Sitting of 26 November 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Bank Interest (Declaration)
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many notifications of Bank interest exceeding £15 have been received by the Inland Revenue Department under the provisions of Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1951; in what proportion of cases have the taxpayers concerned failed to return the amount, or the full amount; and what amount of unassessed tax and penalties has already been recovered.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Up to 31st March, 1953, about 1,200,000 notifications had been received. In about one-quarter of the cases failure to return the amount or the full amount has been discovered or is suspected. The amount of unassessed tax and penalties so far recovered is about £7 million.
    Mr. Houghton: Has the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend considered the various suggestions which have been made for drawing the attention of all bank depositors to the need to return interest for Income Tax purposes, especially on Post Office Savings Bank deposits, in order to save the painful personal and domestic circumstances which have arisen through tax being demanded so much in arrears?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend has not only considered the suggestions, but has taken action on certain of them. If the hon. Gentleman would like particulars, I shall be glad to give them to him if he will put down a Question.

    Increased Rents (Schedule A)
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how increased rents proposed under the conditions outlined in Command Paper No. 8996 will be dealt with for the purposes of Income Tax, Schedule A.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:If Parliament approves my right hon. Friend's proposals the tax position will be governed by the ordinary law under which, where a rent exceeds the Schedule A assessment, the excess is taxable, subject to due allowance for repairs, under Schedule D.
    Mr. Houghton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to follow that practice would throw a very heavy additional burden of work on the Inland Revenue Department and create many additional perplexities for taxpayers? Will he consider the matter and see whether he can remove the troublesome excess rent provisions under Schedule D and try to get the whole of the income on property assessable under Schedule A?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I appreciate and share the concern of the hon. Gentleman that we should not overburden the very efficient Revenue machine, but perhaps consideration of the application of this branch of the existing law to this subject-matter had better await discussion of the Bill.

    Government Securities (Price)
    Mr. Benceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the average price of Government securities for six months previous to reduction in the Bank rate; and what was the stated price at which Government securities would be accepted in payment of United Steel shares.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are some 30 Government securities on the market in widely differing amounts and ranging from stock maturing within a few months to undated stock. A so-called average price for all these securities would be meaningless. For averages for certain groups of Government securities I would refer the hon. Member to Table 142 of the Monthly Digest of Statistics.
    As regards the second part of his Question I would refer him to the public notice dated 23rd October, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. Bence:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will add further to the conviction that the manoeuvre of reducing the Bank rate at that time was not so much for the needs of the economy of the country as to enable a further group of friends of the party opposite to obtain their steel shares a little cheaper than they would otherwise have done?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My reply will only strengthen that conviction in the case of such persons, no doubt very few, whose obstinate desire to retain it prevents them from reading the documents to which I have referred.

    Capital Issues Committee
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last issued revised instructions to the Capital Issues Committee; and the nature of those instructions.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): The Committee's present guidance consists of my right hon. Friend's letter to the Chairman of 4th December, 1951, on general policy, supplemented by his letter of 3rd February, 1953, on the subject of Commonwealth investment. The terms were published in his replies to the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) on 7th December, 1951, and to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) on 3rd February, 1953.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many applications have been considered by the Capital Issues Committee for issues in excess of £50,000 since 1st January, 1953; how many have been granted and how many rejected; and what policy is to be followed in the future, in view of the general trends towards a freer economy;
    (2) the reasons for continuing the activities of the Capital Issues Committee; and whether he will wind up the committee at an early date.
    Mr. Maudling: The answer to the first Question is that, up to 18th November, the Capital Issues Committee had this year received 1,202 applications for consent to the raising of more than £50,000. Consent was given to 1,153 applications and 39 were refused. Ten were still being considered.
    498
    On the second Question, I have nothing to add to my reply on 19th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams).
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend say what recourse may be had by the 39 firms who were refused permission to raise additional capital in appealing against the decision of this somewhat arbitrary body; and, in view of the march of economic events during the last two years, particularly towards freer markets, would it not be desirable to raise the present limit of £50,000 to a more realistic figure of, say, £250,000?
    Mr. Maudling: On the first point, the function of the Committee is to advise the Chancellor whether particular applications fall within or without the terms of that general policy directive, and if any particular applicant thinks that the decision in his case has been wrong—no doubt, because there are other factors which have not been taken into account—he can bring these to the notice of the Committee.
    On the second point, I have seen it suggested that the figure of £50,000 should be raised, but I have seen no convincing evidence that this would in any way improve the working of the system.
    Mr. Nabarro:In view of the somewhat inconclusive nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

    Foreign Shipowners (Credit Facilities)
    Mr. Benceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what credit limitations are imposed by British banks, under his instructions, on foreign shipowners placing orders for ships with British shipbuilders.
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to cases that have arisen under the current procedure of the Capital Issues Committee whereby a bank advance for this purpose may be authorised only if there are definite arrangements for early repayment or the substitution of more permanent finance. As my right hon. Friend said on 17th November, in reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), he is considering the matter.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Shipping Federation, as reported yesterday, has stated that we are being ousted from many foreign markets for British goods by credit facilities provided by banks and institutions in other countries, which are enabling Japan and Germany to undercut us and to give quicker deliveries than the British shipbuilding industry is able to do? Will he consider enlarging the facilities for British shipowners to enable them to compete and pay decent wages to the people they employ?
    Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend is aware that there is a real difficulty here, although its effects to date can easily be exaggerated. For that reason, he is urgently considering the whole situation.
    Miss Ward: Would my hon. Friend like to come to the North-East Coast and discuss the matter with shipbuilding interests, who would be very pleased indeed to see him?
    Mr. Maudling: I am always delighted to accept any invitation from the hon. Lady.

    Indian Estate Duty Act
    Mr. Arbuthnotasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action is being taken to arrange, on a basis of reciprocity, for relief in respect of the Indian Estate Duty Act which subjects to Indian estate duty shareholdings in companies registered in the United Kingdom, when the majority of the income of the company arises in India;
    (2) what action is being taken to arrange for relief, on a basis of reciprocity, from the provisions of the Indian Estate Duty Act which places upon companies, rather than upon the deceased estates concerned, the responsibility for paying estate duties which arise under the Act.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Her Majesty's Government, and, I understand, the Indian Government both appreciate the desirability of an agreement for the avoidance of double death duties between this country and India, and I hope that it will be possible to commence negotiations before long.

    Colombo Plan
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals were made at the recent meeting of the Consultative Committee on the Colombo
    500
    Plan to secure greater stability in commodity prices.
    Mr. Maudling:The Consultative Committee made no proposals in this connection, although the report to be published will record the interest of countries in the area which are producers of raw materials in measures to stabilise prices at reasonable levels.
    Mrs. White: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to make on a matter which is of such very great importance to most of the countries concerned in the Colombo Plan?
    Mr. Maudling: That is a rather different and much wider question. Her Majesty's Government are very interested, as they have shown, particularly in the communiquéafter the last Commonwealth Conference, in this most important question. The Question refers to the Colombo Plan meeting, and it would not have been appropriate for that meeting to put forward proposals of this kind.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the interest which Her Majesty's Government have shown in this matter, as is shown by the Commonwealth Conference communiquéwhat are the Government doing about it?
    Mr. Maudling: They are participating in a number of international discussions about particular commodities.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Which ones?
    Mr. Maudling: Tin, for example.
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the forthcoming report of the Consultative Committee on the Colombo Plan, he will make sure that there are clear statements, in tabular or other convenient form, showing, in relation to all the external financial assistance received, the countries from which it has been received, the countries to which it has been given, and the dates on which it has been given; and showing for each country the actual achievements, in terms of acres drained or irrigated, in kilowatts of electricity generated, in capital invested in definite projects, etc., in each case compared with the targets proposed in Command Paper No. 8080.
    Mr. Maudling: The report was prepared by the Consultative Committee, and my right hon. Friend has no power to vary it. But I hope the hon. Member will find, when the Report is available, that the matters to which he refers have been adequately covered.

    Export-Import Balance
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the failure of exports to balance imports is due to a failure to sell in foreign markets and how far to excessive home demand.
    Mr. Maudling:At present, the U.K. has a small surplus on its overall balance of payments, but it is essential to increase exports further by determined selling efforts. As my right hon. Friend said during the debate on the Address on 6th November, he is carefully watching the level of home demand; if it becomes so high as to be likely to endanger our export trade he will be quite firm in dealing with it.
    Mr. Grimond:May I take it that the Chancellor is satisfied with the position, which seems extremely dangerous; and, if he is not satisfied, does he not think that a very great increase in consumption at home, brought about by the last Budget, and, to some extent, by the reduction in the Bank rate, has contributed, at any rate, to a reduction in the earnings of exports?
    Mr. Maudling:I think that increased consumption is a very good thing, so long as it does not go to the extent of endangering the export trade, but, as I have said, if there is any sign of that happening my right hon. Friend will take action.
    Mr. Jay:Do not the Supplementary Estimates of the Ministry of Food, just published, show that the Budget has got seriously out of hand, inasmuch as it encouraged increased consumption at home at the expense of exports to a greater extent?
    Mr. Maudling:If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that consumption, on the whole, is too high, that people have too much money to spend, and that purchasing power should be deliberately reduced by Government action, he is a little out of line with the views of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Mr. Assheton:Is it not very satisfactory that people have been able to eat rather more food since this Government came into power?

    House Repairs (Productive Investment)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the new proposals for the repair of houses will have on the amount of the national income estimated to be available for productive investment.
    Mr. Maudling:Productive investment should be unaffected by these proposals. For several years now there has been a steady decline in the output of the building repair labour force. The new proposals should allow building repair resources to be used more fully and should lead to increased productivity.
    Mr. Grimond:Taking account of the labour and materials used in repairs and in building new houses, does the hon. Gentleman say that there will be no additional demands put upon the building industry?
    Mr. Maudling: The White Paper on the subject says this:
    "We cannot expect to devote, at least at the start, a substantially larger share of our resources to the housing programme in this new form than it enjoys today."
    Sir J. Crowder: Would my hon. Friend consider asking his right hon. Friend to allow the joint stock banks to lend landlords money for the urgent repairs which will be required when the new Housing Bill is passed?
    Mr. Maudling: That is a very different question, which will need a good deal of thought.
    Mr. Gaitskell:In view of the fact that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has spoken of a steadily expanding building labour force, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the consistency of that statement with what he has said this afternoon?
    Mr. Maudling:This Question, and the answer I have given to it, were concerned with the productivity of the building labour force, which seems to be a very good thing to increase.

    United Steel Companies (Share Allotments)
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to how many applicants the Iron and Steel Realisation Agency have allotted shares in the United Steel Companies.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About 52,000 applications were received, and in all cases shares have been allotted for either the whole or part of the amount applied for.
    Mr. Strauss:Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House what service these 52,000 people are to render to the iron and steel industry?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The very good service of returning it to private enterprise.

    Post-war Credits
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that post-war credits will be paid to the next of kin of men and women who reach the legitimate age for payment, but die before a claim can be made.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I regret that the law does not permit my right hon. Friend to give this assurance. He is aware of this particular difficulty and will bear it in mind in his consideration of the problem of post-war credits.
    Brigadier Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that a constituent of mine did everything required by the Chancellor of the Exchequer except sign an Army or some other form? In the circumstances, does he intend to bar him from having his money because he did not sign the form, although he lived long enough to be able to try to get his post-war credits for his next-of-kin?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:The position under the existing law is perfectly clear. Questions of amending that law are, as I have said, within the scope of the consideration which my right hon. Friend is giving to the whole subject.

    Tobacco Tokens (Extension)
    Mr. J. Patonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the issue of tobacco tokens to persons who
    504
    are maintained by the National Assistance Board and who, although of retirement age, are not eligible for retirement pensions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I am afraid not, Sir. The objections to extending the scope of this concession have been stated on many previous occasions and are, I fear, decisive.
    Mr. Paton:Is the Minister aware that the people referred to in the Question are as poor as the poorest of retired pensioners getting National Assistance? How does he justify the maintenance of what is, in effect, discrimination against them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:On the very grounds which were advanced when these arrangements were introduced by the late Administration, that is to say, to work this scheme without an unduly expensive administrative set up quite disproportionate to the value of the benefits given it has to be based on pensions paid by weekly orders through the pension office.

    Cricketers' Benefits (Tax)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the benefits payable to professional footballers are liable to Income Tax, whilst benefits paid to professional cricketers are not so liable; and what steps he contemplates to remedy this anomaly.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The discrimination is not, as the hon. Member suggests, between cricketers and footballers. It is between, on the one hand, payments to either cricketers or footballers which accrue by reason of the terms of the employment and are taxable, and, on the other hand, payments which accrue by way of gift or personal testimonial and are not taxable.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that if a footballer gets a benefit after five years' service he gets £750 which, after taxation, comes to rather less than £500, and that a professional cricketer, who may get £12,000 or £13,000, receives it free of tax? Does the Minister say that that is not an anomalous situation, however he might defend it? Would he ask his right hon. Friend to have this matter looked into further before next April?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It depends in every case, regardless of which sport is concerned, on whether the man gets his benefit as part of the terms of his employment, in which case it is as properly taxable as any other part of his income, or whether he gets it as a gift, in which case it is quite properly, under the present law, not taxable.
    Mr. K. Thompson:Is the Minister prepared to distinguish, for the benefit of the House, between the uncontracted benefits of the cricketer and the receipts of a vicar at the time of the Easter offerings?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is nothing about vicars in this Question.

    Gas Water-heating Appliances (Tax)
    Captain Ryderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Society of British Gas Industries concerning Purchase Tax on gas water-heating appliances; and what consideration he has given to these representations.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:The Society have asked that gas water-heating appliances should be exempted from Purchase Tax. My right hon. Friend will bear their representations in mind.
    Captain Ryder:Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that these valuable fuel economy appliances are heavily penalised by Purchase Tax and that if his right hon. Friend wishes to promote fuel economy and to help the housewife and industry there is no better way of doing it than that suggested in the Question?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:This point is one of the considerations which, my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, the Society has put forward, and it will be given due weight.

    Company Dividends (Voluntary Restraint)
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the degree of voluntary restraint which has recently been exercised in the declaration of company dividends.
    Mr. Maudling:I am aware of individual increases recently declared, but I believe that, taking industrial companies as a whole, the importance of voluntary restraint continues to be recognised and observed.
    Mr. Jenkins: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been an increase in the past year quite different from anything we have experienced for a long time? It is estimated to be as high as 10 per cent. on the average. Is it not obviously depleting savings the need for which his right hon. Friend is always telling us about, and will it not also have an unsettling effect upon wages, with, in turn, a bad effect upon export costs?
    Mr. Maudling:The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his facts. Taking dividend distributions as a percentage on capital employed, in the first 10 months of 1953 the rate of distribution was fractionally lower than 1952.
    Mr. Jay:As the hon. Gentleman himself said that there had been individual increases, and as the Chancellor gave a warning on this subject only a few weeks ago, is the Minister simply going to stand idly by and watch his advice disregarded?
    Mr. Maudling: It is most unwise to draw misleading generalisations from a few particular instances.
    Mr. Nicholson: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the correspondence in "The Times" on take-over bids, which are a direct result of artificial restriction of dividends?
    Mr. Maudling: That is an entirely different question.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the "Financial Times" figures show that the increase of dividends paid this year is 8 per cent. above what it was last year?
    Mr. Maudling: My figures were derived from "Financial Times" statistics.
    Mr. Vane: Are not hon. Members of this House the last persons to press this matter, bearing in mind that they have had a 60 per cent. increase in emoluments since the war and are moving for a further increase?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)
  Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what alterations in security procedure as applied to employees of Government Departments have been put into operation since October, 1951.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:Certain changes in procedure were introduced early in 1952 in relation to staff employed on exceptionally secret work. For particulars of this I would refer the hon. Member to the full reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) on 19th November.
  Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Minister of Supply to this reply, because on 16th November he was trying to tell the House that there had been no change in the procedure since the last Government were in office? Will the hon. Gentleman also tell me for what reason this new procedure has been embarked upon, because it is strongly objected to by the staff side?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I do not accept the implications in the last part of that question, and, as far as the first part is concerned, I think the hon. Gentleman is misapprehending the answer of my right hon. Friend.
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants have, by reason of Fascist or Communist associations, respectively, been transferred to other posts or dismissed since 11th March, 1952, when the present form of security questionnaire was introduced.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:Since 11th March, 1952, 11 civil servants have been transferred to other posts and one has been dismissed, all on grounds of Communist associations.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Fortunately, the number of unreliable characters appears to be small. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the revised security methods introduced on 11th March, 1952, have uncovered a smaller or a greater number of unreliable persons than the arrangements which were previously in force?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I am glad to be able to say that since these arrangements were introduced the number of these cases with which it has been necessary to deal has been appreciably lower than during the three years preceding their introduction.

  MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES (UPKEEP)
  Mr. Vaneasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the comments in the Arts Council's report for 1952–53, page 19; and what proposals he has to remedy the unsatisfactory state of the privately-founded museums and art galleries housing important collections, where the original foundation is inadequate to meet present-day costs of upkeep.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. There is a real problem here, and I have read this recently published report with interest. But, as it points out, there is more than one answer to the problem, and I should hope that, in view of the substantial contributions the Exchequer is already making to the arts, solutions will be investigated which do not involve yet another call on the heavily-burdened taxpayer.
  Mr. Vane:Can the Financial Secretary confirm that it is within the power of the Government to do something in this field without legislation?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should want notice of that question, but I should think it was highly improbable.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend bear in mind that Am Fasgadh, the Highland museum in Kingussie, has hitherto had no support from Government sources whatever?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Broadly speaking, central Government support has been given in the past only to national museums, which include the National Museums of Wales and of Scotland, and not to local museums. I am not sure in what category the one referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend comes.

  AGRICULTURE

    Starlings, Trafalgar Square (Destruction)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture how many starlings have been caught in and around Trafalgar Square since the initiation of the campaign; what methods have been tried; what is the total cost; and what action is now contemplated.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent):The attempts made last winter to catch starlings in cages at their roosting places were unsuccessful. The cost was about £200. No further action in this matter is contemplated.
    Mr. Dodds:Is this not a humiliating confession of failure in the battle of Trafalgar Square? In view of the expenditure of public money, will the Minister say whether any useful lessons have been learned about birds, and explain how it is that a party which believes in setting the people free should be so ruthless in dealing with these cheerful chattering birds that give so much pleasure to visitors to Trafalgar Square?

    Drainage and Water Supply Schemes (Grants)
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will authorise payment of drainage grants for work performed on all types of drainage schemes by the applicant himself.
    Colonel J. H. Harrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, under his Department's grants for farm water supply schemes, the exclusion of the personal services of the applicant from allowance for grant is meant to exclude actual manual labour of the applicant in digging the trench.
    Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend has no authority under the terms of the relevant Acts to authorise payments for work done by the applicant.
    Sir L. Ropner: Does my hon. Friend's right hon. Friend intend to seek authority?
    Mr. Nugent: Not at present.

    Waste Food (Collection)
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the difficulties which some local authorities are experiencing in the collection of waste food; and if he will now revoke the wartime emergency directions requiring local authorities to engage in salvage schemes.
    Mr. Nugent: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." As to the second part, the Government have decided that the salvage of waste food by local authorities will in future be on a voluntary basis, and my right hon. Friend hopes to introduce legislation in the current Session giving local authorities the necessary permissive powers so that the wartime directions can be revoked. In the meantime, he is prepared to revoke individual directions for local authorities if they wish him to do so. Despite this, I should say that this is a most useful piece of salvage work which ought, if possible, to be maintained as a long-term service.
    Mr. Aitken: Is my hon. Friend aware that this answer will give great satisfaction to many authorities who engage in this very uneconomic form of expenditure?
    Mr. Baldwin:Is my hon. Friend aware that if authorities are to go on with this matter steps must be taken to see that this salvage is properly treated before it is fed to other animals, in view of the danger of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease?
    Mr. Nugent: The veterinary requirements of my Department will still continue.

    Swedish Landrace Pigs (Prices)
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the high price at which the 100 Landrace pigs recently imported into this country were sold to breeders; and whether, in view of the fact that these prices have made it impossible for small breeders to purchase these pigs, and of the need for improving the standard of bacon pigs in this country, he will now allow the import of Landrace pigs without undue restriction.
    Mr. Nugent:I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray) on 12th November.
    Mr. Williams: As I have not seen that reply, for which I apologise, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that if we were to spend more money on these Landrace pigs it would be an economic proposition? We want better bacon, but for some reason my hon. Friend's Department is restricting their importation, which seems to be a short sighted policy.
    Mr. Grimond:As the encouragement of these pigs, at least in Scotland, is very desirable indeed, cannot we have an assurance that t0he Minister of Agriculture will allow their importation, and, indeed, encourage it with all the means in his power?
    Mr. Nugent:My right hon. Friend considers that the size of the recent importation is sufficient to show what this breed of pigs can do to help improve our pig-breeding.
    Sir R. Boothby: Is it not a fact that we have pressed for the importation of these Landrace pigs in much larger quantities because we believe them to be the best bacon pigs, and that my hon. Friend's Department has been deliberately obstructive in the matter and has prevented their import into Scotland? Why should the Department not let us have control over our own imports?

    County Committees
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to terminate the functions of the county agricultural committees.
    Mr. Nugent: 1 would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 19th November.
    Sir T. Moore: As a farmer himself, does not my hon. Friend realise that there is a wide measure of opinion, particularly among farmers, which feels that these war-time organisations are no longer welcome, and will he at any rate set a time limit to their life?
    Mr. Nugent:No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has already expressed his view on this matter, which is that these county committees are doing a most valuable job and should be allowed to continue to do it.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that the deficit on lands in possession account and on land farmed by committees account was £58,297 in 1951–52, what steps he is taking to prevent this loss in future years.
    Mr. Nugent: The area of land in possession of county agricultural executive committees has been greatly reduced since 1951–52. When the trading accounts for 1952–53 are published, they will show a much smaller deficit than in 1951–52, and in the future there should be no loss at all.
    Sir W. Smithers:Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain why my right hon. Friend has the shameful audacity to dispossess farmers when his organisation is losing the taxpayers' money? Will he cease forthwith using Iron Curtain methods with which to dispossess farmers in a once free country?

    Gin Trap
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Agriculture if, as a result of his tests of the various types of humane rabbit traps, he is now in a position to introduce legislation to abolish the use of the gin trap.
    Mr. Nugent:I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on 12th November to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson).
    Sir T. Moore: But it is now 26th November. Is my hon. Friend aware—as I know he is—that there is very strong public concern about the continued use of these barbarous contraptions? Will he also set a time limit to their use?
    Mr. Nugent: I cannot add to my answer.

    Myxomatosis
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture what action he is taking to prevent the spread of myxomatosis, a virus disease of rabbits; and why he is taking this action.
    Mr. Nugent: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 12th November to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield).
    Mr. de Freitas:Yes, but does the hon. Gentleman remember that the Minister told me, in answer to a Question many months ago, that they were researching into its effect in an island, I think, off the coast of Scotland? In view of this concern and the wide experience of this disease in France and Australia, cannot the Ministry make up its mind whether or not to allow rabbits to be killed by this means?
    Mr. Nugent:As my right hon. Friend told the House, he has set up an advisory committee to consider where the balance of advantage lies, and, in the meantime, such outbreaks as are discovered are immediately being contained in the hope of keeping the disease under control to a considerable extent.
    Mr. de Freitas:Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is the delay on the part of the Minister in making up his mind of which I am complaining?
    Mr. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that to permit or encourage the spread of this disease would be repugnant to most sections of opinion in this country?

    Eggs (Marketing)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture when a permanent scheme for marketing eggs will replace the present interim scheme.
    Mr. Nugent:I cannot at present add to the statement in paragraph 6 of the recent White Paper on Decontrol of Food and Marketing of Agricultural Produce.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman give the assurance that the importation of eggs by the Government will not be handed over to private traders until a permanent egg marketing scheme is in operation? Will he also give the assurance that such a scheme will cover foreign as well as British eggs?
    Mr. Nugent: It would be quite impossible for me to give an undertaking going as far as that, but I can give the
    514
    hon. and gallant Gentleman the undertaking that before the importation of eggs is returned to private hands we will consider how it fits in with the future permanent scheme for home-produced eggs.
    Mr. Baldwin: Before setting up the marketing scheme, will my hon. Friend see that it is a voluntary and not a compulsory scheme, so that the producer of eggs who wants to sell direct to the consumer is able to do so?
    Mr. Nugent: All producer marketing schemes are voluntary and are voted in by the farmers themselves.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if, in response to the invitation given in the recent White Paper, he has now received from producers detailed proposals for a marketing scheme for eggs, and if, in view of the unsatisfactory features now evident in the present interim price guarantee arrangements, he will give urgent consideration to the problems of the poultry industry so that production may be fully maintained next year.
    Mr. Nugent:I understand that my right hon. Friend may expect detailed proposals from producers' representatives very shortly, and he will certainly give them urgent consideration.

    Land Tribunals (Appointments)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture under what statutory authority he delegates his powers of choice of the nominated members of the agricultural land tribunals to the provincial land commissioner.
    Mr. Nugent:I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 12th November, from which he will see that my right hon. Friend does not delegate his power to appoint the nominated members of agricultural land tribunals.
    Sir W. Smithers:Is the Minister aware that there is a rising tide of protest against this use of dictatorial methods, and that there is no difference in principle between those methods and the methods used in Communist countries, where they have proved a complete failure?
    Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. My hon. Friend gives a completely unfair impression of

    515
    the function of these bodies which, in fact, are completely reputable and comprehensive safeguards to the landowners concerned.

    Farmland (Use)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Agriculture what action he takes to keep agricultural land available for food production; and how far his Department is consulted or informed in cases where an official inquiry is held into proposals to take agricultural land for other purposes.
    Mr. Nugent:My Department is consulted about all proposals to take agricultural land out of food production for other purposes, including those involving an official inquiry. All such proposals are carefully investigated by my Department, and clearance is given only where the loss to agriculture would not be serious, or where, if good agricultural land is concerned, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is no reasonable alternative for the purpose in view.
    Mr. Renton:When there is a conflict between the Ministry of Agriculture and another Department in a case where food production would suffer, which Department has the last word?
    Mr. Peyton: Will my hon. Friend have a careful look at some of the county development plans and see whether they contain serious threats to agricultural land?
    Mr. Nugent: My Department, of course, examines all county development plans.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that when other land is available for building purposes, good agricultural land will not be taken away?
    Mr. Nugent: Where the other land is suitable for building purposes, I can certainly give that assurance.

  FISHING INDUSTRY

    Fleets (Catching Power)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the catching power of the fishing fleets of Great Britain has fallen below that of Iceland,
    516
    Sweden, Denmark, Belgium or France today; and what steps he proposes to take to bring the fleet back to the level of 1938.
    Mr. Nugent:I think my hon. Friend is under some misapprehension. The British fishing fleets as a whole are much larger and more powerful than those of the countries to which the hon. Lady refers; but I am aware that the catching power of our fleet which operates in near and middle waters is less than it was before the war, while the other countries mentioned have expanded theirs. Parliament has given its approval to substantial measures of expenditure to assist the fleets fishing the near, middle and inshore waters, including a provision of £9¾ million for grants for new vessels and engines.
    Miss Ward:As we do not seem to have got on very far, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he will pay a little more attention to his rôle as Minister of Fisheries, because that would be very welcome to those engaged in the fishing industry who are grappling with very difficult problems today?
    Mr. Nugent:I cannot accept that we have not gone very far. We have had applications for the rebuilding of 26 near and middle water vessels, 45 inshore vessels and 34 herring vessels. I think that that is quite a good start.

    Frozen Fish Scheme
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made since his decision to defer for six months the proposed frozen fish scheme of the White Fish Authority which was designed to reduce the surplus of fish during periods of plenty and to make available stocks of frozen fish during times of scarcity, to enable the trade to make alternative proposals.
    Mr. Nugent: Since the White Fish Authority decided to defer for six months its proposed frozen fish scheme, it has received suggestions for a revised scheme from the National Federation of Fish Quick Freezers. These the Authority is now considering. Any scheme that the Authority may put forward will need Ministerial and Parliamentary approval before coming into operation.
    Mr. Dodds: Since this action is now long overdue, can the hon. Gentleman say when something will be done about it?
    Mr. Nugent:I am not able to say how soon or even whether this scheme will come forward, but if the White Fish Authority recommends it it will receive immediate attention.

    White Fish (Cost)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the reluctance of some catchers and traders to give information about costings and profits to the White Fish Authority in its investigations into the high cost of white fish, he will take steps to make it compulsory for books and records to be kept and information furnished to the White Fish Authority.
    Mr. Nugent: I am informed that the White Fish Authority has draft regulations for the purpose in an advanced state of preparation.
    Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we are getting a little tired of the White Fish Authority's deliberating, and that we should like a little action?

  ATOMIC ENERGY

    Exchange of Information
    Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the President of the United States of America, at Bermuda, that it will not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to disclose to the United States Government British developments in defences against atomic weapons, until the United States Government has disclosed to Her Majesty's Government American developments in atomic weapons.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I do not feel called upon to make any specific declaration today on this subject.
    Mr. Wyatt: Would the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House that he will not continue the practice of disclosing to the United States information about defences against atomic weapons, other atomic developments, and other
    518
    secret weapons invented in this country unless the United States give us, in return, the fullest information about their inventions?
    The Prime Minister:I do not really see that any specific conditions can be laid down about these matters. The ordinary course of propriety will be followed.
    Mr. H. Morrison:Does the Prime Minister accept the principle that, in this matter, if information is to be given it should be given upon a fair and reciprocal basis?
    The Prime Minister: That statement has been repeatedly made.
    Mr. Wyatt:But does not the Prime Minister agree that the time has come when this one-way traffic of information from ourselves to the Americans, with nothing given in return, should cease, and that they should give as much information to us as we give to them
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman really has no claim to be the only person of patriotic opinions in this country.
    Mr. Attlee:Surely this is a matter which concerns us. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to Acts passed in the Senate, the American Government have been hampered in giving us information which, I believe, their experts would like to give us? Surely it is a matter which might be taken up, because it is only fair that we should have as much benefit from them as they get from us.
    The Prime Minister:If all the facts were published as to the arrangements which I made during the war, and which were allowed to slip away after the war, I think the right hon. Gentleman would find some difficulty in making complaints against me. We have, of course, made more progress since we came in and took on the matter. We have made much more progress in obtaining information from the United States, and in improving the conditions of exchange, than has been made before. We shall certainly pursue that course. And I have repeatedly said that we expect to receive reciprocal information.
    Mr. Attlee:I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has made that remark, because it is quite impossible to judge those matters without a very full disclosure. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that it is very largely due to the action of the Senate that an agreement made could not be carried out.
    The Prime Minister: I certainly see no reason why, at some future date, full disclosure should not be made.
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Prime Minister what further communications he has received from the United States of America concerning the exchange of information on atomic energy; and how far an exchange of information on the industrial uses of atomic energy will form part of the new arrangements.
    The Prime Minister: The Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission recently stated that it had been found possible to make arrangements within the limits imposed by the McMahon Act to extend the existing area of co-operation to include exchange of information with us on the effects of atomic weapons on human beings and their environment.
    The provision about the exchange of information on the industrial uses of atomic energy remains unchanged.
    Mr. Edelman: While welcoming any enlargement of the exchange of information, may I ask whether it is not the case that the proposals of the United States admiral, Admiral Straus, work rather one-sidedly to the advantage of the United States, particularly in view of our far greater experience of being bombed? In those circumstances, will not the Prime Minister propose to President Eisenhower that there should be an enlarged and general reciprocal exchange of information, including information about industry, to avoid wasteful duplication?
    The Prime Minister:Yes, Sir. Our desire is that the exchange should be reciprocal and on fair and equal terms. That is what we shall endeavour to do.

    Ministerial Responsibility
    Mr. Peartasked the Prime Minister which Minister will be responsible for the co-ordination of atomic research in the universities and Government atomic energy plants.
    The Prime Minister:The Lord President of the Council will be responsible for the Government atomic energy establishments from 1st January. He will, therefore, be responsible for ensuring that the results of research in the universities are taken into account in the work of the Government atomic energy establishments. Research by the universities is, of course, carried out on their own responsibility and is mainly of a fundamental nature, but the atomic energy organisation places contracts with the universities in connection with specific research inquiries.
    Mr. Peart:Would the Prime Minister reconsider his decision to leave this in the hands of the Lord President? Should there not be a Minister directly responsible to this House? Is he further aware that it was reported last week that important atomic research work at Birmingham University has been held up because the University cannot afford to buy a concrete wall? Surely there should be a Minister responsible to this House in charge of the whole of the co-ordination of research.
    The Prime Minister: I explained very fully to the House the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, and it really could not be altered by Question and answer from day to day.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's question as to who is to be the Minister responsible to the House of Commons? I cannot recall that it has been announced, but I gather there is more than one. Ought there not to be a Minister, of adequate Cabinet position, who is the single and recognised channel of information to the House of Commons? I gather that there is more than one, which seems to me to be a most extraordinary arrangement.
    The Prime Minister:I said that until 1st January, when the new system comes into being, the Minister of Supply will continue, as hitherto, to answer the Questions appropriate to his Department. In addition, after 1st January, Questions in the House of Commons will be answered by the Minister of Works. However, the question of atomic energy covers so wide a field that purely technical and scientific Questions fall into one category, while others, which raise large Foreign Office, or even world issues, may have to be answered by the Foreign Secretary or by myself.
    Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Minister of Works is brought into this? As he is not a member of the Cabinet, and as, Departmentally, he is not concerned, as far as I can gather, with atomic energy, he will be merely an office boy.
    The Prime Minister: That is a discourteous way of describing a very capable and hardworking Minister. The Minister of Works, it is true, is not in the Cabinet, but neither is the Minister of Supply. But close contact is maintained between the Ministers who are in the Cabinet and those who are not, and the latter frequently attend the Cabinet when their special topics are under consideration. At any rate, that is the arrangement which we propose shall operate.
    With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), about a particular university, if he will write to me on the subject I will have an answer sent to him.
    Mr. Attlee: It is no discourtesy to the Minister of Works, but it is very difficult if he comes here and makes a statement without the background necessary to answer supplementaries. May I ask whether, on all occasions when atomic energy is discussed in the Cabinet, or in other Committees, the Minister of Works will be summoned? Otherwise, he will be useless to the House.
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of making any conditions about who are summoned to Cabinet meetings, any more than did the right hon. Gentleman during the years when he was in power. As to the Minister of Works, he has, of course, been very much concerned with this branch of atomic energy as his Department has constructed, or been concerned with, nearly all the buildings involved in the atomic construction. In addition to that, he is giving his full attention to the matter now and will be in the closest contact with the Lord President of the Council.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss:The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Minister of Works will be generally answerable to this House on atomic energy matters—
    The Prime Minister: After 1st January.
    Mr. Strauss: Yes, and the Minister of Supply will be responsible for matters concerning atomic weapons. As research cannot be separated—particularly basic research, which the universities will do—between the industrial side of the atomic energy project and the weapon side, surely it is ridiculous that in this House we should have two Ministers dealing with what is really an inseparable subject. Should there not be one senior Minister dealing with all these matters in this House?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter of opinion. We on this side are sometimes even allowed to hold our own views.

  SOUTH-EAST ASIA (RESISTANCE TO AGGRESSION)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will urge, at Bermuda, that Britain, France and the United States of America should make a joint declaration that, in the event of direct or indirect aggression against Siam, Burma, Pakistan or India, they would at once come to the aid of the threatened country.
  The Prime Minister: The integrity of any free country threatened by aggression, particularly of any member of the Commonwealth, is, naturally, of the closest concern to Her Majesty's Government as a loyal member of the United Nations. No additional or particular declarations appear to be necessary, either at Bermuda or elsewhere.
  Mr. Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that one of the contributory factors leading to the invasion of South Korea was ignorance on the part of the Communists as to what we would do if South Korea were attacked? Does he not think it is very important, to avoid such further action, to make clear, in advance, what we would do if such a thing happened again?
  Mr. T. Reid: Does not the Prime Minister think, in view of the danger to all the countries in South-East Asia, that it is high time that Burma. India and Pakistan abandoned their policy of neutrality?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we right in understanding the Prime Minister's answer to mean that we stand by the principle of resistance to aggression, which we upheld in Korea, wherever the aggression may be?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, certainly; and, also, we continue to be members of the United Nations.

  NEW BRITISH RIFLE (ADOPTION)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will ask the President of the United States of America at Bermuda if the United States Government are now prepared to accept the new British rifle as the semi-automatic rifle which should be adopted as the standard rifle by both the British and American Armies.
  The Prime Minister:No, Sir. Discussions about the best type of round and rifle are still going on with other N.A.T.O. nations. For the present, it is better for these talks to continue through technical channels.
  Mr. Wyatt:Can the Prime Minister say when the tests now going on at Fort Benning, in the United States, between our rifle, the Belgian rifle and the new American T.44 will be completed? Is it not time that we reached a conclusion in this matter, as we have the best rifle in the world and our troops are not allowed to use it because the Prime Minister has not got the guts to go through with it?
  Mr. Strachey:Will the Prime Minister agree that it is really time that British infantry were equipped with this rifle? We cannot wait about any longer for American decisions in this matter. What does he think is the great disadvantage of having our own rifle and supplying it to our own troops?
  The Prime Minister:That, no doubt, would seem a very proud and stimulating doctrine, but, as a matter of fact, when a large number of allies are working together it is a very great convenience if they can make a change to a new rifle in such a way that all benefit from it and all are able to contribute their sources of production in order to achieve the re-equipment as quickly as possible.

  CIVIL DEFENCE

    Helicopters (Use)
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if plans are now any further advanced for the use of helicopters by Civil Defence units.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): It is recognised that helicopters would be of great value to Civil Defence in the conditions of a future war. The actual use of helicopters for experiment and training has been hampered hitherto by considerations of supply and cost and I cannot yet say when it will be possible to give priority for expenditure for this purpose.
    Mr. Harris:Can we take it that the Home Secretary has in mind that if Civil Defence can be supplied with the latest and most up-to-date equipment, there is all the greater likelihood of the public generally taking a greater interest in Civil Defence?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am well aware of that point.

    Operational Head (Appointment)
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to implement the recommendation of the Committee on Recruitment and Publicity for Civil Defence with regard to the appointment of an operational head for the Civil Defence Corps.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:This matter is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to announce any decision.
    Mr. Harvey:Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Committee concerned attaches great importance to this matter in order that Civil Defence, as the fourth arm of defence, may be able to speak on equal terms with other arms of defence?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:Yes, I am aware of that. I am grateful for the views and assistance of the Committee, and I shall keep what they say well in mind in considering the subject.

    Recruiting Films
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recruiting films for Civil Defence have been produced since he took office.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is not the present policy to produce films for recruiting purposes, but since I have been responsible for Civil Defence two films have been produced to assist in the training of the Civil Defence Corps; a third is nearing completion, and others are under consideration.
    Mr. Harvey:In view of the success of these films, will my right hon. and learned Friend bring his influence to bear to persuade the Government to change their policy in the use of films for this purpose?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I shall give the matter the active consideration which I always give to my hon. Friend's suggestions.

