. There is a tendency in the later stages of the animal's life for the benefits to be less apparent and the increase in weight from the utilisation of the food taken to be not so apparent as in the earlier stages. I hope that some of our scientists will later do something even better than this. I do not know if we shall be using penicillin because we do not make enough aureomycin ourselves, but the figures for aureomycin are better than those for penicillin, and there is some evidence that the former will be very useful when we have it in sufficient quantities.
  Something that the scientists might do to help the country is to find some method whereby all these humble animals like fowls and pigs could be induced to put on weight in the same way as hibernating animals, which can go to sleep and do nothing at all but yet grow fat on it. I have never known any hon. Member of this House putting on weight while resting. I am speaking of the hibernating animals, and I have in mind such creatures as the squirrel. We know that they can change their metabolism because they give off less carbon dioxide while asleep and retain some of the carbon atoms. These they synthesise with water vapour and thus form glycogen, which they store in their livers or convert to fat. If we can find a method by which we can achieve this, we shall have solved our food problems, but a solution does not seem likely at the moment.
  Both in the debate today and in another place much point has been made in reference to penicillin and resistant organisms as well as allergy in man. There cannot be any danger of allergy in man if it is true that the animal excretes any penicillin out of its system through its kidneys. All that is needed is that the penicillin be not given in the last two days before slaughter.
  As to the question of resistant bacteria, I am not so sure that the reports that have been made by the Medical Research Council are 100 per cent. correct, but one has in mind something like this. The mode by means of which these animals are able to utilise their food better and put on weight assumes that bacteria are active in the alimentary system.

  1335
  Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that one of the factors which gives us this beneficent result is that bacteria are enabled to synthesise Vitamin B.12, which is a growth factor. Or let us suppose that the bacteria which normally destroy the growth factor are themselves destroyed by penicillin. For example, some growth factors we know are amino acids like lysine or tryptophane, or Vitamin B.12. I hope I am making myself clear to hon. Members; it is not a difficult matter in reality. The alimentary system is full of bacteria of many types. Some of them synthesise and manufacture the growth factor. Others, on the other hand, have a putrifying and destructive influence and would destroy Vitamin B.12 or the aminq acids which we get from proteins. Thirdly, there are others which produce toxins and make the animal ill.
  It may be that penicillin works in one of three ways; either by curing the animal of an endemic illness and allowing it, therefore, to grow faster, which is, of course, one of the thoughts in the minds of those who know more about it than I do—the Agricultural Research Council; or it may be that the growth factor is in part synthesised through fermentation by other forms of bacteria; or, thirdly, that organisms inimical to the presence of growth factors are directly destroyed by the antibiotic. I am not sure that it would be fair to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer these technical details. I will acquit her if she does not.
  But aureomycin in sufficient quantities will give a sterile gut. That means that, sooner or later, if pigs are fed and rendered clean in this way new types of bacteria may evolve and thrive which are resistant to the penicillin which the pigs are eating regularly in their food. That point is clear. Should that arise, it would mean, first, that we should lose the benefits that we are now about to gain because in such cases the pigs would tend to cease to be able to make use of penicillin for improving their growth and the better utilisation of the food we give them. The other factor is that if there be migration of the bacteria to humans we may find ourselves in trouble. I do not want to frighten anybody, but these are the matters we must look at. As the
  1336
  hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) said, we are treading on strange and new territory.
  As I said earlier, we may also expect a better return of table poultry as a result of this Bill. It is estimated that the food saved in bringing the pig to the bacoa stage by using penicillin amounts to 46 lb. and the amount saved by using aureomycin to 68 lb. I can remember it more easily in this way, that, by and large, one can save 5 per cent. of the food needed to bring the animal to, say, 180 lb. weight. What is still more interesting and surprising, one can save 10 per cent. of the time.
  In the case of aureomycin, 25 days can be saved, whereas in the case of penicillin only 12 days are saved. The cost of doing this is very little because antibiotics cost roughly, I believe, about 1s. 3d. a gram, and, as we have heard, only two or three parts in a million of antibiotic is required in the food. This means only a few grams per ton. I see no danger of a black market in penicillin if it is properly prepared before being handed over to the farmer, either as a mixture from which he will be unable to extract the penicillin, or mixed with the meal in cwt. bags, as suggested in another place. In any case, penicillin is very cheap and anyone who needs it can get it from his doctor. Its cost retail is about 2s. or 2s. 3d. for 100, 000 or 250, 000 units. Therefore, I cannot see that there is any purpose in thinking in terms of its irregular use.
  With regard to the care that should be taken, we should remember an experiment made in America which gave the lead in so much of this work nowadays. They found that another chemical substance, an oestrogen, a type of ovarian hormone, could be used to fatten table poultry. It produced birds with large breasts which were very succulent, and they made a much greater delicacy on the table. What they did not know, of course, when they offered those birds to people in expensive restaurants, and no doubt to Senators and Congressmen, was that the oestrogen remains in the breast of the chicken and causes, in men only, I am glad to say, sterility which is a very serious matter. [Laughter.] We may well laugh at it, but I think we are lucky that that particular experiment was not made in this country.

  1337
  I remember hearing in another place a discussion about a substance which is added to our food, agene. I heard a very experienced noble Lord say that unofficial strikes were due to agene in flour. I have never been guilty of that one. Although I have blamed agene for many other things, I would never have gone so far as that. Here we may well wonder whether it is possible that some Senator, possibly Senator McCarthy, fed too well on these delicious morsals, and whether his operations and type of conduct are due to the fact that, sterile in one direction, he has found it necessary to embark in strange fields of activity which we find so reprehensible. However, I think I had better leave Senator McCarthy and return, with relief, to the pigs.
  I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly because it is one of the examples of science offering help to the community as a whole. I sincerely hope that we shall find richer and more varied ways by means of which food can be increased, not only for our own people, but, through our experiments, for people all over the world. It is certain that if we can conquer the problem of world hunger or of an insufficiency of food we shall have done something that will allow us, when time has gone by, to say that we have some reason to be proud of ourselves.
  8.8 p.m.
  Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for his lecture on penicillin and other drugs, and also for warning us what not to eat if we go to America.
  I rise as a member of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to say a few words on this Bill, and although the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) is not here, I think that what I say tonight will be agreed to by him. He is also a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We have been concerned with the Bill because of its effect on animals. I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will agree that some of these antibiotics have bad effects on animals, but not on human beings. He referred to the feeding of pigs and table poultry. That is all right. Human beings and those sort of animals both derive
  1338
  benefit from penicillin, but penicillin would soon ruin the health of ruminants because of its effect on their stomachs.
  Why we are so concerned from a veterinary point of view is because regulations may be made under Clauses 1 and 2 to enable the freer distribution, not only of penicillin, but of some new drugs which have not yet been discovered— I am looking to the future—and which may have bad effects on animals although they may be beneficial to human beings. That is why we welcomed the statement in the other place, giving the assurance that both under Clause 1 and Clause 2 the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would be consulted before regulations were made. The speech of my right hon. Friend this evening said only that the College would be consulted in certain cases in connection with Clause 2. We are concerned with the effect on animals in this uncharted field.
  There are other effects on animals and we do not know very much about them. New drugs are invented by the scientists and tried out on guinea pigs, human or otherwise. They gradually extend to the human being, and then some enthusiast, usually in America, tries them out on animals and they are a great success in the beginning. Even in the case of penicillin I do not think that anybody really knows yet whether pigs for breeding, fed on penicillin, will, in the end, become resistant to penicillin or lose fertility.
  In the case of the new drug auromycetin, and new drugs still undiscovered, there is still further danger. We ought to issue a grave warning to farmers in England and in Scotland that if they use such a drug for fattening pigs for slaughter it will be all right but if they use it for rearing pigs for breeding there is the danger, to which there is no answer yet in veterinary or medical science, of loss of fertility which may have serious consequences for farmers breeding pedigree pigs.
  Dr. Stross: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for giving way. I only want to say that there is evidence among fowls that no benefit from these drugs is gained by perfectly healthy poultry. From that one must deduce that the best use of antibiotics is to cure them

  1339
  of endemic disease and that there cannot be any harm done, as far as we know.
  Captain Duncan: The hon. Gentleman says there is some evidence.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Conflict of medical evidence.
  Captain Duncan: But I do not think the hon. Gentleman would go so far as to advise the farmers of Britain to feed penicillin to breeding pigs, because the effect of it upon fertility is not certain.
  The same applies to chickens. It is all right to fatten table poultry, although we do not know yet whether the effect of penicillin through the generations even on table poultry will be bad. When it comes to breeding poultry, as in breeding pigs, we do not know enough of the effect on fertility and on the quality of the breed. In this country the quality of our cattle and livestock is so important that warnings should go out to farmers from the Departments in England and Scotland to be very careful how they use these substances on cattle and sheep.
  I should like to be reassured by my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, that they will be consulted on these matters. It is of vital importance to the future of our livestock industry, using that term in its widest sense, that we should have every possible safeguard for our livestock. If the Minister would give that assurance, I assure him, in return, that he will have every co-operation from the veterinary staff and service in this country.
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Law: Before making the very few observations I have to offer in support of the Bill I must disclose my personal interest in the subject matter of Clause 2. I am a director of a firm which both manufactures and distributes antibiotics. I do not think that anyone could dissent from the warnings given to the House by my two hon. Friends on this side. There would, clearly, be considerable danger from broadcasting these new substances throughout the agricultural community.
  I entirely accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) in that respect. When the Minister of Health said that, like the
  1340
  Prime Minister, he favoured a "pigmeal solution" to these problems, I hope he was not speaking literally. To safeguard distribution in agriculture I do not think it would be necessary to insist, for example, that the only safe way was to incorporate them in a prepared animal feedingstuff. I hope that the Government will consult not only the manufacturers of feedingstuffs but those who are concerned with the distribution of antibiotics.
  8.18 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I am glad to hear such a general welcome to this little Bill. In the short debate we have had on the subject a number of interesting points have been made, largely directed towards Clause 2 and the possible effects that may follow in the agricultural world.
  On the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) I can give him the assurance he sought, which is to the effect that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and that there will be consultations with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on many matters concerning both Clauses 1 and 2 where agricultural and veterinary considerations are concerned. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that consultations are at present in progress, as the regulations are in course of drafting, and I am sure that we shall benefit from the advice we receive.
  To turn to the general issue, this Bill has a very great interest for the farming world. Farmers have seen these antibiotics fed in America in the last few years and have seen the very valuable results obtained in a limited field there. They are naturally anxious to see the same facilities extended here and, therefore, this Measure will be welcomed when they are able to use penicillin in feeding-stuffs here. The use is so great in the United States that it is brought into something like a quarter of the compounded feedingstuffs in that country.
  The figures given by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) with regard to the commercial value of the inclusion of antibiotics in feedingstuffs

  1341
  are, broadly speaking, confirmed by work done by our own Agricultural Research Council, preparatory to the introduction of this Bill. The Council found a figure of approximately 8 per cent. for speedier growth and approximately 5 per cent. for better food conversion. This roughly corresponds with what the hon. Member said. I think the best view is that aureomycin probably gives a slightly better rate for feeding up pigs and penicillin for poultry.
  Dr. Stross: Would it be fair to say that there is a specific benefit of a financial nature to the pig breeder? Is it not true that, as a result of the saving of feedingstuffs, he gains about 10s. 6d. in the penicillin-fed pigs and 18s. in the aureomycin-fed pigs?
  Mr. Nugent: It would be most unwise for me to try to confirm specific figures, but in general terms there is a cash advantage to the pig fattener or the table poultry fattener in using these substances. I must not stray far into the fascinating field opened by the hon. Member as to exactly what is the effect of an antibiotic. I suppose he would agree that nobody knows exactly. I, too, have read the American reports and the best view seems to be that the effect is to destroy in the gut some of the growth-depressing bacteria and thus enable the pig or chicken to achieve an optimum rate of growth and to catch up with those which have the greatest resistance.
  As the hon. Member rightly said, the antibiotic is not a food of the gods or a magic wand. It only removes some natural obstacle holding the animal back. If we look at it in that light, which is unconfirmed but is probably the explanation, it is unquestionable that it would be unsound to use these substances for feeding breeding stock, because in the selection of breeding stocks it is vital to choose pigs or birds which have the maximum vigour and resistance to growth depressants. If one fed breeding stock on these substances one would not have the natural selection brought about by environment to show which was the best breeding stock.
  I should like to emphasise the words of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South that in their own interests fanners should treat the use of this stuff for breeding stock with the
  1342
  greatest caution and should limit its use to pigs for fattening and to table poultry. The rather spectacular results in America may be due to the fact that their compounds contain a greater proportion of vegetable proteins than ours do; where there is a greater proportion of animal protein the reaction is not so great.
  As to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), about the possible danger of a black market in penicillin after extraction from feedingstuff compounds, the law will remain the same in respect of the control of sale. Under the Regulations it will be illegal to sell feedingstuffs containing antibiotics other than for the fattening of pigs and poultry. That controls the antibiotic up to the point of the retail sale to the farmer. As to the possibility of the farmer proceeding to extract, I think that the practical difficulties would make it impossible. Half an ounce in a ton of compound feedingstuffs would clearly be impossible to extract, and where the antibiotic is sold as a pure feedingstuff supplement it will be diluted, and diluted again by the farmer to one in 100 or something of that order.
  Mr. Linstead: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we would not see the farmer attempting extraction from feedingstuffs, or, indeed, from concentrates. I was concerned about at what stage between manufacturer and farmer it was proposed to impose some sort of control. It seems to me that at the moment it is proposed to have nothing between the manufacturer and the farmer, and that it will be possible for the farmer even, let alone the feedingstuffs manufacturer, to buy penicillin to make feedingstuffs for himself. At what stage will the barrier be put up?
  Mr. Nugent: The barrier is at the point of sale by the feedingstuffs merchant. The manufacturer will supply the feedingstuffs to the merchant, who will have the statutory obligation to sell it only for these purposes. So the position at the moment is exactly the same as it is in the pharmaceutical trade. My right hon. Friend has stressed that the danger to humans is considered to be nonexistent, and on that point he has the best evidence of the medical profession, so I hope that hon. Members will be

  1343
  reassured that the dangers of leakage will not be serious.
  I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law) that there will be consultation with the manufacturers. Consultations are going on now, when we are engaged in drawing up the regulations. The manufacturers play a most valuable part in helping to develop the use of this substance and we should all be very glad to recognise that fact.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the hon. Gentleman give any general indication when we are likely to have the regulations before the House?
  Mr. Nugent: As far as I know the drafting of the regulations will be completed concurrently with the passage of the Bill through the House, and it should be possible to lay them within a fairly short time after the placing of the Bill on the Statute Book. From the farming point of view we are most anxious to see that that should be done. The farmers are most anxious to start to use this substance. I hope that the House will now be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Standing Committee.

  ANGLO-SPANISH RELATIONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Kaberry.]
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I understood that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) intended to raise the question of Anglo-Spanish relations on the Adjournment. He does not appear to be here at the moment. I had been hoping to follow him after he spoke, but perhaps I may be allowed to open the Adjournment debate. No doubt the hon. Member will appear during my speech. It seems very discourteous to the Under-Secretary who is here to reply and who, I understand, has forgone a dinner engagement to do so, that the hon. Member is absent from the Chamber.
  I think this is rather an unfortunate time to raise this matter of Anglo-Spanish
  1344
  relations. After the two days' debate on foreign affairs which we have had yesterday and the day before, in which there was shown to be a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House. it seems a pity that this bone of contention should be thrown into the Chamber. At the present time there appears to be a somewhat better atmosphere, of which we are trying to take advantage with a view to relieving tension, and if we made any approaches to Spain at this stage and appeared to be condoning the Fascist regime which exists there it would certainly make it more difficult to reach any agreement—if agreement is on the cards—with Russia and her allies.
  It is also unfortunate that at this stage the United States should have reached an agreement with General Franco about the use of military bases and airfields in Spain in return for providing a certain amount of economic aid. It is unfortunate, if N.A.T.O. means what it says and if the Preamble to the Treaty— which supports the maintenance of democracy in the free world—is sincere, that one of its chief partners should make an alliance with a country whose regime is the complete negation of democracy. It undermines the purpose and the effect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
  It would be most unfortunate if anything were done now to put our relations with Franco on to a different basis from that which now exists. Admittedly, the relations are not satisfactory in many directions, but that is due to Spain herself and not through any fault of ours. In Spain there is, as it were, a political hangover from the civil war. The present regime was founded on Fascism. There was a civil war, in which those who were supporting democracy were striving to maintain it. Unfortunately, the Fascist element, backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, won the day and Franco, who was thereby installed in power by force, has remained in power and has continued to maintain a police State, not allowing any vestige of freedom to remain in Spain.
  One can substantiate these accusations against Spain today by instances of what is occurring there. Only a few weeks ago I had occasion to draw attention to certain arrests that had taken place. There

  1345
  were some in Madrid and a larger number in Barcelona. Persons were arrested for no other reason than that they were organising opposition to the existing regime. They were not engaged in any terrorist activities, or in anything that would be considered illegal in this country; but because they were opposed to the Franco regime they were arrested. One of those arrested, Senor Centano, was imprisoned in Madrid, and within a very short time he is alleged to have com-mited suicide. The information we had was that he was driven to his death by the ill-treatment and brutality he received in prison.
  What is important to bear in mind is that there are at present in the prisons in Barcelona—if that is where they are imprisoned: there is no definite information as to where they are in prison—a number of persons arrested who have not been brought to trial. There they are under arrest in prison, and they have not been given any trial whatsoever. They have been held so for many weeks, and political trials are, of course, a feature of the Fascist Franco régime.
  What we can do is to make it known to the Spanish authorities that we strongly oppose the system which is being followed there of arresting people simply because they exercise what are the normal freedoms, the normal human rights—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Order. What occurs in Spain among the Spaniards is not a matter within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and I do not see what this has to do with Her Majesty's Government's relations with Spain.
  Mr. Davies: I did not realise that it was out of order to criticise a foreign Government's policy on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: So far as our relations with that foreign country are concerned, it is not; but otherwise it is.
  Mr. Davies: What I am suggesting, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that our Government should make a protest to the Spanish Government against the holding of those people in prison and their not bringing them to trial. I do suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that action should be taken.
  1346
  The second reason why I think that we cannot accept Spain as a member of the comity of nations of the free world at present is that there is still considerable religious persecution in Spain. There were Questions in this House over a year ago concerning an attack on the British owned Protestant church in Seville. Representations were made to the Spanish Government. Perhaps the Undersecretary of State can tell us tonight what has been the response of the Spanish Government to those representations, whether any compensation has been received, and whether steps have been taken to prevent further outrages of that nature.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman saw yesterday an article in the "News Chronicle" headed, "Spain Plays Cat and Mouse with her Protestants." It was an objective, responsible article, in my view, which drew attention to the continued persecution of the 28, 000 Protestants in Spain. It said that the clergy were prevented from preaching and from holding Protestant services. That, I think, is something against which we should lodge our objections as occasion demands.
  Then there are small matters which indicate that Spain is not anxious to establish friendly relations with us for one reason or another. There has been a most ridiculous business over the Coronation. No reference is allowed in the Spanish Press to the fact that the Coronation is shortly to take place in this country. I understand that British European Airways have had almost surreptitiously to advertise the fact that they are running flights to Britain so that people may attend the Coronation.
  No advertisements are permitted and no reference is permitted to the Coronation. Why, I do not know. It is a matter for the Spaniards themselves, but it does seem to me to be a ridiculous position, when they want to establish friendly relations with us, that on this great occasion in this country they should forbid their people to hear about the ceremony which is to take place.
  When I raised on the Adjournment some months ago the question of lifting the ban on arms to Spain, the Undersecretary, who replied, justified the fact that we were allowing Spain to purchase arms from this country on economic grounds. I subsequently put some questions to him concerning the quantity of