  HOMOSEXUALITY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  56. Sir R. Boothby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the existing legislation in respect of sexual offences and the present treatment of adult sexual delinquents, with particular reference to homosexuality; and to make recommendations as to what changes are desirable in the light of modern scientific know ledge and of recent discoveries in the fields of psychology and psychiatry.
  A t the end of Questions—
  Sir R. Boothby: On a point of order. Question No. 56 on today's Order Paper is in my name. Just as I was about to spring to my feet to ask it, Mr. Speaker, to my astonishment you called the Leader of the Opposition to ask about next week's business. Half a minute later the clock struck half-past three. I heard it myself when I was outside the door. I should like to ask whether I have any remedy—whether I can defer the Question to a later stage, or can put it now. I was disappointed, as there was definitely half a minute to spare.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. Occasionally, there is a slight deviation among the clocks in this building. I understood that the hon. Member has already deferred his Question.
  Sir R. Boothby: Yes, but I would much rather ask it now, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next Week will be as follows:
Monday, 30th November—Second Reading: Housing Repairs and Rents Bill.
Tuesday, 1 st December—Second Reading: Housing Repairs and Rents Bill.
Committee stage: Money resolution.
Motions to approve: Iron and Steel (Compensation to Officers and Servants) (Nos. 1 and 2) Regulations.
Wednesday, 2nd December—Supply [1st allotted Day]: Committee.
Ministry of Food Supplementary Estimate.
Thursday, 3rd December—Second Reading: Currency and Bank Notes Bill.
We hope we may obtain that by about 7 p.m.
Second Reading: Electoral Registers Bill.
Third Reading: Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill.
Report and Third Reading: Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Bill.
Committee and remaining stages: Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Bill.
Report stage: Ministry of Food Supplementary Estimate.
Friday, 4th December—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Attlee: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a Motion on the Order Paper about officers' pensions, which seems to have

527
attracted a good deal of interest on both sides of the House? Does he propose to give any time for it to be discussed?
Mr. Crookshank: I have taken note of that, as I have of the many other Motions on the Order Paper.
Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the Leader of the House to whom Questions on foreign affairs should be addressed, in view of the departure of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for Bermuda?
Lieut-Colonel Lipton: The Minister of Works.
Mr. Crookshank: I did not realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant that quite seriously, because the normal procedure will be followed. I think the Minister of State will be back; anyhow, there will be two Under-secretaries of State—and no doubt the more important Questions which are usually answered by the Prime Minister will be answered by somebody else.
Mr. Mellish:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to find time to discuss the Motion relating to the persecution of Catholics in Poland, which has been signed by many Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Crookshank: I did say, last week. that a Motion which was then on the Order Paper was one which was bound to arouse the sympathy of Members in all parts of the House and throughout the country. Since then another Motion of a similar nature has been put down, and it is equally deserving of sympathy, but I cannot say anything about a debate.
Mr. Nabarro:In consideration of the very large number of Questions which are now being asked on the subject of atomic energy and development, and all the highly scientific and difficult matters referred to in the recent White Paper, will my right hon. Friend consider allowing Parliamentary time for a general debate on the White Paper before the Second Reading of the Bill to establish an atomic energy corporation?
Mr. Crookshank:That matter really does not arise at the moment, because there is a draft Order in Council before the House. I should like to know what
528
action might be taken on that before entering into discussions, which I shall be quite ready to do through the usual channels, as well as with my hon. Friend, in due course.
Mr. S. Silverman:Can the Leader of the House say whether he has yet had an opportunity of considering the matter to which I drew his attention last week? Can he now say whether the Government intend, next week or in the near future, to afford the House an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment?—or have the Government made up their minds to shelve this matter altogether?
Mr. Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is that this matter will not be discussed next week, the business for which I have already announced. With regard to the general question of a debate, it would be premature to make any statement, because, as I think everybody knows, it took the Royal Commission about five years to study this question, and the Report was presented to Parliament only in September. This is a matter upon which not only hon. Members of this House but the whole country would desire to form an opinion.
Brigadier Clarke:Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the Motion standing in the name of myself and other of my hon. Friends relating to the Piltdown Man hoax?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir—
Mr. Bowles: On a point of order. The terms of this Motion are:
"That this House has no confidence in the trustees of the British Museum, other than the Speaker of the House of Commons, because of the tardiness of their discovery that the skull of the Piltdown Man is a partial fake."
I can understand your name being left out of this Motion, Mr. Speaker, but surely it is not in order to attack Members of another House. I understand that the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Canterbury are both trustees of this Museum.
Mr. Speaker: My attention has recently been drawn to this matter. I am not sure how serious the Motion is. I should like to consider it. Speaking for my statutory co-trustees, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor, I

529
am sure that they, like myself, have many other things to do besides examining the authenticity of a lot of old bones.
Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps I may now reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question. I was going to say that it is a very awkward question, because my predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is a trustee and I am, myself, ex officio. As I told the House two years ago, we had quite enough skeletons to examine when we came into office without my yet haying found time to extend my researches into skulls.
Mr. Beswick: May I ask the Leader of the House what has happened to the Dentists' Bill?
Mr. Crookshank: I have no announcement to make beyond the fact that it is not a fake.
Brigadier Clarke: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my name from the Motion relating to the Piltdown Man, in view of the excellent answer which I have received.
Mr. P. Morris: Can the Leader of the House say when the White Paper—promised in the middle of November—in connection with the Report of the Council of Wales will be available?—or am I wrong in assuming that the right hon. Gentleman referred to November, 1953?
Mr. Crookshank: As a matter of fact, it will be available tomorrow. Was the hon. Member also asking about a debate?
Mr. Morris: Yes. I should be very glad to have information on that.
Mr. Crookshank: I thought that would come next. I hope we shall be able to arrange to have it possibly the week after next or, anyhow, this side of Christmas.
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

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and the Licensing Act 1953, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, being expenses which under any Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and

  (b) such issues out of the Consolidated Fund, the raising of such moneys under the National Loans Act, 1939, and such payments into the Exchequer, as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Civil Contingencies Fund Act, 1952, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.

  Resolution agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule
  3.41 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 7 and 8.
  For the second year I wish to raise the question whether we should continue the legislation which affects aliens, because it is on this occasion that the House has the opportunity to consider the law upon which the lives, liberty and property of some 400,000 people depend. It is rather a peculiar way of doing it, to be asked to continue an Act of 1919 which, in its turn, continues an Act of 1914 which was passed on 4th August, 1914, the day upon which that Great War broke out.

  531
  It was not an occasion on which, hon. Members can well imagine, there was very much opportunity for detailed consideration, and, oddly enough, this law, which was contained in some 20 Orders made under that enabling Act, has continued without ever once having been discussed in detail in the House prior to last year. Last year there was a fairly detailed discussion, and that discussion has had some results, to which I shall refer the Committee later, but I think it is worth while to consider for a moment just what we are being asked to renew.
  The 1914 Act gives an absolute power to the Executive, without any recourse to law or to the courts, to make Orders to prohibit the landing of aliens, to take their property away, to take their liberty away, to expel them, to say where they shall live, and, apart from this, it provides for conferring upon
  "…such persons as may be specified in the order such powers with respect to arrest, detention, search of premises or persons, and otherwise as may be specified in the order or any ancillary matters for which it appears expedient to provide with a view to giving full effect to the order."
  I find it hard to imagine any more absolute police power given over individuals than that which we are being asked to enable the Government to have by that Act. Indeed, it is an Act that I feel would be considered adequate even by a Government beyond the Iron Curtain.
  Yet, whilst on the one hand we are asked for these Draconian powers, and Parliament is being asked to extend them yet again, on the other hand we perceive in actual practice probably an administration which towards foreigners is more humane, more considerate, more reasonable than that which exists anywhere else in the world. Why should the powers which we are asked for be so utterly out of proportion to, so utterly different from, the most humanitarian performance which aliens experience at the hands of the Secretary of State? At every international meeting it lays us open to much misrepresentation when, on the one hand, we put on the Statute Book laws which are the total negation of such documents as the Declaration on Human Rights, and, on the other hand, behave with great respect to human rights.
  This matter was discussed last year, and I then pointed out that one of the
  532
  great difficulties involved was that the law affecting aliens, the law which created an offence in an alien which was not an offence in anybody else, was contained in a large number of Orders which it was almost impossible for an alien to discover. I hope that, as a result of that debate, that aspect at least has now been rectified, and indeed I feel that those of us who have considered it our duty to examine in some detail the measures which the Government asked for, may perhaps add to a new Army Act at least the making of a new Order bringing up to date and making ascertainable the laws by which aliens are governed. The consolidating Order is a great improvement upon the Orders which previously had existed and been renewed from year to year.
  I drew attention to a number of powers which seemed to me to be quite unnecessary, and the majority of those to which I referred have now been dropped—or, at least, will be dropped when the new Order comes into force in April. For instance, we no longer consider it necessary in peace time to prescribe areas that are not to be visited by aliens. Again, there was a provision renewed from year to year by which any club or restaurant which had a foreign customer could be ordered to open only during certain hours which the police specified, and if it opened otherwise then it could be closed down, it being deemed to have committed an offence—and without any recourse to the courts whatever. That Order, I am thankful to say, is also being dropped.
  I think there is a marked improvement regarding the obligation to register at an hotel. A case arose at Oxford where two girls had registered in their own names save that they added the prefix "Mrs." instead of the prefix "Miss," and they were sentenced to imprisonment under the provisions of a Regulation to control the movements of aliens. They were British girls. I am thankful to say—and I congratulate him upon it—that the Home Secretary took immediate action to cancel those sentences, and has now introduced a provision whereby no prosecution of that sort against English people can be started save by direction of the Public Prosecutor.
  That, I think, is an improvement, although I would just ask this question: why is it necessary for us to register at all whenever we go to an hotel? Why

  533
  cannot one control aliens merely by having a notice in the hotel, "If you are a foreigner, then you must register." Why should we all be required to go through the nuisance of registering for no ascertainable reason whatsoever whenever we go into an hotel for a night? I ask the Home Secretary to consider that.
  That leads me to my next point. Surely it is wrong that this should be laid down by Order at all. After all, this is the law upon which the lives, liberty and freedom of no fewer than 400,000 people depend. Surely that is a matter which ought to be dealt with by statute. Surely it is a matter upon which the collective wisdom of this House, working in Committee, could provide most valuable suggestions. This is the sort of Committee point which cannot be raised on the consideration of an Order but which if we had a statute we could discuss and consider, asking ourselves whether the power was necessary. I respectfully submit that this matter ought to be dealt with by statute. It may be that it was convenient first to get it into shape with an Order and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to tell us that next year we shall have a Bill. If that were so, I should be entirely satisfied. This is surely a matter important enough and of its nature best suited to be dealt with in the proper legislative manner of a Bill and not by an Order.
  I turn to the consolidating Order, which is, undoubtedly, in detail an improvement but which none the less does not deal with the fundamental objection which can be raised. In this country we have three classes of people. We have one class, which includes all our citizens, of people who are subject to the law. We have another class, the visiting forces, who are people above the law. We have a third class, the ordinary aliens, who are people beneath the law. Why cannot we have them all under the law, as is done in America under the great Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which states that no man shall suffer in his life, in his liberty or in his property save by due process of the law? Why cannot that apply to everybody in this country? After all, in practice we are far more careful of personal liberty and freedom than are the Americans. Why cannot we establish it on our Statute Book? It would be no great inconvenience to us.
  534
  In passing, I want to ask one question about the aliens who are above the law—the visiting forces. What is the position there. They are excluded from the new Order to be made and from the application of this Act. Has the Visiting Forces Act yet been brought into operation? Is it going to be brought into operation? What is the position until it is brought into operation? Is there any sign that the Americans are introducing reciprocal legislation? What is the position about this class of alien, men who are at present not subject to our law at all, nor, indeed, placed above it? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to tell us.
  The law about the other class of aliens, which we are being asked to renew, falls into three sections. First, there are restrictions upon admission to this country, and I say immediately that any country organised as countries are today must be able to say who shall come in and who shall not. If we organise a social security system, we cannot have it entirely open to everybody who cares to enter. I concede at once that those are restrictions which cannot be other than executive restrictions; the question of who comes in must be one for the discretion of the Government.
  I concede that immediately, but there are two exceptions to it. First, I ask particularly about paragraph 2 (2, c) of the Order which forbids the landing of an alien who has not a certificate of health. Can we be told a little about how that is worked? I remember seeing the terrible distress in the displaced persons' camps among those in whom an X-ray had shown a tuberculosis scar. They were people nobody would have. I hope a lot of those scars were cured, but those people were condemned to remain there all the time because nobody would have them. After all, we have very effective control of tuberculosis, and where there is a family in this country whose relative has had this illness or some other illness, and where the family is prepared to care for the relative, I hope a very liberal attitude is exercised about the discretion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman retains. That is a very important humanitarian point.
  Perhaps a more important political point is the fact that we have always prided ourselves upon the asylum which

  535
  we have granted to the politically oppressed. I suppose that at no time in the history of the world have so many people been persecuted for their opinions as are being persecuted now. I suppose that never in the history of the world was the need for political asylum as great as it is today. I should like to see us return to that ancient tradition of ours. It is still our law.
  The Aliens Act, 1905, provides specifically that fugitives from political or religious oppression shall be allowed to come to this country. That Act is suspended by the Act which we are now being asked yet again to renew. Why should it go on being suspended? To a very large extent we have gone on living up to that Act. Why not let us proclaim to the world our intention to provide asylum to the oppressed, to those who are lucky enough to get away from the manifold oppressions which are injuring and fettering the world? It would be a proud thing for us to do. Cannot we return to our ancient law and our ancient tradition? Why should we continue to suspend that generous Act, the Aliens Act, 1905, which provides this right?
  The second general aspect concerns registration. I take no objection to this, for I cannot see why registration, whether it be of aliens or of natives, should be regarded as an infraction of liberty. I cannot see why all our fingerprints should not be registered, although a great many people seem to regard that as a grave infraction of liberty. It is something which we impose upon foreigners without choosing to impose it upon ourselves. I take no particular exception to it.
  The really important provisions, the vital provisions, are the deportation provisions. These are the provisions which affect liberty, affect family, affect the very lives of people, and the breadth of the power is quite untrammelled and unlimited. A man may have lived here, this maybe the only language he can speak, this may be the only sky he has ever seen with his conscious eye. His wife may be English, his children may be English, but at the will of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, without any resort or appeal to the courts, he may be taken from his family, from his children, from the only land he has ever known, from the only place he has ever called home, and ban-
  536
  ished. This is a tremendous power. He may be placed on a ship when one knows full well that the only consequence will be that he will have his throat cut the moment he has gone outside the three-mile limit, for when an alien is expelled it is, by this legislation, in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's power to direct upon which ship he shall be placed.
  4.0 p.m.
  There was the famous case of the Due de Chateau Thierry. He was a French Royalist who claimed to be a political refugee in this country. He had committed no extradictable offence. He had a ticket for America and a passport for America, and he desired to go there, but we—it was in war time—wished to hand him over to the French authorities, who wished to punish him for no extradictable offence. In spite of his American passport and ticket, on a French ship he was put, and back to France he was sent. These are formidable powers. They are powers to be exercised wholly arbitrarily without any right of resort to the courts. Is it right to take these powers of punishment?
  Again, once a deportation order has been made, a man may be imprisoned indefinitely, without any charge and without any machinery by which his release can be secured. A number of deportation orders are made against a good many people whom everybody knows perfectly well cannot be deported because they have no nation, and nobody is prepared to accept them. There is the stateless person. A deportation order can be made against a stateless person and from that time onwards he is there to be imprisoned, without charge, without trial and without limit of time. These are the powers which we are being asked to give.
  I ask the House to consider for one moment how these powers conform with the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, to which we were a party. I will for a moment refer to a few of those provisions to show how strongly in conflict what we are doing is with that Declaration.
  In its Preamble, the General Assembly
  "Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly

  537
  in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
  I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I would ask this Committee, whether by taking these arbitrary powers we are bearing these things in mind. Here are some of them:
  "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,…or…national origin."
  "Everyone has the right of recognition everywhere as a person before the law."
  "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."
  The alien, under the powers we are asked to give, has no protection from the law for any kind of action the executive may take.
  "No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
  We are providing powers for these people to be arbitrarily arrested, to be arbitrarily detained and to be arbitrarily exiled.
  "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."
  We recognize that deportation is a punishment; it is a sentence provided on criminal conviction; but none the less, although on the one hand we recognize that it is a punishment, it is a punishment which, even if the man be acquitted or even if his conviction be overturned on appeal, the Home Secretary retains the arbitrary power to order, no matter how much it may break up the home.
  "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
  We are conferring specific powers to prevent any alien from leaving by our arbitrary choice, if we say so, and we are equally conferring powers to provide that, if he does leave, he shall go to places where he does not choose and where, indeed, he may die.
  Then again:
  "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
  538
  We are denying that right.
  "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
  Again we are taking rights to break up the family, and it is so unnecessary. We have no intention of using these unlimited powers but if we take these powers and say, "You shall have no resort to the courts, you shall have no rights," and we take the powers to do these dreadful things in an arbitrary manner, what is our position before the world and before the United Nations when Mr. Vyshinsky talks about our conception of liberty, when we are asking for such illiberal laws in contrast to our liberal performance?
  I referred last year, and I do so again, not only to the Declaration of Human Rights, but to a more ancient and simple law—the law of Exodus. There we find these words:
  "One law shall be unto the home born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."
  Surely that is a very fine conception. Is it not one of the miraculous—if we care to use the word "miraculous"—qualities of the Bible that the ethical principles which it expresses are never old, but have a final quality, and I would again say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we should not lightly disregard ethical principles which have withstood the test of time as marvellously as have the Commandments of God.
  I would say: Let us have a statute, let us look at this again, let us bring our law and our rights into line with our practice. So far as admission is concerned, let us return to that ancient proud privilege already upon our Statute Book. If my Amendment today were accepted, that would be once again the law of the land. The Act which we are being asked to renew suspends the old Act which granted the right of asylum to the political exile. Let those aliens within our land again come within the shelter of our law. The Americans do that. There due process of law applies to every human being whether he be a stranger or whether he be a native. Why cannot that right to due process of law apply equally to every human being within this island of ours, where liberty was in a full sense born.
  In the case of that Act, surely we ought to draw a distinction between the mere

  539
  visitor to our shores, in whose case, if we do not like his behaviour, it is reasonable that we should ask him to go, and the man whose home is here, who has no other home, who was perhaps born somewhere else and came here when he was a few months old, the man who knows no other home but Britain, the man who is domiciled here. Surely we should draw a distinction in our law between the two classes. We merely ask the visitor to go, but in the case of the other man we impose banishment and the break-up of a family. It is a distinction which should be placed upon our Statute Book so that these men may be brought under the shelter of our law, for surely it is a wide enough tree to cover every human being who comes to this island.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I am sure the Committee is very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for having raised the matter and for the way in which he has presented it. I disagree with him on two matters. I shall give my reasons for disagreement in their chronological order. One matter was that he said that the crisis is worse today than it was 20 years ago or thereabouts. The other was that he said that every alien in the United States has the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
  In what I say here I am speaking only for myself, and I may express some views which are not very widely held, but that is not a new experience for me. In what I say I imply no criticism whatever of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, except that I must say that I do not think a lawyer should be Secretary of State for Home Affairs. I should like to tell the Committee why.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a very able, honest and distinguished holder of the Office, and I do not impute any criticism of him. But it is the job of a lawyer to maintain a very high standard of integrity vis-á-vis the practice of his profession. He tends to become attached to the practice and the rules of his profession, and it is one of the traditions of the lawyer that, on the whole, humanity in the law is a bad thing, that hard cases make bad laws, and that one must stand by the fundamentals and dis-
  540
  regard the needs of individual cases. That is bad training for the Office of Home Secretary.
  The lawyer who maintains a high standard of integrity earns the respect of his fellows and may ultimately become Lord Chancellor. He gets his reward on earth, but the lawyer who turns towards humanity usually drifts out of his profession and may have some hypothetical reward in a world to come.
  Still less do I impute any criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was a distinguished Home Secretary and is a very great Parliamentarian. I regard him as one of the kindest men I know.
  My approach to the question is, in the main, that a world which contains anything like an alien or which talks about "foreigners" is a bad world, and I shall develop that theme later. I have no particular objection to nationalism as such. Pride in home, pride in race, pride in shire and pride in family are all part of the tradition of most races and are part of a healthy tradition as long as they do not become aggressive, chauvinistic, narrow or diverted to some race hatred or criticism abroad. Indeed, it might be appropriate for me, in addressing the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister for Welsh Affairs, to say that no more moving demonstration of nationalism can be obtained than by hearing five or six thousand Welsh throats singing "Men of Harlech."
  4.15 p.m.
  Nowhere on earth is narrow local nationalism more apparent than at Old Trafford when Lancashire play Yorkshire. A distinguished "Manchester Guardian" writer, Neville Cardus, has said that he was about to be married on the day when Lancashire opened their match with Yorkshire. He left the ground for a while for this purpose, but he came back to spend his honeymoon on the ground. He recorded that while he was away the score had advanced by 11 runs without a wicket falling, and that the excitement was intense and the antagonism almost unbearable. That is a local example which we may to some extent enjoy.
  However, there is a bad type of nationalism, too. There is a bad type of nationalism that we can teach children. Indeed, the very theory that

  541
  there is such a thing as an alien or a foreigner is fostered by a type of nationalism. So long as we teach children to sing a national anthem which says
  "O Lord our God, arise, Scatter our enemies, And make them fall; Confound their politics. Frustrate their knavish tricks;"
  we are teaching something which is inherently vicious and disgraceful in the modern world. The time has come when the House of Commons in its prayers might consider ceasing to talk about "God, even our own God," as if He were a private God and we had some proprietary right to the Deity so that we could bring Him into our affairs, and sometimes into our colonial affairs, although not too often, because it is regarded as dangerous. I believe that the teaching of a narrow nationalism in the schools is one of the vitally serious influences in regard to the problem.
  My hon. and learned Friend referred to the treatment of aliens. Those who love the history of the House of Commons will know that in years gone by there was no subject which more moved the House. Indeed, there were few subjects which more moved the country in the days when Kossuth was a visitor here, although he himself was a racially chauvinistic Magyar and a man who wanted to persecute the Croats; in the days when Haynau was, properly, punished by the brewers of London; in the days when Palmerston was asserting a narrow nationalism, which at least at times played its part in attempting to prevent cruelty in all parts of the world; and in days when, although we still had some responsibility for evil in the world, there was in this country an awareness of the brutalities committed in Europe, or in all parts of Europe except Ireland.
  It will be remembered that when Palmerston made his celebrated remonstrance about the excesses of Kossuth in Hungary, Count Schwarzenburg replied that he had not presumed to advise the British Foreign Minister about the Government of Ireland under British rule and he expected reciprocal forbearance on the part of Britain anent Hungary. The circumstances were such as justified that.
  In the reception of foreigners and in giving political asylum to the victims of autocrats in other parts of the world, we
  542
  used to have a very good record. My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the Act of 1905 which embodied that tradition on our Statute Book. What is the Act which we are considering today? It is the Act which was passed on 5th August, 1914, the opening words of which are somewhat remarkable. They say:
  "His Majesty may at any time when a stale of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign power, or when it appears that an occasion of imminent national danger or great emergency has arisen, by Order in Council."
  and so on. Those are the controlling words of an Act which virtually consists of only one Section, although a very long Section, and the controlling words are
  "when a state of war exists."
  What do we do by our emergency legislation? We omit these words and renew the Act year after year. In 1919, we said, "Well, the war has only just ended, and there is an alien problem." Perhaps it was then that the grave mistake was made, because when Sir Edward Grey said that lights were being put out in Europe which might never be relit, he never said a truer word. Many of them have never been relit.
  It was on 21st December, 1919—and this is where I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend—that the s.s. "Buford" sailed from New York with its huge cargo of compulsory aliens deported on political grounds without investigation, without redress and without a hearing under the orders of the Attorney-General, Mitchell Palmer. It was one of the most vicious things that happened in regard to the treatment of aliens, and it was in the United States in December, 1919, that the first seeds of Fascism and Nazism were sown in the world. That is a lamentable piece of history, and what is even more lamentable is that our record has got considerably worse as the years have passed. We have nothing to complain about and nothing to boast about in this connection.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: I am following the hon. Gentleman with a lot of sympathy, but will he not agree that this is not in isolation, and that the same period has seen the appearance of that unpleasant object the passport, the growth of world wars and great dangers to the world, and that, unfortunately, the mental climate for freedom has become less favourable?
  Mr. Hale: Yes, indeed, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not for a moment suggesting otherwise.
  My hon. and learned Friend made the point that aliens have the protection of the Fifth Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that, of course, there was a day when the British passport took one anywhere and when frontiers were places for an exchange of courtesies, and when a Briton could travel the world in freedom. But that day has long since gone. It was only recently that I found myself allowed to enter Northern Ireland without a passport.
  If a committee were to investigate the matter, it might find that a vast sum of money is being expended in the enforcement of unnatural and unnecessary provisions in connection with it. But I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Barry. All I am saying is that that very respectable authority, the Dean of Law of Havard University, Mr. Zechariah Chafee who wrote the brilliant book entitled "Freedom of Speech in the United States," has reviewed the change which has come about since the war period of 1915–1919. I am not selecting the Americans for any discriminatory criticism at all.
  The provisions that were sought to be obtained by this Act were perhaps the most comprehensive provisions ever made and have the least statutory protection. I do not doubt that the Home Office do not exercise these powers as ruthlessly as they could. I do not even suggest that they exercise them ruthlessly at all, although there have been cases which one has regretted. But that the powers are ruthless and provide virtually no protection for an alien, no one who takes the trouble to read the Section can possibly dispute.
  The time when British authority and British respect in the world sank to its lowest was in those wretched years of the 1930s, when I know that whoever was in charge of the Home Office at that time—and I do not even remember who he was—was confronted with a great problem. It was not easy, but it was the time when refugees from Hitler's persecution were coming unauthorised to these shores and were being deported back to concentration camps or execution.
  544
  There was no time when Britain's own treatment of aliens or the treatment of Britons abroad showed less respect for Britain or less respect for the traditions which Britain represented in the past. I remember, as a minor incident, that in 1938 I found myself deported from Germany into Poland because I had not taken the trouble to ascertain the provisions of an order which the late Mr. Hitler had made about a quarter of an hour earlier. He made the order at 11.45 a.m. and I was tipped out of a train on the German frontier at noon. I was locked up in a refreshment room under an armed Nazi guard for some hours until we found a telephone which was working and rang up the British Embassy in Berlin. The reply received from the Embassy was that the Germans could not do it, but they were doing it at that moment. The fact that I survived to tell the tale is apparent to the House, and I survived without any obvious physicalharm.
  But the bitter brutal tragedy of this persecution in those days was not merely the result of the failure of British policy, but almost a direct result of the foreign policy of the victors of Versailles who planned a treaty in which new boundaries were created without any consideration of the rights of nationalities and minorities. They created a new Europe and new countries, with the result that one of the features of those 20 years—perhaps the feature which will impress itself most on history out of all the features of the last 50 years—was this wretched story of minorities being driven from their country, of displaced and dispossessed persons being driven hopelessly and helplessly as refugees, and of the stateless persons, the people who have no tribunal to which they can appeal in law for any protection and no land to give them home or even house room.
  We have seen in the last week or two the extraordinary case of Mr. O'Brien who, apparently, spent some years on boats of various kinds being deported from one country to another until he was received into a Central American country only a week or two ago after travelling for literally hundreds of thousands of miles. He was one of the fortunate ones. How many have ended their lives in despair?

  545
  Surely, we have reached the stage when, if we are going to examine this whole problem of aliens, we ought here and now to summon a conference to deal with it on rational lines. The climate at the moment is at least right to the extent that quite recently there has been the ratification of the limited Council of Europe Declaration of Human Rights by a sufficient number of members to bring that Declaration into existence. I think it was only yesterday that in the House of Lords a conference on methods to enforce it was concluded.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies has told us, somewhat to our surprise—and I think not without a shade of cynicism—that he has extended the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights to 42 British possessions beyond the seas. It is unfortunate that, as far as I can see, the only power to enforce this revision has not been ratified by Her Majesty's Government. There would be no difficulty—the machinery is there—in calling a conference at this moment in an endeavour to try to get a new approach in Europe to the whole problem of aliens.
  4.30 p.m.
  I wish to raise one problem which I have raised from time to time with the Foreign Office and with the Home Office which is symptomatic of these difficulties. It is the case of Mr. and Mrs. Jerko who live in Oldham, and who have been living there since 1946. They have engaged a highly reputable and energetic firm of solicitors in Oldham to look after their affairs. They were both born in the Balkans, in a village which is now part of Yugoslavia though, of course, there was no such country when either of them was born. They were driven away as refugees by wartime circumstances and found themselves in 1945 in the American zone of Germany. Their child was born there—I think I am right in saying their only child. They sought refuge in this country. They claim they were told that they could not take the child with them or that there would be difficulty about the child. I do not know whether this is one of the misunderstandings that happen inevitably when people talk in different languages or because of an unhappy, overworked officer having to deal with hundreds of cases a day.
  At any rate, they left their child in the care of a relative now living in Poland.
  546
  For years they have been trying to get that child back, and for years every human effort that can be made has been made. I do not know what more can be done. I do not know what the Home Office can do—I attribute no blame to them. I do not know what the Foreign Office can do except write the kind of hopeless, helpless letter which they do to show willing, and which everyone realises will bring no result.
  I have written to Poland and to the Yugoslav Embassy. I have had courteous replies from everywhere, but everyone says that nothing can be done. It is an incredible kind of world in which that sort of case can exist, and in which all the powers of State and all the organisations of embassies and all the provisions for consultation cannot prevent parents from being separated for life from their child because of a sheer accident, with each living in wholly different circumstances and wholly different countries.
  To come back to the question of the United States for a moment, I would suggest that although the influence of the United States today in world affairs is due substantially to her enormous economic power—that great, almost Frankenstein monster of economic power—her influence in world affairs was at its highest when she had produced a system of receiving immigrants from all over Europe, and turning them in an incredibly short space of time into welcome citizens of a great new country. I think that was the greatest contribution any nation has made to a spirit of internationalism. It was well in the spirit of the Founding Fathers of the Constitution, well in the spirit of the Sage of Philadelphia, that for years the Statue of Liberty really meant what its title said. I want to remind the House of those words of Emma Lazarus:
  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
  I wish this was the kind of world in which one could send that little quotation to Senators McCarron and McCarthy in the hope that they would read it and take it to heart. I wish it was the kind of world in which we could get away from some of these animosities, from some of these dissensions, from some of these dichotomies. I see that there is a Motion

  547
  down on the Order Paper condemning the persecution of Catholic priests in Poland. I have signed it because I object to persecution. Some of my hon. Friends have put down a Motion condemning the persecution of Protestants in Spain. I would have liked to sign that also because I have always tried to protest against injustice wherever I see it, and perhaps there is no worse injustice than in this conception of an alien.
  At some time someone ought to sit down and wonder what an alien is. It is to be remembered that we are aliens in most of the countries of the world and that the conception of a foreigner is not a static one. Nor, indeed, will the views of varying states or governments naturally conform to a specific idea. It may be well to remind the House that in the view of the Emperor Tiberius the only loyal Jew in Palestine was Judas Iscariot. But one should not test the views or opinions of a foreigner by his reaction to our particular democratic ideals. It may be that this is the worst mistake which is being made in the world today.
  If we really are approaching this subject of aliens seriously; if we really are anxious to see substituted for this wretched Act, some cogent and comprehensive provisions with regard to the treatment of aliens, we have to decide what are our basic and fundamental principles and which way we intend to go. Everyone knows that it is easy for a back bencher to talk about these things and that it is very difficult for Governments to interpret them and put them into force. No one wants to indulge in purely fractious criticism. Everyone realises the immensity of the problem of dealing with aliens, and everyone realises what I regret to say, but what has to be said, that at the slightest sign of unemployment there is still a reaction to the presence of working aliens here. It is one of the obvious signs that the sense of international solidarity amongst the workers is not so strong as it was 20 or 25 years ago.
  In those circumstances I suggest that we have to decide where we are going. On that, no thinker of today has had any hesitation. People who say that this is a remote ideal, that it is an impracticable conception, that it is the wrong method of approach, have only to take
  548
  up the writing of anyone on this subject in the years immediately past or the conceptions based on the Declaration of Human Rights, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) referred. The ultimate objective must be a world in which foreigners have been abolished and in which there is a central federal government representing the whole world. That must be the ultimate ideal.
  There are many people who think that in this rapidly changing economic world the problems it has to confront—the vastness of the problems of the shortage of raw materials and the increasing economic problems—will bring the countries together in planning the use of materials, and will force the creation of international organisations of greater power and greater complexity. And there are many who think that such an objective need not be so far away as we used to think it was in the days when we talked of it as a Utopian ideal.
  If we could imagine for a moment that by the wave of a magic wand such a conception had been achieved, we would find what we had to do to advance towards it. If we could imagine that we had a world government in operation, that we had a world police force sufficiently powerful to control it; if we had international law based upon the fundamental conception of human rights, which is vital; if we had the basis of democracy given to all subject peoples, then our conception of an alien would have ceased to exist. The very necessity for passports would go. There might be some restrictions on vast industrial migration, but the whole of those circumstances would be altered.
  I believe that there are many people on both sides of the House who have thought that we ought to be working towards that ideal. If we are doing so, there are two vital steps which we can take at once in that direction. The first is to reconsider this provisional Order in those terms and see to what extent we could modify and liberalise and improve it. I am very sorry that not one of those hon. Members opposite who on Tuesday talked about freedom is here to talk about freedom today.
  Secondly, I suggest that we should have forthwith a conference, of the signatories

  549
  of the Protocol on Human Rights of the Council of Europe to discuss how far steps can be taken forthwith to make specific advances in certain territories. I believe that it can be done. President Roosevelt spoke no truer words than those when he said, "What one must fear is fear." I have often thought that what one must hate is hate.
  The problem of statesmanship in every department is to remove from the hearts and minds of the people of the world, and in this connection immediately perhaps of the peoples of Western Europe, the fear that lies upon them, the legacy of hate that still survives from the hatreds of the war. That is the supreme task of statesmanship. It is in order that we may get some advance from the Government on these lines and may have a fuller explanation of their views on this matter that I support the Amendment.
  Sir Thomas Moore: I am sure that the Committee is obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for raising this matter, and indeed for the manner in which they have put their case. The only quarrel that I have with the hon. Member for Oldham, West is that he referred to nationalism in very derogatory or critical terms. I do not think that it is possible after emergence from a great war to deny the nations of the world their nationalism. They have only been able to fight because of their nationalist spirit. Even Russia had to revive the spirit of the old generals and had to call on men to fight in the name of Holy Russia. They had to forget international brotherhood for the time being and I think that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, although idealistic in his conception, will have to wait a long time before he can eliminate nationalism, and I do not think that it is wise to eliminate it to the extent that he suggests.
  Mr. Cahir Healy: Does the hon. Member apply that to Ireland?
  Sir T. Moore: I wish that the hon. Member could sometimes depart from the parish pump and cast his eye to wider horizons than South or North Fermanagh, or wherever it is that he represents.
  It is a horrifying and very disturbing thought that even today, some eight years
  550
  after the end of the war, there should be so many millions of homeless and hopeless aliens and refugees in concentration camps in Germany, for that is what they are. Although the reputation of this country as a sanctuary for wandering refugees throughout the world has been magnificent in the past, it seems to me that we have now become an over-populated country into which, whatever the desires of the Home Secretary might be, it is almost impossible to admit any more. It is impossible economically to give full rein to our natural sympathy.
  4.45 p.m.
  I wonder sometimes if the Government have taken the fullest cognizance of the Emigration Council, which has interesting and stimulating plans for taking refugees and homeless from Europe to countries beyond the seas. If they could take more interest in that council the Government would be helped and hope would be given to many who at present are hopeless. Some time ago the Home Secretary, I suppose in conjunction with the Foreign Secretary, agreed to the reception in Britain of 700 refugees from Europe. I admit that it would be terribly difficult to select them. The priorities and the conflicting claims of all those who would give their lives almost to come to this country or some place of freedom like it are almost beyond solution.
  There is, however, one little body of men whose case I hope appeals to my right hon. and learned Friend. I have written to him already, but no doubt in the plethora of appeals that are made to him it has not yet come to his notice. It refers to old men who fought for us in the First World War in Serbia and Yugoslavia. Theirs was the only country that raised the standard on our behalf when we stood alone. They persuaded their young king to revolt against the decision of the Government and to stand by Britain and fight for freedom. They suffered terribly in consequence. In spite of our new-found friendship with Marshal Tito, they find it impossible to go back to their country.
  There are only about 70 of them. They are former generals, ambassadors, men of letters, men of great culture, and they are living without money, without anything except such as can be sent to them from their friends over here. The Chancellor has allowed us to send money

  551
  to help them and there are many good and kind people who do so, but I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend not to say in his reply to me that they must take their place in the queue. If they have to do so, they will be dead before their turn comes. This whole subject of refugees and aliens needs a great deal of thought and great sympathy, but if my right hon. and learned Friend deals with this one particular class it will go a long way towards relieving the consciences of people in this country with regard to the claim that weighs heavily upon them.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I know that hon. Members have been much moved and impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), but it is right to ask the hon. Member what country has done better since the war in dealing with refugees than this country.
  Sir T. Moore: I agree.
  Mr. de Freitas: That should be said rather more emphatically than it has been said.
  Let us remind ourselves and other countries of what we have done. We have more to do, but it is quite remarkable to recall what has been done already by this country under the administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the present Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) mentioned the Council of Europe and wondered whether there could be a conference on this subject under its auspices. He quoted from the text of the Convention on Human Rights which has been drawn up by that Council. The present Home Secretary was the distinguished chairman of the committee that drew up that document. Since we were pioneers, both under the last Government and this Government, in the ratification of that Convention, I ask the Government whether we might not take the lead too in such an international conference. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has stressed a number of disadvantages of our present system. He is probably right in supposing that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but it is a close balance.
  We sometimes forget one of the advantages of our present system of aliens control. It is that, provided we have a
  552
  vigilant Opposition, we can have a debate every year. If the Opposition is not vigilant, we will not have that debate, but last year, with a vigilant Opposition and particularly with my hon. and learned Friend, we were highly critical. The result has been a great improvement in the form and content of the Order relating to aliens.
  One of the advantages of the present system is the degree of discretion left to the Home Secretary. That means that he can be under pressure from Members of Parliament on matters affecting aliens, for instance their admission and treatment. As Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department, I had to stand at the Box to defend the Department in an Adjournment debate which was highly critical of the action of my right hon. Friend. I have seen and heard many questions on this matter and dealt with many individual cases raised by hon. Members. That is a real advantage of having wide discretion left to the Home Secretary and having Members of Parliament prepared to bring pressure on him.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my hon. Friend explain how under the advantages of this system the average Member of Parliament ever hears of the average alien case?
  Mr. de Freitas: I can only say, from my experience and from the experience of others in the Home Office over many years that aliens do come to Members of Parliament. Most hon. Members have had aliens come to them and there are organisations to protect aliens who bring their cases to Members of Parliament.
  I think it is right that sometimes we should realise how much aliens on the whole appreciate what is done for them in this country. Here I quote from a letter which came to me when I was Under-Secretary at the Home Office three years ago. It is typical of a number which the Department have received:
  "Dear Sir,
  Would you please excuse me for bothering you with this letter. I feel however it is not only my gratitude which I would like to express but also my duty to write.
  I came to this country under unusual circumstances, having left Czechoslovakia after the Communist coup ďetat. Here I found protection and political freedom and although I had left my own poor home-land I felt at home in this country.

  553
  Now when because of family reasons I have to go to Canada I would like to thank you for some kind hospitality which has been afforded to me here.
  I will always be grateful for it and I will never forget the charm, chivalry, and all the other good qualities of your countrymen, which put them in the first place among nations.
  May God bless your beautiful country and protect it from all violent changes.
  Yours faithfully,"
  We have gone a long way from the days of 100 years ago when one of my predecessors, representing the ancient City of Lincoln, could get up in this House and say that one of the reasons why he was opposing the 1851 Exhibition was because it would bring foreigners to this country. This, he said, was in itself a bad thing because if foreigners came neither our silver forks nor our servant maids would be safe.
  Mr. Gower: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) deserve our thanks, because this issue deserves attention. The hon. Member for Oldham, West painted a rather vivid picture of certain changes which have come over our thinking in the last 30 years. That change has not been confined to our attitude to aliens, but is concerned with many things affecting our international relationships. I thought perhaps the hon. Member pursued the argument dangerously far when he compared it with the situation in the 19th Century.
  We can well understand why this country in the middle of the last century was able to afford asylum to political refugees who were escaping from countries where there was no kind of liberal democracy. They were coming here not to participate in our life, but generally to learn something of our system and, ultimately, to go back to their own countries. But in the last two wars we have been faced with a different problem of people escaping from their own countries. That may explain why a change has come over our thinking and why in some cases governments have been forced to take certain steps to protect their own communities. After all, one of the major duties of a government is to protect its own citizens. It is not surprising that after the Spanish Civil War when we learned—perhaps for the first time in modern times—the danger of
  554
  that new term "Fifth Column," governments all over the world have somewhat tightened restrictions on the entry of other nationals.
  Nevertheless, I feel that within the terms of this Amendment there is a strong case for the attention of the Home Office. In my own area—in fact all over South Wales—there is a large community of Italians. Many of the children of those families were born in South Wales, while other children were not born there. Technically the children who were born in Italy and came here in their early days are still aliens and very peculiar cases arise. Recently I heard of a case of a man who went back to Italy to see his dying mother. He stayed there for a certain time after her death to put the affairs of the family in order. Now I understand he has imperilled his chance of returning to his own country—for this country is really "his own country."
  While it is proper for the Home Office to have power in certain cases to deport people who are undesirable, and perhaps to refuse entry to this country, it is wrong that a person who came here in childhood should stand in a different position before the law than I do. Why is it that if I am convicted in a court for a certain offence the only penalty that can be imposed on me is the penalty fixed by the law for that offence, while another person who came here in childhood, being convicted of a similar offence, may not only be punished for that offence but may have this terrible additional penalty of being thrown out of the country which provides the only home he has ever known?
  That is why I support the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, who said that this question should be carefully examined. I hope that in the coming months my right hon. and learned Friend will find it possible very closely to examine the Regulations affecting aliens. I feel that there is real need for some modification.
  Mr. Ede: We have at last heard the voice of the original inhabitants of these islands. After all, there was a time when the ancestors of all the rest of us, except you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, were aliens. Therefore, we must all welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has been

  555
  reconciled to the presence of the remainder of the population of the country.
  From my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) we have had a very fine exposition—with the bulk of which I concur and from none of which as far as I know do I very severely dissent—of the traditional outlook of this country on this issue. I regret that some of the restrictions that have been placed on the entry and retention in this country of aliens have had to be made. I was particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West for the remarks he made about me.
  I am not going to say that I think a lawyer is necessarily disqualified from being Home Secretary, although I think that some of my predecessors who were lawyers on occasion did take a rather pedantic view of some of the issues that have been raised today. But, so far as I know, there has been no hardening of the attitude of the Home Office towards aliens during the tenure of office of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  5.0 p.m.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton did give us, in a way which is peculiarly his own, a picture of some terrible things which might happen. A man might be put on a ship and the moment he got outside the 10-mile limit his throat might be cut. I should like to know if there is any instance—let us say within the last 20 years—where anything approaching that has happened.
  Mr. Paget:I was pointing out how wrong it was to take powers to do things which we would never dream of doing. I do not suggest for a moment that such a thing has happened.
  Mr. Ede: The dreams of the Home Secretary are often quite as vivid as those of my hon. and learned Friend. If he dreams one way he must not be surprised if the Home Secretary dreams in another way, and his villains are not the same as those of the Home Secretary.
  It must be realised that on accepting the doctrines laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West one is faced with the day-to-day difficulties which confront one in the administra-
  556
  tion of the law and in current public opinion. While I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) asked the question which he did of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore)—and I do not think any country in the world can claim a better record in this respect in the post-war years than this country—I always have in the back of my mind, because it revealed itself in my postbag, the fact that not very far below the surface, and always acting in opposition to the liberal sentiments of my hon. and learned Friend, is a xenophobia which can easily be roused and which in some past years has been as clearly expressed in this House as were the liberal sentiments of the middle of the 19th Century.
  In the first 10 years of this century, which unfortunately I am old enough to remember vividly, there was a very strong xenophobia in this country about the tremendous number of people who had come into the country from Eastern Europe. That is always latent, and in a period of severe unemployment it may become very strong. The Home Secretary of the day has to bear that in mind in his administration of the law.
  Neither do I think that the hon. Member for Barry put the matter quite fairly when he suggested that for a first offence in this country a man, who had no other country that he knew but this one and who was legally an alien, would be deported. I do not know of any such case, and I did administer this law, I can assure the House—and as I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does—with a heavy sense of personal responsibility. All my upbringing and personal sentiments coincide with the line of argument adopted by my hon. Friends, and it was a matter of grief to me that on occasion the public good did demand that one should take what appeared to be very severe action; although I do not think that on any occasion has action been taken as severe as that mentioned as the kind of ultimate power of the Home Secretary.
  Let me give an example. I had to deal with a very difficult problem which arose out of the large number of Polish soldiers who remained in this country after the war. At one time there were over 100,000 of them, and we tried to deal with them through the Polish Resettlement Corps. A number of these men had never had

  557
  any other occupation in life than that of being a soldier. Some of them were officers who quite early in life had reached a comparatively high rank with quite a substantial income. When we asked what civilian occupation they would like, they said, "Colonel"—and a very good civilian occupation, too.
  But as the Corps disintegrated, there were not enough positions of that rank to go round and I came across just a small group who had decided that the British people were so kind that, if they only stayed out long enough, no action would be taken against them. I had to remember that I had been a sergeant major. I took drastic action against 20 of them and then the rest of the colonels volunteered for civilian life. I give that as an example of the way in which one has as Home Secretary, to deal with a number of practical problems, which makes the application of some liberal sentiments very difficult. But I can assure my hon. and learned Friend, and others, that one adopts such an attitude only with the very greatest regret.
  The Home Secretary has placed us under a debt to him for producing, before this debate, the Order which he proposes to bring into force on 1st April of next year. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton analyzed it, and I think he did so with fairness. After all, it was one lawyer dealing with another, and who am I to be umpire between them? But his analysis seemed to me to be a fair one of what this Order does. Undoubtedly it wipes out some of the features that wartime compelled, and that peace-time may enable us to get rid of, and that is something which I am sure we welcome.
  I share the regret of my hon. and learned Friend that this is submitted to us as an Order, and I have no doubt that we shall have to put down a Prayer against it merely to elucidate it. I do not want it to be thought that what my hon. and learned Friend has said this afternoon, or anything I say, or which may be said by my hon. Friends represents all that hon. Members on this side of the House have to say on the matter.
  When we adopt that course of action, and when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, or, if it is in the early hours of the morning that we reach this matter, and you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, are in the Chair, we
  558
  shall have to vote on the Order as a whole. This is a long Order. There are a good many Bills, about which I hear from time to time from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which are quite trivial matters compared with it, and compared with the number of detailed individual issues which arise from it. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he considers that the time has arrived when this matter should be dealt with by a Bill.
  It would seem to me that this Order would make a very good preliminary draft of such a Bill, which would provide the House with an opportunity to give attention to the various detailed matters which are raised. After all, the good standing of this country in our own consciences and in the eyes of the world, will, as the years go by, be determined very largely by our legislation and administration in this matter.
  The Order is certainly better than the mass of Orders that we now have. If it does nothing else, it consolidates the position so that aliens and those advising them have now only one document at which to look instead of many. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) counted up the number that were revoked and found that 21 previous Orders are revoked by this one which, from now on, can be read by itself with reference only to the relevant Acts of Parliament on which its various paragraphs may depend. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether, among the matters which ought to be discussed as subjects for legislation in the near future, a Bill embodying this Order ought not to be one of the Measures his Department puts forward.
  I would say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton that I do not mind signing my name in an hotel register. I do not know how Middlesex would be able to get cricketers if hotel registers were abolished in that part of London which lies north of the Thames. I was once assured by a Surrey captain that the main claim to play for Middlesex was the fact that one had registered in such an hotel. He also added that they once found a man playing for Middlesex who had not that qualification—at least not in the name in which he was attempting to play for the

  559
  county. I do not see any special infraction of liberty in that.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman does not object to my finger prints being taken, but I do. He objects to signing an hotel register, but I do not. I suggest that these are not matters that are of any serious concern.
  Mr. Paget: I have no objection to signing a register if there is any advantage to be got from it, but what is the advantage?
  Mr. Ede:While everyone has to sign that relieves the honest hotel keeper of a great difficulty which he has if he has to try to decide who is an alien and ask him to sign. He may overlook a case where a signature ought to have been, obtained. I do not like setting traps for tradesmen who are trying to carry on a perfectly honest business.
  The immediate future of this service will, we presume, be administered largely under the new Order which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has promulgated. I hope that he will bear in mind the request from this side that at an early date we should have an opportunity of considering this issue in a form that will enable the various details to be considered, so that the full sense of Parliament can be obtained on each and every one of these Regulations.
  If that could be done we should probably find that there were some parts of the Order which could be improved and that the aliens—the strangers within our gates—who are subject to our administration in these matters would have the knowledge that this was a fully considered act of the British Parliament. I do not think anyone can say that is the position today. It is a position which we should attempt to reach.
  5.15 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I certainly cannot complain about this debate taking the time which it has taken today. Last year I defended the procedure which arises in connection with the Aliens Order as providing a suitable opportunity for a general review of the administration of the Order. The Committee has taken advantage of the opportunity very well indeed.
  560
  I would say to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that my right hon. and learned Friend has noticed his opening words to the effect that the administration in this matter is more humane and considerate here than it is in probably any other country in the world. Not only does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that statement, but I am certain that all those connected with the administration of the Order will appreciate what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and other hon. Members.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields dealt with the matter from a practical point of view. It is important that we should always have regard to the practical needs of the position rather than to theoretical considerations. The present procedure is an anomaly. No one can defend that. Certainly it is not a procedure which was in any way designed in advance. On the other hand, it does not create practical difficulties and it has produced a flexible and useful piece of machinery.
  There was a demand last year for permanent legislation. I do not think that the demand has been couched in quite the same terms today. But, of course, permanent legislation can mean two things. It can mean that the governing Act should be more comprehensive and made permanent in character. My right hon. and learned Friend has listened to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields and others have said in that connection. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this matter has received careful consideration and that it will continue to do so.
  He will appreciate that there are difficulties in this connection. It may well be better to leave the position as it is for a little longer. The world has not settled down altogether. It may be that at an early date we should need something in a different form from what is now contemplated when this matter is borne in mind in a sympathetic way.
  The other meaning of permanent legislation, which is attached to the phrase by other hon. Members, is that the powers of the Home Secretary should be more precisely defined than they are today by

  561
  the whole body of this legislation, including the Orders. Hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House are concerned about the extent of the powers given to the Home Secretary and the method of the exercise of those powers, and rightly so. No one would complain of that. There are those who want to abolish all control of aliens. The hon. Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Hale) made a speech which indicated that he wishes to see all control of aliens in this country abolished—
  Mr. Hale: In the world.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:—and in the world. The implication was that he wants this country to give a lead. I assure him and the Committee that there is still a very strong pressure to immigrate into this country. It is not without interest to realise that since the war we have admitted no fewer than 250,000 aliens to come and live here on a permanent basis. Most of those aliens were refugees or displaced persons, about 120,000 of them being the Poles to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. The pressure still continues, and while it continues, quite obviously, some sort of control is essential.
  It has been suggested that there should be some inquiry to see what could be done; this was suggested last year by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). Since last year, the Orders have been reviewed, and the review has produced the present consolidating Order. But if the suggestion is made that there should be a fundamental change of policy in this connection, I think that that would be quite wrong.
  The sort of suggestion which is made—one hon. Member made it today—is that we should have something like they have in America, some form of quota system. That would be wholly inappropriate to a country such as the United Kingdom. America has a fixed quota, and provided that an individual complies with certain standards of health and so on, he can be admitted; but when the quota is filled no one else can come in until the next period begins. That would be quite wrong in this country. Our system is entirely different: it is the very reverse of that. The essence of our system is that it permits of each case being considered upon its own merits.
  562
  Perhaps I might say a word about the policy which we follow in this connection. Purely temporary visitors are welcome—indeed, the more they come and spend their leisure and their money here, the better; but it is not only those who spend money who are welcome. Tourists and students are all encouraged to come here, provided, of course, there is no intrinsic objection to the individual concerned.
  Then there is a second class of visitor, who comes, in the first place temporarily, to earn his living. People in this class are freely admitted provided that they have a special contribution to make to our economy. Last year some 25,000 foreigners came into the country under the Ministry of Labour permit scheme. They come in for 12 months in the first instance, but if their work and behaviour is satisfactory they get a renewal as a matter of course. In the ordinary way, after four years' approved employment here the conditions are removed and they are able to stay under exactly the same conditions as any ordinary resident.
  That deals with the case of the temporary visitor who intends to be temporary and the temporary visitor who intends to become permanent. Then there is a third class of case: the person who wishes to come here permanently from the start. At present this class is limited to the compassionate case in which near relatives are living in this country. The rules were worked out by the last Government. They have several times been stated in the House by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) and, I think, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), and they are not in any way stricter today. On the contrary, they have been relaxed slightly here and there. I am not saying there have been any great relaxations, but it has been found possible in course of time to make relaxations in a few directions. Broadly speaking, however, we follow the same policy as did the previous Government.
  Compassionate cases are by their very nature not capable of precise definition. They range the whole way from the widowed mother, the sole survivor of a Jewish family, with her only child in this country, to the case where a man wants to bring in a mistress when he already has a wife living in this country. There is that enormous range of extraordinarily different cases.

  563
  There must, therefore, be discretion in this matter. If there is to be any control of entry, it must be a discretionary control. We cannot lay down the rules in an Act or an Order or in a whole series of Orders. That is why this new Order is necessarily very wide in its terms. It consolidates some 20 Orders and, as the Committee has already heard, it goes a little further. The changes of substance are not very great but there has been a great deal of re-arrangement and clarification.
  For example, Articles 8 and 9 of the new Order deal with aliens who are refused leave to land or who are stowaways. The old provisions dealing with this class were unduly compressed and were ambiguous. The new provisions set out the position fully and clearly. But no alteration of practice has been brought about. A number of obsolete provisions have been omitted. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton mentioned two of them; they were the old Articles 9 and 10 to which he referred last year. They had not been used for a long time, and it was unnecessary to bring them in again.
  Perhaps I should say a word about the provisions regarding hotel registers, which have been retained in the new Article 19. Very careful consideration has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the need for retaining these provisions and it was decided that it was essential to do so for the purpose of keeping track of aliens who are in this country. There are, in fact, fewer restrictions in this connection in Great Britain than, I believe, in any other European country, and probably any other country elsewhere.
  It is asked, "While these provisions may be necessary for aliens, why is it necessary to retain them as far as British subjects are concerned, even to the limited extent provided in the Order that they have to enter their name and nationality?" If a British subject need make no entry in the register, all that an alien need do if he wished to avoid having to enter his name would be to say that he was a British subject. Then, he would not be required to put his name in the register and there would be no trace of him subsequently, so that the
  564
  very man who was trying to avoid being traced could escape in that simple way. Of course, it goes much further than that.
  Mr. Paget: Surely, it is just as simple, as very often happens, for the man to write down his name as "Joe Smith, British."
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There is, at any rate, a significance in "Joe Smith, British." If the hon. and learned Member had waited until I finished my remarks he would have seen that the matter goes further than that. A great many people are not willing to forge their names and run the risk of severe penalties. Supposing that through carelessness an alien did not register, it would be open to the hotel keeper or to his servant, who would probably be employed in quite a humble capacity, simply to say "Well, he said he was a British subject," and the matter would then fall.
  5.30 p.m.
  It would be quite impossible to enforce this Order at all unless we required British subjects simply to write their names and nationalities. It has been found to work perfectly well in the past, and that is the best answer that I can give to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course, it is entirely wrong to use this Article for any purposes other than the purpose of this Order, and my right hon. and learned Friend has already issued advice to chief constables on this matter, and the new paragraph 4 of Article 26 requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which will ensure that the Article is not misused.
  I do not think I need trouble the Committee by going into the methods of control employed under the Order, but I should perhaps mention that some 800,000 aliens came to the United Kingdom in 1952, and that of that total only 1,600 were refused entry. That, of course, does not give any indication of the number which the Order was effective to prevent, because it may very well be that a very large number made no attempt to come because they knew they would be unsuccessful, but I can say that, having regard to the very large numbers involved, both the immigration officers and the police do their work in this connection extremely well. They do it thoroughly.

  565
  quickly and tactfully, and I am certain that the Committee would wish me to bear testimony to that fact.
  May I say a word about deportation, which has been mentioned? There have been 207 deportation orders made this year, and, in fact, in only two of these cases were the individuals concerned in this country before the war. They were both cases which were considered most carefully and in which there were strong reasons for deporting them, and that is really the answer to hon. Members who suggest that individuals who have spent their entire lives here are whisked away without their cases being considered.
  It is quite essential to retain this power to deport as a counterpart to the control of entry of aliens. If we did not possess this power to deport, it would be open to anyone to come here on a visit and later on say simply, "I am not going away," and the control of aliens would disappear. Every sovereign State reserves this right, and if I may refer to the really relevant paragraph in the Declaration on Human Rights, it runs as follows:
  "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
  It is exactly for these purposes that we ask the House to renew these powers for a year now. The power must be discretionary, and we could not deal with it on any other basis.
  For example, let us suppose that a worker with a Ministry of Labour permit simply gives up his job, which very often happens. We must have some power to be able to let him take a new job. Or, let us suppose that while he is here he marries a British wife or, indeed, let us suppose all the other possible circumstances that might affect him. We could not possibly provide by statute that a worker who comes here with a Ministry of Labour permit shall have to go as soon as he stops doing that particular job. We must, therefore, have some discretionary machinery, and the discretion is important, not from the point of view of being able to exercise any tyr-ranous power over the alien, but for the alien's own benefit. If we did not have this discretion, the alien would be at a disadvantage all the time. The decisions
  566
  which have to be made, both in particular cases and generally, are decisions which are properly Ministerial ones. They raise issues of policy which should be capable of challenge in this House and not in the courts. If there was no power to make a change, it would be found to operate against the alien concerned all the time.
  For the reasons I have given, I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his Amendment in order that we can conduct what he himself has described as a most humane and considerate administration for another year at all events.
  Mr. Silverman:The Joint Undersecretary began his speech by saying that he had no cause to complain of the tone or temper of the debate, which I think we are all grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for having introduced. If I may say so without presumption, none of us has any complaint whatever about the tone and temper of his reply.
  The hon. Gentleman said, quite fairly, that this occasion has always been treated by the Committee as an occasion for reviewing not so much the nature of these executive powers as their actual administration in practice, and he himself, as did most other people who have taken part in the debate, defended, and not unreasonably, the spirit and temper in which these powers have, in fact, been exercised Perhaps I may say, since many hon. Members who have spoken had some personal point to make, that I am not the least qualified Member of the House to pay tribute to British hospitality to aliens, since I happen to be the son of one who came here in the first quarter of the 19th Century, and I recognize, therefore, in my own person, the merits of British hospitality to refugees. Whether the nation has had an adequate return for its hospitality is a matter on which, perhaps, there may be more than one opinion.
  The subject which is before the Committee is not in fact the actual spirit in which these executive powers are administered, but the much wider question from one point of view—though narrower from another—whether they are an appropriate subject either for the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill or for delegated legislation.

  567
  The essential point which always dominates these discussions is that the effect of this power is to create one class of person—and not a small class—in our community which is subject to the personal discretion of one Minister for its security and for its liberty.
  No one ever thought, and I think that no one even now thinks in principle, that these are matters which, if things were normal in the world, this House and this country would tolerate. The hon. Gentleman himself said that he wanted us to continue them for another 12 months, with the implication that perhaps it might be necessary to do the same next year. In justification of that he said, "The world has still not settled down." It has been pointed out already that these powers were made under the war-time emergency Act dated 5th August, 1914. The world has not settled down in that 40 years. I doubt whether anyone who has taken part in this debate, or who is responsible at all for the administration of these matters, would dare to prophesy with any confidence that the world would settle down from that point of view within the next 40 years.
  It is commonplace of our time that we are living in a time of transition. All times are times of transition. Our own time has been a time of violent and ceaseless transition, and the unsettlement, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly said, is still there, and shows no sign of disappearing. Therefore it is artificial to treat this matter as if we are only being asked to continue it for one more year, after which there was some practical prospect of not having to renew it again. Assuming that every one of these powers, as now defined in the new, amending, and consolidating Order, were judged by the House of Commons to be right, reasonable and fair, and if we were prepared to give a unanimous approval to the continuance of these powers, even then they ought not to be done in this way. They ought to be done by permanent legislation in a form which would permit the House to review it and amend it.
  On that point I do not think, with all respect to him, that the hon. Gentleman gave us a satisfactory reply when he said that the world had not settled down, and that these powers were necessary and should be continued; the more necessary
  568
  it becomes that the House shall have an opportunity not only of reviewing the general administration of the powers, but the powers themselves. I am not going to discuss the new Order but only to use it for reference. Look, for instance, at Articles 20 and 21, which are not new law but the existing law. Under them, the Home Secretary has absolute power to recommend for deportation, to deport, and to imprison indefinitely pending deportation. The hon. Gentleman said, reasonably enough, that the right to deport was a necessary concomitant of the right to admit or to refuse to admit. I suggest to him that that is not quite so.
  The right to deport might be a necessary concomitant of the right to refuse admission in the case of temporary visitors who break the conditions of their admission, behave improperly and prove themselves in any respect undesirable. The Home Secretary, who has the obligation of saying whether they shall come in or not, ought also to have the right to say, "You came in, and I'm not satisfied with you. You shall go out." Is it reasonable that he should have that power in the case of a man who might have lived here for 30 or 40 years and has no other home or country? It is no answer to say, "But we never do it." We say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he ought not to have so wide a power as that, and that if there is to be such a power it ought not to be at the arbitrary, uncontrolled discretion of the Home Secretary or of any other individual.
  5.45 p.m.
  There has been some discussion about the practice in the United States. No one will expect me, especially having regard to some recent experiences of mine, to defend the McCarran Act. I do not defend it. If there were a Senate committee to inquire into un-American activities the McCarran Act would be the most un-American activity that it could inquire into; but there is this advantage in American practice, however wrong: there is a board of appeal.
  If an alien arrives on the shores of the United States and is not allowed to land, or if he is a resident in the United States and the executive authority desire to deport him—I am merely dealing with the corresponding rights of the American—the alien has a right of appeal. He has

  569
  the right to an open hearing and to be legally represented before a board of appeal. He is entitled to hear what is the case made against him and on what evidence, and he is entitled to cross-examine and to call evidence in reply. The Executive have the right at the end of the day to say to the board of appeal, "What we did was right and reasonable, and you ought to support us." Only if the individual cannot get a certificate of that third-party judgment will the deportation be put into force. I am not an expert about American law, but I think I am right in what I have said about it.
  I can see the case against and in favour of the Order, but surely Parliament at this time of day, nearly 40 years after the passing of the original emergency war-time legislation, ought to have some opportunity of considering whether or not the Executive's arbitrary powers in this respect ought to be limited or to be left as they are. I say nothing about what Parliament might do about it, but surely the time has come when Parliament ought to have the right to make up its mind about it.
  What right have we got? This annual review of administration does not give it to us and the new Order will not give it to us. We can only pass or reject the Order as a whole as it stands. It may very well be that a great many of these powers are inevitably necessary and that some are not necessary at all. It may be that some of them would be right if amended or altered in some way. If we are dealing with the liberties of 400,000 people, it is not unreasonable to say that powers arbitrarily conferred ought to have Parliamentary sanction and the detailed Parliamentary review which they have never yet had and which, under the new Order, they are not going to have.
  Let the Committee consider how inchoate is this body of executive powers. The new Order in Council tells the House how many Orders in Council are revoked by this new, consolidating Order. I am not dealing with the rights or wrong of it. I am only pointing out the state of the law. There are, as my right hon. Friend said, 21 Orders in Council revoked by this new Order. These 21 Orders in Council are spread over a period of more than 30 years. So has this body of executive power grown up under delegated legislation.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was telling us only two days ago what he thought were the limits of continuing delegated legislation. I hope he will not mind if I quote what he said, and if I adopt the words that he used. Dealing with transitional powers, he said this:
  "…first, that administrative convenience alone was not a sufficient ground for keeping any Regulation or part of a Regulation, but that retention of a provision could be considered only if it could be demonstrated positively that its continuance was necessary in the public interest;"
  Demonstrated to whom? Demonstrated surely to Parliament, which would have the right to agree or disagree with the proposition.
  "…secondly, that the retention of powers which might be necessary or useful in a future national emergency, but were now in abeyance, could no longer be justified;"
  That is the whole of the matter. The powers must have regard to an existing war situation, a consequence of one or in anticipation of one.
  "…and thirdly, that in the circumstances of 1953 a less comprehensive range of control and enforcement was appropriate."—[Official Report, 24th November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 200.]
  Perhaps the last one is not so much in point as the other two.
  There have always been two views about encroachments on the liberty and rights of the individual. We on this side of the Committee have for many years believed that some restriction on the rights of property was essential in the interests of the community as a whole. We believe in planning. We believe that the necessity nowadays at any rate is that the community itself should direct, organise, and co-ordinate all material resources for the common good. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were of opinion that we were wrong about that, or that we went too far, or that the application went further than the necessity of the case demanded.
  But on the other aspect there has never been any difference of opinion in this House. There has never been any difference on the subject of not interfering with liberty in the sense of personal freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom before the law and freedom from arbitrary executive disposition. All that is the very basis of our British democracy.
  This is really an exception which was taken long ago under delegated legislation by Order in Council for an emergency purpose. It has become a permanent feature of our life, and what we have been saying to the Government—and let it be said in fairness that, when we sat on the other side of the Chamber and our right hon. Friends formed the Government, we said it, too—is that the time has come when these matters should no longer be dealt with by delegated legislation by Order in Council under executive authority, but that the extent of them, the continuance of them and the effect of them should be determined by Parliamentary legislative action, as the rights of all citizens under other matters have always been determined.
  Mr. Paget: I feel we have much to be grateful for from the Government both in the administration of this scheme and in the consolidation that they have done. I hope very much by next year that they will have considered permanent legislation and also whether they can draw a distinction between the alien who is here on a temporary permit and concerning whose deportation, of course, there must be powers if he does not comply with that permit; and the alien who is not here on a temporary permit but whose home is in this country. I feel myself rather strongly that some form of appeal or some process of the law should be brought into operation before an alien of the second category is banished from his home. With those concluding remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 20 to 35.
  I wish to call the attention of the House to the continuance of the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939. Last year we had a very useful debate on this subject. It is becoming increasingly difficult to complement Her Majesty's Ministers on anything, so with alacrity I take this opportunity of saying at once that last year we got a very sympathetic response from the Home Secretary, and I am sure the whole Committee appreciated the action he then took.
  I am sure also that we in this Committee regret—a regret which is shared
  572
  by all responsible opinion both in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland—that there has been some evidence of a return to terrorism and violent activities. I, for one, recognize the difficulties of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. I concede at once that we have learned from experience that democracies are entitled to protect themselves against terrorism from whatever quarter it may come, and I appreciate the difficulties which the Home Secretary previously explained to the Committee arising from the fact that the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, which we have just been discussing, does not apply to the citizens of the Irish Republic. At the same time the citizens of the Irish Republic have freely chosen not to come into the Commonwealth.
  I recognize, too, the perpetual dilemma of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in trying to reconcile the rule of law with the individual rights of each citizen. Nevertheless, we must constantly remind ourselves now that legislation we are considering arose and in what circumstances it was born. In fact, we resorted to this legislation only after those operating the "S" plan decided to abandon all regard for human life and when the Government of the day believed that those conducting these operations were partially at any rate in league with a foreign Power and this country was facing a very real risk of war. In other words, this legislation arose out of very peculiar circumstances and its continuance can only be justified on the grounds of absolute necessity. It is for that reason, I am sure, that the Home Secretary expects this matter, very properly, to be reviewed each year that he seeks the continuance of these powers.
  6.0 p.m.
  I have referred to the sympathetic response that he gave and the constructive action that he took last year. I think he went a long way to meeting those of us who have doubts regarding the continuance of this legislation. He then told the Committee that there had been no new Orders, and that he only wished to maintain this legislation to preserve the validity of the present Orders. He also said—and this is one of the reasons I am raising this matter this afternoon—that he would keep under constant review those Orders which were being kept in force. He told us 12 months ago that the position was

  573
  that there were then no registration Orders in force, that he had reduced the number of expulsion Orders by nine in the previous 12 months, and had reduced the number of prohibition orders by four. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to tell the Committee what further progress he has been able to make in the past 12 months, and also to consider this further method of review.
  Personally, I do not think it is politically expedient to allow avoidable martyrdom. If we can prevent people, however hard they may seek it, from wearing that mantle, we should do so. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary and the right hon. and learned Gentleman to review these cases, regardless of whether requests are made, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels that he has sufficient evidence before him—and I do not know what his resources are in obtaining such information—making it reasonable to terminate some of these Orders, even though no request has been made, I think it would be a wise and sensible thing to do.
  In view of the concession which the right hon. Gentleman made last year, it would be unreal to expect him to forgo absolutely his powers, but in view of the circumstances out of which this legislation arose, I hope we can have an assurance that the question of the lapsing of this particular legislation will continue to be anxiously reviewed. I realise the Home Secretary's difficulties, because I know there is a very valid argument that if we allow irresponsible behaviour by a few extremists it aggravates the good relations between ourselves and the Irish Republic. On that ground I know there is a very powerful argument to continue the Orders, or some of them, at present in force, because most of us accept that there has been a recurrence of terrorism, and that the very terrorism itself can aggravate relations between our two countries.
  In spite of that, however, I feel that the aggravating thing, in connection with our relations with the people in the Irish Republic, is the continuance of the main legislation. It might be quite illogical but it is a fact that this is regarded as a slur by a very large number of Irish people who have no sympathy at all with the I.R.A. and its activities. This is something which has repercussions, not
  574
  only in the Irish Republic but, as we have said every time this matter has been reviewed, wherever Irishmen happen to be—in the United States and throughout the Commonwealth.
  Bearing in mind that, while this Act continues on the Statute Book, Irishmen the world over will argue about its injustice, and the unfairness of the reflection it casts upon them, I hope the Home Secretary will be able to give us the assurance that, the moment he feels the Act can be allowed to lapse, he will allow it to do so. With its lapsing we can then look forward to much happier relations between ourselves and the Irish people, and the disappearance of the bitter animosities which often I feel very unnecessarily divide us.
  Mr. Healy: Perhaps I may intervene, as Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—and I am sure that in this my colleague is with me—to protest against this legislation. We represent an area amounting to roughly one-third of the total area of Northern Ireland. We speak for the majority of the people there, and we think that, in view of the comparatively good relations that have existed for a considerable time between this Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, there was no need for the introduction of powers so drastic as these appear to be.
  When the original Act was introduced in 1939, certain conditions then existed in this country, and I appreciate, as do others on this side of the House, the difficulties of the Government at that particular period. But a lot of water has flowed under the bridges in the meantime. That was 14 years ago and no one can compare the conditions existing between the two peoples today with those prevailing in 1939. The upheaval and disorder in 1939 was due entirely to the indignation of the Irish people at the partition of their country.
  Unfortunately, that indignation was not confined, and cannot always be confined, merely to constitutional protests. At that particular time they had seen the great success of the Tory people of Northern Ireland in their physical force movement, and naturally they were tempted to think that what had proved so efficacious in the case of the Northern

  575
  leaders might be very much more effective than any constitutional protest they might make.
  This 1939 Act is directed against the Irish people. It will be so regarded by a great many people, not merely by those who reside in the 26 counties, but by the people in the North and in the Colonies. We are not a great nation, we have not any great power, we have neither bombs, Navy nor Air Force, but we have a spiritual dominion which extends to every part of the British Commonwealth and our influence there is probably far greater than the Government of the day comprehend.
  I feel that we should be conscious of the need for good will, particularly in the United States of America, where our people are very numerous and influential. There will be considerable indignation expressed there when they read of this Act of 1939 being continued into 1953. Here we have power put into the hands of any constable to apprehend any man going about his lawful occasions. It is a case where the police force have the power of the judiciary. I know that some things can no longer be done, but we can still deport.
  Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The main purpose of this part of the Act is not to apprehend any individual but to make certain Orders preventing certain individuals from coming into the country.
  Mr. Healy: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not pretend that we can deport a man without apprehending him. He cannot be blown out of the country by some process. The man has to be apprehended first; that is my interpretation. The Ireland Act irritated the Irish people very much indeed. It enables a minority of people to stand in the way of Irish unity so long as they please. The Government are now seeking to keep alive an Act which is equally repugnant to all sense of decency and any idea of freedom.
  I know of young men who were in gaol for years because they would not give an undertaking not to do something which they had no thought of doing. They objected to giving such an undertaking because they had not offended, and it was
  576
  merely because somebody thought that they had offended or were about to offend that the Order was made. Take my own case. I was interned and I was asked to give an undertaking that I would keep the peace. I took the view that I had not broken the peace. How could I give an undertaking that I would keep the peace in the future unless I admitted my offence? I think the idea of the Home Office was to get me to make that admission, and I refused to make it. They had to discharge me in the end.
  Suppose this Act had been in force in 1914; what would have been the position of Northern Tory leaders? It was a time when arms were imported from abroad, with the intention of setting up a government opposed to the Government of the King. Everyone would have been interned. I appeal to the Home Secretary to consider this matter rationally and reasonably, and to think what will be the feelings of ordinary Irish men, whether in Ireland, the United States or in this country, when they hear that a police constable can take a man into custody merely because the constable has an idea that the man may do something which he probably has no intention of doing, and that then the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make an order against him. Such a state of affairs would involve the admission by such a person that he was going to commit an offence which he had no intention of doing.
  This legislation is directed entirely against the Irish people. There is a better feeling existing today, and we hope it will continue. But there is no justification whatever for the Government to retain these arbitrary powers if they are not going to use them. If they are going to use these powers, the Government wilt replace that good feeling by another sort of feeling which will not help this Government in its relations with other countries, especially the United States.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I had not intended to intervene in this debate but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy), and I only do so briefly to answer a few of his misconceptions.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Act is directed against the Irish people. That is not in accordance with the facts. It

  577
  is not aimed at the Irish people but at a few irresponsible and irrepressible elements who believe in the use of physical force to achieve their objectives. The hon. Gentleman may hold different views from my own about Ireland, but I am sure that he would be not be a party to the use of physical violence to achieve his aim of a united Ireland. The Irish Republican Army is an illegal organisation both in Eire and in the North. I have never heard a responsible political person in Southern Ireland advocate anything other than the achievement of Irish unity by constitutional means. The people against whom this Act is directed believe in the use of the bomb and the gun.
  Mr. Healy: The ordinary law can deal with them.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) who raised this matter, and to whom we are all grateful for the clear way in which he did so, has referred to the regrettable fact that during the past year since this matter was previously before the House, there has been some return to physical violence. There have been reports of the importation of arms and ammunition and of a revival of activities of the I.R.A., and I hope that when the Minister replies he can give us an assurance that he has sufficient powers to enable him to meet this possible danger.
  In Northern Ireland as well as in this country, in view of these rather alarming reports, I think there has been some disquiet and fear that there might be a recurrence of the outrages which disgraced their perpetrators at the time of the passing of the original Act. I believe that I am speaking for everyone, certainly on this side of the House and particularly in Northern Ireland, when I ask for that assurance.
  Mr. James Hudson: The hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) speaks of a new danger looming, and of the necessity to retain certain powers which, it has been suggested, we all hope to see terminated at some time or other. I feel that keeping legislation of this sort, which is in line with the process of shaking our fists at people we fear, in itself creates the dangers that threaten us. I believe that there has come into our relations
  578
  with Ireland a new feeling of good will which later on might crystallise into something of a permanent character.
  I realise that when this legislation was first brought into being there was an outbreak of violence which the Government of the day thought could not be controlled except by some extraneous legal process, such as that laid down in the terms of this Act. Although I am never sure that one is right to take that point of view, I am quite sure now that, at a time in our history when we can select the process of dealing with these matters, the Government should be much more willing than they are to put an end to their reliance upon Orders and legislation of this sort.
  I am quite sure that Ireland is prepared and capable to settle down into the same relationship as now exists between ourselves and India. Not very many years ago we were treating people in India on the basis of their unreliability and willingness to resort to violence. We were putting them into prison and keeping in being extremely repressive laws which we know now, by the new relationship which has come into being, were not capable of producing the results we thought they would produce.
  The process of dealing with those extreme Irishmen who, from time to time, seem willing to break out into violent measures, cannot be helped by a continuance of repressive legislation. It means that we are confessing our inability to use the ordinary law for dealing with the sort of offences against which this Act is directed. I am not at all moved by what my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) has said about the necessity to do this, that or the other because of what America may do. We have to face the fact that if Irishmen can settle down in America, with the injustice of the McCarran Act hanging over them, together with the other measures which modern America is now practising, there is no reason to expect that Irishmen in America are going to wax furious because we continue to introduce legislation which is not anything like as bad as the legislation which America has introduced.
  It is because I feel that the retention of a special provision against violence weakens our sense of belief in the

  579
  ordinary law that I say we should get rid of it as early as possible, and trust in those more reconciling processes between Ireland and ourselves that were going on without the help of this kind of legislation.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Last year my right hon. and learned Friend gave an explicit assurance that the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act would be used only to maintain the validity of then existing Orders. Upon that assurance an Amendment similar to that moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) was withdrawn. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North has said, my right hon. and learned Friend has gone rather further this year, and the Committee will see that it is not proposed to continue the Act at all for the purpose of making Orders but only for the purpose which he mentioned last year.
  In 1939 there was a series of outrages by the Irish Republican Army. It must be remembered that the Irish were not, and still are not, aliens. The Act which was then passed gave the Home Secretary power to make three kinds of order. There was the expulsion order, which enabled him to expel from Great Britain persons concerned with acts of violence, there was the registration order, which compelled such persons to register with the police, and there was the prohibition order keeping them out of the country.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, North asked for some figures, which I shall gladly give to the Committee. The total number of Orders made—and they were mostly made in 1939—were, 190 expulsion orders, 29 registration orders and 71 prohibition orders. Last year there were still effective 117 expulsion orders, no registration orders, and 57 prohibition orders. My right hon. and learned Friend undertook to look carefully into the position. He has done so, and a very large number of these orders have since been revoked. I shall give the present position, but I should tell the Committee that some of the persons concerned have died, or have probably died, in the meantime, and I cannot distinguish such cases completely, so that there may be some revocations which are not altogether real.
  580
  The present position is that there are now effective nine expulsion orders and 48 prohibition orders. In other words, there are 57 persons of whom the Government feel such suspicion that we have thought that they should not be allowed to come into this country. I should tell the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) that all those persons, as far as I know, are perfectly free in Ireland, and will remain free unless they try to come into Great Britain.
  I should mention that it is open to any of the individuals concerned to apply for a revocation of the order against them. If they so apply the position will be considered. I can give that undertaking to the hon. Member, and also the undertaking that the Government are keeping the position generally under review. Having given those assurances, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will probably be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. F. Willey: I very readily respond to that invitation. On this occasion two Members for constituencies in Northern Ireland have taken part in the discussion. We enjoyed seeing both of them here. As far as I know they never resort to violence, although their differences are very marked. I hope that this spirit will extend to Irish political discussion generally. For myself, I once very nearly became a citizen of Northern Ireland. If I had done so, under the peculiar electoral arrangements in that part of the Commonwealth I doubt whether I should ever have come to this House. That may be a matter of indifference to the Committee, but it would have been a great loss to myself.
  In asking leave to withdraw this Amendment, I would pay a real tribute to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done. He has certainly made very great progress during the past 12 months, and I hope that very soon for all practical purposes, we shall see the end of this legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 57 to 59.

  581
  I do so not in order to terminate the operations of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946—which is what would happen if this Amendment were by any mischance to be carried—but in order that we may have some short discussion on the operation of this important Act which, otherwise, we could not very well have. That is why the Amendment is signed by, perhaps, a rather curious mixture of hon. Members of this Committee—from both sides.
  6.30 p.m.
  First I would express my sorrow to hear that the hon. Gentleman who may reply to the debate has recently had to make use of some part of the National Health Service—I hope with no pain to himself. We shall understand if his reply is, perhaps, a little more curtailed than otherwise it might have been.
  I think it will be generally agreed that the rent tribunals set up under the Act which is to be prolonged by this Bill have done very valuable work throughout the country and have enabled very many people to secure more reasonable rents than they would otherwise have been able to do. Although there has been discussion from time to time of the operation of the rent tribunals, I do not think there is any doubt that the tribunals throughout the country have endeavoured to interpret their duties fairly and properly, or that they have done a great deal to help many tenants who otherwise would have paid unconscionably high rents.
  I think there are two matters of some concern to hon. Members, at any rate on this side of the Committee. What is the attitude of the Ministry today about the closure of rent tribunals? Some months ago many hon. Members were concerned at reports of the closure of quite large numbers of tribunals, particularly in Lancashire. I think that in 1952 about 15 tribunals were closed down. In the last year, as far as I can work out from some figures that I got from the Department a little earlier tonight, some six additional tribunals have been closed.
  It is of importance to know whether they have been closed because there are no further applications being made to them, or whether it is because there is an attempt slowly to reduce the number of tribunals in any case and, indeed, as it were, to make the Act less operative. In
  582
  my view it is of the greatest importance that these tribunals should be kept in existence and that their activities should be well known, even though it may well be that they should operate very much on a part-time basis. Therefore, I should very much like to know from the hon. Gentleman what his views are about the continuance of the work of the rent tribunals.
  Under the 1946 Act—and it is the tribunals under that Act which we are considering at the moment and not the work done under the 1949 Act, which is not prolonged by this Bill—the rent tribunal with which I am most conversant, the one in Newcastle, dealt during the last quarter with something like 66 cases, which is a fairly considerable number when we consider the amount of investigation that has to go on. It is noticeable that, in all the cases the tribunal has taken, there has been an average percentage reduction of rent of something like 28 per cent. That does show of what enormous value these tribunals have been. Other tribunals have had a higher percentage than that. We do want some reassurance that there is no intention to close down this valuable work.
  The second point we are concerned about is the fact that in the minds of many of us the tribunals have to some extent been stultified in their work because of the effect of recent court decisions and judgments. I say "recent," although in fact a judgment was laid down some 12 months ago or a little more. Unfortunately, however, we have not had an opportunity to raise the matter before, in this form at any rate. It is the fact that some of the court judgments have had the effect of frightening potential applicants under these procedures from making application to the tribunals for rent reduction, because they feared that their tenancies would not be secure.
  Under the 1946 Act there is only a three months' guarantee of tenure to applicants for reduction of rent who apply to the rent tribunals. Another Act did extend that provision, but the extension has been called in question by the courts, with the result that many tenants who might no doubt have made use of the procedure of the rent tribunals have been dissuaded from so doing, and many officers of tribunals, not only in the North

  583
  but elsewhere, have told me they are quite satisfied in their own minds that these court decisions have undoubtedly had a bad effect on the use of the tribunals and the tribunal procedure during the last year or 18 months.
  I have noted that the opportunity afforded by another Bill we shall be considering some time later on—therefore, we cannot refer to it now—has been taken to amend certain provisions of the tribunal Acts, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman whether any consideration has been given to any possible amendment of the 1946 Act in order to meet this feeling, which is widespread, that there is not as wide an opportunity today for tenants as we hoped there would be when the Act was passed.
  Although we attempted to raise this matter a year ago, we were prevented from doing so by the Government's following a rather out-dated procedure to stop discussion which, in their view, had been going on a very long time on other parts of the Bill that year. I thought it was unreasonable that the Government should not at that time 12 months ago have been willing to give us any information at all about their views on the operation of this important Act, and particularly about the possibility of any reform or amendment of it. It will be understood that this is the only opportunity we have of discussing the operation of this Act and of hearing the Government's views about it. It is with the object of elucidating the situation and getting some further information that I move the Amendment.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  Mr. Barnett Janner: I rise to support the Amendment, and I do so for similar reasons to those succinctly and cogently given by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). The 1946 Act introduced these tribunals for the purpose of giving an opportunity to those who wished to find out whether the rent they were paying was reasonable by having the matter decided by such a tribunal. In my view, the tribunals have done their work extremely well. My hon.
  584
  Friend said there were occasions, as there must be, when some tribunals made an error but, taking it by and large—and I have seen the working of these tribunals in a number of districts and have followed it very closely in Leicester—I am satisfied, and I think everybody who has any knowledge of their working is satisfied, that they have fulfilled and are fulfilling a very useful function.
  Are the Government serious about continuing the 1946 Act? If they are, why are they taking steps to reduce the effectiveness of the Act? This is not the first time I have raised this point, and I think it is highly important that we should know where we stand by ascertaining the Government's intentions. On 10th November, I received a reply to a Question in which the Parliamentary Secretary stated that 17 tribunals will be closed down by 31st December. Only two of them remain to be closed. In other words, 15 have been closed already.
  I do not know whether the Minister considers that by depriving a district of a tribunal this means nothing more than that another tribunal will do its work. I do not think that the reduction in the number of tribunals is a wise policy. On the contrary, unless and until it is proved beyond a shadow of doubt that a tribunal mo longer has effective functions to perform, that tribunal should remain for the benefit of the people in the district.
  It is not only necessary to remember that the tribunals deal with a large number of cases, although that in itself would be sufficient because they have reduced rents very considerably. The tribunal has another effect in that the influence of a tribunal regularly sitting in a town is to prevent excessive rents from being charged. A reasonable landlord—and there are very many reasonable landlords—is enabled to settle differences by going to the office of the tribunal with his tenant and receiving the advice and the benefit of the experience of those who are concerned in the tribunal's work in adjusting the matters at issue.
  What is the idea about Leicester, for example? The tribunal is being taken away. It is true that arrangements have been made for an occasional session in the town itself; there is to be a regular session on one way a week. But the general advantage of the regular office in the town is lost. That is quite apart