  1347
  arms which had been sent and on 1st April, 1953, he informed my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) that military material to the value of £2, 500 had been sent to Spain from this country, that approximately £300, 000 of "common-use items" had been sent, and licences had been approved for the export of a quantity of wireless receivers and transmitters for aircraft and for 15 items of marine radar at a value of approximately £40, 000.
  It seems to me most unfortunate that we should give the impression of condoning the Franco regime by lifting this ban on arms for economic gain when all we obtain is the petty sum of a few hundred thousand pounds. It is ridiculous that we should sacrifice our political principles and our moral principles to have some economic gain, and what makes it even more ridiculous is that the economic gain turns out to be almost negligible. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us tonight whether there has been an increase in the sales of war material to Spain, where he still stands on his justification for sacrificing principles for economic gain and whether that economic gain is worth while. I very much doubt it.
  I think that the moral loss that has resulted in lifting the ban on arms to Spain is far greater than can be recouped through sales to that country. After all, what is Spain doing to help us with our trade? There were Questions put to the President of the Board of Trade, again by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole, and, in reply to those questions, it emerged that Spain, although she has a very large sterling balance at present was not using that sterling balance to purchase goods from this country; in fact, she was putting obstacles in the way of trading with this country.
  The President of the Board of Trade stated, in reply to a supplementary question:
  "I am satisfied that the Spanish authorities could issue licences more freely than at present…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 831.]
  That was the object, he said, of a meeting which was to take place. He made that statement on 26th March, 1953. I should like to know whether that meeting has taken place with the Spanish authorities and whether there has been any result
  1348
  from it. Is Spain now issuing licences more freely for the purchase of goods from this country? So far as I understand, the position is that we are buying considerable quantities of goods and materials from Spain and the adverse balance is stall considerable. Spain is doing nothing whatsoever to assist us to close the gap. She uses the sterling which she obtains from the sales of goods to us to purchase goods from our competitors.
  When a country's trading relations with us are on that basis, is it reasonable for us to make friendly approaches to her and to bring our relations on to a more friendly basis? The reason why our relations with Spain are bad is not only because of the basis on which the Franco regime exists, the way in which it was created and the manner in which the administration is carried on, but because Spain herself is putting difficulties in our way.
  I do not see any reason why we should woo Franco at the present time. It is most unfortunate, from the point of view of the people inside Spain, if we give the impression that we are assisting Franco to maintain his régime, that we support what he is doing and that we want to bring him into the comity of free nations in Europe and the Atlantic Community. It is most unfortunate for those inside Spain, the vast majority of whom, I am certain, are opposed to the Franco regime but are helpless and are unable to get rid of the régime because of the political persecutions which exist. If we give this wrong impression, that we are supporting Franco at this time, it will discourage the Spanish people and drive them finally into the Communist camp.
  The argument put up in the House from time to time—the hon. Member for Eastbourne is most discourteous to the House in not being here to take his Adjournment debate—is that we should support Spain and bring her into our alliance in order to keep Communism outside Spain. The surest way of driving Spain to Communism is to maintain Franco and to discourage the democratic forces in Spain, or those in Spain who still believe in democracy, by supporting his regime. They will then, in despair, be driven into the Communist camp.
  Spain has become of great significance to the democratic world. It was in Spain that the first real fight against Fascism

  1349
  occurred, a fight which, unfortunately, failed tragically, but the memory of democracy's first fight against Fascism lingers on and we want to keep the memory alive. We do not want, for the sake of economic gain, in the false belief that we are strengthening ourselves against Communism, to wipe out the memory of what occurred in Spain, to sacrifice our principles and now to condone what we have previously condemned. If the Western world is sincere in its determination to preserve democracy it cannot accept into the membership of free nations a country in which all the human rights which are man's inheritance are denied.
  8.49 p.m.
  Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: We have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). Let me say at the outset that my views about Franco are similar to his own, but not regarding the 30 million proud people who live in Spain. The hon. Gentleman had the benefit of being the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Labour Government and is well versed in all the difficulties about this matter. If he thinks that by making the speech which he has done tonight the Spaniards will overthrow Franco and issue some more licences for trading, he is making a very great mistake. The one way to keep Franco there is to abuse him in the House of Commons.
  The hon. Member has talked about a "political hangover." How long can one go on having a political hangover? There are in Spain 30 million people, mostly peasants—a great many of them living on a very narrow margin, with just sufficient to eat, suffering from frequent great droughts—and the upper class, which has great wealth, is a small percentage. I should have thought that the purpose of our discussion was to see what we could do for Spain to improve the standard of living of the people there in exactly the same way as we are doing under the Colombo Plan and in Yugoslavia. Franco is very insignificant compared with 30 million men, women and children. Let us be a bit big about these things.
  I have no time for Franco whatsoever. I have been to Spain once, two or three years ago. I questioned many people about Franco. They told me, "We do not think much of him, but we could
  1350
  do much worse." That was the consensus of opinion I got after speaking to all types of families. We have got to try, to the best of our ability, to improve their economic position, and the one way we can do it is to trade with them as a nation. We shall not do much by abusing the Spaniards, or the Russians or anyone else if we want to trade with them.
  The hon. Member talked about armaments going to Spain. The figures that he quoted show that the amount is negligible. As I see it, the equipment that is being sent to Spain is not of very high quality and certainly is not very modern. They are no advertisement for British engineering. If we are going to send armaments to Spain let us send good ones. When I was there two years ago the American air mission, over 100 strong, was concentrating on propaganda for American aircraft. I spoke to our air attache, who was a young wing commander. I asked him how he got around Madrid, and whether he had a motorcar. He said he had not, that he went on a bicycle. That is not the way to run our affairs.
  My own firm, Handley Page, of which I have the honour to be Deputy-Chairman, last year had a visit from a Spaniard who wanted to buy 25 Canberra aircraft, an order for which had not been allowed by the Ministry of Supply. The Canberras are not the latest aircraft. In fact, they are one of the oldest types of jets, but the Spaniard would be very glad to have taken them, and British workers would have been employed on their construction.
  If we do not take advantage of this market the Americans are going to do so. Then we will only try to do so when the Americans are in. I saw this happen 15 to 20 years ago in China. The Americans got in first. I am not suggesting that we should bolster up Spain and build up for that country a great air force and a great army. But we have to trade with other nations to live, and if we do not supply Spain with military aircraft we shall not supply her with civil aircraft, which in our case can improve our economy and build up our trading position.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, East in what he said about Spain not being accepted in the comity of nations because of what Franco did 15 to 17 years ago.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: And is doing still.
  Air Commodore Harvey: He is not doing it to the same degree. If we could have better relations with Spain Franco might mend his ways, which would be something. We will not do it by abusing him. Regarding the armaments which went to Spain, they are nothing compared with the 52 Rolls Royce Nene jet engines, which the previous Government handed over to Stalin, and these have been used to shoot down American and British pilots in Korea. It does not make sense to me at all.
  I would ask my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State to pass on to his right hon. Friend the view that we should do our best to improve our trading relations with Spain. We shall not get rid of Franco by abusing him; but if we develop our trade he might respond. We could go slowly, but let us get the trading relations going and so help 30 million people who desperately need help.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. J. McGovem: When this debate was being initiated I understood that it was with the intention of discussing the relationship of this country to Spain. I have taken time and energy to discover a great deal both about Spain and about the attitude of the Spanish people towards the Franco régime.
  I have always been opposed to every form of dictatorship of any kind on principle. I do not choose my dictator. I am opposed to all dictators. I cannot follow the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) when he talks about Franco as a dictator, and then is prepared to advocate support for Tito's opposition to Stalin. We are either going all out against every dictator or we are selecting one dictator and condemning another.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I appreciate my hon. Friend giving way. Does he not appreciate that there has been a great difference between the developments in Spain and Yugoslovia since the war; that whereas Yugoslavia is advancing towards democracy and is liberalising the régime, in Spain there has been no such advance?
  Dr. H. Morgan: Where is the evidence for that?
  Mr. McGovern: I could question a great deal of that, but I want to confine myself to the question of why Franco was thrown up in Spain.
  I always desire a cordial relationship with every country. I believe that this country should try to evolve peace on the basis of a friendly relationship wherever there is evidence that another country is prepared to go 50 per cent. of the way towards that friendship. Although I have the utmost hostility towards all dictators, I believe that even though we have not got a friendly relationship with the Soviet, it would be madness at this stage, when the world is shaken to its very foundations, if we did not go that 50 per cent. of the way on their coming part of the way.
  I was twice in Spain during the Spanish civil war. I aroused tremendous hostility even in my own area, amongst people of my own religion, because I opposed the Franco regime and supported the Republican Government in Spain during that civil war. Yet there was a time when Franco was thrown on top because of the intervention of Russia. I remember going to Spain with Professor Challaye of Paris University to investigate the cruelties and the massacres of Socialists, Liberals and Nationalists by the Communists on the orders of the Russian secret police.
  I met the Russian secret police. Professor Challaye and I went to their very den with an interpreter because we found that we could not get into the prisons of Spain without their sanction. We met two young men and two young women in charge of the headquarters when we tried to get into the prisons at that time. Even though we had permits from the Ministers of the State, they got us nowhere, because we needed the sanction of the Russian secret police, who were on top at that time. The whole civil war changed and, because of that, masses of the population who were previously backing the Government went willingly behind Franco because they felt that there was an even more deadly enemy than the one they were fighting internally at that time.
  I remember discovering another thing which might be amazing to hon. Members. I went to Spain four or five years ago to find out how things were, and if

  1353
  we could get a change. I remember meeting an American consul and a French consul and one or two British officials. We had a dinner at a house in Barcelona and discussed the position. During the discussion I raised the question of the ending of the civil war in Spain that bolstered up Franco at that time.
  A former consul, not of this country, gave me the most amazing evidence which confirms a thing I have often suspected but never proved. He said that at one stage in the civil war there came the discussions between Hitler and Stalin which ended in the Hitler-Stalin pact. Hitler, through the intervention of Mussolini, said to Stalin, "Prove to us that you have good intentions. The Mediterranean is important to us if war should take place. Pull your secret police out of Spain and stop giving assistance. Give no encouragement to the Communists, and then we can discuss terms." It was on that basis—that Stalin should order his supporters to come out of Spain and tell the Communists that the war was over, that he, having used them, could throw them aside—that the Hitler-Stalin pact was made the basis of the sell-out in Spain.
  Mr. W. Griffiths: I quite agree that there were some Russians assisting the Republican forces in Spain. I understand my hon. Friend to be arguing that that was one of the reasons which threw the Spanish people behind Franco, but my hon. Friend will remember—because he was taking part in the campaign of this country at the time—that there were much greater numbers of Italian troops and German troops and aircraft taking part on the other side.
  Mr. McGovern: I never attempt to dispute that because it began, as I say, as a real struggle of the democracy of the Spanish people against Franco, and the civil war declared by the military caste. But the conflict so changed its character that at a certain stage I, as a Socialist, had to choose between Franco and Stalin. It made my position impossible, and I had to withdraw, believing that the victory of either side would be no gain to the general working class or democratic forces of the world. I know all the lies told about Guernica
  1354
  and so forth. It was the trial of forces that went into the war.
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing: What does my hon. Friend mean by saying that all this about Guernica was lies? I was there. What does he mean?
  Mr. McGovern: I say that the propaganda put out by the Catholic Press about Guernica having been carried out by internal forces was propaganda lies. Professor Challaye and I were nearly done to death. We were pursued everywhere because we came to investigate the massacre of Socialists and others by Communist forces in Spain.
  Five years ago I went back with my wife. The Spanish Consul in London offered to have a car meet me at the frontier and to put me up at an hotel. I said, "No. When I go to a foreign country I do not go as the guest of that country. I want to investigate and be free to say what I have found when I come out of that country." This is what I found by close investigation five years ago. I met the right-hand man of Don Juan, the Pretender to the Throne, and I met Conservatives and Catalonian nationalists. Every person in the country of any standing whom I met was prepared to assist in the creation of a provisional government for a period of 10 years. That Government would combine all the forces in Spain except the Communists. They would not be included in any provisional Government set up in Spain because so much had been learned about them.
  As I said to the Spanish Consuls in this country, when I returned in company with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick), I found out that tremendous things were happening there. For example there is a man in Barcelona called Mr. Pola, who is described as the friend of everybody. He never does anything wrong. He is the head of the Franco secret political police. If a bill is posted up anywhere in Spain, for example, if the Catalonian nationalists demand a form of Home Rule—incidentally, under the regime there my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would be incarcerated as a nationalist in spite of his Socialism—all the people who have a political record are roped in.

  1355
  Supposing, for example, I had been brought in. Mr. Pola would meet me and say, "Well, McGovern, we have brought you in. Bills have been stuck up and we want the utmost information about who did it. You must know something. There are a chair, sheets of paper, a pencil and a pen, a packet of cigarettes and some matches. Coffee will be brought in. I will come back in an hour. You write down anything you can think of that will help us."
  He comes back in an hour and finds that I have written down nothing. I may know nothing or I am unwilling to write down anything. He says to me, "You cannot help us? There is nothing you know? I wish you could help us. You will not get away tonight. You will get away tomorrow. But do not be worried. Nothing will happen to you." These are indisputable facts. I obtained them from people I met at the British Embassy who had been through it all and who were crippled for life as a result.
  These people have been taken downstairs, stripped and put in a chair with steel bars round it which were electrified. They had been pushed from side to side and rubber truncheons used on them to try to extract information from them. Rifle butts had been dropped on their insteps. In some cases the bones in men's feet were broken. They might have been rendered unconscious without any information having been obtained from them. The next day they would be brought up and put back in the chair, and Mr. Pola would come in and call out, "Who did this?" He would then begin to curse and swear and put on a show that he had warned people not to do this sort of thing. Then after Mr. Pola had gone into another room and done a bit of shouting, the victim would be taken away by car and placed in a home, and would probably be a wreck for life. That is the result of the Franco régime.
  I asked for permission to go to the Carcel Modella Prison. I had an interpreter with me. I found that 750 people were at a concert. It was a public holiday and a holy day. The 750 people included fathers, brothers, sons and daughters of the prisoners. I found a most amazing attitude among those
  1356
  people. They rose from their seats and cheered the prison governor and the civil governor of the town. The whole thing was unnatural to me. I have never heard prisoners cheering their warders—even in Glasgow.
  I was for two hours on the platform at the concert. Afterwards toys, made by the prisoners, and fruit and sweets were given out to the children present. I asked the governor of the prison how many prisoners he had there, and he said he had 2, 250. I replied, "I have seen 750. I have been in the prison before, during the civil war, when the Communists held 600 anti-Fascists caught in Madrid, who had been criticising the Communist rule. The other prisoners are on a balcony behind an iron and steel grill. Could I see them?"
  The governor was becoming uncomfortable. I told him there must be 1, 500 I had not seen, and he replied, "You would be near dangerous men who were taken with bombs and machine guns in their possession." I said, "Surely they have no machine guns or bombs in their possession now. I am prepared to take the risk if you will allow me to see them." I also raised the matter with the civil governor, but I could not get in to these men. I decided that the whole thing was such a fake that I would withdraw from the prison. I left and made a statement at the end.
  I saw a suit of clothes, belonging to a young man who had been beaten up, taken out of a safe in the Embassy in Barcelona by the British Press officer. It was a light suit soaked in the blood of this young man, who had died after he had been beaten up. These are things which I know have taken place in Spain.
  I was even prepared to advocate, with others in Spain, that in order to get a change the Spanish people should offer a very substantial pension to Franco and that a provisional government under a monarchy should be set up for at least 10 years, at the end of which time a plebiscite would be taken so that the people could say what they wanted. My investigations in Spain lead me to believe that they are a most difficult people to deal with, probably because they have never been brought up under a democratic system. I could give many examples.

  1357
  When I went to Madrid I found that there were 10 men before a court charged with bomb throwing and with placing bombs at different points in Madrid. The evidence was that they had had Communist support coming over the Pyrenees from France, from international and French Communists who were supporting all these activities in Spain. I questioned the leader of the Communist bomb throwers closely. He was in court. He had been masquerading for a considerable time as a leader of the Catholic Youth in his town outside Madrid. Infiltration was being conducted to such an extent as that.
  People must be realists. All these things drove the people of Spain more and more to say that unless they had some form of strong rule it meant that Moscow and the Communist party would take control in Spain. I have said this to many people, often to those who are by-products of the Franco régime: the longer that regime exists, then in my opinion the nearer we get to a Communist State in Spain. Russia appears all the time as the only State or Power that is supporting internal action to try to get rid of the regime, and as one extreme breeds another, so the Spanish people are driven to the other extreme.
  I admit that, in my own mind, there is turmoil as to what is the best course to pursue in this situation. Do not let us forget, however, that, when the people of Spain see that Marshal Tito is met at a pier in London by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, T.U.C. members and political leaders, who all go dining with Marshal Tito, they say, "Is this a one-way traffic? How is it that they are opposed, in principle, to dictators? They cannot be, because here we have the evidence that they are prepared to meet them."
  Why, even the other day, hon. Members of this House cheered to the echo the announcement that the Prime Minister was prepared to meet Stalin and was prepared to discuss a settlement—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not Stalin."] No, not Stalin; he has gone to another place. Hon. Members cheered to the echo.
  Mr. George Jeger: Is my hon. Friend not ignoring the elementary fact that Tito and Stalin were both fighting on our side during the war against the Fascists, whereas Fascist Spain was
  1358
  aiding our enemies and even sent the Blue Division to fight against our ally Russia?
  Mr. McGovern: That was all right as an intervention; I know more about the position. The role of the Communists and of Russia is to switch from one side to another and snatch at anything which they think may bring an advantage. When they put food and munitions into Spain, sent their International Brigade into Spain and put leading Communists into the country, they did it because they thought that they could turn Spain into another satellite Communist country. Therefore, they were not fighting Fascism —do not let us make any mistake—they were fighting for international Communism, to extend their leadership, not limit it.
  When we say these things about having friendly relations with Spain, all this questioning takes place regarding friendly relations with other States, and they say "Why?" I, too, ask why? If it is a case of condemning as a principle, negotiating with any system or with any man who controls a system based on thuggery, all I can say is that what is happening in Spain under Franco is happening a thousandfold more in Russia and the satellite States. Do not let anyone try to tell me that any change of heart has taken place; it is only a change of tactics. [An HON. MEMBER: "That does not make Spain any better."] I do not say that it does, but it does not make Russia any cleaner.
  My hon. Friends must get one thing quite clear. They must know where they stand on this issue, and I am trying to help them to be clear on what their attitude is to dictators. Are they opposed to dictators willy nilly or are they going to approve the Prime Minister's action in the matter of trying to meet Malenkov and Tito, and, at the same time, say that we must on no consideration have any truck or connection with Spain?
  My political intelligence and experience proves that the longer we adopt an antagonistic attitude towards the leader of any State, no matter who he is, then the more certainly shall we be driving the people of that country more and more behind their own leader. We shall not be loosening the bonds, but tightening them,

  1359
  and, therefore, in my estimation, after this long period since the end of the civil war in Spain, there is a need for some new approach to this problem. It is not going to be found by complete antagonism.
  I have tried to understand the real reason why members of my party are so antagonistic towards one form of dictatorship and yet go about the country demanding the appeasement of another form of dictatorship which is as ruthless and as cruel to human beings as is possible. Having been in Spain during the civil war and seen Communist brutality and ruthlessness, the massacre of so many men—Bob Smillie's grandson was taken to Valencia prison and done to death—and having met men during the civil war who were afterwards taken out of their homes and whose bodies, riddled with bullets, were thrown out of motor-cars, how can I be expected to believe that at this stage there is anything to choose between one side and the other?
  The Spanish people are the unfortunate victims because they began by defending themselves against the Franco regime and, in the end, had to defend themselves against both Franco and Stalin at one and the same time. Do not let us have any nonsense about this. There are millions of people in Spain whose conceptions and principles are as good as those of anybody in this House. I have met them and discussed with them the proper approach to this problem.
  Four years ago, I spent five weeks in Spain—my wife thought it was a strange way of spending a holiday—and spent 15 and 16 hours a day talking with all sections of the community, with anarchists right down to Catalan nationalists. When the right hon. Gentleman says, "Give us an approach and we will consider extra licences," does that mean that he is going to judge Spain by the amount of trade they do with this country? The idea that "it is better to be bribed than killed," seems to be growing in Spain more quickly than I anticipated.
  If in the present struggle for the defence of Western ideals we are prepared to compromise with dictators in Russia, Poland, Hungary, Roumania, Czechoslovakia, Albania and Eastern Germany,
  1360
  why should we stop suddenly when we come to Spain? As I have said, I loathe all dictators, but the way to consolidate a dictator is by attempting to overthrow him from outside. There must be a gradual loosening of the chains.
  I think that if we were prepared to say to Spain in clear and unmistakable language that we are prepared to apply the Marshall Plan to her, to give her economic assistance, and to bring her into the United Nations on condition that a liberalising process is begun in Spain, and that Franco should show the way, such a declaration would do more towards changing the attitude of the Spanish people and the Spanish Administration towards this country than anything else. I say that because it would force the present regime, through popular opinion in unknown places, to make that change in order to give the people of Spain the peace and prosperity that they want.
  I repeat that I am opposed to all dictators, and I defended my principles even when it seemed that a Parliamentary seat was in doubt because of the attitude which I adopted on the Spanish question. I will defend the working people wherever they are, in their hour of need, but do not let it be said that we are going to continue this war of attrition and antagonism towards Spain after we have made so many offers of appeasement to other brutal dictators in the world.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: The House has listened with great interest to the most impressive speech that has been made by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). He goes even further than I do in this matter, although I share very largely his sentiments, so far as the Spanish question is concerned. Certainly, he did well to refute the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) that the Socialists in Spain were a democratic organisation, aiming at a liberal régime.
  We know that the people of Spain, like the men who murdered Sotello, were not by any means liberal by inclination. It was a struggle, as the hon. Gentleman said, between vicious elements on both sides. The Communists on the one hand and the Fascists on the other used that dispute as a proving ground for their ideologies. Therefore, we can clear that

  1361
  amount of ground. There is no question at all of anyone fighting to defeat Fascism in Spain in the Civil War.
  Mr. W. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has made the point that at the end the Civil War degenerated into that kind of struggle. It is a fact that in July, 1936, Franco and the military clique revolted against the freely-elected Government of Spain. The Civil War was conducted on the Republican side at least, and at the outset, by people representative of the majority parties elected to the Spanish Parliament. That should be clearly understood.
  Mr. Shepherd: All I ask the hon. Member to do is to read the history of Spain at the time of the election of the Government until the Franco Revolution. He will see accounts of acts of violence such as the murder of Sotello which happened long before Franco took over. I am merely saying—not that it is important but because we must get our minds away from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Enfield, East—I am merely saying that there is nothing to choose between either of the sections in Spain who fought the battle.
  Having said that, I agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston that what we have to aim at in Spain is a more liberal regime. I say right away that I do not think there is any prospect at all of getting a democratically elected Government in Spain, because the form of government they have known for so long is so entrenched, and the instincts of the people are not particularly democratic. The Spaniard is probably the most anarchistic man in the whole of Europe. These democratic tendencies are not pronounced. We should need some sort of arrangement whereby the regime could be progressively liberalised before any attempt could be made to have elections in Spain.
  Anything short of that would result merely in the return of the Communists. I believe, as one who has taken some interest in Spanish affairs for some time, that the Labour and Left-wing elements in this country and France are responsible for Franco being where he is today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I have discussed this matter with Liberal Spaniards, who desire to get rid of Franco much more than do hon. Gentlemen oppo-
  1362
  site, and who have admitted freely to me—
  Mr. Bing: Does the hon. Gentleman think it was the fault of the Left-wing generally that they obtained a majority in the election, and that they ought not to have got themselves elected as the majority in Parliament?
  Mr. Shepherd: A great deal of discussion could take place on that majority and the means by which it was obtained; but I do not want to go into that history because I do not think it is really very relevant to what I want to say to the House tonight.
  I am putting the point that we have to approach this problem with the idea in our minds that there was not in Spain an element which was really liberal. We have to decide this problem, on the one hand on the basis of accepting Franco in the sense of, "Here is a man who can be accepted into N.A.T.O.," and on the other hand from the point of view of saying, "Not only do we want to keep him out of N.A.T.O. and the comity of nations, but we want no trade with him at all." I think that the hon. Member for Enfield, East is ridiculous when he says that he is going to oppose reasonable trade with Franco or, as he has been saying for a number of months and even years in this House, that we should not supply arms to Spain.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I never suggested that we should not trade with Franco. What I said was that the trade was very one-sided at present and that he was not using sterling to obtain goods in this country.
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member says that now, but constantly he has been sniping at my right hon. Friends for their attempts to improve trade relations with Franco.
  I do not like Franco any more than do hon. Members opposite, and I think that I have written more against him than perhaps any other member of the Tory Party. But it is sheer nonsense to say that one is going to oppose Franco at every possible point. I think that hon. Members opposite have very sound reason for saying that as things stand one should not admit Franco into N.A.T.O., that N.A.T.O. presupposes a belief in certain

  1363
  ideals and that as Franco does not subscribe to those ideals he cannot become a participant. But, short of that, we should do what we can to secure trade with Spain and get a more reasonable understanding between our two countries. By that means we could create conditions in which the Spanish people themselves could take decisions.
  There has been a great deal of confusion on this question of what we should do with Spain, because people are apt to think in terms of being anti-Communist. I do not want to think in terms of being anti-Communist. I want to think in positive terms of being pro-democratic. The things that matter to me are the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, and I think the Western world has done a disservice, during the last five years, in talking anti-Communism day and night. What they should have been talking about were the positive values of democratic society. We have heard far too little of that from the Western Powers in recent years. We believe that we have right on our side, and we should try to put forward the positive and real values of democratic society.
  I join issue a little with the hon. Member for Shettleston over the question of Yugoslavia. There is a difference—which I think the House should appreciate— between the attitude we are justified in taking towards Yugoslavia and that which we may be justified in taking towards Spain. First, it has never been suggested that Yugoslavia should enter the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There we are on all fours. What really matters is whether the action we take is going to strengthen or weaken our democratic ideals and the democratic countries.
  Support of Yugoslavia tends to weaken and split the East; support of General Franco, in a general sense, tends to weaken and split the West, so that there is a case for looking rather differently at the two cases of Spain and Yugoslavia. It is only a question of expediency, and a matter which is on the conscience of all hon. Members whether we are really justified in trading with Tito when we know that his régime is offensive to our Western ideals.
  1364
  I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will try to look at the question of Spain with a little more realism, and try to put out of their minds the battle that took place in 1936. Neither of the adversaries was very worthy. There are still 30 million people in Spain. They are a very proud people, living under very bad conditions and under a régime of which we do not approve, but it is surely our duty to do what we can to bring about better conditions there—to trade with Spain and to have normal, friendly relations with her.
  In diplomatic affairs it is well known that if one makes an enemy one does no good. It is much better to have a friendly foot in the camp. In that way one can often influence trends. All this antagonism towards Franco, so wildly expressed by some hon. Members, is irrational and, on the whole, designed to achieve precisely the opposite of what they have in mind. I hope that in future hon. Members on both sides of the House will try to get a different slant on this question of Anglo-Spanish relations. I support the Government in what I believe to be their view, because I think we should be as friendly as we can even though Franco is not helping very much at the moment. We should trade as much as we can, but stop short of bringing Franco into N.A.T.O.
  9.36 p.m.
  Mr. George Jeger: I am in agreement with quite a large part of what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has said, but I think he is very muddled on the question of Spain, particularly about the origin of the Spanish Civil War. He is obviously either unaware of, or chooses completely to ignore, the fact that the Republican Government, against which Franco rebelled in 1936, was freely elected in accordance with the highest form of democracy that the Spanish people were aware of at that time. I am not saying that it was the equivalent of our form of democracy, but we often make the mistake of thinking that our democracy can be absorbed by other nations who have not been practising it so long as we have.
  Mr. Shepherd: I wish the hon. Member would read of the activities of the conforming commission after the election. If he had read them he might not be so enthusiastic.
  Mr. Jeger: I have read all the evidence about the election in Spain. I spent a considerable time there between 1936 and 1939, when I was doing relief work on the Republican side, and I think I know a little more about it than the hon. Member would give me credit for.
  The hon. Member wants us to preach the virtues of democracy to Spain and try to approach them in a more friendly fashion. I wonder whether he is aware that there is a very strict censorship in Spain, and that the 30 million Spanish people, through their newspapers and their radio, are being denied the knowledge that we are shortly to have a Coronation in this country because it might put unpleasant and suggestive thoughts in their minds about the virtues of a monarchy—and a democratic one at that. I wonder whether he has seen the reports in "The Times" and other newspapers, by Spanish correspondents, about the sort of propaganda which is put out in Spain.
  The hon. Member wants more trade with Spain. He is not alone in that. While joining with us in hating the Franco régime the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) also urged us to embark upon more trade with Spain. He says that we should refrain from abuse and see how we can help her. He thinks the best way is to trade with her. We have been trying to trade with her. I put down a number of Questions recently about the results of our trading with Spain, and I received the reply from the President of the Board of Trade that our trading relations were most unsatisfactory. He said:
  "They have, however, done little as yet to carry out their undertaking …"
  He also said:
  "I am satisfied that the Spanish authorities could issue licences more freely than at present, and that is the object of the meeting which I have arranged."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 831.]
  In other words, a gesture towards having more trade has been made to Franco Spain. How has it been received? Franco is apparently ready to buy arms from us, but very little else. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield said we should sell Spain arms; and not out of date arms but up to date ones at that. I wonder whether
  1366
  he has envisaged to what use those arms might be put, and against whom they might be used? It is very interesting when a Government want to buy arms.
  Air Commodore Harvey: I said it was useless selling old equipment because it would not be an advertisement for British engineering if we did not sell them modern material. As to the hon. Gentleman's question about against whom would the arms be used, I suggest that the answer is they would be used against any country that attacked Spain, probably Russia.
  Mr. Jeger: Judging from the Spanish Press they are prepared to use them, first of all, against their own people who may be revolting against the tyrannous régime that Franco imposes upon them, holding them down by his armed police; and furthermore, and this hits nearer home, they may be prepared to use them in an attempt to regain Gibraltar. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Spanish Press has recently been inveighing against us as an imperialist nation occupying Gibraltar illegally, and that it has been calling upon the Spanish workers in Gibraltar to rise in revolt against us.
  Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman should not be so innocent. This matter is raised every three months in the Spanish Press. If the Spaniards wanted to take Gibraltar they could have done so during the war, probably with very little difficulty.
  Mr. Jeger: Perhaps they had reason for not wanting to do so at that time. Perhaps they were not quite so strong as the hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to think they were.
  If the matter is raised regularly every three months in the Press, that is a responsibility of the Spanish Government, who exercise so great an influence and so strict a censorship upon the activities of the Spanish Press. The British Press is free, but the Spanish Press is entirely in the hands of Government-sponsored syndicates, and nothing can appear in the Spanish Press without the licence of the official Spanish censor. Therefore, if there is a regular three-monthly campaign in favour of regaining Gibraltar for Spain it must be inspired or encouraged by the Spanish Government, and they are the

  1367
  Government to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to sell new and up-to-date arms.
  I have noticed that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are always prepared to ignore or excuse tyranny and the evils of a police State if it is socially pleasant or if it is profitable business. That seems to colour their attitude towards our relationships with other countries, whether they are Fascist or whether they are democratic, but we should never forget that we should be earning the hatred, the enmity, the disappointment and the suspicion of other nations that profess democracy as we do if we were to enter into closer relations with Franco Spain, which fought against our allies during the war and which has never changed its Government or its attitude since.
  Attention has been drawn to our attitude towards other dictatorship countries, but those dictatorship countries did not fight against us or our allies. That is a cardinal point which should never be forgotten. There has been no change of heart whatever in Spain. The Spanish Government are still in power by force. They are still a Government of repression, and they are still a Government who carry out arrests of persons without trial. They are still a Government governing a country where a knock on the door at night means not that the milk or the newspapers are being delivered but that the secret police have arrived to take away somebody who, perhaps, has been guilty of a little political or trade union activity or speaking and has been reported upon.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has graphically described already what happens to those people when they are taken away and held in a military prison, and the torture that is applied to them. Their relatives often are not informed of their destination or of their fate until a long time afterwards. In other words, all the horrors of the pre-war Nazi State are repeated in the Franco State of Spain today.
  It is abhorrent to us on this side of the House, who really and sincerely believe in democracy and freedom, to find that our Government may be jockeyed by
  1368
  some of its own supporters and by big business and trading interests into having more friendly relations with a Fascist power of that description. I do not believe that we can win Franco over to a belief in democracy by extending the hand of friendship to him or by supplying him with up to date arms.
  Appeasement is one of the things we should have learned by now never pays. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House and right hon. Gentlemen, too, who occupy leading positions in the Government today, should think back to the days of their appeasement of Hitler and Mussolini and to the results that came from that appeasement.
  I hope that in spite of the discourtesy of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), who should have been here tonight to raise this matter on the Adjournment, this debate will have been profitable and that the Under-Secretary will have learned in clear terms what we on this side of the House think of the Franco régime. If there is any possibility of the hand of friendship being extended further towards that régime he should think twice about it and encourage the forces of democracy by withholding the hand of friendship from Fascism.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Russell: The more I listened to hon. Members on the other side of the House, the less I understood their reasoning. I could not follow their argument that we should not try to bring about more friendly relations with Fascist Spain when at the same time they are quite eager to bring about better relations with Russia and Yugoslavia. I do not believe that we shall bring peace to the world by such arguments.
  I was amazed by one argument put forward by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), when he suggested as a reason for not trying to improve our relations with Spain that we must keep alive the memory of the first fight against Fascism. If we are going to govern our relations with foreign countries by trying to keep alive hatreds of that kind we shall never improve relations in the world. We have to get rid of those hatreds whether they relate to Fascist countries or Communist countries. We have to try to forget the past and

  1369
  treat them as being foreign countries, without taking into account the kind of Government they have.
  The hon. Gentleman also made the point that it would make it more difficult to bring about better relations with Russia if we were to try to bring about better relations with Spain. I cannot see why the Russians should object to our trying to improve relations with Spain when they themselves made a pact with Nazi Germany in 1939, when we were trying to bring them into the anti-Fascist camp.
  There is one question which I want to ask my hon. Friend. Once or twice during the past two or three months I have asked him whether any steps can be taken to end the system of visas which exists between this country and Spain. I think I am right in saying that they exist in both directions, and that Spain is about the only country in Western Europe with which we still have to have visa relations, if I may so describe them. It costs an English person visiting Spain about 24s. to obtain a visa and a Spanish person roughly the same amount, I think, to come to this country. I would ask my hon. Friend whether any steps have been taken to end that system. The last time I put that question he held out the hope that possibly at the beginning of the tourist season the Government might give that matter consideration. I hope that consideration has been given to it and that this system will be ended.
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to ask the representative of the Foreign Office further questions about certain developments in Spain. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) objected to Spain being invited to join N.A.T.O., but it seems to me as if Spain is to be called upon to be part of the system of alliance which we now know as N.A.T.O. There have been certain developments in recent weeks, upon which there have been comments in the Press, which seem to indicate that Franco Spain will become part of the Western democratic alliance.
  I do not quite understand how any hon. Member can object to Franco Spain being brought into N.A.T.O. when, at the same time, as the result of American policy, it
  1370
  looks as if Spain, although not theoretically in N.A.T.O., is now to be part of the political and strategic alliance which we know as Western democracy. I should like to know to what extent the American Government have informed the British Government of the negotiations with Franco for the establishment of bases in Spain. During the last three days there have been articles in the "Manchester Guardian" in which it has been clearly stated that American air and naval bases are now to be established in Spain and that America frankly recognises that Spain will be a part of the Western alliance.
  If we object to Franco Spain being in N.A.T.O., are we not also entitled to object to American bases in Spain becoming a part of the political and strategic framework of Western democracy? If we believe that, for one reason or another, Franco Spain should not be allowed in N.A.T.O., are we not entitled to make our protests when American bases are established in Spain in precisely the same way that they are being established in this country?
  The negotiations between America and Spain have been going on for some considerable time. A certain school of American military experts say that it is likely to be of more strategic benefit to America to establish bombing and naval bases in Spain than in Britain. One reason given in a recent article by one of the military writers in the "New York Times" was that it would be cheaper and, from every point of view, easier for America to have her bases in Spain rather than in Great Britain, France or Western German, because General Franco has no trade union movement to contend with and the result is that he can get his bases built much cheaper than they can be built elsewhere in Western Europe, where the Americans would have to pay higher rates of wages because there are strong and active trade unions in those countries.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is now arguing that it is better for America to have bases in this country or better for her to have them in Spain.
  Mr. Hughes: I am arguing about the implications of American policy. My hon. Friend will understand as I develop my argument. I am pointing out the inconsistency of hon. Members in objecting

  1371
  to Spain being brought into N.A.T.O. and, at the same time, allowing Spain, through this intricate arrangement, with America, to become part of Western strategy and the Western alliance.
  I want to know to what extent America has informed this country of what is taking place, to what extent the British Government has been consulted and to what extent the British Government has approved this indirect admission of Spain into N.A.T.O. and her use as part of the so-called military strategy of Western democracy. There are very peculiar people in this N.A.T.O. alliance. There is Turkey and no one can say that Turkey is a democracy. There is this idea that by a sideway any country can be brought in by some arrangement with America, so that we are finding ourselves lined up with countries like Fascist Spain. One reason for that is that it is cheaper for the Americans to have their bases in Spain, and there is also a school of American strategists who hold the view that Britain will be knocked out of the next war very early and that the war itself will then be fought from behind the line of the Pyrenees. That is not only a reflection on us, but on France.
  One of the reasons why the Americans are coming to an agreement with Spain is that they calculate that their military expenditure can be much lower if they have these bases in Spain. As an instance, to install a telephone in Great Britain for the American armed forces costs 19 dollars; in Western Germany, 16 dollars; but in Spain it is only 9 dollars. The result of that, whether we like it or not is that we are to have Fascist Spain in this conglomeration of so-called Western democracies, which is part of the alleged American alliance, which is not democracy at all.
  I should like to know from the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent our Government have been informed of this, and to what extent are they in agreement with this policy of America, or whether it is a question of the American Government acting unilaterally and simply using Spain for their own particular purposes?
  I agree to some extent with my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), but certainly not with the whole of his argument by a long way.
  1372
  When we think of Spain we must not think merely of General Franco, but of the 30 million half-starved peasants living under a cruel, tyrannous régime. We must think how far our policy affects them. I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston standing up very courageously and putting his point of view during the time of the Franco War in Spain, when one of the leading Catholics in Glasgow was speaking in favour of Franco. I always remember how my hon. Friend courageously stood up in that great hall, facing a howling mob, and speaking out for democracy against dictatorship.
  I do not see that we shall help the 30 million people in Spain by the kind of trade suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield, namely, that we should compete with the Americans in supplying bombers to Spain; because that is what it comes to. I would have no objection if we were sending to Spain the machinery, the tractors, the necessary trade to raise the standard of life of the people of Spain. I do not want to see the people suffering from the results of living under any kind of totalitarian dictatorship. I do not think they are being helped by being brought into this system of a so-called Western democracy and having these air and military and naval bases planted down on Spain. That will not help the people of Spain. That is not the way to reconstruct the economic life of Spain.
  The American theory is that in the first stage of a third world war the so-called Western armies will be driven back across France over the Pyrenees. That is another reason why the Americans are saying—
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Kaberry.]
  Mr. Hughes: I thought that was a Guillotine, Sir. To some extent I agree with trade relationships being open to Spain, because I cannot see that we are entitled to impose economic sanctions upon a people because of the character of the Government that oppresses them. I hope that the people of Spain will not become part

  1373
  of this strategy, which will mean that, in the long run, they will suffer because of being participants in a third world war.
  I should like to see the end of tyranny, of Fascism, of dictatorship in every part of the world, but I do not see how we shall bring about a more liberal régime in Spain by bringing Spain into all these military plans which impose heavy taxation upon the peasantry of a country, which involve national expenditure not on education, not on raising the standard of life through social services, not on agriculture, but casting it into the vortex of a military régime which involves all the people of a country not only in the dangers of war but in the economic preparations for war, which mean heavy burdens upon the workers and peasants in all countries.
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: In the uncertain and changing world in which we live there is one constant factor upon which we can always rely, namely, that any debate in this House upon the subject of Spain always brings an acrimonious discussion. I have often wondered why. I am not sure that I know the answer, but I can at least throw out one theory. I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they really searched their hearts, would probably be a little ashamed of themselves for the part they played in the late '30s in leading Hitler to believe that under no circumstances would Britain fight.
  Mr. G. Jeger: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten Chamberlain?
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: In retrospect they say in psychological expiation, "We fought for Red Spain." I will give it to them that they fought for Red Spain, that they went out with the International Brigade and fought with the Communists in Spain while their party in this House was voting solidly against every increase in every Service Estimate, by which alone we could have convinced Hitler that we were prepared to fight.
  I have often wondered, had the Communists been successful, what sort of a map could have been produced in Europe after the collapse of France in 1940. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might like to reflect for a moment on how the
  1374
  map of Europe would have looked in those circumstances. I have not been in this House very long, but in the short time that I have been here, I do not think I have ever heard a better debunking speech or one delivered with more sincerity or more conviction than the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). He answered in advance the comments of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), who followed closely after.
  The hon. Member for Goole seemed to think that if any arms were supplied to Spain from America or any other source Gibraltar was going to be attacked—
  Mr. G. Jeger: I said it might be.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: It might be. It is perfectly true, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) said, that almost regularly at monthly or three-monthly intervals some one in Spain makes an inflammatory speech or some journalist writes an inflammatory article about Gibralta, but the hon. Member must get out of the Abadan frame of mind. If, because of inflammatory speeches and the writing of inflammatory articles we are to become frightened about our position in Gibraltar, we ought to have got out of the Canal Zone long ago.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: And we shall be.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. Member says that we shall be; that is because no doubt he thinks we ought to be and is not prepared to stand up for any of our rights under Treaty obligations— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a perfectly logical point of view but not one which hon. Members on this side of the House will accept.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Does the hon. Member suggest that we should have sent gunboats to Abadan? Is he suggesting that in 1956, when the Treaty expires, we should go into Egypt by force if they do not want us?
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: We have been debating the Canal Zone at some length in the last two days and I do not want to go back into all that. I merely said that because a newspaper article is written about Gibraltar there is no need for hon.