  585
  from the fact that Leicester seems to be chosen by the Government on so many occasions when they wish to remove useful offices to other towns—as, for instance, their attempt to remove the probate office and the bankruptcy office. There are constant attacks on that town in comparison with amenities possessed by other towns.
  I do not see why Leicester should have been selected on this occasion. Apart from the work which has been done by the tribunals in the past, I understand that the Government propose to utilise those tribunals set up by the 1946 Act for even greater and more extensive purposes in the future. Why close them down? It is the duty of the Government under the Acts, including the 1946 Act, to make known to the community their right and so to use these offices not merely for the purpose of dealing with applications as they arise but in order to advise on the law where possible. In a vast number of tenancies that information is still not known, and I venture to suggest that hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions of pounds, have been paid in rent by tenants throughout the years during which the tribunals and the Acts have been in existence because they have been entirely ignorant of their rights under the Rent Acts.
  6.45 p.m.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government intend to keep the 1946 Act going and that, instead of reducing the number of tribunals, they will maintain those which are in existence and will change their mind about those which are to be closed in Leicester and Watford. I hope he will set up other tribunals so as to cope not only with what is essential in the 1946 Act but also to deal with the provisions of the Bill to be considered in the immediate future.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples):I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) for moving this Amendment, which he moved purely for the purpose of getting an assurance from the Government. I am also grateful to him for his kind references to my slight dental mishap this afternoon. It was not dealt with under the National Health Service, however; I could not get an appointment.
  586
  If I curtail my remarks in reply to the debate, it is not because of lack of courtesy but because of difficulty in making myself audible and understood
  A curious mixtures of names is down to the Amendment, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said. He reproved the Government for attempting to curtail this discussion last year, and I thought it was singularly appropriate that immediately afterwards one of his colleagues, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) should use the well-known procedure of calling a count which, had it been successful, and had not many of my hon. Friends entered the Chamber to the rescue of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, would have prevented this discussion altogether.
  The attitude of hon. Members 12 months ago was naturally one of apprehension that the number of rent tribunals would be reduced to too small a figure to cope with the work involved. I think that was a genuine apprehension, not only amongst hon. Members but in some cases—not all—amongst the tribunals themselves. It was a natural thing. As time has passed, it has been proved that those apprehensions were misplaced, because the work which the reduced number of tribunals have had to do has been such that they could cope with it quite easily.
  I have been asked for some statistics. At the peak, there were 80 tribunals, whereas at the end of this year we hope there will be 61. It is not so much a closure of tribunals as an amalgamation. As the work gets thinner on the ground, as is bound to happen as the years go on—I think the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East will agree with that—we have to find a different method of dealing with applications. Instead of having a large number of static tribunals, it is better to have a smaller number of mobile tribunals which can go to the tenants. We have made the procedure much easier inasmuch as the tenant can go to the local authority, obtain his application forms from it, and, if necessary, make application by post. The tribunal will then inspect the property and any hearing will be held in the locality to suit the convenience of the tenant. I think that is a good service.
  Mr. Blenkinsop:Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one of my anxieties is that if there are moving tribunals—and I appreciate the value of them—people cannot get information as well as they can when there is a fixed office for all general inquiries?
  Mr. Marples:There are always the local authority and the Citizens Advice Bureaux which can give a comprehensive reply to any rent problem which arises, and if not, it can be referred to the tribunal when it next comes round. In the case of Leicester, I think the hon. Gentleman said it was there every week.
  Mr. Janner: I gather that it is to be held on half a day a week.
  Mr. Marples:That means that people would have to wait seven days to get their queries answered if the Citizens Advice Bureaux could not answer them straight away.
  The number of cases decided under the Act of 1946 over the year to 30th September, 1951, was 7,848, and to 30th. September, 1952, 6,221. This year, taking the date, for the convenience of statistics, to 30th March, 1953, 5,516 cases were dealt with and reductions were granted in 3,730 cases. The average reduction was 29 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance about the effect of the closings. We are making no reduction in the service given to the tenant. We may make a reduction in the number of tribunals for administrative purposes and economy, but there will be no reduction in the service given to the tenant. The Government's view will be made quite clear next week. I do not want to get out of order, but possibly I may mention, in passing, that there may be additional duties which will be put upon the rent tribunals. If it is found that they cannot carry these duties—and that can be found only by trial and error—there will have to be an adjustment. If, on the other hand, it is found they can carry these duties easily and that there can be a further reduction, this will be made.
  I can give the general assurance that we are not closing down these tribunals to make their work less effective, but to make economies and to secure efficiency, and at the same time to give the tenant the service intended under the Act.
  588
  I think that I have dealt with most of the points raised. There is one further matter concerning security of tenure. There has been only one case, I think, in which the House of Lords has reversed the decision of the lower courts. That was the Pickavance case. The position has now been restored to what we always thought it was, namely, that these tribunals have power to give tenants extended security of tenure. I hope that this may be given more publicity, and that it will prove to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West that the assurance of the Government means something.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of that explanation and the information received, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  To be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  POLICE (WIDOWS' PENSIONS)
  6.57 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move,
  That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th November, be approved.
  These Regulations were made under Sections 1 and 3 of the Police Pensions Act, 1948. In accordance with the requirements of that Act, the Home Secretary has consulted the Police Council and they have expressed their agreement with the Regulations.
  The object of the Regulations is very narrow. It is to provide increased pensions for the widows of certain policemen, those who are in effect murdered while acting in the execution of their duty. The numbers involved are very small indeed. There are nine known cases, including two in Scotland and four in the Metropolitan police district. A detailed

  589
  examination has only been made in the case of the Metropolitan police records, so it may be that in provincial forces a few more cases will come to light, but we do not expect that there will be more than a dozen or so altogether.
  The present Regulations provide for a common level of pension for the widows of all police officers who are killed in the execution of their duty. The pension rate in those cases, after taking into account certain payments from National Insurance sources, is not less than one-third of the husband's average rate of pay during the last three years of his life.
  Recently there have been several cases in which a policeman has been murdered by armed criminals and the public has been perturbed at the amount of pension available to the widow. The matter was discussed on an Adjournment debate in this House on the 11th November, 1952, when it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris). Since that debate the Government have considered the matter very carefully.
  As I explained during that debate, when I was answering for the Government, there were very grave difficulties in this connection. Those difficulties are of two kinds. First, the widow of a police officer who is, for example, drowned in a gallant attempt at rescue, or the widow of a police officer who is killed while on point duty, is no less deserving than the widow of one of the policemen referred to in the Order. Secondly, there are other occupations than the police in which a man has to run very special risks and may be killed and the widow might seek some corresponding claim to special treatment. But the Government, after very careful consideration of this matter, have concluded that the widows of policemen who die as a result of an attack "intrinsically likely to cause death" can be put in an altogether special category.
  It is always possible that the policeman on duty may meet an armed criminal, and the policeman himself is very rarely armed to deal with such a criminal; he is not armed as a matter of principle. Moreover, there is a strong tradition in the force that the police officer must be reasonable and fair in his dealings with even the most worthless and most ruthless elements in the com-
  590
  munity. These restraints are peculiarly characteristic of British police methods. They have had their effect on the criminal community and I am certain that no one in any part of the House would wish to see any alteration in those methods. We all think it is essential that the policeman should generally go unarmed and that he should display fairness even towards the criminal.
  Nevertheless, in a very small number of cases, the result of this is to expose the police officer to a quite exceptional risk. I do not mean an exceptional risk in the sense that it is exceptionally great, but it is of a quite peculiar kind. The police officer uniquely has to run, not, perhaps, a higher risk than people engaged in some other occupations, but a risk against which he is deliberately not protected, or not as fully protected as he might be. The Government feel that the peculiar character of this risk demands special treatment. It is vitally important that the police officer should accept the special position which tradition and policy require him to adopt, and it is right that he should know that his position is recognised by the community. That is what these Regulations seek to do.
  The Regulations themselves are fairly simple. Where a police officer dies in the exceptional circumstances referred to, the widow's entitlement under them will be at least one-half, instead of one-third, of the average of the pay for the last three years. To give a practical example, in the Croydon case, which was discussed in the Adjournment debate in November, 1952, the widow will receive £4 4s. 6d. a week, instead of £2 16s. 4d. as under the existing Regulations.
  The Regulations are retrospective in the sense that an increase can be given to existing widows; Part II is concerned exclusively with past cases. But they are not retrospective in the sense of giving any increased benefit for back periods. I am advised that it is beyond the power of any Regulations to do that, and so the matter cannot even be discussed. I think that the Regulations are fair and will be generally acceptable to the House.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I ask hon. Members to support the Government in bringing forward these Regulations. I give away no secrets of the last Government when I say that my right

  591
  hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) set this scheme in motion. In fact, in December, 1951, two months after he ceased to be Home Secretary, he said from this Dispatch Box that when he left office he was having negotiations with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he hoped the present Home Secretary would be able to continue them and introduce such Regulations.
  I mention that because I know that the Under-Secretary would not wish to mislead the House. It is true that he has the credit for bringing in the Regulations to night, but it is not only since the 1952 Adjournment debate that this matter was taken up; it had been taken up a long time before. As it happens, the hon. Gentleman has the honour of introducing something which was denied to me when I was in his office.
  I entirely agree that one of the reasons that we have respect and affection for our police is that they go about their business unarmed, like ordinary citizens. It must be difficult to have the same respect and affection for police in countries where they are armed. On psychological grounds there are many arguments, but there is the practical one of the temptation to use the arms unnecessarily.
  I read about a year ago in the "New York Times," which is sent to so many hon. Members free by the United States Government, of a case where, during a practice black-out in New York, a policeman went to a tavern and told the tavern-keeper to dim his lights. The tavern keeper refused to do so and said, "Why should I?" The policeman told him that it was dangerous not to do so. The man said he would not do it. There and then, the policeman drew his revolver and shot and badly wounded the tavern-keeper, thereby proving his point that it was dangerous not to obey the regulation.
  We recognize that these men who are murdered while performing their duties are real heroes, because in accordance with our tradition they have gone into battle unarmed. I can think of seven of these heroes since the war: Edgar, Baxter, Fraser, Jagger and Miles in England, and Gibson and MacLeod in Scotland. The very least that we can do for them is to make further provision for
  592
  their widows, and I am sure that the House will accept this Order.
  7.10 p.m.
  Dr. Horace King: These Regulations bring benefits to a number of police widows, which I am certain both sides of the House welcome. But the discussion of these Regulations gives us an opportunity of stating the case for another group of police widows who ought to be included in these Regulations and given certain benefits. This group includes those widows of police men whose husbands died before July, 1948, and who are excluded from the benefits of the improved pensions that have been given since.
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot discuss that on these Regulations. These Regulations are strictly confined to the widows of officers who have been killed by violence in the course of their duties, and it would be out of order to discuss any other class of widow upon them.
  Dr. King: Am I not in order in suggesting that another group of widows should have been included in these Regulations?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. The hon. Member is not entitled to do that on consideration of these Regulations.
  Mr. Edward Shackleton: Mr. Speaker, I have considerable doubts whether these particular Regulations should be approved by the House, and one of the reasons for my attitude is the inequalities that exist in pensions for other police widows. I fully realise that what we are discussing is a very narrow subject, but it is a factor in our minds which will affect our attitude to these Regulations. With great respect, I should like to suggest that this will have some bearing on our attitude to these Regulations.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer for what effect these Regulations will have on the minds of hon. Members. I am bound by these Regulations, and the debate must be confined to them. There are other large questions surrounding this issue of pensions for police widows, but they must be discussed on other occasions. This debate is confined strictly to the subject matter of the Regulations. Those are the rules of the House, and I have no power to vary them.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: I rise to support these Regulations, as I am sure every hon. Member will. I can assure the House that it is not my intention to emulate other members of my family in detaining the House unduly at this time. I think once in a period of seven days is quite adequate for that kind of thing.
  I support these Regulations because, quite obviously, they do justice and protect a section of the community that is most vulnerable and one that has rendered a public service in preserving law and order, which is one of the fundamental characteristics of this great country. We feel that those who are exposed to this particular risk should feel that in the event of anything happening to them their widows should enjoy particular benefits. I am very glad that the widows of the men who were murdered before 5th July, 1948, are included.
  The Under-Secretary of State widened the discussion on these Regulations, because he posed the Question whether the Home Secretary should not include the widows of men who were drowned while doing a meritorious act. He was able to argue the position in regard to those widows, and I am afraid that we are, Mr. Speaker, in pari delicto in this particular matter. I bow to your Ruling in this respect, but I am very anxious to find a way, if it were possible, to include all the widows whose husbands died before 5th July, 1948. They are known as the pre-Oaksey widows.
  The widows of men who were murdered before 5th July, 1948, and are covered by these new Regulations, were not covered by National Insurance. They were precluded in that period from paying contributions, and yet we are pleased to see that, although they did not make any contributions under the National Insurance Act, their rights are not worsened by virtue of that fact. We are delighted that the Under-Secretary of State should have created yet another precedent which we hope he will follow in regard to the general class of pre-Oaksey widows other than those whose husbands were killed during the course of their duties.
  There are disparities for the widows other than those who were murdered before 5th July, 1948. Under the 1921 rate they are still getting 11s. 6d. per week or £30 per annum, whereas those
  594
  who were widowed under similar circum stances after 5th July, 1948, received as much as 19s. 2d. per week plus the equivalent of the National Insurance widow's pension of 32s. 6d. per week, making a total of 51s. 8d. a week.
  While the Home Secretary was correct in consulting the Police Council about this matter, I feel that he ought to have extended his consultations to the National Association of Retired Police Officers, who are particularly interested in this matter of widows' pensions. They welcome these new Regulations but say that they do not by any means go far enough. So, while hoping that the Regulations will be agreed to, I trust that the Home Secretary will take an early opportunity of sweeping away all injustices applicable to widows other than the widows of men murdered before 5th July, 1948, so that justice will be done in all cases where men have died in the course of their service as police officers.
  In conclusion, may I say that in my opinion the time has come when we ought to set up a Royal Commission to deal with the whole question of pensions. There are so many fields in which pensions are payable and payable at varying rates by different Departments—
  Mr, Speaker: The wide field to which the hon. Member is alluding is out of order in this debate. We can deal only with the widows whose cases are covered by the Regulations.
  Mr. Lever: All I want to do is to point out that when a layman wants to refer to a particular question, he asks a question about the widow of a man who was murdered before 5th July, 1948, and he is then able to see at a glance what is the position with regard to other sections of the community. I hope the Home Secretary will think again about the other widows whom he knows that we have in mind and to whom we should like to see justice done.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Shackleton: I should like to ask one or two questions about these Regulations, and my attitude to them will be dependent to some extent on the replies I get. The Under-Secretary of State gave the House an explanation of the principles he is applying in arriving at the rates and the categories of benefit. I appreciate his

  595
  difficulties regarding the extension of these more favourable rates to other categories, but I will not go into that.
  It seems to me to be relevant to the argument to discuss how he in fact arrived at those figures. Were the figures related specifically to the general widows' pension rates, because it seems that there must be a relation between the two? Were they related to the figures of the pre-1948 widows, who are a category that has been taken into account, and what were the special circumstances that arose?
  It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the variations in the value of the £ in arriving at the figures set out in the Regulations. I am referring both to the variations in the original contributions of the police officers concerned at a time when the £ was of a much greater value than it is today and also the actual return that they receive.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he could not make these Regulations retrospective, and it would be out of order to discuss that aspect of the matter, but the action is retrospective in that it refers to events which took place in the past. Obviously the entitlement of these widows must, in the mind of the hon. Gentleman and in the minds of the Minister and his advisers, depend to some extent on the rate of contribution which was paid.
  I do not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to copy my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) and offend against you, Sir, by going out of order, but I respectfully submit that in the form in which I have presented this, it is relevant to our discussion of these Regulations, and it is relevant to the attitude of mind that we shall take in arriving at our decision. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will look at the different categories of widows who gain an advantage from these Regulations, and also at those who do not, and will tell us the principles which he applied in arriving at the figures read out in the Regulations under discussion.
  7.22 p.m.
  Dr. King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether I have exhausted my right of addressing the House, owing to the fact that nothing I have said so far has been in order?
  Mr. Speaker:The hon. Member was good enough to sit down when I drew attention to the limits of Order in this discussion, and then another hon. Member got up. I think the hon. Member had not concluded his speech, and if he can keep in order, I have no doubt that the House will be delighted to hear him.
  Dr. King: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I realise now, as one unlearned in the ways of the House, that what I wanted to do was to congratulate the Home Secretary on having in these Regulations made provision for the widows of men who were killed before July, 1948. That is a wise provision because, had the right hon. and learned Gentleman not made it, the widows of men who were murdered previous to 1948 might be suffering the kind of disparity of treatment and the unjustness of treatment which other older police widows suffer.
  That injustice, and the kind of injustice which these widows would have suffered, can be realised by the fact that the widows of men who died before July, 1948, if they are the widows of sergeants and constables, get 11s. 6d. a week as opposed to the normal provision of 19s. 2d. a week. Because their husbands were not entitled to insure under National Insurance, they are deprived of the extra National Insurance benefit of 32s. 6d. a week and can only obtain from every source a maximum of 32s. 6d. as compared with the normal police widow's pension of 51s. 8d., so that if the Home Secretary had not made this kind of provision for the widows of murdered men, he would have been dealing as unjustly with them as he is with the older widows for whose cause I would have liked to plead if it had been in order.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: I apologise sincerely to the Minister that I was not here when he spoke on these Regulations. I want to express my appreciation to the Home Secretary and to the Home Office for bringing them forward because this was supported on all sides of the House and will meet with general satisfaction from the police. I am sure that it will do a lot of good in regard to future recruiting and, therefore, I appreciate the action taken by the Home Office.
  Mr. Shackleton: Are we not to have some further explanation from the Undersecretary?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:The only question which the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) asked which appeared to be strictly in order was how the figures were arrived at, and I thought I had explained it. In the ordinary case the amount is the minimum amount of one-third of the average of the last three years' pay. Under these Regulations the amount is one-half of the average of the last three years' pay. I do not think I can make it any plainer than that.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th November, be approved.
  7.26 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I beg to move,
  That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.
  The Scottish Regulations are almost identical in terms, and certainly in objectives, with the ones we have just considered, and therefore I need only move them formally.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: We welcome this step towards putting right a matter that was causing some apprehension in the minds of the general public. It is fortunate that the type of offence anticipated here is not common. Violence of this kind at the moment seems mainly confined to misguided youths who do not seem to find any proper outlet for their rather militant activities. These youths seem to be confined mainly to our big cities where there is no expanse of country and none of the facilities that ought to be taking up their time. Crime in earlier days used to be associated with poverty but, curiously enough, in these later days much of this crime is not concerned with poor people struggling against poverty, but seems to have developed into a kind of bravado commando enterprise in which people from many parts of society are taking part—
  Mr. Speaker:I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is not entitled under these Regulations to discuss the causes of crime in general. The debate is confined to whether we should make
  598
  this provision for the widows of men who are, to use the military term, killed in action.
  Mr. Woodburn: That is a point to which I was coming—that it is a different type of crime with which we are dealing that is coming from a quite unusual source. In earlier days the police were able to deal with the type of crime that I have described, but this type is quite unusual in many circumstances and comes quite unexpectedly. Therefore, policemen are placed in a very difficult position.
  In dealing with this type of crime the policemen have to risk their lives. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said, people risk their lives in many occupations, but in this case I gather that what is meant is that when a policeman is faced with an armed person and goes forward to deal with his armed assailant—in other words to arrest him—the policeman is really taking the offensive. Under the terms of these Regulations, is the policeman attacked when the man resists arrest and shoots him? In other words, will the close reading of the words of these Regulations deprive the very people we want to benefit of the blessing of this if a lawyer comes along and says, "That man is not attacking, he is defending himself against the policeman"?
  I think a lot of misunderstandings will arise. I have in mind two cases in which policemen were shot. The deputy-chief constable of Edinburgh was shot by a man with a revolver. I do not know that anybody is quite sure why the crime was committed. The deputy-chief constable was not arresting the man, he was merely driving in his car. He was shot at without warning and killed. I take it that in his case the widow would be entitled to a pension. There was another case in which a policeman was shot on his beat by a man who turned out to be a mental defective. Does this provision cover that case?
  There could also be the case of a policeman who endeavours to stop a motor-car and jumps on the running board and the driver, in order to get rid of the policeman, crushes him between his own car and a tram. That would be a case of a policeman being attacked, but it would not be an attack by an armed man.

  599
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department mentioned an armed attack. I take it that there is nothing in these Regulations which says that death must occur as a result of an armed attack.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: No.
  Mr. Woodburn: I should like to know whether the Regulations cover a case where a policeman jumps on the bonnet of a car and the driver causes him to be crushed against a tram in the way that I have described. I am afraid that many difficulties may arise in trying to ensure fair treatment under these Regulations. I hope that the Home Secretary will look at the wording and, if necessary, revise it so as to secure a clear indication of what is meant. There is a possibility that the people for whom the Regulations are intended to cater may by some quirk be deprived of benefit. I have known this House pass legislation before and by the time it got to the Treasury it was interpreted quite differently from what the House of Commons meant, with the result that the people whom it was intended to benefit received nothing at all. I hope that the Home Secretary will look into that point.
  Another point which will have to be looked at again concerns this question of the continually changing value of money, to which reference has already been made. I think that some day these pensions must be based, not on the amount of money received by the husband in the last three years of his service, but on the current scale of pay of persons of the same rank still serving in the force, so that if, for instance, a constable's pay rises, the widow's pension would rise in some relationship with that pay. I realise that that introduces a much wider question, but nevertheless it is a very important point.
  This new provision may save policemen's lives. I can imagine, just at the very moment when he is going to arrest an armed man, a policeman's mind fluttering for a moment to thoughts about his wife and children and that if there was the slightest doubt about their subsequent welfare he might hesitate to act. One could understand his hestitating, and in certain circumstances he who hesitates
  600
  is lost. We are doing the minimum of our duty in trying to give some assurance to people who have to risk their lives for the community that, at any rate, their wives and bairns will not suffer from the consequences. But I am not sure whether these Regulations will ensure that for every policeman. It is for that reason that I hope that if the Home Secretary finds that the wording of the Regulations will not accomplish all that he intends it to do he will withdraw the Regulations and introduce fresh ones to achieve his purpose.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Taylor: Not for the first time I am lost in admiration of the capacity of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) to find a wealth of material in a very narrow and small point. I merely want to utter one or two sentences in commendation and to welcome these Regulations, because I think that it is as well that a back bencher from Scotland should add a few words.
  It is a most remarkable circumstance, which probably could not be paralleled anywhere else in the world, that out of a population of five million in Scotland there are only two widows affected by these Regulations, only two policemen having been killed since the war in the execution of their duty. More remark able still is that out of a population of 50 million in Great Britain there are only nine of these widows. I do not think that that could be possibly be said of any other country. Still more remarkable to contemplate is that in Scotland these widows are widows not because of any act by hardened criminals going about their criminal intentions. As far as I can recall, they are widows because of the momentary impulse of a youth who was not a criminal and had a sudden brainstorm.
  In connection with these Regulations dealing with the pensions of police widows, it might be topical to mention that, in spite of the real or illusory activities of men in Scotland who are not criminals but who are engaged perhaps in dangerous occupations and pastimes, we have no fear that the number of women to benefit by the Regulations will be increased—that is, in spite of the Scottish Republican Army and its alleged

  601
  activities. I welcome the Regulations because the police of Scotland are such an excellent body of men and women. I know them in my own constituency. It is an encouragement to Members of Parliament who know their police forces so well that this additional small but important improvement in their conditions of service has been granted by this House.
  7.38 p.m.
  Captain J. A. L. Duncan: As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) has spoken as a back bencher from the other side of the House, I feel it incumbent upon me to say a few words as a back bencher from this side in commendation of these Regulations. When I came into the House a moment ago, I had no intention of doing so, but I feel that these Regulations remedy an injustice which might be suffered by the widow of a policeman who was killed in the execution of his duty. I believe that this new provision has arisen from the well-known Croydon case, but we hope that the population of Scotland will be so law-abiding that there will be no occasion for the Regulations to be used in future.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) referred to the wording of the Regulations, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will look into the question whether the words
  "…was attacked by a person…"
  really cover all the possibilities that might occur. But there are other guiding words—
  "…acting in the execution of his duty…"
  and I doubt if any police authority would look with unsympathetic eyes on a case where a policeman was killed in such circumstances.
  I am not absolutely certain that in all cases a policeman is covered when he has not been killed but has been injured. I am afraid I cannot develop that point now. It seems tome, provided the words are enough, that this should bring justice to the few people affected in Scotland. I hope that in the future, as in the past, the people of Scotland will be so law-abiding that it will not be necessary to evoke these Regulations at all.
  7.40 p.m.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: By leave, the point raised by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) affects both England and Scotland, and perhaps I may answer for the two at the same time. If the right hon. Member will look at the English Regulations—exactly the same applies in the case of the Scottish—he will see that the decision rests on "the opinion of the police authority." They have to decide, not a legal question, but a pure question of fact. They have to see first whether the police officer was attacked, and then whether death occurred as a result. Those are two fairly simple facts to ascertain.
  They have also to ascertain whether the police officer was attacked in a manner "intrinsically likely to cause death." In other words, supposing something was done which in fact caused death but which would not in the ordinary way cause death to a normal person, that widow would not be within the Regulations. If her husband happened to have a thin skull and received a knock which would not have killed a normal man, the widow would not be within the Regulations.
  Mr. F. Harris: The words "in the opinion of the police authority" are in the Explanatory Note but do not actually appear in the Regulations.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:If my hon. Friend will look at the Regulations he will see those words quite clearly. In the case of England, they occur in the proviso to the first Regulation. I was explaining to the right hon. Member that he must look at the word "intrinsically" and appreciate that it does not mean that where a death happened to ensue that is enough. It has to be shown that the form of the attack was such that a reasonable person might expect death to ensue from it.
  Mr. Woodburn: I do not think the hon. Member has dealt with the point I made. If we take the instance of the policeman who, in order to effect an arrest, jumped on a motor car and the person in the car drove it against a tram-car with the object of scraping him off and killing him that would certainly cause death. It would be an attack on the policeman but it would not seem, under the strict reading of the word "attack,"

  603
  to be so interpreted. But, in the case of a policeman who was shot by an attacker while in the execution of his duty, the policeman might be quite unconscious and never realise anything before death. He may be acting in no sense in an unusually brave manner for a policeman but be definitely attacked by an armed man and his widow would benefit, whereas the widow of the other policeman I mentioned who did an act of bravery by trying to arrest an escaping gangster by crashing a car would not benefit.
  I do not see that "the opinion of the police authority" could get past the Regulation; according to the wording it is only their opinion which has effect. I may be wrong, but it does seem that it should not be left entirely to their discretion to estimate the whole circumstances of the case. That might exclude some of the very people whom I gather it is intended should benefit.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:It is not a question of discretion in the sense that the police authority can do as they please. They have to comply with the Regulation and form a fair opinion as to the facts to see that they comply with the Regulation. The right hon. Member is trying to define the dividing line. There must be such a dividing line, and whether a particular case is within it may be a difficult question to determine. I am afraid that is inevitable whenever we seek to draw up Regulations of this kind. I would hesitate to try to give an opinion on hypothetical facts such as the right hon. Member put forward, but I do not think that in the great majority of cases there will be any difficulty about seeing whether the facts do or do not fall within the Regulations.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.

  CIVIL DEFENCE (GRANTS)
  7.45 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move,
  That the Draft Civil Defence (Grant) Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.
  The House has always shown complete unity where matters of Civil Defence are concerned and these Regulations, so far as I am aware, contain no controversial issue. On the contrary, the work which led to them was started by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he was Home Secretary. My right hon. and learned Friend had no hesitation at all in taking up the work at the very point at which the right hon. Member set it down.
  The Regulations are concerned purely with financial matters. They constitute a complete code governing the respective share of financial responsibility for Civil Defence expenditure to be borne henceforward by the central Government on the one hand and local authorities, police authorities and water authorities on the other.
  Section (1) of the Civil Defence Act, 1948, laid on what is called
  "the designated Minister"
  responsibility for taking
  "such steps as appear to him…to be necessary…for Civil Defence purposes."
  Different Ministers have been designated for different functions under the Act. The Home Secretary is the designated Minister if no other Minister is designated and he is the designated Minister for the purpose of making these Regulations. The Regulations apply to financial matters in connection with all Departments to which they relate. It is, however, convenient to have one single code dealing with the whole matter.
  Section 2 of the Civil Defence Act requires local authorities to perform the functions laid upon them by Regulations to be made under the Act and Section 3 allows Regulations to be made for the purpose of paying grants to local authorities carrying out those functions. That is what these Regulations are.
  When the Civil Defence Bill was debated in 1948, several hon. Members

  605
  argued that the whole cost of Civil Defence should be the responsibility of the central Government. That was rejected at the time, I think with the concurrence of the then Home Secretary, and the present Home Secretary, and Section 3 of the Act provides that there shall be full reimbursement in those cases that may be prescribed and that the grant towards the other expenses shall not exceed 75 per cent.
  The right hon. Member for South Shields gave two undertakings at the time. The first was that the lower rate would be 75 per cent. unless the Minister concerned was not satisfied with the way in which a particular local authority was carrying out its duties. The second was that the associations representing local authorities would be fully consulted before these Regulations were made.
  There has been about five years' delay from the passing of the Act to the present time, and I would not suggest for one moment that the local authorities are in any way responsible for that delay. The questions which have been raised have been difficult, complicated questions of an important character, and it has taken a great deal of time to reach agreement.
  On the Second Reading of the Civil Defence Act, the right hon. Member for South Shields told the House of a broad basis for the division between the 100 per cent. reimbursement cases and the 75 per cent. reimbursement cases which he had already discussed with the local authorities. However, when that broad basis came to be examined in detail after the passing of the Act—the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) will correct me if I am wrong, because I am speaking of the time when he was in my present office—it was found that there was difficulty about carrying out the basis which had been put forward by the then Home Secretary, and indeed all parties were agreed that it would be unsatisfactory to attempt to do so.
  By October, 1.951, however, a fairly substantial measure of agreement had been reached by the previous Government, and the discussions have been continued and final agreement has been reached. I should tell the House that it is genuine agreement; it has been freely accepted by all parties concerned as a fair and reasonable basis.
  606
  I should inform the House that my right hon. and learned Friend has made two promises in this connection. The first is that these Regulations will be open to review after two years, and that the associations will then be free to revive, if they wish, any alternative proposals made during the negotiations. The second is that the associations have been told that the Government will introduce at the first convenient opportunity legislation providing for the reimbursement by the Exchequer of any amount by which expenditure on capital works in any year in a particular rating area exceeds a level at which the share of the local authority on the basis of 75 per cent. grant exceeds the product of a two penny rate; in other words, the expenditure of local authorities on capital works in any year will be limited to the product of a two penny rate.
  There are two more general matters outside the Regulations which I must mention. In the first place, the local authorities will not suffer financially because of the delay which has occurred in making the Regulations. Since 1949, grants of 75 per cent. have been paid to the authorities concerned on all Civil Defence expenditure. If these Regulations are approved, my right hon. and learned Friend and the other Ministers concerned will arrange to pay a further 25 per cent. on all expenditure that would have qualified for 100 per cent. reimbursement if these Regulations had been made before.
  Secondly, these Regulations are intended to apply only to expenditure incurred in peacetime. Financial arrangements appropriate for wartime would have to be considered by the Government of the day, and I do not think it possible to consider this evening what they might do.
  I turn to the Regulations themselves, and I think it would be best if I described their effect only in broad terms. If any hon. Members have questions upon them I will try to answer them later in the debate. The Schedule contains the list of expenses which are to be completely reimbursed. By Regulation 2 these must be fully reimbursed, and the others, that is to say anything not covered by the Schedule, will receive a 75 per cent. grant. By Regulation 3 grants are payable only on reasonable expenses approved by the designated Minister.

  607
  This Regulation is common form, as are the other Regulations to which I shall refer.
  Regulation 4 in effect empowers the designated Minister to recover income or other payments attributable to property acquired by a local authority with the aid of an Exchequer grant. If, for example, property acquired by means of an Exchequer grant is a means of earning income by letting, possibly even by selling off a piece, then that adventitious sum coming in to the local authority will have to be accounted for by it to the central Government, who have provided the money.
  Regulation 5 enables the designated Minister to make deductions if a local authority is to blame for avoidable expense or loss. Regulation 6 enables the designated Minister to withhold grants if a local authority does not carry out its responsibilities satisfactorily.
  I commend these Regulations to the House as representing justice between the taxpayer on the one hand and the ratepayer on the other. They are proof, if proof be needed, that the Government regard the responsibilities for Civil Defence as enduring, and that the Government and this House appreciate the importance of Civil Defence and are prepared to give a really solid measure of help to see that the duties are properly carried out.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I welcome this Motion, and I welcome this agreement which has been reached between the local authorities and the Home Office as laying yet another stone as a basis for sound Civil Defence. The Joint Under-Secretary of State referred to the discussions and debates which have taken place over the last few years between the local authorities and the Home Office as to the apportionment of the cost. I remember the negotiations in 1950 and 1951, and, as he pointed out, there were difficulties then. There always will be difficulties in these matters. Now we are told that there is genuine agreement and I notice that there have been certain changes.
  I am pleased to see, for instance, that there has been an abandonment of the basis of discussion at that time regarding
  608
  equipment, excluding uniform. I learn of the abandonment of the complicated definition and distinction between major and minor expenditure and note that it will be on free loan or on reimbursement. Secondly, there is the important point, which the Under-Secretary of State mentioned, about the complication at that time of making reimbursement on a scale of cost of work being more than £2,500 or the product of a halfpenny rate, whichever was the less. Now it is to be 75 per cent. with the promise of legislation to make reimbursable the excess above the figure of the amount which would come in from a 2d. rate. I think that a sound and sensible arrangement. I notice that under other reimbursable services included in the Schedule is the provision for emergency feeding services.
  I think it right that the Under Secretary of State should emphasise, as I will emphasise, that the whole basis of our system of Civil Defencelies in co-operation between the central Government and local authorities. Our method of organising Civil Defence is such that it shall be essentially a neighbourhood scheme, so that men and women may come together to protect their neighbours and themselves in the event of war. These Regulations may be entirely financial and exceedingly technical; but they are all part of the scheme of Civil Defence. I welcome them, and I hope the whole House will do the same.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I regret that I cannot agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). I do not believe that these Regulations are as fair and as equitable as they ought to be. When the Bill was debated on Second Reading, almost five years ago today, many hon. Members opposite referred to the difficulties confronting certain local authorities regarding the cost of these necessary Civil Defence expenditures. It was pointed out then that quite a number of local councils would find themselves in difficulty about the suggested formula which the then Home Secretary put forward, concerning the 75 per cent. grant in certain instances and the full 100 per cent. Exchequer reimbursement.
  I well remember raising this question then and receiving from the then Home Secretary a statement that there would

  609
  be full reimbursement for what might be termed,
  "any expenditure on major capital works…"—[Official Report, 23rd November. 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1095.]
  On page 6 of the Schedule, we find a number of these necessary expenses and items which would qualify for the 100 per cent. grant. I am amazed to learn, from an urgent message which I received from the town clerk this afternoon, that my own local authority of West Ham has been refused reimbursement for the construction of a report and control centre.
  I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that if he feels it necessary fully to reimburse local authorities for such items as air-raid shelters and for billeting and transferring the population—I agree that is necessary, in fact I subscribe to all the items mentioned on page 6 of the Schedule—then most certainly there should be reimbursement for a report and control centre which is necessary in any Civil Defence scheme.
  I do not see how it can be argued that such a centre is not a major capital outlay. My local authority has approximately £14,700 to spend on building its control centre, excluding furnishings and equipment. I appreciate that the Undersecretary may say that the furnishings and equipment generally can be reckoned for 75 per cent, grant, but I ask him to give me an answer in regard to what is in this instance a local point, because I am speaking only for my own authority, although it may equally well apply, and probably does, to many other areas which may wish to set up a similar centre.
  I wish to express the strong feeling of the Civil Defence committee in West Ham, and my own feeling, that here is an exclusion from the 100 per cent. grant of something which should be included in the Schedule. Local authorities generally were encouraged to believe that they would receive the 100 per cent. grant. I have quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who, when he was Home Secretary, said that such major requirements would receive a 100 per cent. grant.
  I would remind the Under-Secretary that as comparatively recently as January, 1949, his Department issued a circular. It was Circular No. 2 of 1949 and it was issued on 19th January. I appre-
  610
  ciate that the hon. Gentleman was not ire office, but he has agreed that in matters of Civil Defence there is no question of politics, and therefore it makes no difference what Government were in office at that time. The Circular stated:
  "At the conference with representatives of the Local Authority Associations held on the 8th November, 1948…it was agreed that proposals to be laid before Parliament for Exchequer assistance to local authorities in respect of expenditure on Civil Defence preparations should be based on the following principles: Any expenditure on major capital works required at the direction of the appropriate Minister for the Government's general plan of Civil Defence would be reimbursed."
  The control centre for my authority will cost £14,700. That means that the local authority, the ratepayers, will have to find about £3,675. That may not appear to be large for some areas, but when it is appreciated that, because of the blitz, West Ham lost over one-third of its rateable income and that it has to cut down on necessary undertakings and day-to-day administration because it cannot afford to spend more, it will be agreed that it is grossly unfair to expect the ratepayers to find £3,675 to set up a Civil Defence centre. I emphasise this because, without a control centre, what is the good of having a full grant for billeting, air-raid shelters and other matters which are secondary to the major consideration, which is obviously the provision of headquarters?
  I ask the Under-Secretary to review the matter. He may say that the Local Authority Associations have agreed to this provision. I am not interested in that. I am concerned with the fact that he said that it is possible to review these items. If the Under-Secretary cannot do it now, I ask him to introduce an amended provision in the review to state specifically that the erection of a Civil Defence report and control centre will rank for 100 per cent. grant.
  It may be argued by the Home Office that the amount proposed to be spent is excessive. The Home Office would be entitled to argue about whether there is a waste of money. That would be reasonable, but I am arguing on the principle of the 100 per cent. as against the 75 per cent. grant. I ask the Undersecretary to give deep consideration to the problem. I have spoken to his office today. He has full information about

  611
  the matter. I hope that he will deal with it on a general basis, because it must affect many other local authorities.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: Before I put questions to the Under-Secretary, I should like to say that basically I support these Regulations because the Government have come down definitely on the side of retaining the civic character of this defence force. The Under-Secretary will recall that I had some misgiving whether the Government would decide in this way, because I was aware of some of the views expressed by people in high places who wanted to make it a military defence and not a Civil Defence force, and a kind of fourth arm to the Armed Forces. Therefore, I wish to add my support to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas).
  I wish to ask the Under-Secretary about the definition of the words "local authority." May I take it that the local authorities in question are the county council and the county borough authorities, and that if any borough council or urban district council incurs any Civil Defence expenditure reimbursement will go through the county council? If not, will it go direct to the other authority concerned?
  I appreciate what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis). I should like to put the matter in what may be a more specific way. I have looked at the Schedule, and I realise that one must make a rough calculation of exactly what expenditure will rank for the 75 per cent. as against the 100 per cent. grant specified there. I have in mind two main considerations. One is the payment of wages and salaries to Civil Defence personnel, and the other is the provision of uniforms.
  I wish to ask whether the payment of wages and salaries and the provision of uniforms will rank for 100 per cent. or 75 per cent. grant. I hope that it will be the former, because the incidence of air warfare is not even over the country. If the item of wages and salaries is to rank for only 75 per cent. grant, and 25 per cent. must be borne by the ratepayers, that might be an easy burden in certain parts of Wales, but it could be a
  612
  heavy item of expenditure for those local authorities which are likely to be in the front line of air attack. That item should rank for 100 per cent. grant.
  Those were the questions I wished to put to the Under-Secretary purely for the sake of clarification. I do not know whether I am in order in doing so, but I should like to ask whether I may take it that the method of determining wages and salaries for Civil Defence personnel will be decided by a central body and administered by the local authorities, as was the case during the last war and before.
  8.20 p.m.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:The Regulations have been generally welcomed, and I should like to thank the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) for what he said. I should like to give an answer to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr, Lewis). Unfortunately, I had no notice that he intended to raise this question. I appreciate that he communicated with the Home Office. He could not have known that I should be engaged on each of these Motions today.
  Mr. Lewis: I appreciated that and therefore I went to the trouble of informing the hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary and his office, and the Home Secretary's private secretary. I tried to get hold of him personally, but he was otherwise engaged. I assure him that I did everything possible to contact him to ensure that he should be briefed about the matter I wished to raise.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I entirely acquit the hon. Gentleman of any discourtesy. I think this is the seventh time that I have spoken today on rather technical matters, and that is the explanation. All I can say is that I will consider what he said and I will write to him. I have ascertained that his local authority did receive a circular, to which he has referred, and I have seen a copy of the circular which referred to the broad basis of agreement which I mentioned in my opening speech as the one indicated by the then Home Secretary at the time of the passing of the Civil Defence Act.
  The circular refers to principles. It says that it was agreed that proposals to be laid before Parliament for Exchequer assistance to local authorities in