  1375
  Members opposite to get in a panic as, happily, they are no longer on this side of the House.
  The hon. Member for Goole also said that if there were a knock on the door in the middle of the night in Spain it would not mean that the milkman had arrived or that the newspaper man was bringing newspapers but that it was probably the secret police: we ought not, therefore, in any circumstances to have truck with the head of that Government, trade with them, or have any kind of friendly relationship with that State. But when, on Monday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech in the foreign affairs debate, threw out the suggestion that at some future date he hoped there might be circumstances in which a meeting could be arranged with Mr. Malenkov, did the hon. Member say, "Oh, no, because occasionally behind the Iron Curtain a knock on the door in the middle of the night does not mean that the milk is being delivered"? Did he say, "Oh, no"? Of course not; he cheered.
  I think that I can sum up the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards Spain in one sentence. Their attitude throughout may be even summed up in the one word, and that word is "hypocrisy."
  10.9 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I do not want to delay the House for more than a few moments because I am sure that the Under-Secretary wants an opportunity to reply, but the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), and some other speeches from hon. Members opposite, might well have been made had we not fought the last war.
  Many of us—some of us in this House, perhaps, have more responsibility than others—some who took a minor part in the war had a great responsibility for persuading people on our own side to go to their deaths. We said, "We must risk our lives" and were perhaps persuading people to take more risks than we were taking ourselves. For what purpose? It was to rid the world of Fascism. Where did we find it in the world? In Germany and Italy and in Spain and the only reason that we did not have Spain fighting against us was because Spain decided
  1376
  that she could aid Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany more by staying out than coming in.
  What is the answer given to the people who were killed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). He says, "Let us fulfil what everyone was fighting for. Let us sell them arms." Those were the actual words, "Let us sell them some of our up-to-date arms."—
  Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. and learned Member must be fair about this. I said that the equipment which had been sold was very out-of-date. If we were to sell armaments let us at least sell something more modern. I did not say the latest. If we do not do it America will. The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that if we want to sell tractors and motor cars and other goods they will not be accepted unless we supply the things they require. We have to generalise.
  Mr. Bing: Nothing demonstrates better than that the division between the two sides of the House on this matter. I think I speak for almost all my hon. Friends on this side of the House when I say that we fought against Fascism and did not fight to rearm Fascism in Spain once again. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). Where people are poor and living in misery we ought not to deprive them of the things which could in some degree relieve their misery. But it is useless supplying goods to a Government of the Franco type which exists and is maintained by people who wish to keep the ordinary working class in misery. It is impossible to relieve the misery of such people by supplying goods from outside when the regime is designed to make them miserable.
  The remarks of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) show that most of the hon. Gentlemen opposite have not altered much since 1914. The hon. Member for Cheadle thought there was something wrong about the Spanish elections and, therefore, that justified fighting a civil war. Would he say that because his own party have more seats proportionately than they are entitled to we should call out the Army and have them removed? That was his argument, and it

  1377
  is typical of the arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  We have heard a lot of talk about the need for having certain standards. I wish to mention one matter which I hope will not be taken amiss by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). On many occasions he and I have spoken against the oppression of people for their religious beliefs, particularly the Roman Catholic people in Northern Ireland. But in my view it is equally wrong that people should be attacked because of their Protestant beliefs and if there is one place in Europe where religious persecution is taking place it is against the Protestants in Spain at this very time.
  Mr. McGovern: I meant to mention that. If the reports about the persecution of Protestants in Spain are true I condemn it roundly. I do not stand for the persecution of any person on political, religious or racial grounds and I abhor the idea of any section of people being persecuted because of their religious belief.
  Mr. Bing: I wish to make it clear that we on this side of the House regard the Franco régime as a continuation of Fascism, of something we fought against in the war and which caused the deaths of a good many better people than ourselves. We do not believe that we should send arms to Spain in order that they may buy tractors or anything else afterwards. In the same way that, in the 19th century, the speeches in this House did more than anything else to establish the traditions of liberty and freedom there should go out from this House today a condemnation of the Franco régime and an expression of our view that the sooner it is ended the better.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): It is customary for debates of this kind to be wound up by a Minister speaking on behalf of the Government, but I find myself in the difficulty that I have very little to add to the speech which was made by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) who, in the absence of my hon. Friend, opened the debate, spoke in a familiar vein. He disagrees with the Government's policy. He would no doubt prefer to revert in
  1378
  full to the position of the policy which was laid down in the United Nations Resolution of 1946. I disagree.
  I agree much more with the sound common sense of the hon. Member for Shettleston, although I would add to what he said that anyone in my position cannot determine their foreign relationships upon an ideological basis. Whatever we may think of dictatorships, of whatever form they may be, whatever shirt or colour of shirt the dictator may wear, we cannot determine our foreign relationship upon an ideological basis.
  My view is that to ostracise Spain or any other country is both a foolish and a fruitless exercise. It got us nowhere in the past and will lead nowhere now. To the hon. Member for Enfield, East, who would like to revert to the 1946 position and policy, let me say this: that it was the Government of which he was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which realised how few dividends the policy of ostracism had paid, which accepted the inevitable and which agreed to the modification of the United Nations' Resolution. I think that was a wise decision, and I congratulate him upon it. although I wish his speech tonight had been more in the tone and temper of the speeches which animated the Government at the United Nations when part of the 1946 Resolution was rescinded.
  It was a wise decision to rescind those parts of the Resolution which debarred Spain from membership of the specialised agencies of the United Nations, and which recommended the withdrawal of ambassadors. I think that the hon. Member's Government were wise to follow that United Nations decision by returning our Ambassador to Spain and also agreeing to Spanish membership of the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation.
  I will come now to the policy of the present Government, and their actions in pursuit of it. Since the change of Government in this country, our policy has been to endeavour to bring about correct and friendly relations with Spain. In this endeavour, we have supported Spain's application for membership of U.N.E.S.C.O., and she is now a member of that organisation. We have lifted the ban imposed at the time of the original United Nations Resolution on the export to Spain of obsolescent war materials and

  1379
  other materials useful for civilian or material purposes, such as radar and aircraft engines.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) suggested that if we were to send military material to Spain, we should send more modern military material. I cannot speak to that because the more modern types are required either by our N.A.T.O. allies or by our Commonwealth partners. The decision, as it was announced in the House by the Minister of State, and subsequently by myself, which we took to remove this ban was, of course, subject always to the proviso that the obsolescent war material that we were now prepared to send should not be required for either our N.A.T.O. or Commonwealth partners. The more modern types would be required, and we should therefore be precluded from sending them to Spain.
  In the third place, since the change of Government, we have pursued a policy of the progressive resumption of naval visits, which I think have been successful and popular, both with the Spanish people and the Spanish Navy. This was certainly demonstrated when our largest and newest aircraft carrier H.M.S. "Eagle" recently visited Vigo. This policy, unlike the policy of ostracism, opens up the way to an improvement in our relations with Spain; and, above all, it opens up a useful market for the export of goods to a country from which we obtain certain essential strategic materials, such as wolfram, pyrites and the like. In the present economic circumstances of this country and of the world, we simply cannot afford to ignore any markets. The hon. Member for Enfield, East also asked me whether I had any figures to add to those which I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) on 1st April last. The figures since 1st April have not yet been made up, but I have no reason to suppose that they show any major or very startling change or development.
  The hon. Member for Enfield, East need not wax so eloquent about the terrific moral principles which are at stake. The hon. Member for Goole is really talking nonsense when he says that we are appeasing General Franco and wooing a terrible Fascist régime simply because we have decided that it is in the
  1380
  interests of the trade of this country to send to Franco Spain 15 items of marine radar to the value of approximately £40, 000. Is that a terrible thing to do? Is that condoning some terrible Fascist régime? I think we ought to keep these things in balance and in their true perspective.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked me about Spain's sterling surplus. It is true that Spain has a large sterling surplus, but, unfortunately, the majority of it is spent outside the United Kingdom, in the Commonwealth, and, to some extent, in Europe, in buying materials. That has created a difficulty for our trade with Spain, and the discussions, to which the President of the Board of Trade referred in answer to the hon. Gentleman, began in Madrid with the Spanish authorities in April and are still proceeding. We hope that this difficulty may be overcome, but I really think that the existence of this difficulty and this surplus is not an argument for exporting less to Spain, but is surely an argument for trying to export more and for exploring fields for greater efforts.
  While we hope for friendly relations, perhaps I should observe—because I want to be fair to the House and to the situation—that it takes two to be friends, and it is not entirely encouraging for me or for the Government that, despite what we have done, the response from the Spanish side has not been marked by consistent warmth. Indeed, on the contrary, there has been in recent months a recrudescence of anti-British comment in Press and radio which is, of course, as we know—may I put it very mildly— somewhat influenced by the Spanish authorities, and the policy of the Spanish Government plays some part, no doubt, in the comments which appear in the Press and radio.
  This campaign has included some particularly objectionable references to Gibraltar, and while it has now died down, such gratuitous and silly pinpricks as the censorship of references to our Coronation in Spanish newspapers are now, apparently, the order of the day. I wish to put that on record because I wish to be quite fair to the House and to show that while we have shown our desire to work for friendly diplomatic and political relations we have not been altogether met by the other side.

  1381
  A few months ago we made unofficial soundings about the possibility of negotiating an agreement for the abolition of visas, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) for visitors to both countries, but here we met with a refusal. I do not say that the Spanish response was necessarily entirely unreasonable. Perhaps the Spanish Government felt that such a step would not be worth their while financially, whereas, of course, correspondingly, it was very much worth our while because many more British people go to Spain than Spaniards come to Britain. It is only fair that I should place on record, particularly as I have been asked the question, that we did make this offer.
  The hon. Member for Enfield, East raised the question of political trials, and asked us to make a protest. I really cannot agree to do that. We have no locus standi whatsoever, but I can say that while we have no locus standi to intervene on behalf of Spaniards facing charges of breaches of Spanish law, we do send observers to political trials. I might say that I know of no other—I speak, I hope, without offence to the régime—totalitarian régime in which British observers from the British missions in those countries are allowed to attend the trials.
  I was asked about the religious persecution, and in particular about the Protestant Church in Seville. So far as I am aware, no compensation has yet been paid, but Her Majesty's Ambassador in this, as in all other cases of the safeguarding of British interests, will press for action to be taken and to obtain satisfaction. The hon. Member asked that we should not develop relations beyond the basis which already exists. I was a little confused by his question. If he means that we should not invite Spain to join N.A.T.O., then I can assure him
  1382
  that we have no intention of doing that. But this does not mean that we are opposed to the negotiations now going on between the United States and the Spanish Government for a dollars-for-bases agreement
  As I have previously said, the United States Government have been keeping us informed of the course of these negotiations, but I have no confirmation of recent newspaper reports that the agreement is on the point of being concluded. In any case, we have no objection in principle to such an agreement, which is a matter for the American Government alone, provided that it is not at the expense of N.A.T.O. and that it does not raise the question of Spanish membership of N.A.T.O. There is no question of Spain becoming a member of N.A.T.O. merely because she has concluded an agreement with America—a bi-lateral agreement of dollars for bases. It is no more a question of bringing Spain into N.A.T.O. because such an agreement should be made than it is of bringing Egypt into N.A.T.O. because we are on the Suez Canal.
  I have indicated, I think, in the course of my remarks that although we have taken a few steps along the road towards a more normal relationship with Spain, the response has so far not been so encouraging as to warrant any acceleration of the process. In short, our policy is to develop step by step, not on a basis of ideology, but on a basis of mutual profit and interest.
  The Question having been proposed at 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 Half-past Ten o'Clock.

  MALAYA (FORMAL EDUCATION)
  MALAYA (FORMAL EDUCATION)
  KENYA RAILWAY WORKERS (POLITICAL ASSOCIATION)
  KENYA RAILWAY WORKERS (POLITICAL ASSOCIATION)
  WEST INDIES (UNIVERSITY COLLEGE)
  WEST INDIES (UNIVERSITY COLLEGE)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Television Films (Overseas Market)
  Television Films (Overseas Market)
  Match Industry (Commission's Report)
  Match Industry (Commission's Report)
  CIVIL SERVICE (SALARY COMPARISONS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (SALARY COMPARISONS)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Slaughterhouse Facilities, Norfolk
  Slaughterhouse Facilities, Norfolk
  Barley Imports (Average Costs)
  Barley Imports (Average Costs)
POST OFFICE
  Money Orders (Irregular Issue)
  Money Orders (Irregular Issue)
  Parcel Rates Increase (Estimated Revenue)
  Parcel Rates Increase (Estimated Revenue)
  Coronation (Additional Expenditure)
  Coronation (Additional Expenditure)
HOUSING
  Local Authorities (Army Huts)
  Local Authorities (Army Huts)
  Resale Price Control
  Resale Price Control

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

BELPER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TEES CONSERVANCY SUPERANNUATION SCHEME BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.37 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Whitsun, and that Government Business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence of other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to justices' licences for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquor and to the registration of clubs and to matters connected therewith with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE BAMANGWATO RESERVE
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on the administration of the Bamangwato Reserve. As your Lordships will have seen from the reports in the Press, at their resumed meeting last week the Bamangwato again failed to reach agreement about the designation of a new Chief. The appointment of a new Chief acceptable both to the tribe and to the Government remains the aim of Her Majesty's Government, but they do not intend to impose anyone on the tribe as Chief. For three years now, in accordance with the policy initiated by the previous Government, the tribe has been administered directly by European district officers. This system of administration, which was necessary in all the circumstances, has had certain drawbacks and limitations. There are many matters coming within the purview of the Native Authority which for their effective discharge require the machinery and personnel of the Native Authority to be African.
The Government have now decided that the time has come when the conduct of the tribe's affairs can and should be restored to African hands. Accordingly, I have authorised the High Commissioner to make an order transferring the functions of the Native Authority from the District Commissioner to an African, Rasebolai Kgamane. Under Bechuanaland law the office of Native Authority and the office of Chief are not the same. The Chieftainship is a traditional institution endowed with rights and privileges from the past. The Native Authority is the capacity in which the Chief, or other person authorised by the Government, shoulders the functions and responsibilities of the day-to-day local administration under the general guidance of the High Commissioner and his officers. Ordinarily, the Chief is also the Native Authority, but in the absence of a Chief another person can be appointed to the office and in that capacity exercise chiefly powers.
Rasebolai is the senior member of the tribe available for the office, and I am satisfied that on his war record and on his experience as an administrator he is

455
fully qualified to discharge these duties. He is not being appointed as Chief but his appointment as Native Authority, which is in accordance with the law of the territory, including the Bamangwato Succession Order in Council and Bechuanaland legislation, will enable many activities of native administration contributing to the well-being of the tribe to be revived—for example, the customary daily meetings in kgotla and the native courts. It will also enable development schemes to be pressed forward with that full discussion of local African interests which is so important and conducive to smooth working.
Announcements of the decision of Her Majesty's Government and of the appointment of Rasebolai as Native Authority are to be made to-day at Serowe and at other centres throughout the Bamangwato Reserve. In these announcements it is being made clear that the Chieftainship is left vacant.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for announcing to the House the decision he has come to. As the decision is one of considerable importance, it is almost certain that some of us will require time to look into this matter, and we may ask for a debate upon it in the near future. In the meantime, I should like to clear up one matter of ambiguity in the statement, a copy of which the noble Viscount was courteous enough to give me. It is this. If the time should come when a Chief is elected and approved, am I to understand that the functions which to-day are entrusted to Rasebolai will revert from him and be entrusted to the new Chief, who would thus be clothed with the full traditional authority not only of Chief but also of Native Authority? If that is so, of course, it follows that this appointment is in some sense only temporary, unless and until a new Chief is elected and approved. That would make some difference, and would give some of my noble friends the assurance they want.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition. I am glad he put that question, because if it is desired to have some further discussion on this matter, I feel sure that it can be
456
arranged through the usual channels. The answer to the question of substance which the noble and learned Earl asked is, Yes. If I may say so, he put the position absolutely correctly. He said: Assuming that a new Chief is designated, and is approved by Her Majesty's Government—both conditions have to be fulfilled—would a new Chief so designated and approved have these functions transferred to him? The answer to that is, Yes. They would not automatically vest in the new Chief, because, as I pointed out, the vesting of the functions of a Native Authority is a matter for the High Commissioner, acting on the directions of the Secretary of State. But certainly if a new Chief so designated and approved were appointed, then the Secretary of State—certainly I should, and I am sure anybody else holding this position would—wouldvest in a new Chief so designated and approved the functions of Native Authority.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, while endorsing the suggestion about a debate, would the noble Viscount tell me this? Is the person to whom the authority of the Native Authorityis now being transferred the same person whose name was discussed in relation to the Chieftainship, and whom the Tribe made it perfectly clear they were not prepared to accept in the office of Chieftain?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, it is the same man, and the Tribe were not prepared, as a whole, to accept him. In saying that, I should not like to suggest that there was any sort of unanimity at all—there was not. It is a little misleading. I am sure the noble Viscount would wish me to say this. One often hears a great many speeches made, but it does not follow that the number of speeches represents the balance of opinion. To take an analogy, it is rather like certain meetings, with which noble Lords opposite are familiar, where there may be only one speaker, but where that speaker has a large card vote behind him. It would be misleading to suppose that one can judge of the weight of opinion by the number of speeches delivered.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does the noble Viscount mean to suggest that there is any sort of truth in the idea that the Tribe really have abandoned Seretse? Is it not clear, time and time

457
again, that the fundamental basis of the Government's policy—which is that there is division in the Tribe—is a false basis, and that the Tribe are determined to have this man? Further, I should like to ask this. If it is true that Rasebolai is to have this work, why was the fact not mentioned at the kgotla recently held, where the Tribe markedly showed their disfavour for this Chief?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the answer to the noble Viscount's first question is, "Emphatically, no"; it is utterly untrue to say that Seretse has the unanimous support of the Tribe. Two things are necessary to the appointment of a Chief: first, designation by the Tribe and, secondly, approval by Her Majesty's Government. As has been quite plainly stated to Parliament, the present Government, like the last, have made it perfectly clear that, for the reasons they gave, they will not accept Seretse as Chief.
Secondly, I think it would have been a most improper thing to suggest at the kgotla the appointment of Rasebolai as Native Authority. The noble Viscount has other opinions, but he asked me for mine, and I am therefore going to give it to him, if he will forgive me. I think it would have been quite wrong to suggest anything of the sort, because it was most desirable that at the kgotla there should be an absolutely free expression of opinion upon the only matter before the kgotla, which was the designation of a Chief. The appointment of a Native Authority is not a matter for the kgotla at all; it is entirely a matter for Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, is it not the case that the sense of the meeting was expressed by the speeches, and that it was the noble Viscount who held the card vote?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I do not think anybody held a card vote—Oh, I see. No, not in the least. There were some speeches made by people who were pro-Seretse, and other speeches made by people who were anti-Seretse. What I said was, supposing you get three speeches in succession in favour of a Motion—as sometimes happen when this House is somewhat loquacious—and only one speech made against the Motion, it nay mean that the one speech made against the Motion carries, in the final result, a larger number of votes.

BRITISH TRADE WITH CHINA
2.48 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to a Press report with the headline "British Shipowners' 'Crime'" reporting that a witness before Senator McCarthy's investigating committee had alleged that ships of the Blue Funnel Line and of Wheelock Martin & Company, Limited, had had vessels trading with China as well as with other countries since the Korean war began which Senator McCarthy is said to have described as "the most inexcusable thing I ever heard of", and if these or any other British shipowners have in fact committed any act at variance with the United Nations resolution on the subject of trade with China and North Korea.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, I have seen the Press report in question. It has not been the policy of Her Majesty's Government to restrict trade with China in non-strategic goods, and ships of the companies named have, together with many other ships, engaged in this business. Until the Control of Trade by Sea (China and North Korea) Order, 1953, there was, in fact, no law preventing British ships from carrying goods of any description to China from ports outside the United Kingdom and Colonies, but British shipowners, as was to be expected, have in practice shown commendable judgment in avoiding the carriage of goods evidently intended for war purposes. In a few isolated voyages only have items of some strategic importance been included in the mixed cargoes of British ships proceeding to China from ports outside the United Kingdom and Colonies. Such a proceeding was in no way illegal, and any uncertainty the owners may have felt about what is to be regarded as strategic and what is not has now been removed by the new regulations, which prohibit any British ship carrying to China goods on a scheduled list attached to a licence.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for that reply, which really gives me what I had hoped to get—namely, a complete vindication of a famous shipping line, and of British shipowners generally, who clearly had done nothing whatsoever in any way at variance with the United Nations resolution. But may I ask the noble Marquess whether he considers it either desirable or feasible to make some representations in this matter to the American Government? We quite understand that Senator McCarthy is carrying on a "smear" campaign in furtherance of his political ambitions—that is an affair for the United States with which we are not concerned. But when it comes to his making these slanderous statements about British shipowners, who have done nothing whatever wrong, it cannot have a very happy effect on Anglo-American relations, and I ask whether some representations can be made.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I can say no more than that we will consider the suggestion.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, if it is so wrong for the British to trade with China, as appears to be advocated in certain quarters in America, has the noble Marquess seen the report in the Statist of May 9, in which it is reported:
"…that a group of forty-five American representatives of large industrial companies has arrived in Hong Kong in order to investigate trade opportunities with Red China.…"
If we are making any representations, could we perhaps make inquiries about this kind of trade?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I cannot pretend to universality in reading, although I read what opportunity offers. I have not read that particular passage which the noble Lord has quoted, but I shall read it, no doubt with interest, as soon as I am free from these proceedings so to do.