  613
  respect of expenditure on Civil Defence preparations should be based on certain principles. I think that statement gave some warning that there was not yet any firm arrangement. Indeed, I believe that the council of West Ham is a member of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I think it must have known that discussions were going forward on these matters. I have no doubt that it thought everything was all right, but it must have appreciated that there was nothing at all in the way of a firm promise and that there was every possibility that there might be a change.
  Mr. Lewis: May I thank the Undersecretary sincerely for his kind offer to have the matter looked at in the usual way through office channels? I appreciate that, but I would say that West Ham, while appreciating that this original circular might obviously have had to be altered in some minor form later, felt that the question of major outlay on capital plant and on actual buildings—particularly such a thing as the main Civil Defence control centre—would qualify for 100 per cent, grant, in addition to some of these other items which are not half so essential as the main control centre.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Perhaps I could say something further which might help to mollify the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, the Government have undertaken to introduce legislation that will limit a local authority's expenditure on capital works in any year to the product of a two penny rate. That is a firm promise. This, of course, may help such authorities as West Ham. In addition to that, the expenditure on Civil Defence that does fall on the rates will count for the purpose of the equalisation of grant under the Local Government Act, 1948.
  In this way the rate of grants which may be actually paid in a particular case—I cannot say whether it will be paid in this case; I have not yet had a chance of considering the matter—directlyand indirectly, by the means that I have suggested, on a control centre such as that indicated by the hon. Gentleman, might reach as high as 90 per cent. I think the hon. Gentleman need not fear that all is lost, and that West Ham will have to bear 25 per cent. I appreciate that there is disappointment. When there is a change, someone is bound to be disappointed, but I rather think that where
  614
  the loss has fallen it will probably have to lie. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that we cannot continue this matter, but as it is rather important, I should like to know whether, if the council concerned so desired, the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to meet the town clerk and the members of the council to discuss the matter. I personally cannot agree that, even if the grant were 90 per cent., the council should have to find even 10 per cent. I feel that the Exchequer should find the whole amount. Perhaps he would meet the town clerk and the council and discuss the matter.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman is arguing a different case. It is one which was decided as long ago as the time of the passing of the Civil Defence Act. I appreciate that his local authority may have been disappointed, but only disappointed in the way that everyone is disappointed when things do not turn out exactly as one hopes they will.
  The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) raised a number of points. He asked about local authorities qualifying for grant. All authorities on whom functions are conferred by Regulations under Section 2 of the Act—that is to say, generally speaking, county councils and county boroughs—will qualify for grant. Some district councils will receive the grant direct, but there is an exception where a district exercises the function of agent of the county; in that case the grant will be paid to the county and passed on. That is the position. I think that answers the hon. Member's point. The hon. Gentleman also asked what was included in the 75 per cent. grant.
  Mr. Moyle:No. I asked whether wages, salaries and the cost of uniforms were to rank only for the 75 per cent. grant, and I expressed the hope that it would be the 100 per cent. grant.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The position is that what is in the Schedule will receive the 100 per cent. grant—full reimbursement. Anything that is not mentioned in the Schedule will rank only for the 75 per cent. grant. Local authorities do employ paid people for Civil Defence purposes, although, of course, the great majority of

  615
  the members of the Civil Defence Corps are volunteers and are unpaid. But where wages are paid—for example, to instructors and Civil Defence officers—they will rank for 75 per cent. only and not 100 per cent. I think I have answered the points raised, and I hope the House will now give this Motion unanimous approval.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  That the Draft Civil Defence (Grant) Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.
  8.28 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I beg to move.
  That the Draft Civil Defence (Grant) (Scotland) Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.
  These Regulations are identical in purpose to those which we have just approved, and I think it will be sufficient if I formally move the Motion.
  Mr. de Freitas: My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is not here at the moment, but I know that he would ask my hon. Friends to support this Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  COASTAL FLOODING (ACREAGE PAYMENTS)
  8.30 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move.
  That the Draft Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme (No. 2), 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.
  This is the second Scheme under the Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Act of this year, and it provides acreage payments for the rehabilitation of farm land and allotments damaged by the floods of 31st January last. The details of the second Scheme follow similar lines to those of the first. Hon. Members will notice that there have been some modifications and telescoping in the Schedule, but the main criteria for qualification for acreage payments will be the state of the land on 1st January next and, combined
  616
  with that, the general method of management which is then approved for the land in the coming year.
  Payment will be made to the occupier of the land on 4th June, and his application must be in by 31st August. This will enable the county agricultural executive committees to ensure that the land is dealt with in the approved manner during the greater part of next year, before payment is actually made, and so will ensure that the proper measures are taken to rehabilitate the land, or, in the process of so doing, to bring it back into cultivation. I believe that the Scheme as drafted will give farmers the help which they need in this rehabilitation.
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Champion: The Parliamentary Secretary has been commendably brief, and I shall try not to be unduly long in my remarks, but I feel that I must ask him a number of questions, particularly in regard to the experience of his Ministry in the administration of the previous Scheme that was adopted by this House. We were dealing with something rather novel. It was a new experience, and we might be able to learn something from it. Before parting with this Scheme, I think we ought to know something about the way in which the first Scheme has worked. That will give us an idea whether the second Scheme is likely to work well or ill.
  This is very largely a continuation of the first Scheme, except for certain modifications, which I believe to be in the right direction. The first Scheme made provision for acreage payments at rates which varied according to the crop and to the extent of damage to the land. In the case of damage to the land the payment differed according to whether the land was flooded or only damaged and not flooded by sea water. Both types of payment seemed to me to contain—as, of course, they did—a considerable element of compensation. But the main purpose of the Act was to bring the land back into full productivity as soon as possible.
  That was the main consideration as far as the nation is concerned. To the individual farmer the aspect of compensation was a pretty considerable one, but the intention to bring back the land into full productivity was the matter which

  617
  was of interest to the nation. I have been wondering what the first Scheme actually achieved in the way of a return to full productivity, and in what way it has simulated the farmer. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say that in his opinion the first Scheme was a success?
  My second point concerns the extent of the cost to the Treasury. This is an important matter. We are here as guardians of the money which comes from the taxpayers, and it is our job to find out how much these Treasury payments have amounted to. If we can be told that, we shall be able to decide whether or not they have been justified. Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which the county agricultural executive committees have been approving the management of the land for which these acreage payments have been made, that is, with a view to a return to full productivity? I am assured by farmers in Suffolk, whose land was very badly damaged by this flooding, that the administration of the Scheme in that county has been reasonable. There has been great care exercised by the county agricultural executive committee in checking the claims that the farmers have made.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is now doing. Is he discussing the old Scheme? That would be out of order now.
  Mr. Champion: What I am trying to do, before parting with the new Scheme, the second made under these arrangements, is to ascertain what has been done under the old Scheme, and the experience there has been of it, to give us an idea whether we can approve this Motion, this second Scheme. I do not want to go into this fully. Indeed, I am coming to the end of my questions on the administration and experience of the first Scheme.
  The points I want now to make arise definitely out of the Scheme before the House at the moment. The first question is, what is the estimated cost of the Scheme? Second, what steps has the Minister taken to satisfy himself that the payments now proposed are roughly fair to the farmers whose land was heavily inundated with salt water? As the Parliamentary Secretary himself said, payments have been scaled down under this second Scheme, and I wonder if he has taken steps to ascertain the point of view of the
  618
  people concerned as to whether the payments are fair having regard to the fact that there are many acres from which very little will be got, I think, in 1954.
  I have only two more questions. On the point of the crops mentioned in the second Scheme, I am wondering whether they have been selected because they are regarded as tolerant of salt. I think myself all the cereals are certainly in that category, but I am wondering about some of the crops included under the heading of agricultural crops. That can embrace almost anything, and many of those crops, I should think, are not suitable for sowing on land that has been affected by the inundation of sea water.
  The last question is one on the laying down of the grass as mentioned in the second paragraph of the Schedule. I am wondering whether suitable advice was given under the old Scheme and will be given under the new Scheme as to the type of grass best suited to salty conditions. I noticed in the "Farmers' Weekly" last Friday that from Dutch experience it has been shown quite clearly that Ryegrass, Meadow Fescue and Perennial Timothy are the most suitable types of grass following salt inundation. I am wondering whether care has been taken to ensure that that sort of advice has been given to farmers under the old Scheme and whether the farmers will be suitably advised, having regard to Dutch experience, under the Scheme before us.
  Finally, I do welcome this Scheme. I am glad I am able to do this at a time when everything seems to bleak for the Minister and Ministry of Agriculture. It is nice that we should be able to give a welcome to a Scheme produced in the conditions which we have now. I support it.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: As I live in Cambridgeshire and represent a Lincolnshire constituency, naturally I am very interested in this Scheme. My constituency being the city of Lincoln, none of my constituents is affected by it, but since there are, unfortunately, no other Lincolnshire Members present when this important Motion affecting the whole acreage payments under the Coastal Flooding Scheme comes up, I think it is only right that I should ask if the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that the

  619
  fanners of the heavily inundated areas of Lincolnshire are going to get a fair share of the payments under this Scheme. I should like to take this opportunity of agreeing with the concluding words of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). When something goes right for the Ministry of Agriculture it is fair that we should say so, because they have taken such a beating in every part of the country.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Nugent: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may reply to the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). The first question, which I may answer by your leave, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is germane to the Order because this Order and the Schedules are based entirely on the experience we have had this year and the terms of the first scheme.
  I was asked what the first scheme has achieved in the way of rehabilitation in the 12 months which expire at the end of this year and in returning the land to productivity. The general answer is that it has made only a beginning. On some of the lighter lands, where the soil structure does not suffer so much by salt damage, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, where there are good soil drainage conditions and where possibly the rainfall has helped to leach the salt out a little, there has been some improvement during the past eight or nine months, but the general condition of the land varies not only from county to county but from field to field according to the nature of the land, the period for which it was flooded, the amount of salt which was in the water when it was flooded and the rainfall which has been experienced since then. There are a number of variables in the picture.
  We have the impression that on the heavy lands—and that will account for most of the marsh grazings in Essex, Norfolkand Suffolk on the clay soils—rehabilitation is going to be a fairly long job and is likely to take, at any rate on the most difficult land, the whole of the five years provided in the Act; that is to say, probably up to the end of 1957. We have, however, gained a great deal of valuable experience in the first year and we are fairly confident that the lines we are pursuing are the right ones.
  Mr. Denys Bollard: May I put a further question on that point? I am not very clear from my memory of the previous scheme—perhaps I ought to be—whether any point is established at which the land can be said to have been rehabilitated. My hon. Friend has mentioned light land where drainage is good and leaching may have removed the salt. Presumably if land recovers within the period it ceases to be eligible for payment when it has recovered to its proper condition.
  Mr. Nugent: Yes. That is so. It is not possible to lay down any clear definition of the exact condition which land must reach to be fully restored. We have regard to the percentage of salt in the soil, and we have regard to the look of the land and to the conditions on the field itself.
  Mr. Bullard: May I further inquire who decides that? Is that the responsibility of the local county agricultural executive committee?
  Mr. Nugent: Yes. I was about to come to that in dealing with one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. Perhaps I may first deal with the bon. Gentleman's question about cost and then I will return to the question asked by my hon. Friend. The cost up to date, until November, has been £1,190,000, and we expect that by the end of this year it will probably be about £1,500,000. That covers an acreage of 139,545,including some 237 acres of allotments, about which I recollect the House was rather anxious when we discussed the last scheme.
  Coming to the point of the administration of the agricultural executive committees who continue under this new scheme to be our agents in this matter, the House will be interested to know that they have done a really good job. Between the executive committees, their advisory staffs and the district committees they have tried to survey every single field which has been flooded in all the counties concerned and advise the farmers individually about every field, about how they could cultivate it or not cultivate it, or how they could crop it or not crop it in this year.
  They have done a tremendous job when one considers that they had to survey some 139,000 acres. They are now in

  621
  progress, in connection with the scheme before the House, of making a re-survey in order to decide what is the condition of each field with regard to its qualification for acreage payments and what mode of management should be followed in the coming 12 months. When they have made their second survey, it is intended that they shall put in writing, in order to give greater certainty to this second scheme, exactly what the conditions should be for the coming 12 months. The House can be assured that this work has been most conscientiously done, that the money voted for the purpose is being properly spent and that the land is being properly brought back into production.
  We have been greatly helped in this by the Dutch, and I should like to pay tribute to them on behalf of the Government for the assistance they have given us. They have been most helpful in inviting us over there to see what they have done and in giving us every facility from the technical experience which they have had of this matter in the past.
  I have been asked for an estimate of the cost of this new scheme. While it is difficult to be certain about it, I should say that it will be between £1 million and £1½ million, in other words, about the same amount as in the past year. I was also asked what steps had been taken to ensure that the acreage payment will be adequate.
  Mr. Champion: On the point of £1 million or £1½ million against £1½ million last year, I noticed that this Order makes provision for just about half the amount of the payments. Does that mean that additional acreages will qualify?
  Mr. Nugent: The only Schedule where the payments are being halved is in respect of the very expensive horticultural crops, for which in the first Scheme we provided £80 an acre and this year are providing £40 per acre. The actual acreage involved there is very small indeed—20 to 30 acres of small holdings, which although important, are not really significant in the total sum.
  The far greater part of the acreage concerned is marsh grazing—something like 91,000 acres—and most of the rest of it is arable land growing cereal crops. The House will see that the broad picture is that most of this will have to continue in much the same way as it has
  622
  this year and will qualify for acreage payments in much the same way. Some of it will have to carry crops of some kind, but it will still need acreage payments because the crops will not be very big.
  A great deal of trouble has been taken to study this matter on the spot. We have had advice from all our county agricultural officers so as to get a clear picture, and in the light of that we have made a few adjustments in the Schedule. One or two items have gone up a little, particularly in regard to cereals, because experience has shown that cereal crops sown on this salt damaged land in practice yield less than we expected. In many cases the plant looked quite good during the early summer months but when crops came to harvest they proved to be very light indeed. Therefore, we learnt that if farmers were to be asked to plant crops in this flood-damaged land, because it would be beneficial to the land to do so, we must give them a slightly larger acreage payment to reimburse them for the poor crop which they would gather.
  I was then asked whether the crops covered by paragraph 3 of the Schedule have been specially designated because they are resistant to salt. The answer is that they are not. They are simply the ordinary crops, and in most places it will be cereal crops that are grown. We have included horticultural crops because it is possible that in some cases, and particularly that of the smallholder, the person concerned would wish to plant a horticultural crop and our adviser might think that it was worth while to do so. I imagine, however, that that would be the exception and that normally, if the land was in a doubtful condition, it would not be worth planting a crop as expensive as that.
  On the question of advice on the best grass seeds to sow, we are making full use of the Dutch experience in this matter and are giving similar advice to our farmers. I stress again, however, that undoubtedly we have quite a problem with this permanent grassland, which is the main part of the flooded land and which has shown during the year that it was far worse damaged than we expected. Most of the grass has gone and nearly all that is growing there now are salt-loving weeds. It will take quite a long

  623
  time before we can get that land back into a condition where we can sow grass seeds with a reasonable prospect of their taking earth. However, that will be persisted with. Further applications of gypsum will help, and all the proper management will be applied.
  I hope that following these lines of action we will progressively bring this considerable acreage of farmland back again into production, and I hope that the House will now be prepared to give its approval to the Scheme.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  That the Draft Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme (No. 2), 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.

  ARMY EMERGENCY RESERVE (TRAINING)
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Legh.]
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. John Hall: At times when the House has sat into the small hours of the morning, I assume that it would be in order to apologise for detaining the House still further. Fortunately, tonight I have no such qualms of conscience, because the Motion for the Adjournment has been moved at a reasonable hour. At the start, I should declare my interest. I am a commander, R.A.O.C, in the Army Emergency Reserve, and as a result I have a personal interest in this subject.
  I should make it clear, because I still have another year's training to do, that what I say tonight and what I have said in the past on this subject of the training of the Army Emergency Reserve must not be interpreted in any way as a criticism of the way in which my own corps undertakes its training. I do not think any praise could be too high for the efficiency and enthusiasm of the headquarters responsible, aided by its training establishment. It has shown remarkable ingenuity over a long time in making the maximum number of bricks with the minimum amount of straw, but it cannot do the impossible, and in my opinion the
  624
  training of the Army Emergency Reserve is not producing the results that we require.
  I am well aware that the A.E.R. consists very largely of service and administrative units, such as the R.A.O.C, R.A.S.C, R.E.M.E., and so on, and I know that a large number of these units are to be used to reinforce the static and semi-static home and base installations. I am not concerned with that type of unit tonight. As far as I can judge, their training is probably adequate and is very well carried on in the existing home depots. I want to concentrate my remarks entirely on the training of the field force units.
  I think that all hon. Members are well aware that the Reserve Army today plays a vital part in the European defence system. When it is remembered that the Western Powers are able to deploy only a very limited number of Regular divisions in Europe, as against a Power that has available, so we are told, something like 175 Regular Army divisions and something like 70 satellite divisions, it can be seen that the task that would face our Regular divisions in time of war would be a very formidable one. Their chance of survival would depend very largely on our ability to mobilise our Reserve Forces very quickly and move them to the place where they were most urgently required. Those Reserve Forces at the outset would be put up against the regular forces of the enemy, and if their training was not adequate, then, to put it no higher, they would start at a very considerable disadvantage.
  A large number of the A.E.R. units will not be found further forward than the corps area, but under conditions of modern warfare it is as essential for them to be efficient as it is for the forward units. What we have to ask ourselves is whether the training now given to the A.E.R. is likely to produce at the end of three years units able to operate efficiently in the field and, above all, to survive as far as they can.
  The A.E.R. is, I think, the Cinderella of the Reserve Army, and, unlike the Territorial Army, it has no drill halls or the amenities that go with them. The units draw their men from all over the country and rarely do they see one another except for the two weeks' training camp each year. In general,

  625
  it is true to say that less training equipment is issued than to the Territorial Army, and the units very rarely receive in training anything like the number of vehicles which they would normally have in war establishments in time of war. As a result of that, especially in the case of technical units which normally have a large number of vehicles, the unit commanders get the wrong ideas about the problems involved in movements of vehicles and in their dispersal under the threat of jet plane attacks, which they may have to face in time of war.
  A small point is that, unlike the Territorial Army, they never see their scale of equipment, G.1098. Again unlike the Territorial Army, they do not enjoy the facilities of standing Training Camps with permanent staffs which take a large burden of the administration from the officers, thus enabling them to devote much more time to the more essential work of training. Another very small grouse is that, in general, they have to carry out all their fatigues. That means that a large number of their men are engaged day by day on fatigues instead of training. I know the problem there is one of man. power, but it is a problem which we have to face.
  Most of these are deficiencies which we can make good, but there is one problem which is more difficult, and that is the problem of instructors. It is probably true that the resources of the Regular Army today are strained to the limit. I should have thought that the problem of training this ever-growing Emergency Reserve was becoming an absolute nightmare, and, furthermore, it is a fact that the A.E.R. finds it extremely difficult to provide sufficient efficient instructors from its own resources.
  When we take that into account, together with the fact that the average emergency reservist receives less than six weeks effective training in the whole of his three years' service, it makes it more essential that the training programme should depart from the usual conventional type of training like drills, demonstrations and lectures, and concentrate mainly on the practical training designed to enable the Reservists to operate quickly, to be able to move quickly and to look after themselves.
  626
  Without going any further into the demerits of the existing system, perhaps I may be allowed at this stage to make some suggestions which I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War will regard as constructive and helpful. On the administrative side, I suggest that the Reserve units should have a Regular Army adjutant allocated to a group of units over a period of training. Such an adjutant would take off the shoulders of the Reserve officers many of the problems that beset them at the moment. He could help with the mass of paper work, and he could give officers and the orderly room staffs very valuable personal training.
  It is much more difficult to be specific with regard to the period of training because the requirements of units vary according to their type. However, perhaps I might make a few general suggestions. I would say from experience of handling technical units that it is practically impossible to give adequate technical training to a unit in a two weeks' period in each of three years. Therefore, the emphasis should be on the practical field work, such as driver training, with its corollary of movement discipline and map reading. Again the emphasis should be on concealment dispersal and protection against air attack, which will be a vast and difficult problem for units with a large concentration of vehicles.
  Then, again, much greater attention should be paid to practical weapon training rather than concentration on lectures, because the standard of weapon handling amongst certain service units of the Army today is at a deplorable level. The units should take part as far as they can in exercises with other units, and if possible with formations. For instance, why cannot they take part in Territorial Army divisional exercises?
  In the third year I suggest that Army emergency units—certainly corps units and possibly Army units—might train with a formation in Germany. I am well aware of the financial and other difficulties in the way of such a suggestion, but if a corps unit goes through an exercise of mobilising and moving to a European theatre of war, not only the units themselves but the general staff will get much extremely valuable experience in the problems that will arise if the Reserve Army has to be mobilised and moved rapidly.

  627
  Above all, I would plead for sufficient training equipment, and that the unit at least sees the number of vehicles which it has to handle in time of war, so that it can see the problems of drivers, of dispersal and of movement that are likely to arise. If the manpower situation makes it impossible for others to do the fatigues which would normally fall to the lot of such a unit, I would plead that it does its training under field conditions where fatigues are reduced to a minimum, and where such as are done at least give training in field craft or field domestic work under more realistic and characteristic conditions.
  Perhaps I ought to conclude this brief grouse with a reference to the major problem that besets the Emergency Reserve and conditions its entire efficiency—indeed its existence—the problem of the volunteer. I know that the Secretary of State for War has done everything he can to stimulate recruitment. I know that my right hon. Friend has endeavoured to interest the Press and to do other things designed to give publicity to the need fox recruits. It is almost impossible to form and maintain an efficient unit without a nucleus of volunteer officers, especially N.C.O's.
  If I may quote the R.A.O.C. as typical of the whole, the number of volunteers there, including National Service men, is 15 per cent. of the existing Reserve strength, and of that 15 percent. probably two-thirds may have had active service experience in the last war. That situation may deteriorate because a number of the existing officers, especially commanding officers and senior N.C.O's, when they come to the end of their present three-year term of training, may not volunteer for a further period. At any rate, that seems to be the present tendency. As a result of these problems we are not able to form all the units required, and large numbers of men today are being trained under the block training system, which everybody agrees is not the best form of training by a long way.
  Perhaps I could make a few suggestions here. One of the main obstacles that I have found to persuading men to volunteer is the fact that many of them have to give up their holidays to attend training camp. Their wives very naturally object, and they themselves
  628
  object. There are some employers, and Government Departments who give a very good lead in this respect, and who make up the whole or part of that service, but there are many who do not. It is understandable, therefore, that it is very difficult to get a married man, especially a very young man recently married, to volunteer to give up his summer holidays for training in the Army. He feels that when he has finished his National Service liability there is no reason why he should do so.
  I suggest that the Government might consider a scheme rather similar to that introduced for disabled ex-Service men whereby the employer would be asked to give special facilities to volunteers under similar conditions to those under which they were asked to employ a certain percentage of disabled ex-Service men. That might be regarded as impracticable, but I make the suggestion because I regard an efficient Reserve Army as vital to the defence of Europe. If we think today that we have a well-trained Reserve Army, we are deluding ourselves. I do not think that we have.
  There are one or two minor suggestions which might be considered. If we are going to issue a walking-out uniform to emergency reservists at any time, the volunteer might be given the first issue. That is a small point, but there is no doubt that an attractive uniform plays a part in recruitment. I suggest also that Territorial Army headquarter facilities might be placed at the disposal of the Reservists so that during the year they can go to the canteen or the sergeants' mess or officers' mess in their locality and enjoy the hospitality of the Army and keep in touch with Army ways and developments during the intervening years.
  Lastly, I should like to appeal to the Press. This problem of volunteers is not new. There is an old Army saying which refers to the adjectival inadvisability of volunteering for anything and with the development of national conscription I sometimes think that the volunteer spirit is beginning to die out. I hope that I am wrong. I should like to be proved wrong, and I should like the Press to help me prove myself wrong. I think that it was Oscar Wilde who said that if there is one thing worse than being talked about, it is not being talked about. That is

  629
  something from which the Army Emergency Reserve suffers. It has not been talked about enough.
  The Press could do a great deal in presenting the case to the public and calling for volunteers, and I hope that it will do so. If the general public were made aware of the really vital importance of a Reserve Army to the security of this nation, we might get the volunteers, employers might be prepared to play their part in giving facilities to the men to volunteer, and the wives and womenfolk might be persuaded to encourage the men to do so.
  9.8 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has embarked on a complicated theme and has carried me with him on to a complicated theme. He highlighted certain suggestions which I think arose from his own experience, but I think that it would not be unhelpful if I were to paint a slightly broader picture to begin with and come at a later stage to the particular points to which my hon. Friend was drawing attention.
  When, after the war, we planned to reconstruct our auxiliary forces, that is, the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve—up to then known as the Supplementary Reserve—we were faced with a great many complicated problems. Firstly, the technical character of modern warfare and at the same time the immense extension of welfare, which has been going on all the time—rightly going on for the benefit of the soldier—brought into existence a multiplicity of services generally of a rather specialised and small type. They were things like mobile laundries, light-aid detachments, and the tyre repair units. There must be very few members of the general public who have any idea of the tremendous gamut of different organisations, both Regular and Reserve which exist at present. In addition, there are the more normal services, such as the Ordnance Corps, R.E.M.E., the Signals, the R.A.S.C., and so on. Some of these small units are destined in the event of an emergency to go with the Army overseas and others are destined or earmarked to stay at home.
  One of our problems is how we are to gather together the relatively small
  630
  numbers of individuals who do that specialised work and are scattered all over the United Kingdom from Land's End to John o'Groat's and weld them into a unit. It is quite a different matter when we have a large number of individuals with the same experience of warfare and the Army living closely concentrated. Then one can make headway on training. That was the first category with which we had to deal and the first problem with which we were presented. The second category might be described as the reinforcements we wanted—first-line reinforcements—for base Ordnance depots, command workshops and so on. The men who were earmarked for that rôle did not themselves form into units but were to be fitted into existing Regular units.
  The third and much the biggest category was of those who were in neither of the other two categories either because they did not get trade training, or because the units were already full, or the geographical distances between them was such that they could not be fitted into T.A. units. In that category, known as A.E.R. II, there are such pools upon which we can call for first-line reinforcements for infantry, the R.A.C. and other combatant duties. My hon. Friend said that some only of the A.E.R.—as the Bills and Acts say, "hereafter to be referred to as reservists"—are destined to be part of the field force in one form or another, but it is almost the whole lot. I do not think we can say that one particular type is entitled to get a higher form of training than another, because ultimately most of them are to be fitted into some form of unit, either as reinforcements of the infantry, the R.A.C, or some of the other Services in the field.
  With the exception of the volunteers, the Reserve consists of National Service men who are doing their part-time training. Naturally, we are anxious to get as many of these volunteers as we can—as my hon. Friend rightly said—because if a man can be persuaded to stay on after he has done his obligatory period of part-time service he automatically exhibits an interest and keenness in his training which make him a valuable individual. I wholeheartedly back up what my hon. Friend said about the importance and desirability of

  631
  persuading these reservists to volunteer. We are making a little headway here, although it is not anything like what we want. The total of the Army Emergency Reserve is at present 110,000. Whereas in October, 1951, the figures for volunteers were 1,069 officers, 1,268 warrant officers and N.C.O's and 3,298 other ranks, on 1st October this year, there were 2,972 officers, 4,616 warrant officers and N.C.O's and 4,836 other ranks. That is a satisfactory increase, and what is particularly satisfactory, as I think my hon. Friend will notice, is that the biggest increase has taken place in the case of warrant officers and N.C.O's. These are exactly the types we want to have.
  Turning to training in general, the reservist has to do, as in the Territorial Army, an obligatory 15 days annual training. In some cases they volunteer—they are not forced to do so—to do some extra part-time training in the form of going on courses or to training conferences. All this represents a pretty heavy headache to us, especially in the case of those who come into the third category. An enormous number of individuals are not earmarked for any particular task, they are earmarked for some arm or service and are looked after by the headquarters of their arm or service. They have no specific tasks for which they are already being trained, apart from the general training.
  As the National Service men are passing out of their full-time service in ever-increasing numbers, the total which we are having to deal with is becoming formidable. How do we try to deal with the annual training of these 110,000 men? Let me take the category which I first mentioned, those reservists who are already in units or sub-units of Ordnance parks, R.E.M.E. light aid detachments, etc. They do their training under the auspices of, but are not absorbed into Regular units. The Regular units, so to speak, stand sponsor for the training and help them; they will train with their own personnel but will also get personnel lent by the Regular Army.
  There are a few, and they must be volunteers, who do their training in B.A.O.R. because, as my hon. Friend has recognised, one of our greatest difficulties is that we are short of enough Regular
  632
  parent units in this country to be able to shoulder all the responsibilities which we ask them to do all the time—Territorial Army, floods, strikes, etc. All kinds of odds and ends of jobs are landed on to the Army. A few of the reservists train with the Territorial Army but the great majority are not incorporated in units and are regarded, as I say, as first-line reinforcements who are trained with the Regulars.
  My hon. Friend had some criticism to make of the equipment made available for the training of all these men. The majority of the categories which carry out their training are either with, or under the supervision of, Regular units. They will clearly get the same equipment as the Regular units have because in one case they are with the Regular units and are using their equipment, while in the second case they will normally use their own A.E.R. equipment, but this in its turn is drawn from equipment held for peace-time maintenance and is comparable to the mobilisation equipment.
  Of course, equipment changes—tanks, wireless sets, vehicles, guns, etc.—and with the best will in the world it is not possible that the latest piece of equipment should always at once be available for all the units that go to make up the British active Army and Reserve Army. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognize that. Through the process of time much of this modern equipment gradually filters through—
  Mr. John Hall:That is the theory, I have no doubt, but in fact the training equipment available even for a Regular unit is quite inadequate.
  Mr. Hutchison: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "inadequate," whether in quality or in quantity.
  Mr. Hall: Insufficient in quantity.
  Mr. Hutchison: That can be gone into, but I am informed that many of these units are not fully issued with equipment to which they are entitled, because they are not up to strength, and I think that is a reasonable way of looking at it. We cannot expect a unit greatly under strength to be issued with the same equipment as a unit fully up to strength, but I would be glad to have a talk with my hon. Friend about that to see if we can find any examples.

  633
  Even if what he says is true, my argument still applies, that we cannot get the latest form of whatever piece of equipment or weapon it is into the hands of everyone, even the whole of the Regular Army, at the same time. He may say that we are taking a prodigiously long time to do it, but that is another argument. It is not physically possible, for example, if we decide to change from Sten to Patchett guns, for every unit to have Patchett guns on the following Monday. Of course I am exaggerating and oversimplifying the matter, but it does take time to filter through. I think it must be agreed that we must give the Regular forces equipment, particularly those in action in places like Malaya or Korea, before we can afford to supply it elsewhere.
  As regards the training of the R.A.O.C. in particular, we have had some difficulty in finding parent units to which to attach some of the Army Emergency Reserve units, because in fact these parent units are not in existence. So some of the training has had to be a little artificial, and it needed a good deal of imagination to get oneself into the true picture. But after all we have had to do that in a great many military exercises. Nothing, for example, could be more artificial than a telephone battle, but that is a perfectly well known, recognised and useful form of exercise. We are in fact organising a new system of training rather on the same type as applying to Territorial units. There will be unit training for a couple of years, then brigade training for one year, and finally divisional training.
  My hon. Friend asks that these units should be used in divisional exercises. Most certainly that should be done and they have been and will be so used this year. It is valuable and necessary that Service units or sub-units of a Service should be given a chance of operating under the conditions in which they will be called upon to operate in time of war, and I am absolutely in agreement about that. In the past year we have trained about 100 R.A.O.C. units, workshop, stores section, laundry units, port units and "A" and "B" vehicle units. Reservists have been given training at Chilwell, which is a motor transport depot, at Bicester, which is a technical stores depot, and Didcot, which is a general stores depot.
  634
  I wish to come to the question of publicity. It is true that the A.E.R. is not sufficiently well known. Of course this to a certain extent stems from a sparseness of funds. But we have a pretty ambitious programme for the current year, including a series of Press advertisements appearing in three Sunday national papers and approximately 65 provincial papers. We are also producing new A.E.R. posters, and on the stands of the Royal Tournament, at Radio Olympia and the Amateur Radio Show there were posters featuring the A.E.R., Royal Signals and R.E.M.E. But anything which can be done to bring to the public notice these important "boffins" of the Reserve Army who are most valuable, most precious and who play a vital rôle in keeping a modern Army in the field—anything which can be done to show in full our appreciation of them would be immensely valuable.
  The day has long since gone when an Army could saddle its horses or march off and live off the country. Nowadays we have to have an endless, complicated chain of organisations behind an Army to allow it to move and to provide the supplies of fuel, food and ammunition which it consumes in appalling quantities. It is part of this duty that the Army Emergency Reserve would in fact fulfil. They are immensely important.
  There are some public-spirited organisations which have recognised that they have within themselves talent—talent in their ordinary civilian work of every day—which could be of value to the Army and to the Reserve in some form or another. Thus we have had the Automobile Association encouraging their members to join the Provost companies and this year they trained 230 strong at the headquarters of the Army Emergency Reserve Royal Military Police at Aldershot.
  Then there is the Thomas Cook Travel Agency who have produced a Movement Control group which carried out its military training this year at the Embarkation Establishment at Harwich. If it is to these good folk something of a busman's holiday, at any rate they are patriotic busmen. Those are just two examples of the way in which organisations can turn the talent and the experience which is theirs to the benefit of the Army.

  635
  I hope that I have not left too much unanswered. I have answered the main questions and I do not think I have missed much. My hon. Friend talked about fatigues and about trying to relieve the Reserves during their training. I do not think that is possible. Each unit has to stand on its own feet as regards fatigues. Who will do them otherwise? We cannot expect National Service men or Regular soldiers to do them, other wise National Service will become less popular or more unpopular—
  Mr. John Hall:I appreciate that, but I suggested that perhaps a far greater amount of training could be done under field conditions. Will my hon. Friend refer to my suggestion that the third year's training should take the form of a mobilisation exercise?
  Mr. Hutchison: I should like to look into that question. It is a big commitment to make on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend is right. Practical training rather than technical training is probably, in a fortnight, more valuable. At the moment the plan is that in most units the men spend the first week on general military training, in musketry, on ranges, and so on. But I should like to look into that matter. It is a little difficult for one who is not a technical soldier to be able to give answers on these questions of detail. My hon. Friend knows far more about this than I do. Perhaps he will allow me to look into that question. I will have a talk with my advisers and see what they have to say.
  I underline the fact that these reservists are paid for the period of training which
  636
  they do each year during the 15 day obligatory period of training. They get the ordinary Army rates of pay and marriage allowance during the period when they are temporary soldiers. In addition, the volunteers get annual bounties which vary between £9 and £50 a year. Those who get £50 a year are very special technical individuals and, in fact, they do not have to do much training either. If this was more widely known I think there would be an appreciation of just how generous these offers are.
  I hope that my words, and the words of my hon. Friend, may persuade some who were doubtful or hesitant to volunteer to continue, after part-time service is over, in the Army Emergency Reserve. But I think it will be recognised—I certainly do—that as time passes, the organisation which can persuade and bring influence to bear upon the Army Emergency reservist to volunteer after he has come out of his full-time service with the active Army, is the active Army unit in which he is serving.
  In the future, there is going to be practically no other source of recruitment, and it is hoped that while a man is in the Regular Army doing his National Service, where we trust he will be well treated, the prospect of continuing that training for 15 days each year for a certain number of years will appear to him to be not only a patriotic act but something that is not too distasteful.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Nine o'Clock

AGRICULTURE
  Artificial Insemination Centres
  Artificial Insemination Centres
  Departmental Staff (Appointments)
  Departmental Staff (Appointments)
  Swedish Landrace Pigs (Prices)
  Swedish Landrace Pigs (Prices)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Magistrates' Clerks
  Magistrates' Clerks
  Young People's Hostels (Inspection)
  Young People's Hostels (Inspection)
  Borstal Institutions and Approved Schools (Craft Training)
  Borstal Institutions and Approved Schools (Craft Training)
  Indictable Offences (Numbers)
  Indictable Offences (Numbers)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Clubs (Granting of Licences)
  Clubs (Granting of Licences)
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
WALES
  Registered Clubs
  Registered Clubs
  Council for Wales and Monmouth
  Council for Wales and Monmouth
EMPLOYMENT
  Metals, Engineering and Vehicles Industries
  Metals, Engineering and Vehicles Industries
  Foundries (Leggings)
  Foundries (Leggings)
  Wales and United Kingdom
  Wales and United Kingdom
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Deferments
  Deferments
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Cancer Detection (X-ray)
  Cancer Detection (X-ray)
  Doctors' Surgeries
  Doctors' Surgeries
  Medical Facilities, Mining Areas
  Medical Facilities, Mining Areas
  Health Centres, Stoke-on-Trent
  Health Centres, Stoke-on-Trent
  Mentally Defective Children, Derbyshire
  Mentally Defective Children, Derbyshire
  Hospitals, Monmouthshire (Repairs and Maintenance)
  Hospitals, Monmouthshire (Repairs and Maintenance)
  Old People, Monmouthshire (Long-stay Annexes)
  Old People, Monmouthshire (Long-stay Annexes)
  Prescriptions, Welsh Region
  Prescriptions, Welsh Region
  Fog Masks (Charges)
  Fog Masks (Charges)
  Motor Tricycles
  Motor Tricycles
  Mental Hospital, Bodmin
  Mental Hospital, Bodmin
  Thoracic Surgery, Cornwall
  Thoracic Surgery, Cornwall
  Infantile Mortality and Tuberculosis Statistics
  Infantile Mortality and Tuberculosis Statistics
  Teaching Hospitals
  Teaching Hospitals
  Sussex Maternity Home (Annexe)
  Sussex Maternity Home (Annexe)
  Hospital Admissions (Tuberculosis Patients)
  Hospital Admissions (Tuberculosis Patients)
  Reigate Hospital (Geriatric Unit)
  Reigate Hospital (Geriatric Unit)
EDUCATION
  Graduate Teachers (Report)
  Graduate Teachers (Report)
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Spastic Children
  Spastic Children
  University Students (Grants)
  University Students (Grants)
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  University Awards
  University Awards
  SOUTH AFRICA (DR. MALAN'S SPEECH)
  SOUTH AFRICA (DR. MALAN'S SPEECH)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Exports (Volume)
  Exports (Volume)
  Dutch Sprouts and Sprout Seed
  Dutch Sprouts and Sprout Seed
  Softwood and Hardwood
  Softwood and Hardwood
BRITISH GUIANA
  International Bank Mission (Report)
  International Bank Mission (Report)
  Alleged Arson Plot (Georgetown)
  Alleged Arson Plot (Georgetown)
  Development Projects (Overseas Investment)
  Development Projects (Overseas Investment)
  Constitution (Suspension)
  Constitution (Suspension)
  Sedition Charges
  Sedition Charges
  U.K. Government Representatives and Officials (Visits)
  U.K. Government Representatives and Officials (Visits)
  People's Progressive Party (White Paper Allegations)
  People's Progressive Party (White Paper Allegations)
  Oil (Preliminary Examination)
  Oil (Preliminary Examination)
  Building Trade (Unemployment)
  Building Trade (Unemployment)
  Sugar Workers (Housing and Amenities)
  Sugar Workers (Housing and Amenities)
  Columbite-Tantalite (Firm's Exploration)
  Columbite-Tantalite (Firm's Exploration)
  Gold (Drilling)
  Gold (Drilling)
  Rice Marketing Board
  Rice Marketing Board
  Local Government Board
  Local Government Board
  Joint Consultative Bodies (Government Policy)
  Joint Consultative Bodies (Government Policy)
  Civics and Parliamentary Government (Education)
  Civics and Parliamentary Government (Education)
  Factories Ordinance
  Factories Ordinance
  Industrial Accidents (Workers' Claims)
  Industrial Accidents (Workers' Claims)
  Department of Agriculture (Appointments)
  Department of Agriculture (Appointments)
  Technical Instruction Scheme
  Technical Instruction Scheme
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Fat Stock Auctions
  Fat Stock Auctions
  Master Butchers' Association, Lincoln (Representations)
  Master Butchers' Association, Lincoln (Representations)
ROADS
  Improvements, Scotland
  Improvements, Scotland
  Pedestrian Crossings (Flashing Beacons)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Flashing Beacons)
  Lanark
  Lanark
  SCOTLAND (LUNACY AND MENTAL DEFICIENCY LAWS)
  SCOTLAND (LUNACY AND MENTAL DEFICIENCY LAWS)
  HERTFORD BRITISH HOSPITAL, PARIS
  HERTFORD BRITISH HOSPITAL, PARIS
  COAL (DOMESTIC STOCKS, DERBYSHIRE)
  COAL (DOMESTIC STOCKS, DERBYSHIRE)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (LANARK)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (LANARK)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Collection (Cost)
  Tax Collection (Cost)
  United Kingdom (U.S.A. Defence Aid)
  United Kingdom (U.S.A. Defence Aid)
  Football (Tax)
  Football (Tax)
Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  TELEVISION POLICY
  2.8 p.m.
  Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Viscount Hailsham, on behalf of the Earl of Halifax, to resolve, That this House, whilst recognising the desirability of an alternative Television Programme, regrets that it cannot approve of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government as outlined in the Memorandum on Television Policy (Cmd. 9005).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I rise to continue the debate which occupied your Lordships' House for so many hours yesterday. I must confess that at the end of that debate I felt a great deal of doubt whether I could contribute anything new to a subject matter which had been so long and so thoroughly discussed. Yet clearly it was necessary for me to speak, if only because some observations of mine on a previous occasion had received the honour of comment from some of your Lordships. Indeed, I hoped, or expected, from what was said in the opening speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and from what other noble Lords had said to me, that we were likely to have a debate upon what John Milton said, or would have said, and where he would have ranged himself to-day. However, I suppose that anybody who wanted to comment upon a speech I made a year ago would have thought fit to speak before me so that I could answer him; so I am sorry to say that we shall not, I think, have any discussion upon John Milton.
  The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence to-day. As he told me yesterday, he had in fact broken his holiday to be here, and he did not think it incumbent upon him (and I am sure your Lordships will all agree) that he should break it
  668
  for a further day in order to hear this debate. This gives me the opportunity of saying what I should have said in any case—how warmly I welcome the observations of the most reverend Primate. Though there was much in his proposals which I think does not command general acceptance, yet the tone he set by that speech was, I think, an invaluable one, for your Lordships will remember that almost his opening words were that this was a matter upon which Christian men, starting from common principles, could come to different conclusions. That, I must say, was welcome to me, for, like many others during these past months, I have felt from the tone of a section of the Press and of a great deal of correspondence which found its way into the Press that it was impossible to oppose the monopoly of the B.B.C. and urge competition, and in particular, commercial television, without beinġ a knave or a fool, or inspired by some commercial interest. I think many of your Lordships, like myself, have felt rather bitterly of the way in which this matter has been treated by the supporters of monopoly.
  My Lords, I myself have debated long whether I should mention this matter to your Lordships after a long interval, but I think, though I would gladly drop it, I owe it to the House. Your Lordships will remember, that more than a year ago I made a speech upon this subject—I was, in fact, winding up for Her Majesty's Government—and I pronounced my views with a vigour and emphasis which represented the sincerity of my feelings in the matter. It was a speech made upon the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, to whom I sent a message, which he received, to say that I might make a personal reference to him to-day. It was Lord Reith's Motion and therefore, in accordance with the practice of our House, the noble Lord had the right of reply. The noble Lord knew that he had that right, and he rose in his place and said he did not propose to reply, but that "time would show." What time showed was this: that within a few days, in an article in a Sunday newspaper, the noble Lord impugned my integrity, alleging substantially in these words that I said what I did not believe and had prostituted my high office.
  That was a wounding and bitter personal attack. I took counsel with my

  669
  friends on both sides of the House. Many of them urged me to take steps at once. I decided not to do so. I have left it, and I should have been content to leave it too this day, though I can find words I will not use to describe the conduct of a noble Lord who does a thing like that, knowing full well the while that the man he traduces cannot enter into newspaper controversy with him. I should, as I say, have left it, but for this: that to-day, again, it falls to me to speak upon this subject. I do not believe that there is any man, any Member of this House, on either side, who would believe that do not say with sincerity what I think—except the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and I believe that he is one of those unfortunates who is incapable of believing that anyone who disagrees with him can possibly be sincere, much less right. There I leave it. It is to me a disagreeable subject, and I should not have mentioned it, except that I propose again to say, after many months of contemplation, very much what I said more than a year ago. I apologise for having detained your Lordships with this, but I thought it right to do so.
  I come to the question before the House, and I venture to ask what is the matter that really divides us. Quite clearly, we cannot find a simple solution, as some supporters of the B.B.C. monopoly would say. We cannot find a simple solution in the suggestion that those on one side are righteous and those on the other side are unrighteous, or that one lot are wise and the other foolish. If proof were needed, here on my left sit the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who takes one view, and the noble Lord, Lord Layton, who, as he shortly will tell us, takes another. Both are wise, righteous and honourable men. And on the Episcopal Benches there are my Lord the Archbishop of Canterbury, who takes one view, and, as we have heard, certain right reverend Prelates who take a totally different view. They were not wicked or wise, foolish or righteous, overnight. And so I could go on. Even the noble Lord who I understand is to follow me did not become Aristeides—I think he is now the prototype of the monopolist—overnight. I think that in order to find out what divides us—and that is so important in order that we may understand ourselves and understand each other—it may be worth while to see how far we can go together.
  LORD AMWELL: Take the Whips off.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Was the noble Lord desirous of intervening?
  LORD AMWELL: May I be allowed to suggest that the noble and learned Lord is making a splendid case for this subject not to be a Party question—a matter of Whips?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no need to apologise for the interruption. I spent thirty years of my life being interrupted.
  To resume: how far can we go together? I think we are all agreed upon this: that television is a great new feature in the lives of the people. It has been said, and it may be true, that it is the greatest invention and the most important influence since the invention of printing. That may be true, but this, at least, is certain: that the multitude of our fellow citizens who enjoy, and will enjoy, this boon—if it be a boon—will ever increase, and it is no use trying to stop it. I say that because I feel that so many of the speeches which I have heard have to some extent been animated by a dislike of television itself. Indeed, I think the most reverend Primate himself would admit that at the bottom of his heart was a dislike of television and the fear that its increasing use, whatever it might be, was ill for the people. But we have to face the fact: it has come to stay. Now—and here, I think, is where we begin to diverge—here is something which the whole people is entitled to enjoy, a new source of entertainment, interest, amusement, it may be enlightenment and instruction. Is the citizen who is entitled to enjoy the wonderful invention of the printed book—and here is where we begin to diverge—is the citizen who is entitled to that great boon which science and industry have conferred upon him, to be limited in the choice of what he shall see to what one man or one body of men, the B.B.C., thinks fit to give him? Basically that is the question, and that is the way in which I approach it: from the point of view of the right of the individual, unless he is going to harm another, to enjoy those rights which nature, science and industry have found for him. It maybe, of course, that he cannot use it without hurting another. It may be that there

  671
  are cogent reasons why he should not enjoy their use. So be it, let us hear them.
  But I start from this—and here I diverge absolutely from the monopolists. I say that the citizen is entitled to hear all and see all that those who produce, or can produce, programmes are willing to show him, unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary. I will not say that it is an inherent right, but it is just as much a right as that of the citizen to peruse the printed book as soon as the invention of printing was made. I am not going back to Milton, but in his day the obscurantists and authoritarians said that the people should not read printed books except those which they licensed. It is precisely that argument which is produced to-day, in a different medium and in a different way. Though the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury is not here to-day, I must remind him that it was the Lord Archbishop of that day, together with the Bishop of London, to whom the right of licence was committed under the Ordinance of 1637—and rigidly they exercised that right. The most reverend Primate is not here, so I will not say what I should have continued to say about the naturally authoritarian disposition of an Archbishop. That I conceive to be the right of the individual, on which we can all stand, and nothing has astonished me more in the course of this debate than the speech which we heard yesterday from the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party. It will be redeemed, I hope, to some extent by that which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, will make to-day.
  That is the right of the individual—and you would deny it to him. Who is it to whom you deny that right, assuming that you know better than he does what is good for him? As is sometimes said, he is just John Citizen. He is the man who enjoys, as the nation has enjoyed for a long time, adult suffrage. The whole nation enjoys adult suffrage, and for centuries the whole nation has enjoyed Parliamentary democracy. For two generations the whole nation has enjoyed universal education. We claim and boast of our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. We do not hesitate to tell our young men to go into National
  672
  Service. They do, and they must suffer for us, if necessary. We do not hesitate to submit our lives, our fortunes, our liberty, our honour, it may be, to the arbitrament of twelve jury men and women taken at hazard from our fellow citizens. Yet it is to these men you say, "You shall see only what the B.B.C. say you should see." To me that is an intolerable, an abhorrent position (to use the word which I believe the noble and learned Earl used) unless there is some cogent and overwhelming reason for monopoly. That is where I stand, and I say it with all the sincerity of which I am capable.
  What is the reason which induces many of your Lordships, whose sincerity I do not question, to deny that right or to qualify it in such a way that it is denied in effect? For let me say this, if I may: this Motion is in terms which to me are very difficult to understand. It affirms the desirability of an alternative. It does not, as lawyers say, condescend to particulars. If this means only an alternative programme supplied by the B.B.C. itself, I think it is substantially meaningless. Of course, it is something that John Citizen can have a choice between two programmes instead of being bound to only one, but it does not carry the matter any further, so far as competition is concerned, for you really do not compete between your right hand and your left hand since both are moved by the same mind. If it means something else, and we have not been told what it means, perhaps the noble and learned Earl who follows me will tell the House what the meaning is. Then, of course, we must examine it. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, which is expounded in the White Paper, the only way to secure an effective alternative is by having what is called commercial television. If there is any other way in which competition can be granted effectively and an alternative given, I am sure we shall examine it; but until something is put forward, and until we can examine it, we stand upon the Government White Paper, subject always to what my noble Leader the Leader of the House may say.
  If that is so, I ask noble Lords, "Why do you refuse to give the right of choice to the multitude of citizens?" I will try to tell your Lordships. The reasons are: fear and mistrust—fear that liberty might

  673
  develop into licence, mistrust of those who are producing programmes and of those who have the pleasure of listening. That, and that alone, can be what moves those who restrict the freedom of choice. I am not quite right there. I want to say this. I understand very well that there may be those in whom the trend and bias of their mind is such that automatically they prefer a monopoly. After all, it is the essence, the heart and the core, of the Socialist creed that there should be, in effect, vast monopolies. If you believe in the nationalisation or socialisation, whatever you like to call it, of all the means of production, distribution and exchange, then it is an easy, logical and consistent step to say that this wonderful new article of television shall be the production of the State or a State Corporation only. I do not know whether that is the way the minds of noble Lords work, but it is easy to see that it is almost inevitably the trend of their minds. The noble and learned Earl who is to follow me, who has been, through nearly a quarter of a century, from time to time a member of a Socialist Administration, and has with eloquence, firmness and sincerity piloted through your Lordships' House a number of socialisation measures, would, I think, have to admit that the trend of his mind is in favour of monopoly. However that may be, I speak to those to whom Socialism makes no appeal, but rather the reverse. To-day, as it seems to me, there can be only one reason why you object to this choice, so far as it is open to them, being given to your fellow citizens, and that is fear and mistrust.
  I confess that, on the broadest view of philosophy, I see in this problem yet another aspect of the eternal question: how are you to reconcile liberty with authority, order with freedom? For that is really what it comes to, and it is at that point that we diverge. It has been said, metaphorically, that life is a highway. The question that continually arises is what restrictions and limitations shall be put upon those who would travel along the highway, or whether they should be prohibited altogether. When that question arises, it is not a case of those who take different views calling each other unrighteous or self-righteous,
  674
  or knaves or fools. We can disagree upon it. That is the point.
  Are your Lordships justified in this Year of Grace in saying to your fellow citizens that they cannot be trusted; in saying to the producer that he cannot be trusted to produce a programme that will not debase his fellow citizens; or in saying to the public that they cannot be trusted to make a choice, for what they would choose would inevitably be bad? I cannot with sufficient emphasis tell your Lordships how much I dislike that attitude towards our fellow citizens. Who are you, my Lords, to say that you know what is good for you fellow citizens; and that the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, whose speech we listened to with admiration yesterday, and who we hope will make many other contributions to debates in this House, or the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, are men who, if they determine to employ this medium of advertising as they employ others, are likely deliberately to do something which will corrupt and debase their fellow citizens? Of course, that is not so.
  If he will forgive me for saying so, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, does not stand in a different category from other large employers of labour. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne (perhaps I may be forgiven for being personal, because the noble Lord introduced the matter himself), is a captain of industry, and he told your Lordships that his firm did not propose, as at present advised, to employ this method of advertising. That, of course, is his own business.
  LORD MOYNE: The noble and learned Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I did not mean to say we felt that we should tie our hands to not using the medium, but only that we hope it will not come into existence.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: However that may be, the one thing the noble Lord did not say was this. He did not disclaim the idea that, if he did employ that medium of advertising, he would then take any step whatever that would debase in any way his fellow citizens. He did not say so, and I will tell him why: it was because he thought it monstrous that anybody should suggest—and nobody would suggest—that his firm would do anything of the kind. I look upon it as a monstrous charge to make against the businessmen of this country, represented

  675
  as they are by many noble Lords in this House, that they would take advantage of this new method of advertising to debase their fellow countrymen. I will not grow warm about it, but I think it is a most shocking charge.
  Bound up with this theory that somehow, if there is a choice, if there is commercial television based ultimately upon a revenue obtained from advertising, the public will be debased, is the extraordinary argument that, if it happens, somehow the B.B.C. itself will suffer. I have not heard that explicitly stated in this House, but I think it is an idea that has fired and permeated many of the speeches we have heard. I believe that to be the most foolish and fallacious argument that was ever put before an assembly. Let us consider the matter, accepting for the moment the principles as they have been stated: that the B.B.C. is good, commercial television is bad, Gresham's Law applies, the bad inevitably drives out the good, and therefore, the B.B.C. will suffer. That is the argument which has seriously been put forward. I say that it is a wicked libel to say that in the sphere of human conduct Gresham's Law applies; and when I say that, I feel that I have the authority of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, whom I heard disclaim this foolish argument on the occasion of our last debate.
  Let me say this about it to show how foolish it is. Does the bad inevitably drive out the good in literature, in art, or in music? What a foolish thing this is to say! Take literature for a moment. I suppose that, when one thinks of English literature, almost instinctively one's mind goes to Shakespeare and the Bible. I will leave out the Bible, and take Shakespeare. Does Shakespeare live? Has that immortal voice been stilled? Is that hand of glory withered? Shakespeare reigns. And why? Not because he has been proclaimed King by the Director-General, the Governors, the Advisory Council, the angels and archangels at the B.B.C., but because he is the chosen of the people, whom you, my Lords, so sadly and so strangely mistrust. I could go on through the whole range of art and literature, but, if I do not weary your Lordships, I will content myself with giving one more example to
  676
  exemplify the folly of this argument. Let me take music—and of bad music, heaven knows! there is plenty.
  Does bad music drive out good?—this has nothing to do with the B.B.C., though they have made their contribution. I say that it does not and I will prove it. Come any day to a great concert hall, the Albert Hall, it may be, at Easter time, and what will you see? You will see tier after tier of earnest faces waiting. They have probably been waiting for long in the wind and the rain; and what are they waiting to hear? My Lords, they are not waiting to hear some melancholy crooner, mouthing an erotic melody; that they can hear on the B.B.C. They have come to listen to the noblest music, Bach's Passion Music, the noblest music ever woven by the mind of man. The bad does not drive out the good. Let the people choose.
  I do not want to put my case too high. I have been fifty years at the Bar or on the Bench, and although I have not practised on the criminal side nobody can be that length of time in the law without knowing much of the weakness, the frailty and even the wickedness of humankind. And so it is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said, in reply, I think, to Lord Milverton, you cannot have absolute freedom. Of course you cannot have absolute freedom. You have freedom of its kind, freedom subject to the impositions and restraints which the subject matter demands. And so, though we speak, and rightly speak, of freedom of speech, yet that freedom is restricted by the laws of libel and the laws of sedition and blasphemy, and so on. Though we have freedom of the Press we have similar restraints. It may be that some of your Lordships think that the restraints are not always quite adequate. Indeed, the newspaper world themselves I think appreciate that fact by setting up a Press Council.
  Whatever the freedom you postulate in a civilised society, it must be subject to the appropriate restraints, and as I see it the single question which your Lordships have to determine in this case is whether that freedom which I postulate for John Citizen, the viewer with a television set, should be restricted in what, if any, way. Now the view which Her Majesty's Government have taken of this is found in the White Paper. It may well be that the safeguards which are imposed,

  677
  the restrictions upon freedom, are greater than are necessary, as some noble Lords have said, but Her Majesty's Government thought it right to make every concession that they reasonably could to the objections of those who thought that safeguards were required. I hope that your Lordships are not so unjust and ungenerous as to hail as a victory a concession which we make to your feelings.
  As to the safeguards, I need not go through the White Paper; your Lordships are familiar with it. You know that the actual programmes will be determined by the operating companies who will, in turn, have entered into a contract with the public Corporation which is to be set up. The terms of their contract may be subject to the review of those who think that they are not strict enough. This is a matter on which I suppose it is a little artificial to talk at present, because we have not yet reached the stage of setting up a public Corporation or of entering into negotiations with operating companies, but if there is any restriction which you think ought to be in the contract with the operating company, and if your thought has reason in it, that will be done. Suppose you thought that no film, no picture, should be exhibited in which the sound of a revolver was heard, or in which a cosh was seen, or a bathing belle—whatever you like: all these could be the subject of appropriate restrictions. And it will not be difficult—I speak here, if I may, as a lawyer—to impose such terms upon the contracting operating companies as to make it impossible for them, without grave peril to themselves, to break the regulations that are imposed.
  Now, what greater safeguard can you ask than that? Remember that this public Corporation which is to be set up is itself a public Corporation whose directors will be nominated by the Postmaster General, or whoever it may be—at any rate, by a public authority. Why should it be supposed that they will be less vigilant of the rights of the public than those gentlemen who have for long discharged similar duties on the B.B.C.? The surprising thing is—or perhaps it is not surprising, but it is interesting—that the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, the most reverend Primate, and many others who have spoken have taken no objection to advertising per se. All that they have said is—Lord Beveridge used the words—
  678
  "Money speaks," and they were afraid that a baleful influence might be exercised by the advertisers on the operating companies, and through the operating companies upon the public Corporation, so that the standard would be debased. Why should it? Why should these gentlemen who will be nominees of the Government upon this new public Corporation yield one jot in integrity or standard to the gentlemen who occupy a similar position in the B.B.C.? If your Lordships think they will, I will only ask you to wait and see. Why should they? Once again this is a case where some of your Lordships—and I speak with no disrespect—arrogate to yourselves a higher standard of virtue than that which is to be ascribed to yet another section of the public—namely, those gentlemen who will be directors of this new Corporation. Frankly, I see no reason why you should.
  There is one other thing that I want to say before I turn to one or two questions which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was good enough to ask me. Another argument, and one that has been commonly used, in favour of the view that commercial television would operate to degrade the public taste is an example drawn from America. I have recently been in America and there I learnt something of the B.B.C. But what I learnt much more vividly was this, the great danger and unwisdom of criticism of American procedure at a time when it is so terribly important to preserve good relations—the sort of attack that I have heard from time to time which suggests that the American nation is debauched by its system of television. That is not only the grossest possible libel, but a terribly unwise thing to say. If, indeed, it were necessary to run the risk of such statements, in order that great good might cone to us from it, we might have to run the risk. But surely everything is so different in America—the atmosphere which has been created; the conditions under which television has been developed; the lack of safeguards—notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, said. The whole background of American life is so different that I believe no useful comparison could be drawn at all, and I would beg your Lordships not to be frightened by that bugbear into a course which is illiberal and retrograde

  679
  and will, as I believe, be bitterly regretted, if it is followed, by those who love freedom.
  The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked—
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Not "learned."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: "Revered" shall I say. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked me one or two questions which I will try to answer, although it is not easy, because at present the whole basis of this is artificial. I agree so much with what the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said: that at present we are really embarking on a discussion of principle—whether there should be commercial television. Although I quite see that the validity of a principle may sometimes depend upon the way in which it can work in practice, we are not yet in a position—since the White Paper has been such a short time before the House, and it would have been impossible to set about establishing a public Corporation, much less entering into any negotiations with operating companies—to pledge ourselves to any course at all. The noble Viscount asked me whether it was proposed that sound broadcasting should be also the subject of licence to fresh companies. The answer is, of course, this; and I hope that I shall not be bound to the words of my answer. What we seek to do is to end the monopoly in television. Incidentally, it may be that there will be some sound broadcasting with television and, of course, if there were some message of national importance which had to be sent out, I imagine that all the resources of all the stations might be used. But the purpose of this White Paper is to indicate that we propose to end the monopoly of the B.B.C.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): In television.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, in television. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, also asked: Will more than one company be given a contract in the first instance? If so, how many companies? How many applications have been received? On what principle will the selection amongst them be made by a public Corporation? Before the White Paper was published there were no fewer than ninety-eight applicants for licences, and it may be assumed that some of them
  680
  will apply again as potential programme companies. How many it is quite impossible to say. They have not been approached, and I imagine that it would be a comparatively small number. As I have said, the object of the Government's scheme is to introduce competition, and the Corporation will be expected to give opportunities to a number of independent companies.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: In different localities?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Viscount will not bind me, but I should certainly expect in different localities, yes.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am loth to interrupt the noble Viscount—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not a Viscount.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: One good turn deserves another. The main point at issue is whether there will be another monopoly set up in private hands in every district where there is one of these television stations.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I can assure the noble Viscount that that will, so far as possible, be avoided, and I see no reason why it should not be avoided altogether. Even if physical conditions had the result that only one other company operated, at any rate that would be better than none.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: No.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount is entitled to his opinion. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, did not exactly ask a question about it, but he made some observations upon the effect of television in some local area, and he made our hearts bleed for the small shopkeeper who, no doubt, will not be able to find the money for advertising on television. I think this is a matter on which anybody is entitled to his opinion. I do not think it will make any difference at all to the small shopkeeper who already finds himself, if I may use the word. "out-advertised" at every point. I think it is possible that the result of television may be to benefit the small shopkeeper by increasing the sale of those proprietary articles in which he largely deals and upon which he largely relies. But that is anybody's guess. Certainly it is not a matter which

  681
  I think should weigh unduly with your Lordships, for it is a purely hypothetical matter.
  There is one further observation of the noble Viscount with which, as a matter of courtesy to him—though I have been far too long—I ought to deal. The noble Viscount made a great deal of play with the fact that the public Corporation would necessarily—or would according to our scheme—have advanced to it public money. That is quite true; but that is a common feature to-day. The trading estates have public money advanced to them, and, moreover, have public money advanced in what is something like a subsidy, for it is at such a low rate of interest. There is no suggestion whatever here that the public Corporation will rent its studio or station at anything but the commercial rate of interest. I think we may be sure of one thing, and that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will here be a watchdog of the public purse, that no larger ruin than is absolutely necessary will be advanced, and that what is advanced will be advanced upon terms which are not unfavourable to the Treasury.
  I have spoken, I fear, for far too long, and I would end with this one word. I respect, as we all must, the sincerity of those who fear that there will be degradation of the public mind by the influence of so-called commercial television. Will you not respect equally those who, from the bottom of their hearts, believe that in your fear and mistrust you do a grave injustice to our fellows? For my part, I hope that the Government scheme will go through, and that the fears which some of your Lordships hold will be found, as so many fears have been in the past, to be utterly groundless.
  3.0 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we have just listened to a most interesting, most vigorous, speech of some length, which has devoted a great deal of time to discussions on liberty and trusting the people, and very little time to advertising. I think the noble and learned Lord chose wisely the allocation of his time. There can be no doubt whatever that we are discussing an extremely important issue. The noble and learned Lord said that he had understood the most reverend Primate to say that he was rather in
  682
  favour of trying to stop television. I understood nothing of the sort—nothing whatever. Let me make it plain that one of my qualifications for speaking is that I am a viewer and that I am a listener and I have had considerable experience of both.
  I do not doubt myself that in television we have a force, a power, which, for good or ill, will exercise a profound influence over our people. Whether or not in the process of time television will cut out sound broadcasting in the way in which talking films have cut out silent films, I do not know. There will undoubtedly be vast technical improvements—for instance, a larger screen. I agree with the I noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that we shall certainly have colour television; and in the next few years we shall all, if we live, see great changes and improvements made. I believe that here we have an instrument which will have a profound effect on the countryside and, indeed, may be a more effective means of stopping the drift from the countryside to the towns than anything else ever thought of. And it is obvious that it is going to have a profound effects upon the children of to-day who, after all, are the men and women of to-morrow. It is going to be in almost every home, and therefore we must be careful to see that we do not at this stage take a wrong step which will prevent this great invention having the effect which we all hope for.
  That there is a deep division of opinion in the House and in the country is quite plain. As the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, the division is so deep that even the Liberal Party is divided. But that these opinions, on the one side or the other, are sincerely held, I do not doubt for a moment. After all, it is the essence of controversy to assume that your opponent is just as sincere and intelligent as you claim to be yourself. I must say that I wish the Lord Chancellor had consulted me about the noble Lord, Lord Reith. I would have tried to see him to tell him about this matter, because he is not the sort of man I should have thought to attribute things in that way. I have not any cuttings and I know that Lord Reith cannot be here to-day and therefore I cannot say any more about the matter. At any rate, I assume readily that the Lord Chancellor is just as sincere

  683
  in his views as I am sure he would concede that I am in mine.
  This deep division of opinion goes right throughout this country, and I regret very much, if it is not impertinent for me to say so, that the Whips have been put on. I was very careful in sending our own Whip to say:
  "We do not regard this as a Party issue, and your vote will be free."
  I feel sure that that was the right line. After all, what do we prove by a Division in this House? As things are, we all have the sense to know that the Government will beat us by a very large majority. It would have been larger, as I know, on this occasion, had it not been for the fact that some of their loyal supporters have gone away rather than find themselves in this difficulty. But we do not prove anything by a Division on this matter. If I may say so with great respect, I think there is a great opportunity for this House—I do not say anything about another place—to show its independence.
  I remember, and many of your Lordships will remember, speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, in which he deplored the modern tendency by which everybody was dragooned into this Lobby or that, and that Members no longer had the independence they used to have. I, having to reply, said that there was great force in what he said. What an opportunity it would have been here! After all, this issue is not fixed and finalised in the form of a Bill at the present time. We are having a general discussion of broad principles, and we should have gained much more by having an absolutely free discussion without any Whips on, rather than the other way. I consider that this House has lost a great opportunity of justifying its existence. In this House we can afford to do this sort of thing: I quite understand that it might not be possible in another place, but I have no authority to speak as regards that. I regret that we have missed this opportunity.
  Having agreed, as we all do, on the importance of this issue, I shall try now to explain how I see it. I assume for these purposes that an alternative programme is financially possible. I have no reason to doubt it and, for my part, if it is indeed possible, I am heartily glad. I think it is of tremendous importance
  684
  to try to get an alternative programme. Our argument is not, as the Lord Chancellor, seemed to think, that the people are not to be trusted. I invite the attention of the noble and learned Lord for a moment on this matter. He is assuming, in saying that, that the people want to have their alternative programme provided for them by big business. I am very doubtful whether the people want that. He suggests that because we hesitate to give the people what they want we are not trusting the people—a perfect example of what the noble Lord would call petitio principii when he sits as a judge. We also test it on experience: we have had experience of the B.B.C. and of other systems operating in other countries, and we rely on these factors.
  The noble and learned Lord asks the question, and is entitled to an answer, "What, then, would you do? Well, my Lords, I do not know whether those who oppose the advertising scheme are by any means united in their views. I would say personally that I would much rather have an alternative programme at the present time, for a trial period, provided by the B.B.C. To my mind, the essence of this alternative programme, which must be arranged in connection with the other programme, is that there may be a real alternative going on. There was an illustration of this in New York the other day, when there were five television programmes, each showing a baseball match at the same time. There are many people who do not care about baseball. I regret to say that here some people do not care about cricket. In my household, at any rate, I—and that settled the household—was devoted to the Test Matches; but I can quite understand that there are some households that cannot tolerate cricket. Therefore you must have something else—a dog show, perhaps, or a ladies' dress show. It is desirable that these programmes should concert with each other to a certain extent. I should prefer, therefore, for a trial period, to give the alternative programme to the B.B.C.
  I believe that we can develop a system of internal competition. Indeed, when I think of my considerable experience of the way in which Government Departments work, all under the same Government, I am sure the Lord Chancellor will

  685
  find there is considerable competitior between two or three Departments. May I say that, if you did that, so far as I know, the cost would be £3 and not £6 (the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, it appears has just thought of a number and doubled it) assuming that the B.B.C. are allowed to have—and I devoutly hope they will—the 15 per cent. or 14 per cent. which is now deducted from them. That is the solution I would prefer, but if it be thought necessary to have separate public services, quite separate from the B.B.C., I would far rather have this than the advertising system. It would be a separate public service corporation, and it would involve an increase in the viewing fee. But I would far rather have that, and to get rid of this danger which confronts us, if I could settle on that I most certainly would. No one suggests, so far as I know, that there should be more than two Corporations, but if you will, let us have more than two Corporations.
  I believe it to be a fallacy to talk about monopoly, and the doctrine of monopoly derived from the sale of goods, and apply that to a public service. Many illustrations have been given. I believe that I am right in saying—the noble Lord, Lord Brand, will correct me if I am wrong—that the Bank of England has a monopoly of issuing bank notes; I believe that the Mint has a monopoly of minting coins; I believe that the B.B.C. at the present time have a monopoly of broadcasting which it is not intended to take away from them. Local monopolies in the way of a public service spring to the mind. I happen to live in Westminster, and my dust and my rubbish are collected by the Westminster Corporation. I cannot get another dustman if I want to. Does the noble Lord suggest, on the ground of trusting the people, that there ought to be as many dustmen as there are dustbins? Water is supplied. All these public services should be supplied, and must be supplied, in that way, and no sensible person would doubt it. Those monopolies are surely not odious.
  Though I make no attack on the Lord Chancellor about his reference to Milton—I like to hear Milton mentioned in this connection—if we are going to mention Milton, it is worth while considering what his thesis was. His thesis was this, was it not? All disputations, all controversies, all criticisms—and the books in which they are enshrined—have their value. The
  686
  very fact that they give rise to disputes is in itself valuable for, by taking part in these very controversies, we may arrive at truth. Then Milton says:
  "We should not seek to protect Truth from attack. She should net practise a fugitive and cloistered virtue. She should not slink out of the race where the immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Let Truth and Falsehood grapple. Whoever knew Truth to be put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing."
  That was Milton's theme. So, when we think, as we sometimes do, that hooks which men write are unwise or inconvenient, or do not improve harmony, or injure comity, it is a useful discipline to remember Milton's views. Let everybody, then, write what books he likes, when he likes, about whatever matters, whether they concern him or concern others. Even though he be in error, let us remind ourselves that all errors
  "known, read, and collated, are of main assistance towards the speedy ascertainment of what is truest."
  But what conceivable relevance has this admirable doctrine to the question we are now discussing? Does anybody in his senses suppose that everybody who feels like it should have his own broadcasting station, just as anyone may publish a book? Obviously not. The nature and the circumstances of the thing make it impossible, and even the Government, who are so anxious to "set the people free," and to trust them, are giving them only the choice of listening to either the B.B.C. or this new station. That is their great endeavour to end monopoly.
  Now I want to tell the Lord Chancellor, so that he may understand quite plainly, why we distrust this scheme, why we think it will have a had tendency. The B.B.C. have their instructions—and the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, will correct me if I am wrong. I believe I am right in saying that every public broadcasting company in every country has substantially the same instructions, and they are to provide for education, information and entertainment—three very well known words—education, information and entertainment. When the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, asked, as he did ask: "Is television to be educational wholly, or is it to be entertainment?" the answer is: it is certainly not to be educational wholly or entertain-

  687
  ment wholly; it is to be a balanced programme in which all these three desiderata should be looked after.
  I notice incidentally—and it cannot be an accident, since the phrase is so well known—that, when I turn to the White Paper, I see that it refers, in the second line of the last page, to "this medium of information and entertainment," but leaves out "education." Why? I hope that I am not being a prude or prejudiced, or a Puritan, when I say that education, properly administered, can be very entertaining and exceedingly interesting. Indeed, my own experience of television is that I have enjoyed most some of the educational films they have put on—nature studies and the like. We are now told that the basic principle in this White Paper is that there should be no sponsoring, and we are told in the White Paper that there is a vast difference between accepting advertisements and sponsoring. There may or there may not be a vast difference and the test—now I come down to the point; I am sorry to think that the Lord Chancellor has not yet apprehended it in our arguments—is this: does the advertiser influence the programme?
  I did not like the idea of advertising which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, put forward in his addendum to his Report, but let us be quite clear about this. That form of advertisement would not influence the programme. I dislike it. You may say it is on grounds of prejudice or æsthetic grounds that I dislike it, but it does not seem to me a vicious system like the present system. It is analogous to the Press, because the Press—at least the reputable Press—do not, and could not possibly, allow their policy to be influenced by their advertisers. But what is the position here? There is a paper from which Lord Samuel quoted yesterday, produced by the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners and Advertisers, and they put it very frankly and fairly, though their English is not very good. They say:
  "The advertiser would be able to buy into the audience or audiences most likely to be interested in his product"—
  I ask your Lordships to note the words "buy into the audience or audiences." What does that mean? It means he will
  688
  not advertise unless he approves the programme. I would beg the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to note this, because he and Lord Samuel were at difference yesterday about it. The parallel with the Press would be this: that the advertiser would come to the Press and say, "First show me your leader, and then I will tell you whether I advertise or not. "That is the parallel; and as things are, of course, whether it is on the cinema screen or advertising in the Press, the advertiser does not have any control over the policy of the paper. Of course, he knows what paper he chooses; he knows the general tendency of that paper. But he has no sort of control over what is published in that paper. That is the whole difference.
  A NOBLE LORD: No.
  EARL JOWITT: A noble Lord says "No." At any rate, we are now getting to the issue. I maintain that this analogy to the Press is wholly misleading. I say that in this case the advertiser does control what is going to be published he does control the programme. He goes to the programme company and says to them: "Let me see what you are going to put on. "He does not merely buy time, he buys time in connection with a particular programme, and if he does not like that programme he will not buy that time. That is the vital difference. Therefore the advertiser will have control over what is going to be put on the screen. You may say (and I am trying to be fair about this) that the advertiser has no direct control. Well, that depends. I should like to know more about these programme companies before I agree to that. How are you going to prevent the advertiser from getting control of the programme company? I know it is said that the advertisers' associations do not encourage this sort of thing, but you must think of what may happen. What is to prevent the advertiser not using his own name, but in order to get control of the programme company putting his own nominee on the board? How can you stop that? But whether or not the advertiser has a direct control, this much is quite certain—he has an indirect control. He is paying the piper and, my Lords, he is going to call the tune.
  LORD SALTOUN: Would the noble and learned Earl pardon me if I ask him a question, because I want to understand his argument? Does he say that in the case of a newspaper the withdrawal of all its advertisements would never affect the control of the paper, while in the case of a programme company it will?
  EARL JOWITT: Of course it will; it is bound to. The programme company have to live; broadcasting has to go on. Their only source of income is advertisements.
  LORD SALTOUN: Is not that so with the newspapers?
  EARL JOWITT: No, certainly not.
  LORD TEYNHAM: How can they live without advertisements?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I should like the noble and learned Earl to make a categorical statement in this House that all newspapers can get on without advertisements.
  EARL JOWITT: I do not say that for a moment. I should think it is very unlikely. What I do say is that no reputable newspaper is influenced in its policy by its advertisements.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a most important point. I hope the noble and learned Earl will forgive my interrupting, but the point he is making is that newspapers are dependent on advertisements, that they would go broke unless they had advertisements, but that it does not make a ha'p'orth of difference to them in the policy they pursue. Exactly the same condition, he says, will exist with regard to the programme companies, but they will be influenced. There is no logical argument in that, if I may say so.
  EARL JOWITT: The noble Marquess is good enough to assert that there is no logical argument. That is the argument that I am advancing, and perhaps he will allow me to advance it. What I am saying is that if the position were that the advertiser could go round to a newspaper, look through a leading article and say, "I like that leading article you can have an advertisement from me," and then to another paper and say. "This leading article I do not care about; it
  690
  does not represent my views; no advertisement," that would be direct control by the advertiser of the Press. That is what is going on under your system.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No.
  EARL JOWITT: Would the noble Marquess please allow me to develop this point, because I believe he has not followed it at all. The advertiser is going round to the programme company, not merely to state his advertisement: he is going to see in connection with what programme that advertisement is going to appear. That is the plan here.
  EARL DE LA WARR: No, it is not. The station is not in operation. That is what the noble and learned Earl imagines is going to happen. It is not happening as the noble and learned Earl suggests to-day.
  EARL JOWITT: If I may say so, that is a very silly interruption. Of course it is not happening to-day. This is what is going to happen. We all know that the plan is not in operation—everybody knows that; every child of two knows that. What we are discussing is what is going to happen when the station comes into operation. So far as I understand (I am reading this little excerpt from this document called Television, written by the experts who say they have had consultation with the Government) what is going to happen is:
  "The advertiser would be able to buy into the audience or audiences most likely to be interested in his product."
  If he is offered a programme which he does not like and which he thinks has a small appeal, he will say, "No advertisement." But if it is a programme of wide popular appeal, then he will buy into it. That is the vital difference in this matter between this plan and the newspapers.
  Now that being so, I believe that this would have the tendency to debase programmes, and I will tell you just why. "No man can serve two masters." If you have a company composed of high-minded men who have to provide education, information and entertainment, and at the same time have to please their advertisers in order to live, then they will be doing two wholly inconsistent things which will clash. Instead of having a single-minded desire to carry out their obligation to provide a balanced pro-

  691
  gramme, part education, part information and part entertainment, they will be checked at every turn by the advertisers. I make no attack on the advertisers at all; I am simply talking hard-boiled common sense. The advertisers are going to spend their shareholders' money, and they have no right to spend their shareholders' money unless those shareholders are going to get a fair return. They have therefore to see that their advertisements appear in connection with a programme with a wide appeal. I should have thought that that is plain common sense.
  Your Lordships may like to know how this matter appeals to the trade union concerned, the Association of Cinematograph and Allied Technicians—why the laughter? Would the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, tell me why he laughs?
  LORD HAWKE: Competitors.
  EARL JOWITT: Even the trade unions are entitled to have their views put before Parliament, and I propose, in spite of the laughter, to tell your Lordships what their wish is. After all, they are not a lot of old antiquated fossils who know nothing about it; they know a good deal about it. This is what they say:
  "Despite the ingenious attempts of the Government to devise safeguards on the quality of product and to restrict the influence of advertisers on the contents of the programmes, we hold that these 'safeguards' are doomed to failure for the simple reason that the competitive channels will be solely dependent upon the revenue to be derived from the advertisers and it is common sense that the advertiser will only advertise if he is satisfied with the service he receives. If he dislikes the programme in which his advertisement will be set he will seek to change the nature of that programme, and as failure to do so would mean the closing down of the television channel the advertiser is bound to have a substantial degree of success.
  But even before these difficulties developed, if indeed they did, it would naturally be the policy of the television service to cater for such a programme as is most likely to appeal to advertisers. This means putting on programmes planned to obtain the largest audience and pride of place goes not to the enjoyability of a programme but to the universality of its appeal."
  I do not believe, from what I have seen of this circular, that this particular organisation is in any way wedded to the idea of the B.B.C. For instance, they say:
  "Although we have no quarrel with the companies which have so far been established for
  692
  the purpose of making films to be shown on sponsored television (in regrettably marked contrast to our dealings with the B.B.C.)."
  They also point out—and incidentally we might bear this in mind—that there is a vast mass of American television material which is waiting to be dumped on the British television network, and they request that the Government take steps to see, when they come to the Bill, as indeed they will come, that at least 80 per cent. of the stuff to be televised is British. That seems to me to be perfectly sound.
  Now what is our case? We certainly want to do what the people want. We certainly in no sense claim to have any right to act as censors of the people. We cannot do it. The problem is this. We are to have an alternative television programme. It should, as I believe, for a trial period, be provided by the B.B.C. by internal competition. I know it will involve a larger licence fee; that I quite realise. If you prefer, let it be set up and organised by a separate public service corporation on the lines of the B.B.C., a corporation concerned to provide education, information and entertainment. But do not have it set up by people who on the one hand are trying to give education, information and entertainment, but on the other hand are placed in the cruel position of having to please their masters, big business in order to get a living to enable them to carry on at all. We say that that is an impossible situation in which to put these people. I do not believe for one moment that we shall see pornographic films or anything of that sort. What I think we shall have—or there is a very grave risk of having—is a general lowering of the whole standard. That is far more difficult to deal with than any serious lapse of taste or decent morals.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble and learned Earl mean a lowering of B.B.C. standards?
  EARL JOWITT: I am very unlucky to-day, I am afraid. I do not seem to be making myself understood.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Earl spoke of a general lowering.
  EARL JOWITT: I meant a general lowering of public taste—I said "standard," not "taste." That is what

  693
  I am afraid will happen. It is all very well to brush aside American experience. Let me mention an experience in Australia and New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand have not yet got television, but they have got ordinary sound broadcasting, and they have had a system under which there is competition of this kind between commercial advertising, on the one hand, and a sort of local B.B.C., on the other. While I have not sufficient experience of my own to come to a conclusion, I have talked to a large number of people from both those countries. In both cases they tell me they have not evolved at all a happy system. I will venture to say that if your Lordships inquire for yourselves from people out there you will find that the system has not worked out well.
  The only places, so far as I know, where they have his commercial television are the United States and Canada. I do not want to elaborate the matter, but I must say that I read the other day a striking article by Mr. P. G. Wodehouse, who has given me many a happy hour. He says that he thinks it
  "the foulest, ghastliest, loathsomest nightm are ever Inflicted by science on a suffering human race, and the programmes, except for the Friday night fights, the most drivelling, half-witted productions ever seen outside Guest Night at Colney Hatch."
  That puts it adequately. And I am very sorry for the Americans who are just as good and decent people as we are, perhaps more so, though unfortunate in having had this system thrust upon them. Now it is there they cannot get rid of it. There are very large numbers of them who wish to goodness they had not had it thrust upon them. I beg the Government to think again about this matter. Is it too late, even now? They will, of course, win this Division, and they may have a bare majority in the country on this matter—though I very much doubt it. I suggest it would be something of the order of 51 per cent. dictating to the 49 per cent. It is a pity, a thousand pities, that this subject has to be thrown into the vortex of Party politics. Cannot the noble Marquess, even now, by the exercise of his great ingenuity and statesmanship, find some way out of this? For the stakes for which we play in this matter are of immense importance to this country.
  694
  I wish this matter could be considered in a calmer atmosphere. So far as I am concerned, I have taken no part whatever in any lobbying. I have heard these stories of "Elderly Peers"—I think that is what they are called and I am afraid I am in that category myself—whispering together in dark corners. There seems lo have been nothing like it since the days of Guy Fawkes. All I did was to take part in a meeting. We met to decide the question who was going to speak on this matter in the unfortunate absence of the noble Earl, Lord Halifax; and since we are drawn from all Parties we had to have an ad hoc meeting. I have been addressed by the National Television Council and by the Public Council of Television. I have been told, on the one hand, that everyone hates the scheme, and on the other hand that everyone thinks it the best scheme ever. Unfortunately, so far as I am concerned I have not said anything to anyone about it. Now I have expressed my views. I devoutly hope that even at this last hour your Lordships will save us from this misery of sponsored television or its next door neighbour, commercial television as outlined in this White Paper.
  3.39 p.m.
  LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I was brought up in a Radical tradition. Therefore, it is not unusual for me to find myself in opposition to authority. But to find myself, as I do to-day, at variance with my revered Leader, not to mention other Members who sit on this Bench, is quite a new experience for me, and one which I hope will not be too often repeated. But we are here to speak accord-to our consciences, and I propose to do so. I must also disclose an interest, for one of the newspapers with which I am connected has applied for a licence, in response to the invitation which was issued by the Postmaster General a few months ago. The conditions are somewhat changed and, like other major newspapers in the country, we shall have to consider what attitude to adopt under the scheme in the White Paper or, still more likely, wait until the draft Bill is available and see what changes are made. However, we see that in every country in the world where there is commercial television the newspapers are, and must be, intimately associated with it, and clearly, it was sensible for the chief national newspapers to put in their claim