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND BRITISH SHIPPING
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask whether Her Majesty's Government have received any notification
460
from the Government of the United States to the effect that in future Federal agencies would cease paying foreign shipowners to carry goods if they also traded with enemy countries and if a clause to this end is to be written into American Government contracts with foreign shipping.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, no such notification has been received by Her Majesty's Government from the Government of the United States.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for that reply.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) REGULATIONS, 1953
2.53 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, these Regulations make a few small amendments to the Regulations which deal with planning control over quarrying and other mineral working. As your Lordships will see from the explanatory note at the end of the Regulations, the amendments mainly affect points of detail or machinery, with the exception of Regulation 5, which slightly extends the field for claiming compensation for loss suffered as a result of a refusal of permission to reopen or extend an existing mine or quarry. Experience has shown that the previous Regulations were rather too tightly worded. One or two cases came to the notice of my right honourable friend in which it was clearly unjust to exclude compensation, but as they did not fall within the precise wording of the previous Regulations, no claim could be made. The revised Regulation puts right this injustice. I beg to move that the Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 29th of April, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I would only ask the noble Lord one question. Has some estimate been made—I assume that it has; if not, it ought to have been—as to the extra cost that will fall on the taxpayer by virtue of these amended and enlarged Regulations?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords. I understand that an estimate has been made, and that the cost is not considerable.
EARL JOWITT: May we know what it is?
LORD MANCROFT: I have not the exact figures, but I understand that it is not considerable. I will find out, and let the noble and learned Earl know.
EARL JOWITT: Perhaps the noble Lord's idea of what is considerable and mine may differ fundamentally. I feel that if a Regulation of this sort is made, imposing a charge on the taxpayer, we ought to have some approximate idea of what is involved. Is it £100,000 or £1 million, or what? It is not satisfactory to be told simply that the charge is unlikely to be "considerable."
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, quite agree with the noble Earl opposite that his idea of what is a considerable sum and mine may differ. Indeed, this was a point which, from the Back Benches opposite, I frequently made in the course of the last five and a half years. I have not the exact figure with me, but I understand, as I have said, that it is not considerable—only a few thousand pounds. I will, however, find out the exact figure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) (SCOTLAND) REGU- LATIONS, 1953
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Home, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved. These are practically the same as the previous Regulations to which your Lordships have just given approval, and deal with certain very minor administrative details, in order to comply with the slightly different law in Scotland. I understand, as one would naturally expect with regard to Scotland, that the sum of money involved here is even less considerable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 29th of April, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)

NAVY ESTIMATES
2.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL rose to call attention to the First Lord's Statement Explanatory of the Navy Estimates (Cmd. 8769); and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the whole the Estimates for the Defence Services this year have not been subjected to any serious criticism in the debates in another place or in your Lordships' House, and it is not my intention to be unduly critical this afternoon, although in the allocation of the global defence expenditure between the three Services the Admiralty have just cause for complaint. It is admitted on all sides that each of the three Services has a vital part to play in the defence of this country, the Commonwealth and the free world. The fact that £1,636 million is the estimate of expenditure during this current year is an indication of our determination, with the other free nations, to do so.
In the allocation the War Office and the Air Ministry are getting substantially more than the Admiralty—though I would make it quite clear that I am not suggesting the War Office or the Air Ministry are getting too much. But the fact remains that the Admiralty is getting much less than was expected, or, indeed, desired, to meet naval requirements. Allowing for the counterpart receipts (amounting in the case of the Navy to £35 million) the estimated expenditure for the Admiralty is £329 million, or £5¾ million less than last year and only 22 per cent. of the total amount set aside for defence expenditure. But the reduction of £5¾million is not all, for of the three Services the Admiralty is the only one which, with a smaller programme of construction, modernisation and conversion, has to draw upon its vital stocks of oil fuel, some of which have been built up over a long period, and upon stores such as guns, torpedoes, mines and ammunition. Moreover, these commodities are to be produced during the present year on a reduced scale.
The raiding of vital stocks of this kind, when you are building up your defence forces, is unprecedented, and as one who has had some experience of the difficulties of building up and maintaining a fuel oil stock I am surprised that the Government have thought fit not only to reduce the build-up, which I can understand, but

463
also to use up the reserves to the extent of over £4 million per annum. The same thing can be said in relation to the stocks of stores to which I have referred. I am sure that the First Lord must feel very strongly that this "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" method is not only unwise but very unfair. Indeed, in his speech on the Estimates in another place the First Lord said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 512 (No. 74), col. 1842):
"I warn the House that this is a situation which cannot be allowed to continue in future."
The raiding of these stores and stocks would mean that in the event of emergency—or, indeed, in the event of need to prepare for an emergency—all those stocks would have to be replaced. Without the raiding of these stores—fuel oil and other stores—and with the same provision made as last year for the purchase of fuel oil and stores, there would have been an expenditure of between £15 million and £20 million more than the present estimate. So the real reduction in naval expenditure during the current year is something like £25 million to £30 million.
In addition, unlike the other two Services, for whom provision has been made in their Estimates to meet rising costs of production, the Admiralty has to meet rising costs from reduced expenditure. As a result of this, it is regrettable to note, there is to be some reduction in the naval programme as previously planned; and it is expected that output, and therefore deliveries, will be less this year than last year. Last year there was a decline in output and deliveries, owing to shortage of steel and other materials. This year there is a decline in output because the Government have not seen fit to vote the necessary money to obtain an output very much higher than that obtaining in the pre-Korean war years.
I should like to inquire whether there is any delay in completing the present new construction, such as the four Hermes fleet carriers and the "Ark Royal," and whether there is to be any slowing down of the modernisation and conversion work in the dockyards. It is pleasing to note that the work in the dockyards is proceeding well. The recent Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Appropriation Account Naval Services, 1951 and 1952, indicated that
464
the conversion programme of destroyers, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine craft is carried out very much more cheaply in the dockyards than in the private shipbuilding and ship-repairing yards. Indeed, the Comptroller and Auditor General in his Report estimated that the saving, as a result of the conversion work being done in the dockyards, amounts to not less than between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent., which is a substantial sum on an expenditure of something between £600,000 and £800,000 for each destroyer converted.
There is a growing concern among many people about our cruiser position. At the present time we have twenty-six cruisers—eleven in the active Fleet, two training and experimental, and thirteen in reserve. I should like to repeat Lord Strabolgi's description of the cruiser. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Lords; Vol. 181, col. 825), that it is:
"…a self-contained unit…it has considerable force of itself,…"
It carries a ship's company of the right number and well balanced. It is the all-purpose ship of the Royal Navy. Its worth has been proved, particularly in the last two years. This type of ship can be sent at short notice to any part of the world. It is a very welcome ship in peace or, indeed, in war. It is absolutely indispensable to the Navy and it does appear at the present time that, apart from the battleship, it is our most neglected ship.
Since the end of the war, the Admiralty have been conducting research and experiments into the most suitable cruiser for the future; and this year I was expecting an announcement by the First Lord that a new cruiser programme had been agreed to and that building would commence at the latest early in 1955. It cannot be realised that at that time five of our existing cruisers will be almost twenty years old, eight will be over fifteen years old and all but three of the others will be over twelve years old. All of these ships have had a very hard war. They have been repaired and refitted several times, and unless something is done, unless a rebuilding programme of cruisers is undertaken, I am afraid this nation will be faced with great difficulty—especially in view of the fact that the estimated life of a cruiser, which was discussed at the London Naval Conference in 1930, was laid down there as

465
being twenty years. The Board of Admiralty must be deeply anxious about this situation, for the First Lord in his speech on the Naval Estimates in another place (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 512, col. 1833) warned the House:
"…that a great part of the Fleet is of pre-war or of war-time construction and that a steady replacement programme…is vital if the Fleet is to exist as an efficient and a balanced fighting force.
"This is a problem which is becoming more pressing as time passes."
He said further (col. 1834):
"…I make the following prophecy—that in a few years' time the First Lord of the day will be asking the House to vote funds for an increasing shipbuilding programme."
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in the same debate echoed those sentiments.
Why should even the consideration of this matter be delayed any further? There is no controversy as to the need for these ships. I remember that at about the same time after the First World War there was controversy about the building of five cruisers. But the five cruisers were the beginning of a very extensive building programme for the Royal Navy; and we may be faced with the situation that we shall have to make up in the not too distant future for the lack of spending at the present time. We have received warnings, both from President Eisenhower in his First Annal Report on N.A.T.O. and also from the First Lord of the Admiralty, as to the increasing strength of the Soviet Navy. The Soviet have now about twenty powerful, fast cruisers, well armed with powerful guns and equipped with the most modern fire control, radar and other modern equipment. All these ships are well manned. In addition, it is known that they have over a hundred destroyers, including some large ones. These destroyers are of the fast, hard-hitting type, and incorporate many lessons learnt from the Germans. Against them we have the "Darings" which, for their tonnage, are the best warships in the world, but they are all too few; and we have also our ageing cruisers. For some time the cruiser "Cumberland" has been used for the purpose of trying out new naval equipment of all kinds. It has tried out new gunnery systems, together with the
466
associated radar equipment and fire control which will give additional gun-power. All of this work was directed mainly to testing equipment to be embodied in the new cruisers: first, the three "Tiger" class cruisers. There is no prospect of our proceeding with the work to bring about their completion, and I should like the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who is going to reply, to inform your Lordships whether the Admiralty are doing even the preliminary work on naval ships which should, with the knowledge that has been obtained from trials and research over many years, give us a cruiser which will be the most powerful and the best in the world.
Further delay in the commencement of a cruiser programme will place this country in great danger. Sometime in the future, the Commonwealth may have to rely for its own protection upon its own naval and military strength, and without the necessary naval power it will not be able to do so. Some two years ago, when I was First Lord, I said that when the "Cumberland" had completed her then trials she might be used for the trial of guided missiles. If this ship is not used for that purpose, I should like the noble Earl to tell us what means are available for the trying out of the many forms of guided missiles which are now becoming available. I saw a report a short time ago that the United States and the United Kingdom are likely to have a fixed standard for all weapons of this kind. Some of those which are being developed are most suitable for the Royal Navy because they are used for anti-aircraft work; indeed, they are used M the anti-aircraft frigates which are being built at the present time. The medium missiles for cruisers can be used against ships and shore targets and carry an armour-piercing atomic warhead. It is said that they will eventually replace the heavy guns now in use on the ships. These are some of the new weapons which it is reported will become available in the course of the next few years. I have also read Press reports about the new weapons which are to be made available to the British Army in Germany. They are smaller weapons but of a similar type. I trust that the First Lord will soon be able to give the same publicity to some of the new naval equipment which may become available.
I was very pleased to see the First Lord's reference to the success achieved in the use of the gas turbine for ship propulsion, on which research and trial have been proceeding since 1947. Its effect upon ship propulsion when fully developed can rightly be described as revolutionary. In addition to its success in the torpedo boats, the "Bold Pioneer" and the "Bold Pathfinder," a successful trial was carried out in a tanker of the Shell group where one of the diesel alternators was replaced by a gas turbine alternator. It was used satisfactorily on a voyage of over 13,000 miles and has resulted in an order being placed early this year for a marine tanker propelled by gas turbines. Recently the United States Navy bought several British gas turbines for experimental purposes. This form of propulsion has obvious advantages, particularly for warships which may need their maximum speed only in short periods. Admiral Sir Michael Denny, the late Controller of the Navy, and those who worked with him, both in the Admiralty and in civil engineering, should be congratulated upon the result, for in this type of propulsion Britain leads the world.
I mentioned last year the question of atomic propelled ships and I received a reply that the Admiralty were conducting research in relation to this matter. We now see that further progress is being made in the United States in this method of propulsion, for the United States Atomic Commission, in the report covering its work during the last six months of 1952, reveals that the assembly of the power unit of the atomic propelled submarine is almost completed, and that contracts for the development of engines for larger naval vessels, such as aircraft carriers of the "Forrestal" class, have been placed. In addition, facilities for the testing of nuclear power plants for aircraft are being constructed, which implies that prototypes of these units are nearing completion. It is interesting to note that the submarine referred to will have a high underwater speed of from twenty to twenty-five knots. Its engine is understood to be a fairly low-temperature project in which heat from a small amount of uranium serves as a source of power. It will be able to travel underwater almost indefinitely, without sur-
468
facing for air or for refuelling. It is expected that this submarine will enter the United States Naval Service in 1954. I should like to ask the noble Earl if Her Majesty's Government are kept informed of this important development, and whether the Admiralty are continuing their research on those lines, for I was surprised in reading a report of a speech made in January this year by the Minister of Supply, who said that it is not proposed to undertake work on the application of nuclear energy to propulsion until more experience has been gained in the development of stationary nuclear plants. Does that mean that the Admiralty have discontinued their work in research on this matter?
I was pleased that the First Lord paid a tribute to the 25,000 officers and other ranks who were retained in the Service after their time expired and also to the Reservists who were called up during the past two and a half years. I should like to join in that tribute because I had some responsibility in the early days for initiating the call-up. These men have carried on uncomplainingly with their duties and have done excellent service, not only in Korea but wherever the Service called them. There are still 12,000 of these men serving and they are expected to return to civil life before the end of the present financial year. We are told that with this release in manpower there will be a decline of something like 10,000 in naval personnel. This reduction must mean a reduction in complement in a number of ships at sea which we are told it will take two years to restore to present strength.
What some of us are concerned about is that to meet what must be a very unsatisfactory situation it is proposed that the intake of Regular recruits should be only 1,000 more than last year. This cannot restore the position created by the loss of the 12,000 men who have to leave before March next. I do not know of any shortage of Regular recruits offering themselves for service in the Admiralty, and I would beg the Admiralty to reconsider their intake during the course of the present year. In 1949, before there was any trouble in Korea and indeed, before the call-up, there was an intake of 5,000 more than the intake during the course of the present year. I beg the Admiralty to

469
reconsider this matter, for unless there is a substantial number of ordinary seamen and boys serving in the Navy there must be an unbalanced manpower situation during the course of the next two or three years.
My noble friend Lord Pakenham is going to deal fully with naval-air matters. It is not my intention to say anything about the officer entry or Dartmouth. I understand that the Committee set up last year to consider this matter has now reported and the First Lord has promised to publish the Report as soon as possible. We shall await this publication with interest. Notwithstanding the many changes which have taken place in our defence organisation, because of the geography of the United Kingdom and our overseas commitments the Royal Navy has still a vital part to play in the defence of this nation and of the Commonwealth, and, by its contribution, in the defence of the free world. A large sum of money is and will be required to maintain it in its traditional, highly efficient state, for it should always be remembered that Britain has grown great because in the past Britons have made a habit of standing on their own feet. My Lords, if we lost that habit, how much else might we not lose with it? I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I feel sure that the Government will give very careful consideration to the grave but in no way exaggerated warning, coming, as it does, from a former First Lord, given by the noble Viscount on the subject of the growing obsolescence of so many units of the Fleet. And in view of the very few numbers which the Fleet musters at the present moment, it is indeed a very grave warning. The first thing that I should like to do this afternoon is to call attention to a very strong impression, in my mind at any rate, about a certain diminution in the status of the First Lord of the Admiralty, involving, of course, a diminution in the status of the Board. The prestige of the office seems to me to have been declining for some time, and to-day the First Lord of the Admiralty is not even a member of the Cabinet. I regard that as a most lamentable state of affairs, and a very sad break in the naval tradition of this country.
470
Side by side with this diminution in the prestige of the First Lord's post there seems to me to be an increasing public indifference to the Navy and a growing unawareness of the Navy's rôle. Let me give your Lordships certain instances which have come to my notice recently. In the last Defence debate in another place, neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition even mentioned the Navy or the Mercantile Marine. The Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence who wound up that debate would also have said nothing about the Navy, except for the fact that at the very end of the debate he was reminded of its existence by Captain Dudley Ryder. Mr. Noel Baker, who was winding up for the Opposition, spoke of the Navy as if it were of no account. He said:
"Aircraft are now the deciding factor in modern war."
Air Commodore Harvey asked what the Navy would really be able to do in the next war. If the Air Commodore goes to the next war I have no doubt he will find, before that war is over, that he has reason to be very thankful indeed to the Navy. Arthur Bryant, who of all men should know better, accuses Admirals of having Magi not Line mentalities. He too may be thankful that the Admirals "know their stuff" better than he knows his history.
Then, the Statement on Defence in its twenty-three pages and eighty-seven paragraphs, gave the Navy exactly eighteen lines. The Times used to be a good friend of the Navy, but lately I have seen none of those articles from its naval correspondent which at one time used to be such excellent reading and kept the Navy so well before the public. It now warns the public against "a greater naval bias at the expense of the Royal Air Force." The Daily Telegraph recently began an editorial with the words, "Publication of the Navy Estimates," after which, save for the words "The high standards of the Navy are being maintained," the entire leader was devoted to the Army and the Royal Air Force. There seems to be—I would not say a concerted effort but certainly a tendency, to relegate the Navy to the position of an ancillary Service. That being so, no wonder the Admiralty has encountered such difficulties in pressing its modest claim for a high performance fighter aircraft.

471
My Lords, is all this going on because some people say that the American Navy is big enough, so why should we bother? In other words, are we to allow our responsibilities to devolve upon American shoulders? I think that is a despicable doctrine, and one which, to my mind, points the quickest road to the end of the Commonwealth. I believe that it is time that doctrine was repudiated, and that those who are able should do something to revive public interest in the Navy and a realisation of its importance. As things are going on, people will forget what their forebears instinctively knew, that sea power is essential to us. In my view, those who talk about air power in terms which discount sea power are rendering their country a very ill-service. Spain, France and Germany were all, in turn, defeated by our control of the seas; and if Russia were to try where those countries failed, she will travel the same road, unless we neglect our Navy. Wars are won by the nation which can move troops, weapons and material across the seas at will. So much for that.
I should like now to say a word about dockyards. It was with great pleasure that I heard the noble Viscount give those excellent figures which have been produced by the Comptroller and which are a great credit to the work of the dockyards. When I raised the matter of the dockyards last year, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, disagreed with me. I was not altogether surprised, because in a sense each had a private interest in the matter, one having been First Lord of the Admiralty and the other First Sea Lord. Therefore, if things were amiss in the dockyards each would bear his appropriate share of responsibility for that state of affairs. I know that the noble Viscount will believe me when I say that I speak in the friendliest manner possible. But I reread his speech last Sunday, and I noticed that at the outset he promised the Minister who was to reply for the Government that "no troublesome questions would come from me. "I must say that I thought that seemed a rather curious commentary on the work of his honourable friend, Mr. Albu, who was a member of the Select Committee and
472
who might fairly have looked for a little support from the noble Viscount in this matter. I re-read the speech, and the noble Viscount must forgive me if I say that I noticed a certain note of complacency in it, and I finished it with the feeling that according to his view all was for the best in the best of all possible dockyards—which is at variance with the Report of the Select Committee.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, charged me with making a "caustic attack on the Admiralty on sailors, and on the dockyards," and with saying that "the dockyards are rotten and their appliances useless." Heaven forbid that I should ever re-read a speech of my own after I have struggled through it, but I really cannot recollect using any such words as those! I should like to point out that I did not put my own views before your Lordships; I put forward the views of the Select Committee which I felt it was right and proper your Lordships should have laid before you. And far from attacking all and sundry, I probably quoted the Committee's Report which said:
"Only the versatility of naval officers and the efficiency of the managers can enable such a system to work at all."
I would say that that is a tribute to naval officers, and to the dockyard staffs and officials who produce such excellent results in face of very great difficulty. I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, overlooked the fact that I was putting forward not my own views but the views of a great cloud of witnesses—an Admiral Superintendent, Admiralty witnesses, dockyard officials and workers, and naval officers—who testified before the Select Committee and whose views the Select Committee very largely accepted and embodied in their Report.
A Select Committee is a very important and responsible body which acts upon the evidence of the witnesses who come before it. What I did was to put forward the findings of that Committee. In any case, in attacking me I think Lord Chatfield was a little more Royalist than the King, because the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, when replying to the debate was kind enough to refer to "the extremely temperate manner" in which I had "introduced this rather controversial subject," which is hardly the same thing as saying that I had made a caustic

473
attack upon all and sundry. But the real point is that there was a difference of opinion between us. I endorsed the view of the Select Committee; Lord Chatfield was opposed to it. I think that the reply made by the Admiralty to the Select Committee's Report, though I do not wish for one moment to put it too high—in fact, I put it a little too low—shows that their Report has made a very distinct impression indeed upon the minds of the Admiralty.
I think the experiment which is going to be tried of appointing an Assistant Superintendent (Industrial) to work with the Admiral Superintendent is a most interesting and valuable experiment, and I shall be very much surprised if it does not result in considerable reforms being effected in the dockyards along the lines recommended by the Select Committee. Between the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, and myself there was only a difference of opinion, and there is no need to make harsh remarks about a difference of opinion. Opinions will always differ. Lord Chatfield will remember that he and his fellow Chiefs of Staff were of opinion that the Southern Irish ports could quite safely be handed over to Eire. The Government of the day accepted their opinion and, of course, in so doing, took the responsibility—the responsibility was not on the Chiefs of Staff but on the Government which accepted their advice. Many people held another opinion, including the present Prime Minister, who said:
"It was incredible to me that the Chiefs of Staff should have agreed to throw away this major security."
Further, he said;
"I remain convinced that the gratuitous surrender of our right to use the Irish ports in war was a major injury to British national life and safety. A more feckless act can hardly be imagined. Many a ship and many a life were soon to be lost as the result of this improvident example of appeasement."
That merely goes to show that opinions can differ.
Lord Chatfield's opinions are always arrived at after careful thought and with a high sense of responsibility and duty. That he has now and then been wrong when he has so very often been right entitles him to moderation and courtesy in any criticism of his views. And those who differ from him may fairly expect the same treatment. I would commend to the
474
noble and gallant Lord's consideration the immortal boatswain, Mr. Chucks, of Peter Simple, who always prefaced his admonitory remarks with the phrase:
"Allow me to observe in the most delicate way in the world."
It is true that on one occasion he went on to tell the man he was addressing that he would cut his liver out if he spilt any mere tar on the deck; but, anyhow, he began politely, and that is a great thing when opinions differ.
I should like now to go on to say something about naval aviation, which came very much to the front in the recent Defence debate. I think that "Victory through heavy bombers" is a fallacy. The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is not here now, but really at times it seems to be almost an obsession with him. In 1940 he campaigned for more bombers, when I think I am right in saying that fewer fighters would have lost us the Battle of Britain. Lord Trenchard then seems to have thought that the war could be won by giving the Air Force bombers at the expense of its fighters. Now at times he seems to want to starve the Navy and the Army of the aircraft which are necessary for their co-operation with the Air Force. It is in this way that the old Service rivalries are kept alive, to the very great harm of our defence arrangements. No doubt I am wrong, but at times, listening to Lord Trenchard, I wonder whether he has assimilated the true doctrine about co-ordination of the three Services in war. The Minister of Defence is not taking part in our debate to-day, but if he were I should like to address to him what I think is a very important question indeed. I should like to ask whether common doctrine on this subject of the co-ordination of the three Services, in war is taught in all Service staff colleges, because I believe that the three Services ought to be trained and administered in a common doctrine on that particular point.
To produce three types of heavy bomber for the Royal Air Force seems to me to be over-indulging one Service. The Navy is not granted the same over-insurance in regard to fighters required to secure the North Atlantic sea communications against shore-based aircraft. Command of North Atlantic communications can be obtained in no other way

475
than by carrier-borne fighters supporting ship-and shore-based anti-submarine aircraft. It was proved conclusively in the last war on the Mediterranean and Archangel convoy routes that convoys are helpless without fighter cover. Yet the Navy and Coastal Command have been deprived of the requisite aircraft, and while the R.A.F. apparently get three types of heavy bomber, the Navy is fighting in Korea with World War II type piston aircraft.
In the last war, the doctrine of strategic bombing endangered our Atlantic communications. That war taught us that while the air has great power to dominate narrow seas, and also in anti-submarine warfare, it has not the equivalent power to disrupt the enemy's war production and break civilianmorale—which is the idea behind the doctrine of strategic bombing. Looking back to the history of the war, we find that the war did not begin to take a turn in our favour while bombing was at its height, but only when we realised what long-range aircraft could do in the Battle of the Atlantic, and when we devoted sufficient of our aircraft production potential to provide such long-range aircraft for the service of our convoys. War priority number one is to keep the enemy out of the Channel and Atlantic ports and to ensure that those ships, without whose safe arrival we should fold up in three weeks, continue to arrive in N.A.T.O. ports with the petrol, oils and food they bring. We could not even mount an offensive against the enemy unless these ships arrive. These merchant ships cannot be defended by warships alone, even if we had enough of the right type of warship. Aircraft must play their part in defending our communications, but the Navy have not enough of the right aircraft.
Looking back to the story of the war, we find now that our losses at sea delayed our offensive. Not only that: the war was unduly prolonged, piling up losses of life and treasure, losses of treasure which still impede our post-war recovery. That was the price we paid for this doctrine of strategic bombing, which should have come after, and not before, our offensive had started. Next time, if a next time comes, we must adopt a true strategy; and one factor in that is to give naval aviation its proper rôle
476
and the aircraft with which to play that rôle. The 1,000 bomber raids failed in their final purpose. There were 1,000 bomber raids, but the Atlantic got only sixty long-range aircraft. Strategic bombing risked us losing the war at sea. In my opinion, Lord Trenchard's heavy bombers can never damage Russia so much as Russian bombers can damage us. After all, we have found in Korea that heavy bombers have not cut the enemy's communications, nor have they held up his supplies. They have not been able to accomplish these two objectives.
I think that too much has been claimed for what air power can undertake alone. In 1942 the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, claimed that bombers could destroy the sources of submarine production. Shipping cannot be defended by attacking the enemy's submarines in their bases; shipping has to be defended at sea by ships and ship-and shore-based aircraft. In the last war 550 submarines were destroyed at sea. Half of that number were destroyed by aircraft, and only thirty-seven were destroyed in their yards. That, I think, conclusively answers the theory of destroying enemy submarines in their bases. These figures prove that our needs would have been far better served by more aircraft for securing sea communications. We did not see the light in this matter until 1943, and it has been estimated that as a consequence we lost no fewer that 3,250 merchant ships, worth £250 million, while our armies all over the world were hung up in their operations for lack of supplies due to the bottleneck in shipping. I spoke of the two objectives of strategic bombing. The Germans rebuilt the factories we destroyed far more quickly than we were able to build replacements for the ships which the German submarines sank. The bombers never cracked German civilian morale. The Air Force cannot obtain command of the air without the supplies which the Navy must bring them. The A-bomb is a potent weapon, but it depends on many things—on precision instruments, on highly trained and skilled crews, on bases and maintenance and factories. But all those things go for nought without fuel. The Navy must convoy the fuel across the seas. And without fighters the Navy cannot guarantee the arrival of those supplies.

477
Aircraft carriers come in for heavy criticism in your Lordships' House. Carrier-based aircraft can start operations right off the enemy's coast and bases, and can move to any desired point. During the war, American carriers, operating 1,500 aircraft, destroyed no fewer than 5,000 Japanese shore-based aircraft. I think that is a great testimony to the capacity of carriers. The aircraft performance figures show that air cover for naval and military operations cannot always be provided by land-based aircraft. Until such cover can be provided, in my opinion carriers are a "must." The base must go with the aircraft, if only to provide their fuel, as no fighter built or projected has the radius to work with the fleet from a shore base. We are told that the carrier is vulnerable, but it has a good record. During the war we operated fifty-eight carriers. We lost only eight of them. Four of these were of World War I type, not modern carriers at all, and one of these was the "Glorious," which was lost while acting as a transport and had no aircraft on board. During the same period the Americans operated 110 carriers and lost only ten or eleven. I think that is good testimony for that point. The aircraft carrier is by no means so vulnerable as its opponents make out.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has spoken on this subject of naval aviation, and he told us, I am sure in completely good faith, that:
"The Attacker is giving satisfaction to the pilots who fly it."
I am sorry to have to disillusion the noble Lord, but that simply is not the case. I can tell him of a very capable and skilful jet pilot who was most anxious that attention should be drawn to the fact that the defence of the Fleet cannot possibly be carried out with the Attacker. I am sure the staff do not regard the Attacker as a battle worthy, fully-operational aircraft. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, described the Attacker as a "stopgap." That in itself shows that it is not entirely satisfactory. If we were to find ourselves at war before the replacement for the Attacker was fully in service, would the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, be able to tell us what gap the Attacker could stop in such a case? And the same thing applies to the Sea Hawk. The incontrovertible truth of
478
the matter is this. The naval pilots have not got, and they see no immediate prospects of getting, an aircraft which will do the job they are expected to do—that is, to defend the Fleet at sea against modern high-speed, high-flying aircraft, and to carry out strikes at the range required. I think I am right in saying that that was one of the lessons which emerged from Operation "Mainbrace"—the N.A.T.O. operation.
What can he done to remedy this state of affairs? Super-priority will not do it. Much as I dislike dependence upon America—and I have spoken to-day against it—Ishould like to ask whether there are any American aircraft available. To-day, some of the R.A.F. squadrons are fitted out with stopgaps, with Sabres from Canada. Has America any carrier-borne fighters with a better performance than the Attacker and the Sea Hawk? The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, admitted that the position perturbs even the Government. The Government's perturbation will be largely relieved once they take the plunge and firmly make up their minds that the Navy must have more antisubmarine aircraft arid many more over-sea aircraft, and set about getting them. The Navy must have them before war breaks out—if, indeed, a war is to break out—or it will never have them until it is too late. We are told that the Sea Hawk, like Christmas, is coming. Which Christmas is it: Christmas, 1953, 1954 or 1955? We hear that there is something to replace the Attacker which is to enjoy super-priority, and that Vickers have an order for a substantial quantity of those aircraft. But what we want to know is whether by "substantial quantity" is meant enough to meet our needs. We should be in a pretty mess if war came before that replacement for the Attacker was in service.
What a shocking record it has been as regards naval aviation! Naval aviation has always been at the tail end of the aircraft production quene. I do not know why successive First Lords and successive Boards of Admiralty have "stood for" such a state of affairs. I should like to ask how this super-priority queue stands. I understand that there are lined up in that queue four jet bombers, three civil aircraft and one naval fighter. Do they get equal treatment; or is there a priority in super-priority? Those of us who repeatedly press this matter of naval

479
aviation must not be reproached for our insistence. Peter Ree, the naval pilot who was killed in the fly-past for Marshal Tito, was of the type of our really incomparable naval pilots. One must continue to press by all means in one's power to give such gallant fellows the aircraft they deserve, but which, so far they have never had.
I fear that I have detained your Lordships too long, but there is one other point I should like to make, and it is on the subject of Russia. There was a time in this country when a speech by our First Lord frightened the enemy. Now, apparently, that has all changed, and he frightens his own side instead. Certainly his remarks about the Russian Navy caused considerable concern amongst the public. I am not going into that speech in detail this afternoon, but I have not yet seen a really authoritative statement putting in their proper perspective the facts about the Russian Navy, in which case, I believe they would bear a much different aspect from that conveyed to the public mind by the speech of the First Lord. Nevertheless, I feel that in the event of a war with Russia the situation will be very grave. I believe that we shall face a more severe attack upon our sea communications than we suffered in either of the last two major wars. It is on that account that I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, will be able, amongst the many other matters to which he is going to reply, to say something to put the facts about the Russian Navy in their proper perspective.
3.58 p.m.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I do not propose to say a great deal in this debate. Like most of those of my age and rank, I feel that the day has passed when we should expound naval affairs to your Lordships and others, and now I come to the House on these occasions only to learn what I can. That is probably why I am the only Admiral here this afternoon. I learnt a great deal from the excellent and thoughtful speech (as usual) of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who did so splendidly when he held the tiller at the Admiralty. I was particularly interested in what he said about the cruiser situation and with regard to the lack of building-up in our oil and other material reserves. I have the highest opinion of
480
the present Board of Admiralty—if I may be so rash as to say anything like that. I do not think that any other Boards of Admiralty have ever been in such a difficult position as that of the Boards of Admiralty since the war came to an end. Why is that? It is because the problem that is set the Board of Admiralty today is a different one from that which was set in the past. In the old days, the duty of the Board of Admiralty was to build fleets, greater than those of our possible opponents. Now those days have gone, and it is no longer the duty of the Board of Admiralty to build great fleets. However, it is still their duty to defend the seas.
In considering what money the Navy should have compared with the other Services, the Admiralty in the old days had their standard of strength to put up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and could say, "Unless you give us so much money we cannot maintain that standard." The three Services then were competing against each other as to how to defend this country, possibly in fighting a war single-handed against an enemy. To-day it is different. We in the United Kingdom and in the British Empire have become part of a combination. We now have to balance our strength, not as regards each Service one against the other, but as regards what is required from us particularly as a nation in order to ensure balance in that combination which we trust would fight a probable or possible—perhaps I might say it is less possible now—enemy. Therefore, the problem which faces the Admiralty, the Minister of Defence and the Cabinet is a different one from that which existed before.
I have no prejudice or bias about the Services and their money. The only thing that matters is that we defend the country in the best way. If it is the best way to have nothing but aircraft, let us have them. If it is the best way to have an amount of money divided equally between the three Services, let us have that. The only thing that matters is that we have the right distribution of money and that we achieve our objective in any future war. Three years ago, speaking in your Lordships' House in a Defence debate, I said that I agreed with the Cabinet decision to give the Royal Air Force the first priority in financial expenditure because they were our weakest point as

481
regards the threat that was held over our heads. But I added, as I will add to-day, that all that is subject to the absolute certainty that you must not let down the defence of our trade in war time. It is difficult to say whether the threat to our trade is the first or the second greatest danger which this country faces.
It is very curious how often this question arises after wars: What should be done about the Services and their money? Curiously enough, I was reading some poetry last night. I do not often do that. As a matter of fact, I was looking for a clue in The Times crossword, and I had to refer to the book of Byron's poems. I came across a very famous poem called Don Juan, which in my early days used to be considered improper. I was looking at it not for any sensuous reason, but for the reason I gave your Lordships. I came across this most extraordinary verse, which was written by Byron in 1818 after the Napoleonic Wars:
"Nelson was once Britannia's God of War, And still should be so, but the tide is turned.
There's no more to be said of Trafalgar,
'Tis with our hero quietly inurned
Because the Army's grown more popular
At which the Naval people are concerned."
I thought that was an extraordinary example of "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." What we are thinking to-day is what our fathers and grandfathers were thinking 130 years ago.
But at the same time there is really only one rule that always felt the Admiralty must bear in mind, and that is, that we must have every type of means of attack and defence that our enemy may have. There is nothing that he has that we can afford to be without. If the enemy has a battleship, we must have a battleship. If he has cruisers we must have cruisers. If he has submarines and antisubmarine devices, we must have the same. The reason is because at sea, in the various weathers, with fog and gales, one type of vessel may be able to act in the prevailing circumstances when none of the others can do so. If the enemy has that type of vessel and you have not, then you are going to suffer extraordinarily severely. That is why when people ask in a glib, amateur manner, "What is the good of a battleship?," the answer is, "To find and look after the enemy's battleship." The same applies to aircraft
482
carriers or anything else. We must have what the enemy has, and we must have it in sufficient numbers.
I feel that the Navy is down to bedrock to-day. We have practically the smallest Navy we have had for many generations. I have no doubt that it is good and efficient, so far as it goes; but that is not enough. We are part of a combination. But suppose the combination breaks up: then where are we going? If you allow your vital factor, your sea communications, on which the Empire is built, to dwindle too low, you are prejudicing your future. You are living on the edge of a precipice, and if the combination does not hold, if you can no longer trust to the great volume of ships of the United States Navy being at your back, then you will not be able to recover in time. I hope that that is a point which the Admiralty will insist on being continually considered by the Minister of Defence and other Ministers.
I agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said, that there can be no doubt that by having a Minister of Defence—we are not thinking of the present one, and, as you know, I was one myself—the Secretaries of State for War and Air, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, to a certain extent, lose their position. When I was First Sea Lord in the 'thirties I was asked by the Prime Minister whether I thought a Minister of Defence would be a good thing, and what effect it would have. I said: "One effect will be that to some extent the First Lord and the Secretaries of State will lose their prestige, and the Chiefs of Staff and their Committee will gain in theirs. "I feel that is the risk. The Minister of Defence, the Treasury and the Cabinet have only one man to knock down; before they had three, and it is much easier to knock down one than three. I know that the position of the Minister of Defence is very difficult, and I am quite sure that he does magnificently in the circumstances.
I must not keep your Lordships too long, but the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has made some remarks about my speech on his Motion on the dockyards about a year ago. As a matter of fact, I thought that I had been exceedingly moderate and careful in answering him. The noble Lord will, I am sure, admit that he has a rather caustic way of

483
addressing the House, and perhaps one reads into his voice more than he means. I have read through the Hansard Report of that debate, to which your Lordships also can refer if necessary—though we do not want to have the dockyard battle over again. I can find in that Report nothing in what I said which was untrue or harsh. I always try not to be harsh—at any rate, I have always tried ever since I left the quarterdeck. I said that the noble Lord had been critical of the Admiralty and the Admiral Superintendent of the dockyards, and of the dockyards and their work.
Incidentally, my Lords, this is almost a humorous battle between the noble Lord and myself. In replying to the debate on that occasion, the noble Lord made reference to what I had said and used these words (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 177, col. 323):
"If he reads my remarks he will find that I made no criticism of naval officers, and made no suggestion of their doing bad work, or of the dockyards doing bad work."
I can only refer to what the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, said in opening the Admiralty's defence. He said (col. 307):
"But I will not disguise from your Lordships that I was somewhat shocked by the tenor of the noble Lord's speech. Apparently, he actually thinks that the Royal Dockyards have been run for years upon a vicious and incompetent principle. If that is his view, I can only say at the outset of my remarks that I must oppose it with an emphatic denial. He said that some officer had said that the dockyards were past praying for."
That is what one might call "some criticism." Lord Birkenhead went on:
I do not know who that officer was, but it certainly is not my experience of such dockyards as I have seen. Indeed, I must regard any imputations of that kind by the noble Lord as a dangerous reflection upon the distinguished naval officers who are in charge of our dockyards."
I do not want to worry your Lordships with many more words. I feel the matter can be summed up in this way: that if the noble Lord says that I was harsh, then it is almost a case of the pot calling the kettle black. That, I think, fairly well describes the situation.
However, I know full well that the noble Lord speaks only from an entirely patriotic sense of duty, and that he is immensely keen on any subject which he takes up; and although he excuses himself under the Select Committee's Report,
484
he did, I must say, carefully select just such points as happened to coincide with his view. I think that, when one quotes other people's views, one must accept some responsibility for agreeing with what they happen to say.
LORD WINSTER: I agree, but I did quote a very warm testimony by the Select Committee to the work of the dockyards, and in fact I have quoted it again to-day.
LORD CHATFIELD: The other point I wish to mention concerns the Irish ports. The noble Lord criticised the Chiefs of Staff. I could not quite make out what happened, but the noble Lord, when quoting Sir Winston Churchill's book, Volume 1, omitted to read this note:
"Readers should read Lord Chatfield's book, It Might Happen Again."
That was Sir Winston Churchill's very proper and nice way of saying that there was another side to the case. I think that when Lord Winster quoted Sir Winston Churchill about the Irish ports he ought also to have quoted that note.
4.15 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should first like to say how gratified I was the other day to receive an invitation from the Board of Admiralty to the Naval Review, and how much I, and I am sure other noble Lords, shall look forward to seeing it from H.M.S. "Perseus" on that day. I am grateful, also, for the privilege of being allowed to wear uniform again on that occasion. I am only sorry that the administrative arrangements do not make it possible for us to stay and see the Fleet lit up.
I should like to say one word about the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth. I understand that the Report is just about to come out, so I will not attempt to anticipate it. But this matter has been dragging on for a longtime, and I hope that the Report, when it comes out, will be acted upon quickly, and that the criterion for giving the decisions on that Report will be what system is best for the Navy. I trust that the matter will not be dragged into the political arena and into controversy on the various forms of State or public school education. The main reason why the Navy is not getting enough of the right type of officer to-day is that the present system has not been a

485
success. Let us hope that when the Report comes out something will be done to improve matters.
As an ex-specialist in naval aviation—one of the very few, I think, in this House—it has usually been my custom to say something about that important side of naval warfare. But on this occasion the subject has already been dealt with fully, first of all during the Defence debate, in a most admirable speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, who set out in a much more able way than I ever could the strategic value of the aircraft carrier. I am sure that all of us who heard the speech were most impressed by what he had to say. I would only add that the parallels of two wars show that naval planning and most naval battles devolve on getting a convoy from one place to another. The safe arrival of convoys is a matter of life and death to this country. I do not believe that convoys in the middle Atlantic and many other parts of the world can be safely protected by any other means than carrier-borne aircraft. I am entirely in agreement with Lord Winster on that subject.
The carrier is vital at the beginning of new campaigns; and when some small war, if you like to call it so, breaks out in some more or less distant part of the world, as seems to be likely now, judging by recent events, it is the only way of getting air support quickly to a combined operations force. And the faster and more modern shore-based aircraft we have, the longer it takes to prepare an airfield from which they can operate. The days of being able to improvise an airstrip in a few weeks are gone; and I feel, therefore, that the need for carrier-borne aircraft will continue. We must not neglect that side of the Navy. I was very pleased to read about the new angled flight deck, which I am sure will be of great assistance to our pilots using faster jet aircraft. I particularly have some feeling of sorrow that the angled deck did not come into being when I was flying, because, in one of my early deck landings, I succeeded in hitting the island and landing upside down on the bridge of the "Eagle." If the "Eagle" had had an angled deck, I should perhaps have avoided doing this.
I, too, am concerned at the lack of modern naval aircraft and the delay in getting high-performance jet fighters and
486
anti-submarine aircraft into the Fleet. But in defence of I should like to emphasise a point which I do not think anybody else has mentioned—the great technical difficulties which have to be overcome in producing these carrier-borne aircraft, difficulties with which the designers of shore-based aircraft do not have to contend. Very often the dimensions of the aircraft have to be cut down below what the designer would like, because the aircraft cannot get down the lift or has insufficient headroom in the hangar. There is the very complicated and difficult mechanism for the folding of the wings of the aircraft. There is the stressing of the aircraft to take the arrester gear and so that it can be launched from an accelerator. All these requirements make the task of designing naval aircraft for carrier use a most appalling problem, which I think should be remembered. Sometimes the causes of delay, modifications and hold-ups are due to these facts which I have mentioned.
I was pleased to see that prominence was given in the Statement on the Navy Estimates to the use of the helicopter. As I see it, the helicopter, if it has not already done so, will soon make one great economy. Instead of every aircraft carrier which is operating aircraft needing a destroyer to follow astern to rescue any pilot who is unfortunate enough to go into the sea, this duty may be completely taken over by the helicopter, resulting in tremendous saving in fuel and the use of a valuable destroyer in unprofitable and boring work.
It is still true to-day that, when there is an emergency, at once the Navy comes to the fore in the most unexpected way. Little did we think that a flight of naval helicopters would be rescuing hundreds of Dutch farmers and peasants from one of the islands in South Holland. I am glad to see that the Gwen of the Netherlands recognised the valuable work which that naval squadron carried out.
I was pleased to read in the Statement that among the important works carried out were improvements to the runways and the modernisation of our naval air stations. It is essential that squadrons should do a great deal of air training on shore, and we must have modern air stations for them to use. In that connection, I noted that money was being