  695
  for licences. But from the financial point of view, this interest is rather an interest in reverse. We do not know to whom the licences are going, or whether the scheme will be profitable in operation. What we do know for certain is that if this White Paper scheme comes into existence, the newspapers will not get more advertising revenue, and they may get a good deal less. In spite of that, I propose to speak, as we must all, from the public interest, and not from a personal one.
  I have always had a misgiving about the B.B.C. monopoly. Liberals dislike monopoly in all its forms. But the dangers from the monopolies we dislike in the economic field are as nothing compared to the dangers from a monopoly in matters of the mind. Frankly, it does not get us much further to compare monopolies of that type with the question of whether there should be one or two dustmen to collect the dust along the street. My interest in this question was just that of an ordinary observer until, about ten years ago, during the war, I came into contact with the problem of monopoly in broadcasting. It happened that I went with a Press Commission to Australia.
  One of the chief contacts we made was with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Sydney. Your Lordships have been reminded time and again that in Australia there is a double system, a Corporation, on the model of the B.B.C., and commercial television, on the model of the United States. There was also, at the time we were there, a Parliamentary Commission to whom the A.B.C. reported. To my surprise, this dual system was supported by the top executives of the A.B.C., who told us that while it was a hard fight to maintain cultural standards, the existence of commercial circuits was the major protection against strict Government control and interference by Parliament. It was the competition of commercial radio which made it possible for the A.B.C. not only to widen their selection and choice of artistes, a matter which was mentioned last night by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, but also to take a much freer line in their political talks and in their engagement of political and other commentators than would otherwise have been the case. It
  696
  may be that some people in Australia do not think too highly of their system, but it was my first direct experience of the matter, and I have been watching it ever since.
  It is said that the achievements of the B.B.C. are the answer to the charge that that Corporation is subject to the disadvantages normally associated with monopoly—bureaucracy, unwillingness to take risks and so on. The achievements of the B.B.C. have been fine indeed, and it is justified in taking the greatest pride in them. Certainly we are all extremely proud of the rôle which it played during the war. But the B.B.C. puts its case far too high when it claims that monopoly is essential for the maintenance of standards. I do not propose to follow that line of argument, because it has been eloquently developed by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. The Beveridge Report rejected that claim, but to my mind it is most effectively rejected by the experience of other countries which have commercial radio or television. The fact is that the variety of performance on radio and television in the United States is so great that in many respects the United States programmes fall below the British standard, but in many other respects they are unquestionably better, more lively and more vigorous than our own. I would also add that, in the case of television, all the information I have had a chance of weighing up shows that during the last two years in particular the development of television in the United States, technically and with regard to subject matter, has made immense strides forward.
  I do not think that a really unbiased examination of the situation in the United States could possibly justify the general proposition that radio or television into which an element of private profit enters, or which is based on advertising, is necessarily one which is going downhill. Reference was made yesterday to the high level of music which is to be heard on the radio in the United States. My own experience is more closely connected with talks and political commentary, and I have no doubt at all that in the history of broadcasting the United States has led the way in the variety of topical comment on political issues and the freedom allowed to the commentator.
  Yesterday the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, expressed the opinion that

  697
  he had suffered very little from constraints in the B.B.C. I do not find his views maintained by those who have experience of both systems. Almost unanimously those who have operated under both systems confirm the general conclusion I have reached. Those who think nothing but bad can come out of commercial radio would do well to reflect upon the fact that our major Dominions have adopted a composite system, although they have had before their eyes the object lesson of a public service corporation, on the one hand, and commercial radio, on the other. They have seen both systems and one after another they have adopted a combination of the two. Can it really be true that they are all out of step except this country? The Motion before us accepts the need for an alternative television programme, but it is not enough merely to give consumer choice. If there is to be true competition, the alternative must also be controlled and inspired by a different authority, if it is to avoid what Mr. Selwyn Lloyd calls a "uniform view of thought and culture." That is largely the answer, I believe, to the point which has just been stressed by the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition.
  This need of variety is particularly marked in the new industry of television, which has opened up such a vast new field in the means of communication of ideas between man and man. I do not claim to be a "fan" of either radio or television. I find it terrifying and most disagreeable to hear a radio going on all day. Although I have seen television from the earliest days—I had the opportunity of seeing the Derby on the television screen in 1938—I do not find it an attractive way of looking at things, and therefore I do not speak as a "fan." But no one with the slightest imagination can doubt that we are on the threshold of a tremendous revolution. One noble Lord yesterday spoke about the effect on the children. Everyone who is a parent or a grandparent knows that television will play an immense rôle in the lives of our children and grandchildren. But, for my part, I am equally impressed by the impact on the generation between the ages of twenty and fifty—that generation which is about to take charge in so many of our affairs. I have been astonished by the number of
  698
  persons in the journalistic profession of that range of age who have been fired by an interest in this new medium.
  The uses of television are increasing every day. The Press cuttings show new uses in education, in industry, science, medicine and military operation. It will enable the fishing industry to follow the shoals of fish under the sea; it will assist police detection, and will enable loading operations outside a building to be followed and controlled by someone sitting inside the building in a protected, warm room. I have before me, among the cuttings I have been looking at, a report of a course arranged and carried out by television by one university in the United States. The authorities of the university report that they had 1,000 students taking this course in education. The report goes on to say that there were 10,000 people who bought the textbooks, and to some of the classes there was an audience of 50,000. When it is known that the public respond in that way to a television class, is it possible to avoid putting on the television screen matters which are of great educational importance? I do not mind what words are put into this White Paper; it is certain that commercial television in this country must put such things on to the screen. As I say, the journalistic profession realises that it is up against a new medium of communication, and a serious rival to the printed word in the conveyance of news, views and the interpretation of events; and, following the thought of the Lord Chancellor, I include in that music, art and so on. We of the Press must learn either to associate or, at all events, to live with this newcomer. Is it sensible that the whole of this new development, this enormous new sphere, should be under the control of a single group of people?
  I am by nature an optimist, but one of the things I have found depressing in recent years has been that while so many of the great inventions of the last fifty years have been made here in Britain—and we are proud of them—so many of them have been left to be developed anti established elsewhere. In my own industry, the Linotype machine was irvented here in London, but for decades the British Press paid fees to the American company which developed it and controlled the patent. It also occurs in the iron and steel industry (I had occasion

  699
  to mention that to your Lordships some time ago) and in other industries as well. Atomic energy, also, is a British concept which, in a major way, has been taken into the hands of the Americans for development. Are we going to allow this television concept, devised here, to be developed in the United States of America, and take the subsequent elaborations of it, whether in its technique or in its use, only after they have been developed and produced there? That is why some of us feel passionately that we should not allow this enormous new field that is opening up before us to be straitjacketed in Britain.
  There are a number of other speakers, and I do not wish to take up too much time, but before I leave the question of monopoly I should like to make two other short comments. The first is that it is sometimes said that we can afford to have monopoly in the air because we have a free Press. I do not think that is a wise ground on which to base our policy, having regard to the future. I do not believe that the criticisms made a year or two ago about the monopolistic tendencies in the British Press have much foundation, but they could be there. The important thing is that we may be reaching a point where television will take over from the printed word a great deal of the distribution of news and views, and its interpretation generally. We must ensure freedom of the air from the start, and not experiment with another form of monopoly. May I add this, in passing—and it is a point on which I am afraid I am at variance with my noble Leader, in particular; it was also mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. Why this talk of creating a new monopoly? The creation of a second so-called monopoly destroys monopoly. It creates competition, and it does so for both sides. If you have one channel under commercial control, with its subordinates in different towns, that can be called a monopoly; but it has the B.B.C. against it the whole time. It seems to me that that argument forgets the point that two monopolies are not twice as bad as one.
  My second point is a brief reference to public opinion. The noble and learned Earl who has just spoken referred to this matter, and it has been very freely said
  700
  that public opinion is against tampering with the monopoly of the B.B.C. The Gallup Poll, of course, does not confirm that impression. It is true that immediately after the Coronation the attitude in favour of B.B.C. television rose to a high peak, and in the month of June this year those who were in favour of maintaining the monopoly of the B.B.C. in television were 60 per cent., with 36 per cent. for commercial television and 4 per cent. expressing no opinion. By October, the figures had undergone a very great change. The 60 per cent. had dropped to 40 per cent. in favour of the B.B.C. monopoly, while the percentage in favour of commercial television had risen to 48, with 6 per cent. not expressing an opinion. The interesting thing was not merely that the lines had crossed, but that, when analysed to show the vote of those in possession of television sets, the figures showed that 57 per cent. of those possessing television, as against 48 per cent. among the general public, wanted commercial television. I should explain that that poll, which was published the day after the publication of the White Paper, was in fact taken before the White Paper was published and before its contents were known. I am quite sure that if and when a new poll is taken after the reservations and control of the White Paper have been taken into account, it will certainly show a much higher figure in favour of commercial television.
  I mention that point, not because I wish those figures to influence the minds of your Lordships, who are asked to discuss this on its merits and not merely to follow a Gallup Poll, but because it seems to me necessary to indicate that the suggestions to the contrary are not really founded on fact.
  I turn briefly to the subject of finance and the problem of advertising. I find myself here quite unable to accept the presumption so freely made that to accept advertisements, or indeed to work for profit, must necessarily be degrading. Lord Beveridge referred yesterday to the Note which he and two of his colleagues appended to the Broadcasting Report in which they dissociated themselves from this attitude towards advertising, and that Note was again referred to by the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the implications of that Note, but

  701
  I disagree with Lord Beveridge and those of your Lordships' House who have asserted that no lessons are to be drawn from the analogy with newspapers. I feel strongly that many analogies are to be drawn and many lessons learnt.
  Let me state one or two propositions familiar to anyone concerned with the commercial side of newspapers. The national papers of London with the largest circulation tend, on the whole, to devote the smallest proportion of their space to advertisements. I think that that is probably a universal rule, though I would not say that it is invariable. But generally speaking it is true, and it is true of London. The Leader of the House yesterday was quite right when he intervened to point the converse: that the smallest newspapers have the highest percentage of advertisements and are most dependent upon advertising revenue; that their expenses—the cost of newsprint which they use, and so on—are small and the percentage of dependence on advertising rises very high. Are we to conclude, in that case, that there is this process of degradation going on in the local Press of the country, to which so many people look to ensure the freedom of the Press?
  The opposite, too, is true: that the highest percentage of advertisements in the national Press is to be found in the highest grade newspapers, and they also command the highest rate per inch of space per thousand readers. The small newspapers with the high-grade circulation command a much higher rate per inch per thousand. The reason is not far to seek. The advertiser does not seek merely numbers in any medium. He seeks purchasing power, and therefore he goes for the medium which has the largest number of readers likely to purchase and with the means of purchasing. That is why the operator under sponsored broadcasting in the United States puts on a high-grade programme. He does so because he will tend to get a better class of listener, just as the newspaper's policy is related to the character of those who read. And while it is also true that numbers count, there is nothing wicked about it.
  Then the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken said that the advertiser bases his advertisement on Programme
  702
  "A" and therefore Programme "A" will be inserted. That choice exists in newspapers, because the advertiser is perfectly free to decide. If he wants the front page and the newspaper says, "No, you have to go on the sports page," the advertiser will not put it in if it is the sort of thing that does not make an appeal to the sports reader.
  EARL JOWITT: As to the position of the newspaper, the noble Lord has a great knowledge about these matters, and I have none; but does the noble Lord tell me that any reputable newspaper is influenced, in the policy it pursues, by its advertisers, and that it alters its leaders to suit the taste of the advertiser?
  LORD LAYTON: No, certainly not. But I am giving the reasons for considering, as I do, that the policy of those who run commercial television enterprises will not be decided by going round to advertisers and saying, "What sort of policy would you like?" Their primary consideration will be in establishing a reputation for their circuits. They will try to establish the prestige of their circuits, so that the knob will be turned on to their telecasts, and the fact that they have succeeded on their judgment in creating a great organ will enable them to go to the advertiser and say, Look, these are the kind of people who are ringing me up." Of course the advertiser will say, "Well, you don't expect me to put on an advertisement for the Encyclopœdia Britannica on the Children's Hour." Of course there will be some give-and-take in that respect. But I most emphatically insist that there is an analogy between the Press and what will happen under commercial television, and that it does not lend colour to the view that there must necessarily be this degradation. There is, too, a difference between the system of sponsoring and a system of advertising. However, I have no time to develop that theme: I have already exceeded my time. For my part, I also do not think that there is any difference—as is so frequently asserted—between the operation of what I would call these laws, that is to say the search for purchasing power, whether the advertisements are a part of the revenue of the stations or the whole. It seems to me that there is another fallacy. It would take too long to go far into this question of the method of advertising.

  703
  I come to my last point. It is the issue which was raised in the speech of the most reverend Primate yesterday—in what seemed to me, if I may say so, the speech of a businessman looking at a business proposition with considerable shrewdness. I am convinced that this issue of 100 per cent, advertising revenue, or some other percentage of advertising revenue, is a passing phase. Rather I would put it in this way: I am quite certain that the 100 per cent. dependence upon advertising revenue is a passing phase. It is passing in the United States. I question whether advertising revenue in Britain would be sufficient to maintain more than the single network which it is hoped to attain at present, and on the scale which it is hoped to operate under the White Paper. But there will be much more television than that, particularly after we get to the era of ultra-high frequency. There will be an immense expansion, and I do not for one moment think that all the different agencies, whether they are alternative corporations or purely commercial organisations, will live 100 per cent. on advertising revenue. I question whether there is enough. I think it would be unsound economically, because advertising revenue in this country, much more than in the United States, is to a certain extent unstable; it is not a sound basis.
  For the moment, the only alternative is to reconsider the licence fees which, in my judgment, can be increased. Television is the cheapest form of entertainment that there is, particularly where there are many in the family. The cost of the licence is at present about 1¼d. per day. That is a ludicrously low figure, measured in terms of what television provides, even at present. I believe the Americans are on the track of something which will give the answer to this question, and that is the system of "pay as you view." There are many methods of this system which are under trial and operation. There is the 1s. in the slot which unscrambles telecast "A." or telecast "B." for an hour. There are many other schemes of this kind which are being developed, and it is as certain as anything can be—I venture to make this prophecy—that it will surely be the case that some system of that kind will have to be devised. But, in the meantime, I believe that the most reverend
  704
  Primate made a most useful contribution in suggesting that Her Majesty's Government should not close their minds to the problem of finance of the B.B.C. system on the one hand, and the commercial system on the other.
  If this Motion goes to a Division, I shall certainly cast my vote against it—not because I agree with every one of the details, but because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, that we are discussing questions of principle. I approve the questions of principle, in the sense that the White Paper provides for a modification of the monopoly of the B.B.C. in matters of television which are so vitally important and which, in my judgment, imperatively demand competition, both in technique and in the field of programme-making and so forth. I support it because I do not share—indeed I think it is based upon false argument—the view that advertising necessarily degrades. I believe that advertising will perhaps permanently, but certainly for a long time to come, be one of the most important alternative sources of revenue, and I think the scheme is reasonably elastic. On those three principles, without reference to the detail, I should certainly vote against the Motion turning down this proposition. Nevertheless, I share the views of the most reverend Primate that this launching out into a new part of the sea, this new journey that we are about to make, should, so far as possible, be made by common consent. I would hope that the Leader of the House could say something which would enable the movers of this Motion to withdraw it, in order that the new policy may be one which will command the general assent of the country.
  4.16 p.m.
  LORD BRAND: My Lords, we have listened to a good many long speeches and. therefore, I propose not to detain your Lordships for many minutes, because there are some important speeches to come in the next hour and a half. I wish, therefore, to refer only to one or two points. First of all, I believe I can explain the accusation of lobbying. I have not taken part in any lobbying, but the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, saw me having tea with Sir Ian Jacob. Sir Ian Jacob had not come to have tea with me, but with Lord Cherwell. The noble Earl saw me talking to him afterwards, and I believe that was the origin of the opprobrious term of "lobbying."

  705
  I must say that I think the admirable speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack consisted largely of ninepins which he set up himself and then demolished with a great deal of oratory. He gave up Milton but retained "Set the people free." I do not think that the White Paper will set the people free. As the White Paper says, at present there can be only one network, and, if I understand anything about television or broadcasting—and it is very little—programme planning is a matter of exceeding difficulty, and on one network will require a great deal of co-operation and combination. Therefore, I should say that until further frequencies come into operation we may have one company, or at any rate only few companies, acting in close co-operation and probably financially connected. As we have heard so often, all the revenue for this is to come from advertisements.
  I should like to make clear that I am a businessman, and I have no doubt whatever that businessmen are just as good as anybody else in the community. Nor have I anything against advertisements. As a businessman, however, I must express a strong hope that the total amount of advertising will never be equal to that which now faces the American public in that country. I do not think businessmen are more perfect than others. Everybody recognises that they must make profits and not losses unless they want later to have to rely on what is called National Assistance and go out of business. I am quite sure the programme company will make as much profit as it can. The first conclusion I draw, therefore, from all this is that the freedom of the individual, when this new Corporation gets into action, will be increased only by the fact that the viewer can see an alternative programme, and, secondly, that there will be one other body besides the B.B.C. to invite individuals to sing or debate or act before the public. The total addition to individual freedom and setting the people free is just that. But is there going to be any more freedom for minorities? In my opinion, none; indeed, so far as the B.B.C. is weakened, there will be less.
  It is here that the White Paper is weak, and it is in connection with that subject that I want to say something about a
  706
  question that caused a little controversy between the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. The Government take the view that, if sponsoring is prohibited, all is well. But that is not so. Sponsoring maybe bad, although sometimes it produces the best programmes. As your Lordships know, in the United States companies like the General Electric Company and General Motors—the biggest companies—put on sponsored programmes of a most admirable kind. They are very dignified: symphony concerts and so on; and that sort of sponsored programme would be the best kind of television that you could have.
  But commercial buying of time is just as bad as sponsored television; there is no difference of principle. There is no difference between the two methods. The only important question in the end is, who pays for the programmes and what sort of tune he wants. Those who pay under commercial television must, almost universally, in my view (notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Layton, has just said) except, perhaps, for certain classes of prestige advertising, require the largest possible audience. The bigger the audience the more they will pay for the advertising. The programme company's interests are therefore identical with the advertiser's interests. One gets bigger sales and the other more revenue. The largest possible audience in sound broadcasts and in television, too, means programmes of the easiest and simplest standards—with the same standards as those of the newspapers which appeal to the greatest majority. In the case of the newspapers, minorities are catered for because some papers exist for that purpose—The Times, the Manchester Guardian, the Telegraph and other papers of that kind, which, with a comparatively small circulation, appeal only to a minority of the population. It is because they appeal to a minority of the population that they get a much smaller circulation than some other papers.
  Advertisers using newspapers choose those which suit their purpose best. They may choose, for instance, the News of the World, with 8,000,000 readers, or they may choose The Times or the Manchester Guardian according to the people they wish to reach. The great difference

  707
  between newspapers and television is that with the former the advertiser knows the circulation of each paper, and he knows the type of reader. He does not have to put pressure on the editor, because he knows the type of reader, and knows the character of the paper. He knows the class of people to whom he is appealing. In television, everything is different. How can the advertiser be sure of collecting, for instance, an audience on television like The Times readers? How can he be sure to collect a Manchester Guardian or Daily Telegraph audience, even with a highbrow, or what is called a highbrow, programme? As all American experience shows, he will aim for the largest possible audience which will be largely the audience appealed to by newspapers with the largest possible circulation. I am not criticising them for doing so. They have in America, I think a system of assessing the value of an advertisement in any particular programme. It is called the Hoover rating. A rating of 30 means that 30,000,000 people are likely to listen, and a rating of 5 would mean that 5,000,000 people are likely to listen.
  Unlike newspaper readers, who have twenty-four hours in which to read the advertisements, the viewer of an advertisement on television has only three to six minutes, and he must see what he is wanted to see within that period. For this the advertiser pays dearly and he must be certain of an audience which is the largest possible and which is also intent upon seeing. If the advertisement comes at the end of an item in a programme it is vital to the advertiser to know what this item is and what the item coming on afterwards is going to be, so that he can get the viewers' attention at the particular moment between. Therefore, in the case of the newspapers the situation is entirely different from the television situation. It is perfectly true that newspapers could not live without advertisements. But that is totally different from a business in which the advertising is the whole revenue.
  It is quite misleading to suppose that those who are supporting this Motion object to what is called "debasing" the public mind. The objection they have to the White Paper has nothing to do with what has been termed "debasement."
  708
  The objection is that programmes are wholly financed by advertisers' money and that, therefore, the promoters must aim at the largest possible audience—and that means the lowest standard. Moreover I dislike intensely the thought that in a few years a very large part of the population will live for hours a day in the atmosphere of salesmanship in their homes, forced on them willy-nilly. In commercial television the principal object is not education, or enlightenment, but selling goods. It still remains to me a complete mystery why the Government have taken the course they have. Many say that the mass of the people cannot be educated, or their taste be lifted, or their knowledge of affairs increased, or their capacity to act as good citizens improved. I do not take that view at all. We live in a period of universal democracy. If I did take that view I should despair of democracy itself. The fundamental difference in this debate is, I think, between those who wish to try and enlighten as well as entertain democracy and those who think that any such efforts are merely highbrow nonsense and that the people must be given what they want. I profoundly disagree with that view. For every reason, I support this Motion and still hope that at the eleventh hour the Government will see the light.
  4.30 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the remarkable debate of the last two days was started by the noble Viscount. Lord Hailsham, in a forceful speech full of Biblical quotation. I listened just now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brand, and I have also listened to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I at once went to the Bible to try to find something to describe my feelings. I went to Job, where I found these words:
  "Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken, because they were elder than he.
  When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled."
  My wrath is not exactly kindled, but my hopes dwindled, as I listened to those successive speeches, that we were going to hear an effective defence for the continuance of the monopoly of mind that the B.B.C. at present exercise over the citizens of our country.

  709
  Before I say a word upon that question of monopoly, I should like to say something about this question of an appeal for a free vote in your Lordships' House, an appeal by various noble Lords, including the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Jowitt, to take this question out of the arena of Party politics. My question would be: who put it into the arena of Party politics? The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said that he had sent out no Whip. He said: "We gain nothing in your Lordships' House by a Division." If that is so, I sincerely hope that the movers of this Motion will not press it to a Division, because it seems to me impossible for the Government not to put on the Whips. In the gracious Speech from the Throne, the following was contained:
  "My Ministers will lay before you their proposals for…television development."
  Mr. Attlee, on behalf of the Labour Party, has expressed absolute opposition to any such proposals as the Government are now putting forward. It seems to me ludicrous to expect any Government with any self-respect and with any degree of authority to be willing to put to a free vote in either House of Parliament a subject of major importance in the gracious Speech from the Throne upon which the Opposition have said that they will vote to resist on every possible occasion.
  It is quite true that the Government have said—and I think we who support the Government are glad that they have said it—that they will consider everything that is said in this debate. But, as I understand it, we are going to vote, if this matter is pressed to a Division, upon the broad question of policy, and Her Majesty's Government have expressed a willingness, not to reconsider that policy but to reconsider the methods of implementing that policy. There is a deep and fundamental difference on that. It also seems to me that there is a great inconsistency in the minds of those who advocate a free vote. As the Lord Chancellor so forcibly said, they deny to the electors of this country what they themselves are asking for in this House. We have, as the Lord Chancellor reminded us, a highly educated democracy, and if Lord Hailsham's dictum is right, that broadcasting is part of democracy, then give democracy the chance to judge for
  710
  themselves; because if the commercial programme does not appeal, then the project will "flop" and fail.
  Why not give them, again to quote the noble Viscount's excellent expression, "the freedom of the knob"? Let them choose. It seems to me that the denial of this right to the electors is virtually an insult by those who support this Motion to the intelligence of the electorate. I see that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is not at the moment in his place, but there are present certain noble Lords who are leaders of the Opposition. I should like to ask this and, if it is not answered to-night, I think we are entitled, and I think the nation is entitled, to an answer at some time. Do the Opposition, the Labour Party, pledge themselves, if and when they are returned to power, to close down commercial television, even if it is running successfully, even if it is popular in the country? Do they propose to nationalise it, or to close it down? I think the electors of the country are entitled to an answer to that simple and direct question.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I think many people would also like an answer to this question: have the Government a mandate for the step you are proposing
  LORD BALFOUR. OF INCHRYE: That does not answer the question. I am asking noble Lords opposite a perfectly simple question. We who support the Government consider that we have a mandate for doing this—and, thank goodness! I support a Government who are willing to govern, and do not consider themselves a delegate of a certain section of the electorate, but representative of all the citizens of the country.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is all very well, but why was it not in the Election Programme, if this was intended? It was well known that this issue would arise. Would it not have been more honest to tell the people what they were voting for?
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No. The noble Viscount is no child in politics. He may have a young head on middle-aged shoulders, but he is no child in politics. He knows quite well that the major work of a Government for each Session is put in the gracious Speech

  711
  from the Throne, and it is the gracious Speech which governs the particular work for the next few months.
  To revert for a moment to the great issue of monopoly, it was dealt with by various noble Lords including the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, objects to the word "monopoly." As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, reminded us yesterday, it was the noble Lord, Lord Reith, who said that it was the brute force of monopoly—"monopoly,"mind you—which enabled the B.B.C. to become what it did. I must leave the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Reith, to decide amongst themselves whether or not there is in fact a monopoly. What I think this monopoly means is this: that the B.B.C. planners have monopoly rights in the presentation of sound and television to 10 million pairs of ears and 2½ million pairs of eyes, and that monopoly would still exist if Lord Jowitt's proposal for an alternative secondary programme under the B.B.C. were adopted. No listener has ever heard in this country any single programme that has been unplanned by the B.B.C. Every programme must include what thy; B.B.C. planners consider should be included, and it must leave out that which the B.B.C. planners think would be bad for the listeners to hear.
  I know full well that the B.B.C. has no views of its own, but I submit to the House that the selection of particular views, or the suppression of other views and features distasteful to those who select them, can be as powerful an instrument as an expression of one's own views. One of the best examples is the keeping of Mr. (as he then was) Churchill off the air before the war. That was done by a select number of planners. This conception of culture by committee is a doubtful concept, which will undoubtedly be broken down by a range of programmes arranged from other sources, under the proposals of the Government. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, "You must not create one public corporation to compete with another." That was suggested by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. In fact, of course, the Government art not doing that, because the operation will be by the programme companies, and so will widen
  712
  the circle of selectors as to what the listeners of this country shall be allowed to hear.
  I believe this widening of the circle is required, because this debate has gone forward on the assumption that all in the B.B.C. is wise, good and pure. Certainly I think the B.B.C. has done a grand job of work. I have no wish to attack the B.B.C. But do not let us be smug about it, and say it is really only concentrating—to use the words of the National Television Council of which my noble friend, Lord Waverley, is President—
  "the spiritual and intellectual values which it has striven nobly to maintain."
  I certainly hope that commercial television will raise, rather than lower, the B.B.C. standards. The House is entitled to ask me to substantiate that statement. I wonder whether any of your Lordships noticed a television programme recently in which a charming young actress sang a song called Love for Sale, finishing up with her going up the stairs to a room, followed by two men. And I wonder whether some of your Lordships saw the serial the other day called, A Place of Execution. There was a national outcry at the final scene, which was filmed in the Chamber of Horrors, when the noose was put round the neck of the heroine of the serial and she narrowly escaped the fate of death.
  My noble friend Lord Hailsham, when he was speaking of intellectual and ethical standards, paid tribute to what happens on the children's television. He said that "Andy Pandy" was a family friend of the Hailshams; and it is of my family as well. But we are rather more liberal: we also go for "Muffin the Mule" and "Mr. Turnip." But there are certain features of the children's programmes which I submit should never be shown. The other day I turned on to a performance featuring Billy Bunter, and the first thing I saw was that somebody was shot in the stomach—not a very pretty sight for one's children.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Stick to Listen with Mother!
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: There is also a concentration upon gangsterism. The children's Teleclub concentrates on what is known as jive, dancing and all the superficialities of life. The worst example which I must submit

  713
  to your Lordships is something which occurred in the Third Programme—a piece of pornography which I believe ought not to have been printed, and certainly ought not to have been radioed. It was on Monday, April 13 last. I will not weary or disgust your Lordships with too much of these passages from True Confession; but when we think of the powerful peroration of Lord Samuel, in which he painted the picture of the Latin motto in Broadcasting House, signifying purity and the moral integrity of the B.B.C., I do not see how the noble Viscount or the most reverend Primate could possibly agree with the last verse of this particularly offensive document that was so recently broadcast. I must read six lines to your Lordships. They are:
  "Good God, let me recollect
  Your many mercies, tall and short,
  The blousy blondes, the often necked,
  And those whom I should not have thought
  Given wisely to me; nor let forget
  My grateful memory the odd
  Consolers, too frequently brunette,
  Who charged me for your mercies, God."
  That is the least offensive part of this particular document. I give your Lordships those examples just to try and debunk some part of the assumption that everything is so perfect in the B.B.C., and that the standards of commercialism will be so much lower.
  My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I thought very selflessly, deplored the prospect that the artistes may require higher fees, and that therefore the cost of production may go up. One of the great advantages of the Government proposals is that artistes will not be confined to one particular employer, whether that employer has one or two programmes, but there will be a greater range of opportunity, and I believe the public will benefit. Quite recently, a great musician from the Continent was willing to give a recital in London, and his agent quoted the lowest fee that that artiste could possibly accept. The B.B.C. refused to pay that fee. They did it on the ground that if they paid that fee then the fees of every other artiste in this country, and I suppose the comedians, would be raised. It seems to me that an artiste should not be depressed by a monopoly, but should be given greater opportunities by breaking the monopoly in the granting of new chances.
  714
  The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said something about the dislike of the trade unions of the Government proposals. He quoted one particular union. Let me, if I may, quote Mr. Sandison, the General Secretary of Equity, at the annual Trades Union Congress. He said this:
  "Fees for acting in the B.B.C. television shows are so low that no actor can make a living in that medium, although he satisfies the needs of many millions of viewers."
  We shall soon have Her Majesty's Government enjoying the support of a wide circle of professional artistes, because, far from regretting this decision, they will see greater opportunities. The Government scheme offers an alternative programme to listeners, at no extra cost and at an earlier date than any other proposals which we have heard mooted. I could not follow the noble and learned Earl's economics as to how the B.B.C. could produce a second programme, on, I think, a £3 licence fee. In fact, the B.B.C.'s accounts for 1952–53 show that £3·4 million was spent on television and this year the figure is something over £4 million—that is, on a single programme of limited hours, and with no regional studios. At present, there are 2½ million listeners with £2 licences, which, less the Government deduction, means that £1 goes to television and £1 to sound. Therefore, to-day sound is subsidising television, The B.B.C. has already asked for an increased fee, and I believe the alternative put forward in this Resolution would mean an increase, not of £2 to £3, but to something between £5 and £10. I think the listening public should realise the dangers of the highly increased cost which they face.
  Lord Hailsham's final "curtain," in a very dramatic passage, was to the effect that we are handing over broadcasting to commerce. That is as inaccurate as it is exaggerated. We are not handing over broadcasting to commerce. The B.B.C. sound monopoly will continue; tae B.B.C. television will continue untouched. He said that commercial television of this sort has never been tried. I do not think there is any disadvantage in trying something in this country that has never been tried before. We have done it before. We have succeeded in our own peculiar way, and succeeded pretty well. I could not understand one matter in the noble Viscount's speech, when he said that an

  715
  advertisement put on after the last "Amen" would repel people. He said later on that the success of this scheme was likely to be a danger to the Budget, because of it inflationary effect, I do not know which particular leg he wishes to stand on, but he cannot stand on both at the same time.
  My Lords, my final word to-day is to the Postmaster General. This scheme is going forward. I hope that it will pass into legislation, and that the Postmaster General will appoint to the various positions of responsibility in the scheme those who have faith in commercial television, just as those good Directors of the B.B.C. have faith in the B.B.C. I hope that he will appoint people who believe in the integrity of commercial life, who believe that commercial television as well as the B.B.C., has a mission. We are in the age of the aeroplane and the atom bomb, and the views of the most reverend Primate that television should be held back, that it is something almost regrettable, are out of date and outmoded. We have to move with the times—I do not mean the daily newspaper The Times, I mean the times in which we live. And the Government are doing that. I think the Government are courageous to have brought forward these proposals, and I hope that this Motion will be defeated in the Division Lobbies.
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down opened his speech with a statement and a question. His statement was to the effect that the Government had a mandate to bring in commercial television. That is not true. The matter was not put before the electors at the General Election. There was simply a reference to it in the Queen's Speech, and that does not mean that the Government have a mandate. The noble Lord asked who was responsible for bringing this subject into the sphere of Party politics. The answer to that is, the Government. One of the most remarkable things about the agitation which worked up in this connection was the spontaneity with which religious and educational organisations, first of all, protested most strongly against the White Paper proposals and described the possible dangers which they saw inherent in them. The next thing we heard was that
  716
  a two-line Whip had gone out. It was not a three-line Whip which would have given the impression that a matter bringing into question confidence in the Government was under consideration. A two-line Whip was sent out in order that support should be rallied for the Government's case. I should like to say that I am greatly delighted to see so many long-absent brethren as I have seen during these best two days. Some noble Lords who are now present I have never seen before. Others I have not seen for years. I am sure that they have come with perfectly open minds, to listen impartially to the debate in order that they may decide on the merits of the case. That being so we need surely have no doubt as to what the result will be when we go into the Division Lobbies.
  I should like to make it clear that, so far as I know, there was no hole and corner lobbying in this House. That noble Lords should have talked over this matter at the luncheon table or at the tea table was quite natural, for it was being talked of outside long before it assumed very much importance here. And supposing they did so discuss it, what is wrong with that? What is there wrong in noble Lords discussing together subjects upon which they will be called upon to give their opinion in this Chamber and to record their vote? Surely, that ought to be accounted to them for righteousness rather than anything else. I suggest that in this there is an indication that a certain amount of cheap opposition has been worked up on this subject.
  I wish now to refer to the reply of the Postmaster General—I am sorry he is not here, but that is not my fault—to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who opened this debate. I am bound to say, and I hope that I shall not be misunderstood, that the noble Earl rather reduced the matter to the lowest common denominator. That, also, to a large extent was the effect of the speech made by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. "Let the people have what they want" is the cry. What do they want? Who is going to decide what they want? A short time ago, we heard a most memorable and moving speech from the Liberal Benches by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. It was a speech that stirred the country and it called attention to some deplorable de-

  717
  generacy that is going on in our midst. Within the last few days, attention has been called to certain publications whose circulations are said to have soared very largely in consequence of the pornographic subjects with which they have dealt and the amount of sex and crime which they have featured. That sort of thing is what some of the people want.
  I venture to suggest, in spite of all that may have been said by way of debunking certain matters connected with the B.B.C., that there never was a more inopportune time to interfere with or alter an organisation which, over a number of years, has done much to raise the cultural and educational level of the people of this country. The B.B.C. has certainly brought home to masses of the population a substantial measure of culture and education. And it has brought them into touch with religious organisations, and so forth, which otherwise would not have been brought in touch with them. The B.B.C. has done that, and in all the speeches that have been made during these two days nobody has dared to do other than pay tribute to the great work this organisation has done over these years. Surely, while one admits there are faults, and indeed there must be faults and things that are capable of amendment, nevertheless this is not the time to wish to take steps which may well lead to a lowering of standards. Rather is it the time to do what is possible to give the Corporation the opportunity of doing greater good.
  I think it was the noble and learned Lord who sits en the Woolsack who wished to know exactly what we wanted. May I quote a resolution passed by the National Television Council, for it sets out what we want. This is the text of the resolution:
  "Television is so vital a medium that it should only be entrusted to those who are concerned in putting on good programmes without regard to their significance as a lure for the sale of advertised goods."
  There is nothing to be ashamed of in that. No aspersions are being cast on tradesmen and business people generally who seek by any legitimate means in their power to bring their goods to the notice of the public. In repeating what is set out in the resolution, one does not necessarily say that the tradesmen and business folk are wicked people. What is implied, probably, is that it is our duty
  718
  to curb certain matters that may be injurious and may be misused. It is our duty to do this in the interests both of the public and of our children. That is what the aim is.
  It has hitherto been the main business of the B.B.C.—do not know whether it has departed from it now—to bring a measure of culture and entertainment to the masses of the people. They have done that in a truly magnificent way over the years. None of us will ever forget the manner in which the Coronation and the celebrations which followed were dealt with by the B.B.C. I venture to say that their work could not have been bettered by any organisation. To bring the element of material gain into it I feel bound to say is something wrong. As yet no one, neither the Postmaster General nor the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, has told us why the Government are bringing in this proposed change. All we have had from the Postmaster General has been a simple repetition of what appears in the White Paper, and from the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack we have had some interesting illustrations of the game of setting up skittles and knocking them down again. But we got no further lead, and no further enlightenment as to what the object is.
  The present high standard of television is something which we want to improve upon. Surely it is well that men who have no motive whatever for seeking to make profit or further private interest, but are simply charged with the desire to serve the best they can in order to raise the general level of culture and education in this country, should be untrammelled in their work. Certainly it may be well to have opportunities for alternative programmes, but that is not to say that the guiding principle should be to "give the people what they want," but rather to seek to educate them and guide them in the same manner that the B.B.C. has done for so long. This House, equally with another place, has a responsibility to see that it is kept in the hands of those who have no interests other than the common good. There is no necessity to charge us with being malicious or wicked when we say it is only natural that if advertisers are called on to pay for television programmes, they want to make the best possible bargain.