487
spent on the living accommodation in these stations, and no doubt that would include married quarters. As I see it, one of the greatest forces for recruiting for the Navy and, alternatively, one of the greatest hindrances to re-engagement are, respectively, a contented or a discontented naval wife. If we can make the wife of the senior petty officer happy and give her a nice house, she will encourage her husband, who is so valuable to the Navy, to continue with his long service. But if to the contrary, she will say, "I am not prepared to put up with this any longer. Let us go back to civil life where we can have a home in which to bring up our children. "I think that the importance of those naval wives in that respect cannot be too strongly emphasised. I will not keep your Lordships any longer. I think the Statement is generally satisfactory, and that the progress which has been made is interesting. There is, however, no cause for complacency. A great deal more remains to be done before we have a modern Navy fit to cope with anything that it may be called upon to do.
4.26 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, my intervention will be short. It is for one purpose only, to draw attention to a subject of which I have given notice, though rather short notice, for which I apologise to the noble Earl. It is a question which I have not heard brought up before in this House—a question of Admiralty administration. It has to deal with the Admiralty courier service. So far as I recollect, there was no such thing in existence as an Admiralty courier service before the First World War, nor during the period between the wars. It was essentially a war-time organisation, and what I should like to be told is: what are the circumstances to-day which necessitate the maintenance of this service in peace-time? Why are couriers required to carry packages and letters and to accompany sacks of mail when, prior to the war, the normal channels of communication—that is, the Post Office—operated perfectly adequately and, so far as I know, perfectly efficiently?
I should like to know what the composition of this service is. How many couriers are there? What is the method of recruitment to this service? Are they
488
confined to retired Army officers, as I seem to remember they were during the war? If so, why are retired Naval officers not considered for what one would have thought would be a priority job for them, if indeed couriers are required at all? Is this service a daily one, or does it function two or three times a week; and at what figure do the man-hours work out per week or per month? Again, what are the geographical limits of their operations? I understand that they do not operate beyond the United Kingdom. I do not know whether there is an Army courier service or an Air Force courier service. If there is, would it not be possible to combine the courier work of all three Services—again, I say, if indeed couriers are required at all? Could not the Queen's Messengers undertake whatever personally conducted transport of confidential secret matter is required?
I ask these questions, of course, to try to elucidate the circumstances necessitating the continued existence of an erstwhile war-time organisation. This leads me to my final question, which is the kernel of the whole matter—namely, what is the annual cost of the maintenance of this courier service? Under what Vote does one find it in the Estimates? I have been quite unable to trace it. Presumably, in addition to the couriers themselves, there must be a headquarters staff of some sort at the Admiralty, and there must be motor cars and chauffeurs to take them away. I understand that there are scale payments for railway porters who handle the various sacks and parcels, and matters of that sort. All this must tot up to many thousands of pounds a year, and when one remembers the great reduction in the number of ships and establishments of the Fleet, compared with what it was in earlier years, when no courier service was in existence, one feels constrained to ask whether the maintenance of a separate courier service for the Navy is really justifiable at a time when the need for cutting down administrative costs and of retrenchment generally remains, as ever, an urgent necessity.
4.32 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has raised more than one point which, I feel sure, will tax the well-known powers of

489
the noble Earl who is to reply. We are all looking forward to that reply, delivered with the full authority of the Admiralty. I only say that I hope the noble Earl will not restrict his powers of wit and humour—so long as they are not exercised at my particular expense—but may deflect his energies in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, as a beginning.
I propose to speak almost entirely on naval aviation, and mainly on naval aircraft. Before coming to that particular topic may I express my respect for all that has been said up to the present by noble Lords, each of whom has had far more experience of the sea than I am ever likely to have. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who was called away, has not yet been able to return, but I was particularly pleased to hear the tribute paid so sincerely and convincingly by the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, to the speech and personality and record at the Admiralty of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. Coming from the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, that tribute will, I believe, give very great pleasure throughout naval circles and far beyond them.
I remember that when in 1951 I became for a few months First Lord of the Admiralty, I was informed that the one admitted weakness of the Fleet at that time was the shortage of naval pilots. From what the First Lord and others have told us lately, the position in that respect appears to be somewhat better to-day, though I know that the First Lord and the noble Earl will not claim in any way that we are yet out of the wood. But to-day there is a widespread conviction—it has been voiced once more by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and has certainly not been resisted very violently by Government spokesmen on recent occasions—that the supply of our naval aircraft, actual and prospective, is well below the standard which the Navy has a right to expect, and well below the standard that we have a right to find in the Navy. Therefore, I am sure the House will not feel that I am ignoring the human and administrative sides of naval aviation—to which I and, I have no doubt, others will wish to return on another occasion—if I concentrate to-day on naval aircraft. I shall do so in general terms. We have had
490
detailed discussions here and elsewhere quite lately, and I may not raise detailed topics this afternoon. But, as I shall show in a moment, I intend to press the noble Earl for various statements or, at any rate, assurances which I hope he will be in a position to give us.
My argument, painful though it may be, can happily be kept entirely clear of Party dialectics. As I ventured to say on an earlier occasion, all Governments of recent years, whatever their complexion, must stand together in this matter in the same while sheet. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was at rifle hard on past First Lords. I frankly sympathise with his feeling in the matter, and I repeat what I said on an earlier occasion: that this is not a possible opportunity for past Governments, whatever their Party, to throw stones at the present Administration. But the relative importance of naval aviation admittedly grows ever greater as time passes, and the penalties and perils that threaten our country, as a consequence of failure or inadequacy in this vital sphere, grow greater with every day that passes. Though the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is not here—and I do not wish to assail him in his absence—I should add that nothing that I say to-day is intended to modify in any way the balance of argument between myself and the noble and gallant Viscount, as it was left after our last debate. Thus, I will not return to it this afternoon. I desire to be as uncontroversial as possible, and in that connection I would say simply that the recent history of Coastal Command does not suggest that the Royal Air Force could have handled this matter of naval aircraft any more effectively than the Royal Navy has, in fact, handled it, although in one respect the Royal Air Force would have had a certain advantage within the Ministry of Supply.
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, would be the last to deny the widespread disquiet which exists, among all who follow these matters, in regard to the naval aircraft position. In view of the public anxiety expressed by the Chairman of the Navy League and other distinguished officers at an earlier date, I should not like to claim, as it were, to have initiated this disquiet in any way;

491
but I do recall a debate in your Lordships' House in February when I offered the opinion that the Navy had never had worthy aircraft, whatever Government were in office. I said that boldly. I am bound to say that I did it with some sense of rashness, although with full conviction, because I expected to find the opinion challenged in some quarters at least. But, on the contrary—and it is now three months or so ago—that view now seems to have become accepted as a sort of platitude—a kind of starting point in any discussion. Certainly it has been expressed, or implied, on a number of occasions since that debate in February, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, by those with great experience of the sea.
With no kind of personal animus, indeed with no desire to make any personal criticism at all, I would remark that Ministerial statements in various debates in this House and another place have not done much to raise our spirits. I do not say that it was possible for those spokesmen to create any more optimistic impression—it might not have been honest to do so. But certainly I think there are few who are of the opinion that a new page has been turned over, and that the failures of the past are to be compensated by successes in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft (I am glad to see he has rejoined us), it will be recalled, wound up the debate on aircraft in this House on February 17. I think I am right in saying that he described the naval aircraft position as unsatisfactory. I am sure he is a devout reader of The Times. If so, he will recollect that next morning The Times commented:
"This is tantamount to an admission by a pre-1939 Government of the inadequacy of the main armament of the Battle Fleet."
That was the comment of The Times on the authoritative pronouncement of the noble Lord in February.
Since then, we have had various debates. The First Lord has spoken fully and eloquently on this among other matters in another place. But since the debate on the Navy Estimates in another place, we find the Manchester Guardian supporting the following view in a special article. It quotes this view with approval, as held by competent observers. Using the words of the Manchester Guardian, I think the view can be
492
summed up in this way, that the Royal Navy is equipped almost entirely with obsolete or obsolescent aircraft. I think that is going rather far. I am not going to quote further words of the Manchester Guardian because I think one can spoil a good case by over-statement. But the Manchester Guardian is a newspaper of the highest integrity and standing, and after all these debates that is how it sums up the position. Indeed it sums it up a great deal more pessimistically in some sentences than in the one which I have quoted. I do not think that the fact of the existence of disquiet, whether justified or not—and I submit that it is largely justified—in well-informed circles in this country can seriously be disputed. The very distinguished Government spokesmen in our recent debates in this House were no doubt extremely cautious, and it may be that they did well to be canny, but we are left with a position to-day which is described by Mr. Oliver Stewart, with editorial support in the organ of the Navy League, as:
"Air danger in the Navy."
I do not possess the necessary qualifications for either accepting or rejecting the full details of Mr. Stewart's argument, but I offer my personal conviction in favour of his main line of thought. There is, I submit, truly and beyond argument, an air danger in the Navy, in the sense that at the present time naval aircraft appear to be the Achilles' heel of our whole defence system. I place myself wholeheartedly behind the clear and firm words of the editor of The Navy, the organ of the Navy League:
"The whole question is too vital to our security to be glossed over, the Government should come clean; tell us how, where and why these delays have occurred and give the most explicit assurance that they have been eliminated.…Otherwise what reason have we to assume that super-priority"—
he is referring to the new jet fighter—
"means anything at all?"
There is the point in a nut-shell. No one questions—I am sure that I do not—the ability, the energy or the devotion of the present First Lord or his colleagues on the Board of Admiralty, but unless the approach and the system are improved, what reason is there to think that they will do better than their predecessors? In the words of the editor of The Navy, unless we can obtain something clearer and firmer:
"this is simply not good enough."

493
What, then, am I asking Her Majesty's Government and the Board of Admiralty, in particular, to do? I am not, I repeat, criticising individuals; I am certainly not dragging politics into it, and I am not to-day, whatever may be the case on some other occasions, referring to particular aircraft. But from this side of the House I am putting forward two proposals and adding a third as a personal submission—I must not try to involve the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in it at this stage—and I have given the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, notice of all three suggestions. First, I ask the Government for a clearer and more definite and more unambiguous statement than any made yet that they recognise that a new emphasis and a higher priority must be given to naval aviation than those which have hitherto been accorded. I am not asking just for stronger emphasis and for nigh priority: I respectfully call for new emphasis and for much higher priority. May I suggest, with proper deference, to the noble Earl, who possesses a great command of words, and through him to the First Lord, that statements of the kind I am asking for can be phrased so as to mean virtually nothing, or, as I hope on this occasion, to make it clear throughout the Admiralty and the Fleet that the First Lord to-day recognises that something is seriously amiss. I beg the noble Earl for an assurance that the First Lord intends to give this question of naval aviation and naval aircraft in particular his unceasing personal attention, and for an assurance that" heads will roll" if a better report cannot be given to us next year.
My second point is more complex. I hope your Lordships, most of whom, I think, are fairly familiar with these rather involved matters, will bear with me if I appear to dwell on something which does not seem, at first sight, of major importance. I am trying to put my finger on the weak spot in the present arrangements. The topic to which I wish to refer is, I understand from a Government statement elsewhere, under governmental examination at the present time. That, I know the House will agree, does not preclude a brief reference to it here, though perhaps to avoid any possible misunderstanding I should hasten to give an assurance that I am not speaking from any kind of unofficial Admiralty brief. In this particular part of my speech I am putting
494
forward a personal view after discussion with my noble friend Lord Hall. As the House knows, aircraft for the Navy are ordered through the Ministry of Supply. I think most of us who have gone into this matter at all are far from satisfied that the present set-up enables the Admiralty case in the Ministry of Supply to be argued and applied in practice as effectively as it should be.
If we turn to the last available number of Whitaker's Almanack (and the system has not, I believe, been changed since it was issued) we find that the control of ordering the aircraft on the executive side—all aircraft for air force—is in the hands of an Air Marshal, with an Air Vice-Marshal as Assistant Controller. We find that in the Ministry of Supply the Controller of Supplies (Air) is a very distinguished Air Marshal, while there is a Deputy Controller of Supplies (Aircraft Production) who is a civilian, and an Assistant Controller of Supplies (Air) who is an Air Vice-Marshal. That is the picture on the executive side. The officers I have mentioned are extremely capable officers—I know they are. And it is they and their subordinates who have to take a whole number of vital executive decisions affecting naval aircraft—to give one example, the allocation of space in aircraft factories between one kind of aero plane and another. It is not so long ago, for instance, since these officers or their subordinates decided that the production of Sea Furies at a factory near London should be transferred to Black-pool in order to make way for Meteors. I am not now arguing whether that decision was right or wrong. Indeed, I think we may assume that it was right. At any rate, when I was First Lord I concurred in it myself, so I am in no position to criticise it. But it merely serves to illustrate the arrangements which exist and which I am trying to bring out. The fact is that vital decisions of this kind and the equally vital task of maintaining a constant pressure on the manufacturers falls in its executive aspect to officers of the R.A.F.
Your Lordships will ask: "What about the Navy?" We learn from Whitaker's that they have a Chief Naval Representative, an officer whose main work lies at the Admiralty, as Vice-Controller Air. He is Chief Naval Representative in the Ministry of Supply. The present

495
holder of the office is an outstanding man, as was his predecessor, whom I dealt with at first hand, much to my own advantage. The present Chief Naval Representative in the Ministry of Supply is a Rear-Admiral: that is to say, he is a rank lower than the R.A.F. officer in control of aircraft supplies in the Ministry of Supply. That difference of rank is not my main point, though I suggest it is not to be overlooked. My main point, of which I have given the noble Earl notice, is that on the face of it the Navy are seriously handicapped by a system under which they are represented only in an advisory capacity within the ordering Department. The executive decisions are taken by representatives of another Service. Prima facie one would think that the Navy were handicapped. The results in the past year seem to suggest that something is amiss, and I suggest to the House that the whole matter is worth exploring a good deal further than it has been explored in public. I am not expecting the noble Earl, who, although he has received notice, has not had very much time, to make any precise or decisive statement on this matter to-day, but I hope that at least he will give us the assurance that the matter will be considered very seriously and urgently within the Admiralty.
In my last few sentences I will throw out a further suggestion, entirely in a personal capacity—I must not seek to involve my noble friend Viscount Hall in flying a kite—but I hope the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, will at least do me the justice of supposing that this suggestion is not put forward without a good deal of thought. I believe that there is a general desire (we are told there is) on the part of the Board of Admiralty to give naval aviation its due place, but I believe also that within the Admiralty there will always be an unceasing struggle confronting those charged with the responsibility for naval aviation if the expansion of the status of naval aviation is to keep pace, so to speak, with the growing importance of its rôle. Noble Lords, a large proportion of whom have had high administrative experience, will perhaps agree with me, and perhaps I shall carry the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, with me on this matter. I know that he and I are
496
anxious to agree more than we are able to do sometimes in these discussions. In the last resort, if we want to give a subject a higher position within the Governmental hierarchy—andI think this is true even more of the Fighting Services than of the civilian Services, though it is true of them, too—the one sure way to do it is to improve the status of those in charge. I know of no other way of doing it. Therefore, I desire to ventilate publicly the thought that the status of naval aviation would be improved, and understood far and wide to be improved, and that the hands of those concerned with it would be very much strengthened, if an adjustment were made within the Board of Admiralty.
I suggest that the Fifth Sea Lord who, as the House knows, is now concerned with naval aviation, be moved up to Third Sea Lord. The Third Sea Lord, who is concerned with production and construction, would become Fourth Sea Lord and the Fourth Sea Lord, who is concerned with supplies, would become Fifth Sea Lord. I can imagine, without straining my limited mental powers unduly, that the noble Earl will tell me that this would make no difference. I hope he will not tell me too emphatically to-day that there is no difference in status between the Sea Lords and that they are all equal on the Board. I hope he will not say too dogmatically that a change of this kind will make no change, either for good or for ill. But I make this suggestion. The stone is thrown into the pool and we shall see what happens to it.
There is one aspect, which is not a chief aspect but again is not negligible, which I think will follow, not quite automatically but usually in practice. At the present time the Fifth Sea Lord usually starts his term as a Rear-Admiral and becomes a Vice-Admiral, and the Third Sea Lord usually starts his term as a Vice-Admiral and becomes an Admiral. Whether we are looking at the struggle for naval aviation within the Admiralty or, what is perhaps more important, at the struggle for naval aviation outside the Admiralty, I believe that stepping up the rank of those officers most directly concerned with naval aviation would be a considerable advantage. That is not the whole or, indeed, the major implication of my suggestion. I have argued that if we increase the status we shall strengthen the hands of those concerned

497
with naval aviation. I hope the noble Earl will be able to say that my suggestion will at any rate receive some consideration and that he will allow public opinion to operate on it before too definite a decision is made.
I will not detain the House further. We are all equally devoted to the Navy, if those who have such a short contact with it as I myself may place themselves, perhaps impertinently, besides such distinguished sailors as we possess among your Lordships and a really splendid First Lord like my noble friend Viscount Hall. We all reverence the Navy and we are all anxious to serve the Navy. I know the noble Earl will recognise that any suggestions that have been made from this side of the House or from any other part of the House are directed purely to the one end—to serve the Royal Navy, the pride of the British people.
4.56 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I feel I owe an apology to the House for arriving so late to take part in this debate. I have a good excuse, because I have been engaged on behalf of a society which looks after the welfare of sailors, and without sailors the Navy Estimates would not be of great value. I understand that the period for which officers and men are being retained beyond the expiry of their normal engagements will be progressively reduced during the coming year and that by early 1954 they will all have been released. Whilst fully appreciating the great services rendered by these officers and men, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to give an assurance that this speed of reduction is not too rapid for the maintenance of efficiency, and that real efforts are being made to enlist and train the vital technicians so necessary for a modern warship and, of course, men to replace those who are going out. Only recently, when I was carrying out the steaming trials of a frigate on behalf of my firm, it was only too apparent that in some departments the shortage of skilled men was detrimental to the efficiency of the ship. In fact, the total complement was some 40 per cent. below the standard of a fully manned ship. There is no doubt that the manning question in the Navy is a very serious problem, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the state of
498
recruiting in all branches of the Service. If they are not satisfied, what do they propose to do about it?
In the recent debate on Defence, I ventured to inquire whether the effect of spreading the rearmament expenditure over a longer period would have the result of reducing the number of conversions of destroyers to anti-submarine units in the coming year. Unfortunately—no doubt owing to the many questions that were put to the Minister of Defence—my question was passed over. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who is to reply to-day, can deal with that point. I see in the Statement on the Navy Estimates, on page 7, that there is a paragraph which refers to this matter. It says that the Royal Dockyards and ship-repairing industry will be more occupied this year than they were last year in modernising and converting ships. I hope this means that the rate of conversion of old destroyers to anti-submarine frigates will be maintained and not reduced. I am afraid that I am still by no means convinced that we have enough anti-submarine forces to keep open the sea lanes and to protect our convoys. I hope that the emphasis on the conversion programme will be maintained.
I have little doubt that the position of the supply of naval aircraft has been covered by many noble Lords, in addition to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, many of whose views I support, and I do not propose to go over the arguments again. But I am glad that the First Lord of the Admiralty in another place was honest in his review of the re-equipment of naval aviation with modern types of aircraft. I hope to hear something more from the noble Earl about this whole matter. I am a little disturbed at the apparent complete lack of provision for auxiliary aircraft carriers that can operate with convoys. As many of your Lordships are aware, these auxiliary carriers were mostly converted from merchant ships, and they did invaluable service in the late war. It may well be that the naval staff now have other ideas of convoy protection, by supporting task forces, and other methods, and perhaps the noble Earl will be able to say something about this matter in his reply. I cannot help feeling that the provision of a number of auxiliary aircraft carriers would be of great service to the Fleet. They could be provided at

499
no great cost, and would be a welcome addition to our convoy protection forces.
The First Lord in another place indicated that in the next few years a substantial rebuilding programme would have to be commenced to replace our worn and out-of-date ships. I feel that we must seriously consider, in spite of economic difficulties and the claims of the other Services, whether rebuilding can be safely postponed much longer. The modern warship, as I am certain the late First Lord knows, is a very complex structure, and takes a long time to build. We must consider now laying down our new ships. It is true that the four old cruisers, about which we hear so much, are still on the stocks, awaiting either money or new developments in armament, but I suggest that it is time these four cruisers were completed. I do not want to enlarge on the Russian cruiser menace, about which we have heard so much in another place, but this formidable force of some twenty modern ships should be treated with great seriousness, in view of our own shortage of modern cruisers. It is all very well to suggest that our "Daring" class destroyers are really cruisers in disguise. The disguise would be pretty thin, I suggest, if they were to be matched against these Russian ships.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and which I hear has been touched on to-day—namely, the Dartmouth entry. I know that the late First Lord is particularly interested in this matter. I understand that the Committee have completed their sittings and will shortly be making their recommendations. I hope that the findings will suggest that the entry for young officers should be extended, and not contracted. I should like to see a combination of entry ages of 17½ for the public schools, the present 16-year-old entry maintained, with the addition of the 13 or 13½entry age. I think, also, that it should be possible to devise an entry scheme from the universities at an age a little above the public school entry. I am sure that many of your Lordships will have read the extremely interesting article in The Times recently on the training of naval officers. I think that clearly brings out the need for as broad a basis as possible for officer entry. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to indicate when the
500
Committee on the Dartmouth entry are likely to make their Report. I suggest that it should be brought forward as soon as possible, as each day brings more difficulties and uncertainties for the parents of boys who are anxious to take up a naval career.
5.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, it is my duty to attempt to sum up this debate. I trust that the date, which I have suddenlyrealised is May 13, will not prove to be too inauspicious for me. I fear that I shall have to detain your Lordships for a considerable time, but before I begin my reply I wish particularly to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, not only for the extremelyable speech with which he introduced this debate, but also for the delightful courtesy with which he has treated me throughout this matter, a courtesy which is, indeed, proverbial of him. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked me to exercise what he was pleased to call my wit. I can assure the noble Lord that, if ever there was any, it has long since been submerged and bogged down in a fog of statistics.
As noble Lords are aware, my right honourable friend the First Lord of the Admiralty said recently in another place in his speech on the Navy Estimates that, following a review of Defence policy, the rearmament programme has been spread over a longer period and held to a lower peak. The current Navy Estimates are, in consequence, more or less the same as last year. This policy has involved certain reductions in the naval programme, and in deciding in what directions expenditure must be cut I can assure your Lordships that great care has been taken not to interrupt production of the high priority elements in the programme. The holding of the rearmament programme to a lower peak has meant some spreading of the naval production programme. As regards new construction, it has been possible to achieve the required adjustment mainly by the spreading of follow-on orders, and it has not been necessary to resort to a large scale cancellation of orders. The emphasis of the new construction programme continues to be on the large programme of minesweepers and anti-submarine vessels, which remain the strategic priorities. The emphasis of the modernisation and conversion programme is on the conversion of destroyers

501
to anti-submarine frigates, and the proaramme for 1953–54 is, if anything, larger than that for 1952–53, despite the fact that total naval production in 1953–54 will he somewhat less than in 1952–53. Four major conversions and three of the simpler conversions of destroyers to antisubmarine frigates were completed last year; and more than double that number of conversions are expected to be completed during the present financial year.
To sustain the high level of shipbuilding and modernisation and conversion, it has been necessary, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, rightly pointed out, to make reduced provision as compared with 1952–53 for ammunition, oil fuel and stores, and this has undoubtedly involved some drawing on stock. This can be regarded as a calculated risk, as, indeed, is the whole policy of spreading defence expenditure over a longer period. For example, it takes less time to provide these things in an emergency than to provide ships and aircraft, As my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, said in another place (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 512, cal. 2012):
"It is very much better to veer and haul on short-term items like stores than to disrupt the new construction programme and cancel contracts in the Yards."
That I feel to be a sentence of common sense. Again, it should not be forgotten that in the first years of the rearmament programme energetic steps were taken to build up reserves of stores of all kinds that would be needed to enable the Fleet to be placed on a war footing.
I now come to the vexed question of cruisers, about which I know the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, is so concerned. I should be the last person to attempt to deny the indispensability of the cruiser. I can assure the noble Viscount that cruisers still occupy a most important part in naval strategy, and although I admit that cruisers do not feature in the current new construction programme, this results again from the question of priorities. It should be borne in mind in this connection that we have now at our disposal a force of cruisers which have been extensively modernised as a result of last war experience, or which are included in a modernisation programme, and hence are or will be well equipped to meet present-day operational needs, including our immediate requirements on the outbreak of a war.
502
The point I wish to make here is that the maintenance of a properly balanced fleet is obviously of the highest importance, and seriously to reduce the numbers of mine sweepers, seaward defence craft, frigates, et cetera, in order to increase our cruiser strength, would result in a balance unsuitable to our present strategic requirements. Even supposing that in the event of war our shipbuilding capacity should remain unimpaired, these essential vessels could not be produced so quickly and in such numbers as would undoubtedly be needed for the defence of the vital shipping approaches to the United Kingdom against mine and submarine attack. I must, however, remind noble Lords of the warning given in another place by my right honourable friend the First Lord, that he and the Admiralty recognise that, as much of the Fleet is of pre-war or wartime construction, a steady replacement by new construction will be vital if the Fleet is to exist as an efficient and balanced fighting force. Noble Lords can, I think, rest assured that in planning for such a replacement programme cruisers will certainly be given their due place. I hope that does something to answer the doubts of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall.
At the same time, I would invite the noble Viscount to bear in mind that for all practical purposes the "Daring" class vessels are in elect light cruisers, with a power of speed and an ability to manœuvre which is beyond the capabilities of larger cruisers. I might say that the "Tiger" class cruisers remain suspended, but during the financial year work will continue on gun mountings for them. I think the noble Viscount asked me about the cruiser "Cumberland. "The position about this vessel is that at about the end of April she had been fitted with equipment that is to have its trials this summer. She is now on her way to the Mediterranean, where she will carry out a sustained programme until the end of September, when she will return to the United Kingdom and reenter one of Her Majesty's Dockyards to be fitted for her 1954 trials.
The noble Viscount referred to the progress made in the field of propulsion and asked whether certain remarks made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply in another place were intended to convey the idea that nuclear-propelled

503
submarines had been abandoned. I much regret to say that security considerations preclude me from saying very much on this particular subject. I can, however, say that the Minister of Supply's remarks referred only to the peaceful use of nuclear propulsion, and that the statement which I made in your Lordships' House on March 27 of last year, when I said that we were devoting a great deal of attention to this project, still holds good. I can also assure the noble Viscount that satisfactory shore trials of machinery using oxygen-bearing fuels have been carried out and that further development is continuing.
On the question of guided missiles, which is an ominous one which is in all our minds, I am happy to inform the noble Viscount that research and development into a naval ship-to-air guided weapon has for some time been undertaken at the highest priority by the Ministry of Supply on behalf of the Admiralty, and very encouraging progress is being made. At the same time, corresponding work has been in progress in the Admiralty into the purely naval and novel problems of launching and controlling these weapons from ships, and the Admiralty and the Ministry of Supply are working closely together to ensure that production of ships and ship equipment keeps in step with the actual development of the weapon. Air-to-air guided weapons are being developed by the Ministry of Supply to meet requirements for both Naval and R.A.F. aircraft.
There has been a certain amount of criticism about the Navy's share of the Defence Budget, and it has been hinted that the Royal Navy has not been given a big enough share. I must stress here the fact that the Navy Estimates in 1953–54 have not increased, while those for the Army and Air Force have done so. This must not be taken as an indication of a decline in the importance of the Royal Navy, or of a lack of determination on the part of my right honourable friend and his advisers to ensure that from year to year our resources available for defence are properly and to the best advantage allocated between the three Services. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, said that we were losing interest in the Navy. To that statement I oppose the most resolute denial. It is simply not true. But we
504
must have regard to all the circumstances, including our war potential, our strategic requirements and the general economic position. Noble Lords will not have forgotten that my right honourable friend the First Lord prophesied recently in another place that in a few years' time the First Lord of the day will be asking the House to vote funds for an increasing shipbuilding programme.
I come now to the question of naval aviation. We have certainly had an extremely interesting discussion on this subject. I am tempted to preface my replies with general remarks on the rôle of the Navy in peace and war, but in the presence of so many distinguished authorities I shall refrain from doing so. I am bound to say, however, that in carrying out its arduous tasks in war, naval aircraft operating from carriers must play an essential part which cannot equally well be carried out by shore-based aircraft. The reason for this is apparent in the unique mobility afforded to carrier-borne aircraft in the defence of shipping, in anti-submarine operations and in air strikes against shipping. The only effective defence against the greatly increased air threat to shipping by modern long-range bombers lies at present in high performance fighters, which are essential to cover any maritime operation within the range of enemy strike aircraft. Shore-based fighters can provide this protection only within short distances of their bases. Similarly, enemy air reconnaissance in ocean areas, which greatly increases the effectiveness of U-boats, surface raiders and air strikes, can be frustrated only by ship-borne fighters. Carrier-borne aircraft are essential also for anti-submarine operations and air reconnaissance over vast ocean areas, to supplement shore-based aircraft—which can be employed only, of course, within a calculated distance from their bases.
It is, I think, a remarkable fact that, in the last war. of all the merchant ships sunk by submarines in the Atlantic theatre, only 1 per cent. were sunk in convoys which included air escort. So far as air strikes against enemy shipping are concerned, it is true that these can also be carried out by shore-based bombers. It must be borne in mind, however, that even when such bombers are available, and within range to meet a sudden call

505
to attack, their bases may well be hundreds of miles from the target; and the consequent delay in their appearance might often result in the opportunity to attack being lost. Valuable—as I am the first to admit—as the uses of shore-based aircraft undoubtedly are in such sea operations, they are nevertheless complementary to the operations of carrier-borne aircraft, because of the distance they are likely to be from the area where they are immediately required. Both types of aircraft are necessary to the successful conduct of such operations, but a great tactical advantage lies in the carrier's ability to operate in direct support of the Fleet and convoys, since it means that air support is immediately available to help combat threat of any air, submarine or surface attack.
We have to consider the question of the vulnerability of carriers. We also have to consider—and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham made this point—the performance of the carrier-borne aircraft. I acknowledge freely that in the past naval aircraft have usually been of lower performance than their shore-based counterparts. A better knowledge of aircraft design should prevent this occuring in future, though in order to achieve the same performance the carrier aircraft may have to be larger than its shore-based equivalent. In the long run, however, this tendency could be reversed by modification in design. My right honourable friend's announcement in another place that a substantial order had been placed for a new naval fighter of the swept-back wing type clearly demonstrates, I think, his intention to ensure that the Royal Navy is equipped with aircraft whose performance is beyond criticism.
We have heard a great deal about this question of the vulnerability of carriers. It is not only in higher circles but also from the man in the street that we hear that this enormous thing, going slowly round, must obviously be very vulnerable. On that I can only comment that there is nothing in the past experience of carrier operations to indicate that they are unduly vulnerable—although, of course, in the atomic era, and against the background of the probable development of guided missiles, carriers, like any other potential target, must clearly be a matter of concern. On the other hand I am
506
advised that a carrier force, with its concentrated defence, is without doubt better able to look after itself than any other vessel or group of vessels at sea. So it is all the more obvious that we must have carrier-borne fighter protection immediately available in direct support of the Fleet and convoys. Let me stress, too, that there can be no question of having only small carriers. The essential advantage of sea power is its mobility and the ability to strike at the enemy at any point in the oceans or near his coastline. To maintain this traditional advantage, carrier-borne fighters of comparable performance to enemy shore-based fighters must be available; and fleet carriers which are armed and can carry the necessary number of aircraft are necessarily required for this purpose.
On the question of production of the various types of aircraft required by the Royal Navy, I cannot usefully add much to what was said in another place during the Navy Estimates debate by my right honourable friend the First Lord. That statement was a full one, and it left in my mind no justification for any allegation that the Government are complacent in the matter of naval aviation, the importance of which, I can assure Lord Pakenham, is fully realised by the Admiralty. Noble Lords are well aware that changes in the aircraft production position cannot be expected to take place in such a short period. Nobody knows that better than Lord Pakenham, who has had great experience in these matters. I repeat, however, that the matter is being given the very close attention which it merits, and that we are by no means satisfied with the present position.
As regards the Sea-Hawk, the recent American off-shore purchase contract for 107 of these aircraft is to my mind a good indication of that Government's confidence in the aircraft, and shows welcome support for our own views upon it. Americans are not accustomed to buying bad aircraft. I may mention that No. 806 Squadron at the Royal Naval Air Station, Brawdy, received its Sea-Hawks in April. Again, a large proportion of the Avengers which are being provided under the Mutual Defence Assistance Programme have already arrived. The first Royal Naval squadron will be equipped them very shortly. We are very grateful for these aircraft

507
and are satisfied that we can make good use of them, and we know that they are still in service with the United States Navy. Lord Pakenham was anxious that vigorous steps should be taken to improve the machinery and organisation in the Admiralty and Ministry of Supply for developing and producing aircraft. As was stated in another place some weeks ago, this matter is under consideration—I am sorry to have to go on using that phrase—by a Committee of the two Departments. I will ask my right honourable friend the First Lord to bear in mind Lord Pakenham's remarks when he comes to consider the report of the investigating body.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I ask the noble Earl to go a little further than that? Will he ask his right honourable colleague, the First Lord, to consider my remarks at an earlier stage—in other words while the Committee are still conducting their inquiries?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I shall be only too pleased to bring the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend to-morrow morning.
I now come to the interesting suggestion of Lord Pakenham that the position of the Fifth Sea Lord should be altered to give him the title "Third Sea Lord. "My personal feeling, however, is that it is a case of "a rose by any other name…"Perhaps I might also remind the noble Lord that one advantage of having the Fifth Sea Lord join the Board of Admiralty as a Rear-Admiral—at any rate for the next few years—is that the prospects of obtaining a pilot for the post are thereby much enhanced. And that is, I should have thought, the one thing that the noble Lord wanted.
To come to the question of manpower, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, criticised Vote A. It is a difficult and rather complicated affair, but I will deal with it as briefly as I can. In case there is any room for misunderstanding, I should explain that the Vote A figure of 151,000 shown in the Estimates is the maximum number that will be borne during the current financial year, and not the normal strength. We shall, in fact, run down by next March to a normal strength of about 140,000. The increase in strength since 1950 was brought about both by
508
increasing the numbers of normal engagements and by the emergency measures of recalling reservists and retaining officers and men after their normal engagements had expired. Without the services of the retained and recalled men, we could not have brought the Fleet to its present level of preparedness. It is as a result of these additions that, for example we have been able to keep the Far East Fleet on a war complements basis and to improve the readiness of the Reserve Fleet. I am quite sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will join me in paying tribute to those officers and men who, in spite of greatest hardship and sacrifice, have played such a part in enabling the Fleet to meet its commitments.
Clearly, these emergency measures could not be continued indefinitely, and that is why it was decided last year that the period of retention should be scaled down gradually from the beginning of this financial year, and that all recalled and retained men should be returned to civil life by April, 1954. The consequent reduction in the number of men serving will be offset slightly by the growth of the normal strength by about 2,000, but over the current financial year there will be a net fall of about 10,000 in the total strength of the Navy. However, as my right honourable friend the First Lord has said in his Statement, by means of various manpower economies, including the reduction of complements and the re-disposition of the Reserve Fleet, it has been possible to avoid a proportionate reduction in the number of ships in commission. Obviously, all these economies—in particular reductions—which we have imposed on the complements of ships afloat cannot be continued indefinitely without harmful effects on both ships and men, and I hope that it may be possible to relax the more severe restrictions as the Regular ratings acquire experience and qualifications.
The noble Viscount has expressed the view that the Regular intake should be increased. It is our opinion, however, that such a proposal over-simplifies the difficulties which the Admiralty has to meet. I have already mentioned that normal bearings will increase by about 2,000 in the current financial year. This increase represents a further stage in the build-up of numbers on normal engagements resulting from the full-scale recruiting and training effort which was

509
started early in 1951, with the object of reversing the planned run-down of the Navy which was in operation before the Korean war started. It was not until December, 1951, that the reduction in the normal strength—that is, the strength exclusive of recalled and retained men—could be halted at 129,000. There has already been an increase of 9,000 in this strength, and by April next it should have grown to 11,000, giving a total Vote A strength of about 140,000, or some 2,000 above the strength at the outbreak of the Korean war.
During 1953–54, the expansion of normal strength will be checked by the outflow of large numbers of men who signed on for 7-year engagements just after the war. In addition to checking the rate of expansion, this process will have a serious effect on the numbers of senior ratings, actual or potential, which are already short due to the great reduction in Regular recruiting in the war years, coupled with a lower rate of re-engagement in the post-war years up to 1950. This shortage, and the very large increase in junior ratings which has taken place since recruiting was expanded in 1951, sets a limit to the numbers of recruits who could be usefully absorbed in the Navy in the near future, and it would be impracticable to increase entries sufficiently to replace all the retained and recalled personnel who would be lost to us in 1953–54, even if the recruits were available.
The real need is to expand the numbers of senior ratings, and this means that we shall have to take all possible steps to encourage men to remain in the Navy on completing their current engagements. We hope that the greatly improved pension rates and the terminal grant which has been paid since 1950, as well as the bounty of £100 to which every man is entitled on re-engaging, and which has been renewed for the current year, will continue to induce large numbers of ratings in all branches to make the Navy their career. We should like to see more of our best ratings who are within sight of the end of their twenty-two years' service take advantage of this. Although present shortages of senior ratings cannot be remedied by recruitment of new entries, we are nevertheless recruiting at present as many continuous service men as possible, in order to build
510
up a sound and well-balanced age structure for the future. However, the tendency for the number of applicants in some branches to drop has increased the difficulty of maintaining the desired quality of entrants.
I should like now to say a word about the Cadet entry. The Committee which I said last March would soon be starting work have now completed their deliberations and have recently submitted their Report to my right honourable friend the First Lord. As was stated in another place on April 29, the First Lord has decided to publish the Report. The Report is, I am informed, a rather lengthy document, and the physical work of printing will take some little time. I hope, however, that it will be possible to publish it before very long. In the meantime, as its contents are sub judice, it is clearly evident that I cannot indulge in any comment.
I think your Lordships will expect me to say something about the Review of the Fleet by Her Majesty. I am delighted to know that many noble Lords will be able to see for themselves at the Royal Review of the Fleet next month indications of the composition of the Fleet under modern conditions. There will be only one battleship, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will be pleased to know, but noble Lords will be able to see carriers, cruisers, destroyers and a most formidable array of anti-submarine frigates, minesweepers, submarines and midget submarines. In all, over 200 ships of the Royal Navy and Commonwealth Navies will be present, but this figure will total no more than one-third of the full strength of the Navies of the Commonwealth. Sixteen foreign nations will also be represented: America by the cruiser "Baltimore,'' France by the cruiser "Montcalm" and Russia by the modern "Sverdlov" class cruiser.
It has, I am afraid, been necessary to ballot for places on the guest liners, and those who were unlucky and failed to secure a berth in the liner will be accommodated in the aircraft maintenance ship H.M.S. "Perseus. "Every one, from both Houses of Parliament, who has asked to go should be able to have a first-class view. It will also be of interest to certain noble Lords that the fly-past of 300 naval aircraft, which will take place later in the afternoon of June 15, will be led by

511
a Flag Officer—namely, Flag Officer, Flying Training, who has specialised in air since his youth.
My Lords, I have notes on two more points, but I will spare your Lordships these. I shall speak to the two noble Lords concerned after this debate, because I think it has been going on long enough. I will close by apologising to your Lordships for the inordinate length at which I have detained you. I fear that I have still left a number of questions unanswered, but I will try to return later on to those noble Lords who are unsatisfied. I only hope that what I have said has done something to convince your Lordships that the Navy is still as proud and vital a force as it ever was, and that it is fully capable at this very moment of preserving for the future the glorious traditions of the past.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, it is left for me to express my thanks to those noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a short but most interesting and useful debate on the Royal Navy. It has been interesting because each noble Lord who has taken part in the debate has had
512
some connection either with the Admiralty or with the Royal Navy. I am doubly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, for his kind remarks at the opening of his speech, and also for the amount of information which he gave the House. He certainly gave us some idea of the result of the research which has been going on over a long period. I am sure that not only your Lordships' House but also the country will be pleased to hear what he has had to say in connection with that matter. There are many points upon which I should like to follow him, but I will refrain from doing so. It is left for me but to express to him my thanks, and those of other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, for the full reply which he has given. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before six o'clock