  719
  Over a long political life I have never known a problem more essentially a non-Party problem. It concerns the taste, education and well-being of the people, without regard to their economic position. It gives an opportunity for the best of us to come together in concord and counsel to improve the system which has in the past already proved itself to be to the benefit of the people. The B.B.C. have been in existence for more than thirty years. With research and hard work they have built a machine that has been of great advantage to the people, as I think we all admit. It seems to me curious that when all this work has been done and a prosperous and desirable organisation has been created, capable of further extension, suddenly commercial interests have wakened up to the good of the people. They have been a long while coming in. They did not come in during the early stages to promote this organisation and build it up, but now they seek to obtain a hold on it. This House, more than any other Assembly, has the opportunity of considering this question objectively. But the call has gone out to bring up Members who normally never attend your Lordships' House, but who have come simply on the instruction that they have to go through a certain Lobby. This question is too serious for that sort of thing. Even at this late hour, I beg the noble Marquess who is to reply to give the House some hope that we may find ways and means of arriving at a better method of solving this difficulty.
  5.4 p.m.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, mine is a difficult rôle this afternoon, because I am speaking for others besides myself, and I am very conscious of the limitation of time. Nevertheless, I desire to indicate in the fewest possible terms what I believe to be the anxiety of Free Churchmen in this matter. Having been Vice-President of the Methodist Church as well as a Free Church Vice-President of the British Council of Churches, I am not altogether unconvers ant with the trend of opinion in the Free Churches. Perhaps, therefore, I may voice what I believe to be not only the keen interest, but, indeed, the anxious concern of vast numbers of Free Churchmen about the content of the prospective plans of Her Majesty's Government, as set out in the White Paper.
  720
  With your Lordships' indulgence, I propose to read a resolution that has been passed by the Methodist Conference. It is as follows:
  "The Conference deeply regrets the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to permit commercial television. It considers that the experiment of placing sound broadcasting under the direction of a public corporation has been so fully justified that only the most powerful arguments could warrant permission of commercial exploitation of television which is an even more influential medium of public opinion. The safeguards so far tentatively proposed seem to us to be inadequate.
  "The Conference agrees that some element of competition is desirable, but urges that such competition could best be achieved by so developing the television facilities of the British Broadcasting Corporation that an alternative programme could be made available.
  "The Conference further believes that this is a matter of broad public interest which Parliament should be permitted to decide by a non-Party vote."
  I must be quite frank with your Lordships. That resolution was passed before the issue of this last White Paper, but I submit that there is little or nothing in the White Paper to remove our apprehensions and misgivings.
  Brought down to bare facts, the overriding purpose of commercial television is not to entertain or instruct the public but to sell the products of advertisers. While the initial investment is to be provided by the Treasury or, in other words, by the taxpayer, the whole of the enormous expenditure required to run the service will be met from advertising revenue. As the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition remarked this afternoon, there is an old proverb that says,
  "He who pays the piper in the end will call the tune."
  My fear is that this is the thin edge of the wedge of sponsoring. We do not want the intrusion into an alternative television programme of such advertisements as my noble friend, Lord Mathers, referred to in his speech last night, advertisements such as disfigure our hoardings with such palpable and scientific untruths as "Beer is best" and "Somebody's stout is good for you."
  LORD MOYNE: The noble Lord is an awkward ally.
  LORD ROCHESTER: No, my Lords, it is no laughing matter. I am a father and a grandfather, and I say that we do not wish such blatant and palpable lies by the drink trade to be introduced into our homes.
  LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will give way. I am with the noble Lord on the issue of the Motion before the House, although not on what he has just said. I am an ally of his; the remark I made was that he was an uncomfortable ally, in view of what he has said. He has accused my firm of telling lies and I cannot accept that statement.
  LORD ROCHESTER: I can only say it is a scientific fact and I must lease it at that.
  LORD MOYNE: I also could quote scientific facts. I think we must not develop this point because this is a very important debate. I can only say that I do not accept what the noble Lord said, and I leave it to your Lordships.
  LORD ROCHESTER: I am quite content to leave it to your Lordships. I think noble Lords have full knowledge of the immensity of the damage that is done by such advertisements. They would do far better to add to the advertisement and make it, as the noble Lard, Lord Mathers, said last night: "Beer is best left alone." We do not want such advertisements by the drink trade to be introduced into our homes between musical items, for the children of our country to see. The Old Book is true:
  "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh."
  I feel that the responsibility resting upon your Lordships' House this afternoon is such that it would be difficult to exaggerate. It is something like forty-eight years since I entered the House of Commons as a young man under thirty, and I say, quite frankly, that I have never felt a greater burden of responsibility than in speaking this afternoon against the proposals contained in this White Paper.
  5.12 p.m.
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will all recognise the sincerity of the expressions that have just fallen from my noble friend who has preceded me. I confess that at
  722
  one stage of his speech I was reminded of the words with which the most reverend Primate opened his speech yesterday, when he said that he could not hope to add to the hilarity of the proceedings. I am in that position to-day, but I hope, nevertheless, that I shall not weary your Lordships by any tedious repetition of arguments already presented to this House with more eloquence and greater force than I could command. However, I entered the lists against sponsored television at a very early stage in the present controversy, and I am glad to be able to make my voice heard in opposition to the attenuated and, as I think, camouflaged version of sponsored television presented by the Government to-day.
  I say at the outset, to prevent misunderstanding, that I myself fully recognise the value of competition—and by that. I mean genuine competition—and I am also a convinced believer in the virtues of private enterprise. Therefore, that is not in issue at all, so far as I am concerned. As regards competition, I was glad to hear the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, say this at the beginning of his speech yesterday (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184 (No. 10). col. 526):
  "…there are many points which are still open for discussion, but there is one point on which the Government is quite firm, and that is that there should be competition in the providing of an alternative television programme."
  That was a most encouraging statement, so far as those noble Lords who think as I do are concerned. It is, I think, fair to recognise that the Government have, in fact, made a genuine effort in this White Paper to meet objections to the plan which was outlined in the first instance. There are to be no programmes by advertisers; no advertisements are to be interpolated in a programme interrupted for the purpose—though, as a matter of fact. I do not think that advertisers stand to lose anything at all by that provision. The cost of the new stations is to be met out of public funds. While such an arrangement has been criticised, and is no doubt open to criticism from one point of view, it has the advantage that it avoids the creation of vested interests in a form that would make it difficult for any Government to retreat.
  Those noble Lords who are convinced, as I am, that the plan in its present form, if it ever came into operation, would have to be abandoned or, at any rate, radically

  723
  changed, may recognise a distinct advantage in the provision to which I have just referred. But what in the end is the result of all this? Have we now submitted for our consideration a plan defended by its authors by spirited arguments extolling its merits? Nothing of the kind. We have instead insistence, and I think a laboured insistence, upon the alleged effectiveness of the safeguards against abuse that have been provided. That seems to me to be a rather extraordinary situation which may be worth examining in some detail. There is to be no sponsoring, it is said. The evils of sponsoring are frankly recognised and, indeed, loudly proclaimed in the White Paper itself. But what will the lessees of stations under this new plan be, if not, in fact, collective sponsors? For, as providers of finance, and ex hypothesi essential finance—and that is a point which I stress—advertisers will have the whip hand.
  I embark on this part of my speech with some trepidation, in view of the rough handling which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, received at the hands of noble Lords on the Government Front Bench. However, I will go forward. I say that advertisers under this plan will be entitled to know where their advertisements are to be inserted, and they will undoubtedly hold back if not satisfied on that point. They will want their advertisements—and this is a point I wish particularly to stress—to be linked closely in point of time with items likely to attract maximum audiences, and likely, also, to put the audiences in a receptive mood for the particular products which are being advertised. And who can blame them? Who can say that such an attitude is in any way unreasonable? But how, I ask, will this in practice differ from sponsoring? In the end, in my submission, the programmes will be determined by people influenced not by a single-minded desire to give a good public service, but influenced by a different motive: not some ulterior motive, as has been suggested rather unfairly, but an open and avowed motive to sell their goods.
  There has been a great deal of talk in the course of this debate about standards. What is the nature of the items in television programmes which are likely to find favour with advertisers? Can anyone who approaches this subject with
  724
  complete honesty of mind and with sound common sense doubt that sensation, with perhaps just a spice of vulgarity, will attract the maximum of listening coverage—if that is a proper technical expression? We are told that the Corporation will be charged to ensure the maintenance of proper standards. How are they to do that? If it were a question of keeping out obscenity, pornography, whatever it might be, something gross and offensive, they could, of course, do it; and do it effectively. But surely nothing of that sort is ever likely to arise. Surely, despite some of the things that have been said, we have not so ill an opinion of commercial morality or of the standards of advertisers as to believe that any problem of that kind would in practice arise or call for the exercise or the application of any kind of safeguard. Nevertheless, I say respectfully, but with complete conviction, that the effect of introducing this plan will be a progressive lowering of standards. That will be the tendency, and any of your Lordships who has studied evolutionary processes knows how, when a particular tendency operates by slow degrees—Lord Boyd-Orr is listening attentively, I notice—in the course of time very great changes come about.
  I cannot understand the point of view of those who say that in this matter there is an analogy, and a true analogy, between the Press and television. Someone in the course of the debate characterised a statement in the sense of the one I have just made as an ipse dixit by (I think the words were) elderly superior persons. I think those were the words of the noble Earl the Postmaster General. I do not want to leave this as an ipse dixit of anyone, and therefore, if I am not detaining your Lordships too long. I should just like to pursue the argument a short distance, despite what other noble Lords have already said. It seems to me quite clear that, in the case of newspapers, advertisers are guided by the general character of the newspaper and its clientele, and not by the quality of particular leading articles or the manner of presentation of the news. But in television—this is a point I have already mentioned, but I stress it again—the advertisement will be linked, and inevitably linked directly, with the individual item

  725
  in the programme. That, to my mind, makes all the difference and is a complete justification for what I have said, and what other noble Lords have said, who have told the House that in their opinion there is no true analogy between the Press and television.
  Neither the Corporation nor its lessees will, in my judgment, be able to exercise effective control. I can perhaps claim to have had some little experience of administration, and I would regard the task of exercising control in the fashion contemplated by the White Paper as administratively quite impossible. I conclude, from the closing words of paragraph 6 of the White Paper that that is also the view which the advertisers themselves take. Now I must make it clear that in what I have just been saying I have in mind the position as defined in the White Paper under which those bodies or authorities responsible for the presentation of programmes will be in a position of absolute dependence on advertising revenue—will have no other source of revenue whatsoever. That again, in my view, is a feature of the plan of the utmost significance, because in dealings with advertisers the Corporation or its subordinates will be in a hopeless position of inferiority if those with whom it teals know from the very outset how hopeless and how helpless will be the position of the authority.
  In what I have said about the tendency to a progressive lowering of standards, I have said nothing whatever, and have tried to say nothing whatever, in disparagement of the standards of our British community as a whole, or of any particular section of traders or advertisers. I should have liked to reassure my noble friend Lord Bennett on that point. I myself find no difficulty in agreeing with the poet that
  "A little folly now and then
  Is relished by the wisest men."
  Some noble Lords might prefer that in the original version from Horace, who wrote. "Dulce est desipere in loco." The significant words there are "in loco"—not all the time and everywhere, but "in loco"My contention is that such programmes, while perfectly acceptable in themselves, are not the sort of thing that ought to be thrust into the homes of the people, day in and day out, for the benefit or otherwise of young and old alike.
  726
  I do not agree entirely with those who regard the position of the B.B.C. as a mischievous kind of monopoly, but I respect the judgment of those who take that view, and I would say—and here I speak for myself alone—by all means have competitive programmes if you like, but not substantially dependent on advertisements. I should not object to allowing some advertisements, experimentally or tentatively, though I think if that were done for the one Corporation the B.B.C. ought also to come into line. I would just note, in passing, that there is apparently no question of introducing advertisements into sound broadcasting. I cannot help asking why that should be the case, if the Government think such an arrangement is a good thing in principle. Still less do I agree with those—and there are some advocates of a change in this category—who argue from the position that B.B.C. television is intolerably bad, or even that the B.B.C. is subject to a variety of insidious influences.
  I have no intention of following the bad example, as I think, of the noble Earl the Postmaster General, who yesterday quoted to us the details of an overheard conversation, actual or imaginary, between people who had not seen television, who had not read the White Paper, but who nevertheless had strong views on this subject; but I have had it put to me that public men, whose views are entitled to be received with respect, have been influenced in their opinion on this particular subject by the kind of considerations to which I have just referred. I would say only this in that regard: that if there is justification for such aspersions on the B.B.C., the B.B.C. is our creation, for which we as a community ought to accept responsibility; and in such circumstances we ought not meekly and weakly to say to them, as the White Paper says, "Go on as you are; we are going to show you, and the people, how much better this new set-up we have just thought of can be."
  I have not much time, and I would end on a somewhat different note. In television we have a novel instrument, as has been said already (I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made some such reference), of vast potentialities, potentialities which in my view are

  727
  as yet only dimly appreciated. No one, I believe, can at present form a true estimate of the ultimate impact of television upon our economic, social and cultural life. I think we have been fortunate in having had television so far under close control for, under present arrangements, there is complete ultimate control. Members of the governing body and others connected with the British Broadcasting Corporation are, in the last resort, people who hold their positions subject to the pleasure of the Government of the day. Is it, I ask, not the part of wisdom in these circumstances to wait before making the surrender which is involved in the Government's plan?
  I am convinced, as I have said, that there will be a lowering of standards. Many will disagree—I think they are wrong. There will certainly be extended hours of viewing, and a disturbing question was put to me the other day, which was this: "What if it were proposed to put on a short "spicy" item at the time of the eleven o'clock break, when it could be shown in industrial canteens all over the country?" What a wonderful opportunity that would be for the advertisers of certain classes of goods! Would consent to such an arrangement be refused? I very much doubt it. Our economic future is by no means assured. The purpose of advertisers is to sell their goods, and in this case to sell them at home, and to promote domestic consumption mainly, I should think, of non-essentials. It may prove fatally easy to persuade the crowd to follow the band that makes the biggest noise until, it may be, they meet a fate akin to that which befell the Gadarene swine. I am profoundly apprehensive. I think there is at least some danger that more and more entertainment in present circumstances may mean less and less productive effort. That is essentially a matter for the consideration of the responsible Government of the day. I leave it there.
  We have had a long and an interesting debate. From my point of view, the debate has presented some encouraging features, and even at this late hour I would join with other noble Lords, with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and others, who have expressed the hope that the noble Marquess who is about to speak, who is held in such esteem and
  728
  affection in all parts of the House, may persuade his colleagues to think again. I have been encouraged in making this request by the concluding words of the noble Earl, the Postmaster General. I would only say, in conclusion, that I will give my vote at the end of our Sitting, to-day to signify just this: that while accepting the principle of competition, while agreeing, however reluctantly, if it should be so decided, to the establishment of another public corporation, I hope the Government will look again at the finance and other features of their scheme with a view to getting rid of this, as I think, most undesirable feature of dependence upon advertisements.
  5.35 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, although the case for the Government's present scheme on television which was incorporated in the recent White Paper has been put, I am sure the House will agree, extremely cogently already, both by my noble friend the Postmaster General and in the profound and striking speech which was made by the Lord Chancellor at the beginning of business to-day, I feel that this is an occasion when I, who have the privilege of leading your Lordships' House, ought not to remain entirely silent. I must, to the best of my ability, try and give some guidance to the House. I propose to do this as briefly as I can, avoiding those points of elaborate detail, most of which I think have already been dealt with by others.
  First of all, I should like to join with those who have expressed their regret at the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Halifax. We all regret both his absence and the reason for it. The noble Earl has the affection and respect of us all, and the debate, I am sure, has been poorer for the fact that he has not been able to take part. Next, I should like—though this is no reflection on anybody who has taken part in this particular debate in this House—to register a strong protest against attempts which have been made in certain quarters, though not in this House, to stoke up moral indignation and raise a kind of Holy War against the Government's proposals. There are many, I know, who may not be specially wedded to these proposals for their own sake, who have been profoundly shocked, as indeed I have, by the kind of atmosphere that has been created on what

  729
  is, in fact, to a great extent, a matter as much of taste as of morals.
  I had a letter two or three days ago in which the writer, referring to this extremely moderate scheme of the Government—and whether noble Lords like it or not, it cannot be regarded as a very violent measure—used the following startling words:
  "How can the best things that we know—love, humility, self sacrifice and the help of others, for instance—be fostered in a system controlled in practice, if not entirely, by the forces of blind profit and brutal competition?"
  That is the kind of hysteria which I am afraid, whether they have meant to do it or not, the National Television Council have whipped up by their propaganda. I wonder whether they are very proud of it. Indeed, in support of their arguments, they have gone so far—though I do not say they intended to do so—as to create what can only be regarded as a new moral principle which has been brought into being for this special purpose. There is nothing very novel about that. Those of us who have spent our lives in politics are familiar with this type of ad hoc principle, and nothing does more to bedevil public life.
  I do not say that those who subscribe to these principles do not believe in them. On the contrary, I think they would go to the stake for them. But the principles have, in fact, no real moral basis, and when the smoke and heat of controversy has died down, this is seen to be so. A good example, I think, was the question of tariffs which divided this country at the beginning of the century. One Party practically got themselves into the state of mind when they thought that all tariffs were morally right. That is the Party to which I now personally belong. There was another Party which got themselves into the state of mind of thinking that all tariffs were morally wrong, whereas, in fact, I think it is now generally agreed that tariffs are a mere administrative device which are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and that no moral issue is raised at all. Since the war we have been in some danger of falling into the same error over controls. And now, it seems, we have a new moral principle, which is that advertising is entirely respectable and, indeed, commendable in every sphere except on the air; and that there, however completely it may be
  730
  safeguarded, it is morally pernicious in the highest degree.
  May I broach a subject which has occupied a certain amount of this debate already. Newspapers are as dependent for their very existence as any television company could be on revenue derived from advertising. I do not agree with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, last night. The point is that it does not matter whether they are 100 per cent. dependent or 50 per cent. dependent; they die without it. They are all in the same category. Yet I have not heard any suggestion made so far throughout this debate that any newspaper has altered or debased its character as a result of the pressure of advertisers. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, tried to draw a differentiation between the position of a newspaper and the position of the companies which are to produce the programmes. I thought, if I may say so with great respect, that the line of argument which he advocated was highly ingenious but completely false. He will correct me, I know, if I am inaccurate, but he said that there was an analogy with the Press. The analogy which he tried to draw was that in the case of the newspaper, the advertiser would go to the newspaper and say, "First show me your leader"—by which I hope he meant, "your leading article"—"and I will tell you whether I will advertise or not."
  Now my Lords, I do not want to dogmatise on this subject—it is one with which I am not very familiar—but, in my view, the advertiser would not do that. The advertiser in any newspaper does not concern himself with the leading article. What he does want to know (and this is just what the radio advertiser will want to know) is what the circulation is—and even more, as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, has said, what is the standing of the paper in which he proposes to advertise. If the circulation is adequate and the standard high, he will not bother about the character of the programme or anything else so long as he gets his public. That I believe is the same in the case both of the newspaper and the television programme.
  If there is a good audience for a programme, advertisers will readily advertise in that programme. And I would add this. Personally I would not for a moment

  731
  admit, what has been assumed by many speakers this afternoon and yesterday, that the standard of taste of British audiences to-day is as low as they seem to think. On the contrary, I have talked to many people who are concerned in these matters and my view is that the standard of British audiences of all sections and classes of the community is high and steadily rising. That is a fact well known to those who have given attention to this matter. Moreover, I cannot but think that the argument advanced by the noble and learned Earl, that they are more susceptible to a low level of appeal, is a somewhat strange one coming from the Leader of a Party one of whose main claims is that it represents that particular section of the community, the common man. Frankly, my view is exactly the opposite to that of the noble and learned Earl: I am convinced that if a programme company wanted to produce a programme such as to debase the listeners, or do anything of a degrading character, it would soon lose its chances and have to mend its ways. I cannot help saying that if noble Lords such as Lord Jowitt and even Lord Brand and Lord Waverley, were to come out of their ivory towers and go out into the world, they would find that neither the businessmen nor the advertisers nor the audiences of England are as bad as they seem to consider them. What good, then, is it for noble Lords to tell us with regard to television that it is only if a programme vulgarises and degrades that it will be selected by advertisers?
  EARL JOWITT: I have said no such thing. I agree entirely with the noble Marquess about the standard of our audiences—and I attribute that to the work of the B.B.C.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the point which neither the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, nor the noble Lord, Lord Brand, mentioned, was that the B.B.C. is going to go on. There is no question of doing away with the B.B.C. My Lords, I believe that an attempt to sublimate this question into a great moral issue, based on the utter fallibility of the British people, will not commend the cause of those who use such arguments to the British public; and I am very glad that the most reverend Primate did not
  732
  lend his great name to any such suggestion.
  Now I turn to the Government scheme as outlined in the White Paper. Here I should like in what I say to take a somewhat different line from that taken by most of those who have spoken up to the present. With the exception of the most reverend Primate, previous speakers, broadly speaking, have been protagonists of one of the two main schools of thought of this controversy—which seems to engender so much heat. There are those who feel passionately that the maintenance of control by the B.B.C. over television is a denial of elementary human rights, and others who feel as strongly on the other side that commercial television will lead to the immediate degradation of the whole population. Personally, I cannot hold either of these violently expressed views. If the proposal had been to employ the same system as that which operates in the United States, I confess that I should myself have had a strong inclination—on grounds rather of taste than of morals—to share the views expressed by some of the supporters of the Motion, though I think it would have been rash to assume that the results would have been the same here as in the United States. The conditions are, of course, very different. The present Government proposal is entirely different. Everyone knows—though this is never mentioned by the supporters of the Motion and their sympathisers—that in the United States there is nothing equivalent to the B.B.C., a public corporation well established, with high standards, which will continue to operate on its existing lines. It does not exist in the United States. That seems to me in itself a fundamental difference.
  Moreover, from inquiries I have been able to make it seems that in the United States there is no practical public control at all of television. The whole television system is run entirely by private broadcasting companies who provide facilities for private advertisers. Here, on the other hand, under the scheme now put forward—these facts have been ignored in the debate—the body which provides facilities will be a Corporation with a board of directors just as eminent as those of the B.B.C. The State will provide the money for the Corporation and will appoint these directors.

  733
  Moreover, the bodies who provide the programmes will not be the advertisers, as in the United States; they will be independent companies. Lord Waverley said just now that the programmes would be linked to advertising. That will not be so. The Corporation will be there, to see that the proper standard is kept. We may disagree about that, but that is the full intention of the scheme, and the board of the Corporation will be chosen with necessary eminence to secure that result.
  There must be many of us who will not share what I may call the hopeful cynicism of Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, but who remain convinced, after these two days' debate, that the companies which provide the programmes will be, under the Government plan, subject to a powerful check against any abuse of their functions, a check which does not exist in the United States or in the case of the Press or books in this country, so far as I know.
  LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: I did say yesterday that there is in the United States a public corporation known as the Federal Communications Commission with identical powers and identical duties to those of the proposed Corporation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But I understood the noble Lord to say that he did not think machinery could be built up which could guard against the abuse of the functions. If he does not take that view, that will be welcome to us all.
  LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: I think the F.C.C. is an almost complete failure.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The fact remains that, unless the companies do maintain that standard which the Corporation approves, the Corporation which grants the licence will be legally in a position to withdraw it, and this will be provided for in the contract which is given. Could anything be more different than the system which prevails to-day in the United States? Indeed, so far as I can see, there are only two likenesses between them. The first is that both contain the element of competition. That is true. But are we to be told by noble Lords on
  734
  this side of the House or on the Liberal Benches that that in itself is wrong? I shall be very surprised if I am told that. The second likeness is that in both programmes, here and in the United States, advertisements will appear. But, as I have already explained to the House, they will appear under entirely different conditions. Surely, therefore, any suggestion, however sincerely it is put forward, that there is a true analogy between the Government scheme and the American practice is entirely false; indeed, to my mind it would be much more accurate to describe this proposal as "competitive television" than as "commercial television."
  I realise that that fact will not alter the views of noble Lords on Benches opposite who are thoroughgoing Socialists—and I do not mean that on a Party basis but in their philosophy. We all know that people who hold sincerely the views that they hold do not like competition. They do not like competition, whether it is between private corporations or public corporations. What they like is State-owned monopoly. That is the essence of theoretical Socialism. Nor, clearly, would they be particularly attracted to any form of advertising in the cause of privately owned concerns. That would be entirely contrary to their creed. I could not help feeling, as I listened to the opening speech of this debate, that noble Lords opposite must have derived considerable encouragement from what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who, if I may say so, made the best exposition of anyone in this debate of the views which are normally associated with noble Lords opposite.
  The noble Viscount is a renowned, and justly renowned, advocate, and finding that support for this Motion gave him the opportunity to expound that thesis, he did it, I think, with great gusto and bonhomie. He said how splendid it was that television had up to now been out of politics, since both Parties have accepted State monopoly. That is a very easy way of netting unanimity, if we all agreed about it. Then he talked with contempt of the principle of competition which had somehow crept in, and he talked almost with adulation about what he called the "principle of public service"—a phrase which, I may say, in passing, is capable of a very wide inter-

  735
  pretation indeed. I should have thought it could have been made, like those words which were used by Humpty Dumpty, to apply to almost anything that one desired. He deplored the undermining of this "principle of public service" by any interference with the overriding principle of monopoly. In fact, he gave us undiluted a line of thought which, I am sorry to say, many of us must have found rather antipathetic to our deepest beliefs. He gave undoubtedly—and I think we should congratulate him on it—a great forensic performance, very fine, full of fire and brilliance; but as a condemnation of the Government scheme I do not think it "cut much ice."
  A NOBLE LORD: It has never been answered.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Nor, I appreciate, is the Government scheme, if it is unacceptable to noble Lords opposite, likely to be any more palatable to noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Reith, who I am sorry is not here to-day, or the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. Those noble Lords have something like a pride of parentage in the B.B.C. and naturally dislike any interference with it or any competition with it, just as the present editor of The Times appears also to do. But there is a wider body of opinion, inside and outside Parliament, represented by men like the noble Viscount Lord Waverley, the most reverend Primate, the noble Lord, Lord Brand, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and many others whom this House respects very highly. What moves them in the views which they have expressed? It is clearly important that we should try to discover this, yet, after listening to the two days' debate, I must confess that I am still uncertain as to the explanation. They are men who we know believe passionately in the merits of competition in any walk of life. Indeed, I have heard powerful speeches from nearly all of them on this very subject previously. Why do they reject it so decisively in this case alone? I have given a good deal of thought to this, for the very simple reason that they are none of them men from whom anyone would lightly wish to differ in opinion.
  No doubt the reasons for their attitude are many and various. In the case of noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord
  736
  Brand, and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, one, at any rate, of the reasons which most affects them—at least, I gather so, from listening to their speeches—is their own personal experience of sponsored television in the United States. Clearly, anyone who listened to the noble Lord, Lord Brand, to-day would recognise that. That has profoundly affected them. They have mentioned it in their speeches in this House, either in this debate or in earlier debates. I would not question a word they say on this particular subject of television in the United States. I have never seen it and I am certainly not in a position to controvert them; nor do I wish to do so. It is surely not logical or reasonable to condemn, sans phrase, one scheme of competitive television in one country because one has disliked an entirely different scheme in another country where conditions are not similar. No one wants here exactly the type of television which is to be found to-day in the United States. It may suit them very well, but clearly it does not suit us. But I submit that there is no conceivable possibility that you would get that type of television under the present Government proposal, any more that you would get Senator McCarthy or the Un-American Committee (or whatever it may be) in this country. I am not criticising the people of the United States—we all have the highest admiration for them—but they manage their affairs in a different way from the way we do here.
  There is, I am told, a fear in some quarters that, in the event of the Corporation getting into deep water, pressure may be brought on the Government to allow it to embark on sponsoring on the American model and that the Government may give way to that pressure. I understand that there are noble Lords in this House who have expressed that fear. To reassure any noble Lords who may feel like that, I will make this categorical statement: the Government have pledged their word against sponsoring, and nothing will change their mind on the subject. I hope that is unequivocal enough for noble Lords. In view of what I have just said, I am sure the House will agree that nothing that has been said in this debate has done anything to strengthen what may be described as the American argument.

  737
  Then there is what might be described as the "grandmotherly" argument which I think does affect certain noble Lords. The most reverend Primate, who in other ways yesterday delivered such a helpful and constructive speech, did at one point, it seemed to me, fall into this error, If I understood him aright, he said, in effect, that his main objection to the Government plan was that it might mean more television. In his view, television was bad for people, and he was therefore, broadly speaking—I do not say hostile, but not enthusiastic about a scheme of this kind. My Lords, that is of course an argument against television altogether. It may well be that in our view television is not good for some people. We may feel that television is good for no people at all. But does that justify us in this House preventing others from having what they want? I must confess that I find this a rather authoritarian doctrine for this free country.
  The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I thought, went even further. Having quoted from the White Paper a proposition with which I think no one will disagree, that "television has great and increasing power in influencing men's minds," he went on to say (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184 (No. 10), col. 589):
  "From that observation the Government draw the conclusion that television should not be a monopoly. reach a quite different conclusion…that television is too precious to be entrusted to wrong hands…"
  I could not help feeling, as I listened to the noble Lord's remark, that that one remark epitomised the whole reason for the decline in recent years of the Liberal Party. In earlier times, the Liberal Party was considered the champion of freedom and free institutions, and the noble Lord's remark hardly fitted in with that conception.
  Now I should like to come to the last of what I might call the psychological reasons, which are, I believe, above all, responsible for the opposition which undoubtedly exists, not only in this House but in sections of the public outside, against any alteration of the existing system of television in this country. I would suggest to your Lordships to-day—and I do it quite seriously—that this last reason, which I believe to be a very powerful one, derives from that natural conservatism which is characteristic of this country and which was described a good many years
  738
  ago in a book on Conservatism by my noble relative, Lord Quickswood. He said that conservatism dislikes what is new just because it is new, and likes what it is accustomed to just because it is accustomed to it, and because it feels safer that way. Lord Hailsham's speech, I thought, was chock-a-block with that spirit. He said that the best programmes were those controlled by the B.B.C. He said that if it proved necessary to have advertisements, they ought to be under the control of the B.B.C.—Iam paraphrasing his words, and he can put me right if he likes.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Later on.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He said that the Government had most shockingly rejected the B.B.C. because they thought it was desirable to have competition, and he indicated that in his view any departure from the B.B.C. was a revolutionary and dangerous change. In one of Mr. Belloc's Cautionary Tales, he urged the hero
  "And always keep a hold of nurse,
  For fear of getting something worse."
  That advice was a classic example of natural conservatism.
  In the book to which I have referred, the noble Lord, Lord Quickswood, mentioned that natural conservatism had two features, to which I should like to direct your Lordships' special attention this afternoon, because I believe they are relevant to our discussion. The first is that it is confined to no one Party: it is found in the Parties of the Left just as much as in the Parties of the Right; and secondly, it is found far more acutely among the old than among the young. That has, I think, a special relevance to the problems we are discussing this afternoon, for there is no doubt that there is an age division in this country—the old, or the more elderly, are predominantly against any change in the existing system, whereas the young are predominantly in favour of it. That is visible, I think, even in our debate over the last two days.
  Those who opposed the Government—scheme were, on the whole, more elderly than those who have supported it. I will not say, as I understood the noble and learned Earl said to-day, that we are "antiquated fossils" who know nothing whatever about it. I think that a little

  739
  unkind and a little unfair. But undoubtedly we are elderly. I do not say there are not exceptions. There is, for instance, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to whom I have just referred. But the noble Viscount has done so much work for the B.B.C. that, just as I suggested of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, that he had a parental affection for the B.B.C., so the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, may well have a filial affection for that great institution.
  I am sorry to say that I am myself over the age of sixty years, and I certainly come into what I think is now called the higher age bracket. I am very sensible of that. I confess that I am also very sensible of the force of the arguments about sticking to what one is used to, and letting well alone, and so on. But I have been bound to ask myself most sincerely—and I put the same question to other noble Lords of my age and upwards: Is it right that we sexagenarians, septuagenarians and octogenarians should seek to impose the dead hand of age(I say this quite seriously, and I believe there is substance in my argument) on a modification of the existing system of television which is favoured, if the Gallup Poll in the News Chronicle is correct, by the majority of viewers—I think the noble Lord, Lord Layton, said 57 per cent. of the viewers at present, and I strongly suspect by a similar proportion of the younger generation in this country?
  It may be, of course, that many regular viewers will not want, and may even not like, the new programmes. There may be enthusiastic fans of the B.B.C. programmes like the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham and his children, who do not want anything else. But let him remember what too many noble Lords forgot yesterday and to-day, that, if they do not want these new programmes, they need not have them. Under the Government scheme, the B.B.C. television programmes will continue just as they do to-day, and those who do not want the second programme can watch the B.B.C. as often as they like, just as they have always done. Curiously enough, that is a fact which has been almost ignored by the opponents of the White Paper in this debate. In that case, I repeat: Is it really legitimate for us in this House to use our legislative
  740
  power to frustrate those who do want to make use of facilities provided by the Government proposals, and which most of us probably never use? My Lords, I personally cannot feel that it is legitimate.
  Immense trouble has been taken, both by my noble friend the Postmaster General and by the Government as a whole, to eliminate possible dangers from this new extension of television. Sponsoring, in the sense of the advertiser providing his own programme, is altogether absent, and most far-reaching powers of control have been retained by the Government in such cases. My Lords, are we justified in such circumstances (and I do not mind repeating this once more) in returning to proposals of this kind a bleak and uncompromising negative?
  My Lords, there is need of some competition in television. I think that is now universally recognised, or at least very widely recognised. Indeed, the Motion which asks the House to reject the Government scheme refers, I think, to the desirability of an alternative programme. I had hoped, when I read that Motion, that we were to be given a new and carefully thought out scheme, representing the united view of that body of opinion which stands behind the Motion. I could not, indeed, quite understand why those who had promoted the Motion had not long ago exposed their proposals to the Government. They presumably thought them better than the scheme of the Government which their Motion condemns. Why did they not get in touch with us and expound their proposals? Why did they not in this way enable their proposals to be considered objectively before this debate? Why, I wondered, have they kept their proposals, so to speak, up their sleeves and sprung them upon us at the last moment? It was difficult for most of us to resist the conclusion that they were anxious to place the Government in a position of the greatest embarrassment they could. That I find rather shocking, because it is entirely out of harmony with the spirit which normally activates this House.
  After two days of debate, however, I understand the position far better. There is an explanation—one far more favourable to noble Lords who are members of the group behind this Motion than

  741
  I had feared. The honest truth is that they could not put forward concrete proposals, because, though it is true they are at one in opposing the proposals of the Government, they are at one in nothing else. There are those who prefer in their heart of hearts, and almost said so, a straight monopoly. There are those who want two Corporations, both financed by higher licence fees. There are those who want two Corporations both financed by a combination of licence fees and advertisement. The people who want a monopoly for the B.B.C. are no more ready to accept the plan of those who want two Corporations financed by higher licence fees than to agree to the Government plan. And the people who want two Corporations both financed by higher licence fees are quite unwilling to accept a public Corporation financed by advertisement. And both these last two categories are entirely against retention of a single monopoly by the B.B.C. There is no uniformity anywhere.
  In these circumstances, what I am sure was no doubt well-intended has turned out, I suggest, to be a purely wrecking Motion, with no constructive thought behind it at all, a mere babel of mutually destructive opinions. The only proposals which have received any wide measure of support in this debate are the Government proposals of the White Paper. If the House votes against them it will vote in favour of nothing. Attempts were made yesterday to castigate us for what was called "putting on the Whip" in this debate. The Whip, as your Lordships know, in this House, at any rate, is not an order. It is an indication of the way the Government would like their supporters to vote. Now, if a number of noble Lords put down, as they have done in this case, a Motion asking in categorical terms that the House should reject the Government's considered policy, is it really suggested that the Government should not give such an indication to their supporters? I could not help thinking that the attitude of the Opposition on this subject reminded me of the famous French saying:
  "Cet animal est très méchant: quand on l'attaque, il se défend."
  Moreover, it was not we alone who sent out such an indication. There was one also sent out by the supporters of
  742
  the Motion. I gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, never got one. He has my sympathy, for I was in the same boat; I did not get one either. Nearly everyone else got one. Fortunately I managed to obtain a copy. Here it is, and with the leave of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who is President of the National Television Council, I should like to read it out—that is, unless he has any objection. There is nothing particularly confidential about it.
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: By all means read it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It reads as follows:
  "My Lords, I have been asked by Lord Halifax, who is a Vice-President of tie National Television Council, to draw your attention to the Motion standing in his name which will be debated next Wednesday, 25th November, 1953, and the following day. The Motion reads"—
  there follow the words of the Motion, and then comes this passage—
  "Lord Halifax has asked me to state that he hopes you will find it possible to attend this debate and support his Motion if a Division is called."
  EARL JOWITT: What date is that.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am coming to that.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I certainly received that letter. It was not a Whip. What I said was that there was no organisation of Peers in this House who sent out a Whip, or endeavoured to organise a vote on this occasion.
  THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: I gather that it is not a Whip; it is just a friendly communication. The curious thing is that the words of it are almost identical with the friendly communication which I sent out to my supporters. And I would point out, in answer to the question which was very properly asked just now by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and in case any suggestions are made later that their communication was sent out only as the result of ours, that both communications have the same date on them. How, in such circumstances, can noble Lords claim that they have not tried to whip up their supporters and that the vote would be entirely free? Of course, they did their utmost to rope in everyone they could, and I do not blame

  743
  them. But surely it is a little disingenuous, in such circumstances, to complain of the Government's not allowing a free vote.
  LORD MATHERS: In view of the fact that the noble Marquess has read out one communication, would it not be in keeping with completeness to read out the other one?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I shall be delighted to do so. I have it here. This is how it reads:
  "Your Lordship's attendance throughout both days of this important debate, so far as possible, is earnestly requested, but your Lordship is asked most particularly to be in your place not later than 4 p.m. on Thursday, 26th November, to support the Government in the Division which is to be taken between 4.30 and 6 p.m."
  Your Lordships will notice that that is an earnest request and no more; it is almost identical with the other letter.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Does the noble Marquess seriously ask the House and the country to accept Lord Halifax's letter to be the equivalent of a Party Whip from the official Whip of the Conservative Party? Can he read any similar Whip from either the Labour Party or the Liberal Party?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Frankly, I do not see much difference. No one in my place could accept a direct challenge to the policy of the Government without putting on the Whip.
  I have come practically to the end of what I have to say. It would be an impertinence on my part to try to advise supporters of the Motion as to what they should do. I should like, in conclusion, to make the position of the Government quite clear. We have never spoiled for a fight on this question. We have always said that, within the broad basic principles of our scheme, we were ready to consider any suggestions that might be made. I believe that this debate has been useful in that respect, and I thought, in particular, that the speech of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday and the very moderate words spoken by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, to-day, contained the germ of ideas which are certainly worthy of further study. In the meantime, our scheme, which is based on competition and a revenue from advertising—which I gather is not in itself
  744
  turned down by Lord Waverley—holds the field. Our opponents have been unable in the course of two days of long debate to produce any alternative on which they are mutually agreed. In these circumstances, if they force us to a Division, regretfully but without hesitation we shall go into the Lobby against them. It is for them to decide.
  6.20 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am sure that at this hour the House will forgive me if I say but a few sentences on behalf of those who have put the Motion down. First, let me say this to the noble Marquess who has just spoken, and I say it knowing that he did not perhaps intend the full implication of what he said. When members of my profession speak in public life, they do not speak as advocates and do not put on a forensic performance. We speak in public life what we sincerely believe. At the beginning of to-day's debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made what, if he will forgive me for saying. I thought was a somewhat savage attack on the absent Lord Reith.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount will forgive me, but he did not hear what I said. I said that I had sent a message to the noble Lord, Lord Reith, which he had received.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I heard it and I was about to say it. The nature of Lord Reith's offence is not exactly known to me. I must confess, but my own recollection of the matter at this distance of time was that the complaint was that Lord Reith had said of the noble and learned Lord that he was speaking to a brief instead of what he really believed. A mere Back Bencher is just as entitled, when he has a great profession to which he is proud to belong and another profession of public life to which he also belongs, to resent it very bit as much as the Lord Chancellor of the day when it is suggested that what he has said in public has been a forensic performance and he has spoken as an advocate.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I make the most sincere apology to the noble Viscount if he thinks I meant that. I do not think it is inherent in my words. When I say that a man exercises his advocacy, then I do not

  745
  mean that he does not believe what he says; that is a very cynical view of the law which I do not accept at all. The noble Viscount said that I said something else about a forensic performance. What I mean by forensic performance is a magnificent speech which is intended to convert perhaps a jury. That does not mean that the man who makes a speech of that kind does not believe it. I did not suggest for a moment that the noble Viscount did not believe it. I thought his remarks were unusual exiting from our Benches, but that is only his own private idiosyncracy.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I accept what the noble Marquess has said, and I said in advance that the noble Marquess did not intend it. I lave known him too long and respect him too much to suppose that he intended any disrespect in what he said. An advocate is someone paid to put forward what is someone else's view. I do not speak as an advocate; I speak as a member of your Lordships' House, and what I said was that I was just as entitled to be as jealous of my honour as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself, and I entirely consider that I was justified in saying so.
  This has been a great debate. I hope I may be allowed to say that it has been a memorable debate. Again, I hope I am not going too far when I say it is a debate which will be recalled for many years as one of the most important occasions in either House of Parliament. Feelings are deep about this question and sincerely held on both sides, and I believe that it has done a very great deal of good that your Lordships' House has discussed this matter so fully. For my part, I must say that my overriding disappointment has been that I utterly failed, not to persuade the Government of the accuracy of my remarks, but even to persuade them to understand the case which I was putting. I do not wish to appear more righteous than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who sits in the place that has been occupied by two Saints—Saint Swithin and Saint Thomas More—two gentlemen with whose policies I do not agree. Still, there he is. We do not want to force people to see what they do not want to see. Our case was that the mechanism adopted by the Government was designed to give them what they did not want. That case may be
  746
  mistaken, but it certainly does one no good at all to misunderstand and misrepresent it. I must say this both to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and to the Postmaster General. As everybody knows, there has been a library of literature lavished on us by the two television associations with almost identical names. These are not Whips. It really is absurd for the Government to claim justification for making this, in the face of the public, a Party issue, by relying solely on communications received through the medium of outside bodies. That is a totally new departure in Parliamentary procedure and one which I should have thought was a dangerous departure from practice.
  The noble Marquess recited from one of the Cautionary Tales for children. I think he had forgotten the context in which those words were uttered. A very foolish young person, forgetting the advice of his elders, put his arm into the den of an angry lion, and by the time the keeper had tried to restrain the animal the lion had reached his head and then, alas! the lad was dead! That is just what I am afraid will happen to the Government if they go on with what seems to me to be an entirely unconservative scheme. May I say respectfully to the noble Marquess, who seemed to find my opinions odd in a Conservative, that all I am doing is to say that successive Conservative Governments since 1919 have been right in the policy which they have pursued on the advice of successive Committees which they have set up. I am not suddenly converted to some alien philosophy. I sat at the feet of Gamaliel. I am a Hebrew of the Hebrews in this matter. There is scarcely a public controversy during the last twenty-five years in which in my humble way I have not taken and received blows on behalf of the Conservative Party, and it does not do for the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to lecture one of the Back Benchers who does not happen to agree with him when, as a matter of fact, one of the fundamental doctrines of the Conservative Party is that if we find a system which is working well we do not interfere with it simply on doctrinal grounds. It seems to me that it is that fundamental principle which has been overlooked by the Government in relation to this case.
  I do not want to detain your Lordships for many minutes more. I agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the

  747
  House that one of the striking features of this debate was the contributions made yesterday by the most reverend Primate and this afternoon by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. Will they not take those contributions to heart? It is true that personally I wish to see the Beveridge Report accepted, for the reasons contained in that Report, but my disagreement with other proposals which do not involve dependence on advertisements for their revenue is of a totally different order from my disagreement with the White Paper. I believe I am speaking for the entirety of noble Lords who support this Motion when I say that if the Government would only scrap the White Paper and accept what the most reverend Primate said or what Lord Waverley suggested, this matter would not be pressed to a Division.
  But, as the noble Marquess has said, the White Paper now holds the field with the Government insisting on a Party Division. Well, we must record our opinion about it; we are not going to run away
  from that. It is a great pity. The Government have not in the country a very wide balance of advantage, even if they have that. They are now antagonising the Free Churches, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, told us; there are many members of the Church of England who will agree with the most reverend Primate; there are the Vice-Chancellors of all the universities, and the whole educational system; and there are other bodies of organised opinion, also, who are against them. Well, go into your Lobby with your Party majority, and with a Party majority in this House you will win, less some of your most sincere and devoted supporters who have given their whole public lives to the service of your Party. Go into that Lobby alone, with practically no one else but your committed supporters to support you, and see what happens in the end.
  On Question: Whether the Resolution shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided:—
  Contents, 87; Not-Contents. 157.

  CONTENTS

  Wellington, D.

  Amwell, L.

  Lawson, L.

  Archibald, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

  Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

  Beveridge, L.

  Mathers, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

  Mendip, L, (V. Clifden.)

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Boyd-Orr, L.

  Merthyr, L. [Teller.]

  Jowitt, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Russell, E.

  Brand, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Burden, L.

  Moran, L.

  Addison, V.

  Campion, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Carnock, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Cunningham of Hyndhope, V.

  Cawley, L.

  Noel-Buxton, L. [Teller.]

  Elibank, V.

  Chatfield, L.

  Ogmore, L,

  Falmouth, V.

  Citrine, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Hailsham, V.

  Clwyd, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Hall, V.

  Darwen, L.

  Quibell, L.

  Hyndley, V.

  Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

  Rea, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Rochester, L.

  Ruffside, V.

  Rusholme, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Schuster, L.

  Simon, V.

  Hankey, L.

  Sempill, L.

  Waverley, V.

  Hare L. (E. Listowel.)

  Silkin, L.

  Hayter, L.

  Simon of Wythenshawe, L.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Hemingford, L.

  Stamp, L.

  Coventry, L. Bp.

  Henderson, L.

  Swathling, L.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Hungarton, L.

  Williams, L.

  Sheffield, L. Bp.

  Inman, L.

  Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

  Kenswood, L.

  Wise, L.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Kershaw, L.

  Wrenbury, L.

  Ammon, L.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Wright, L.

  Amulree, L.

  Latham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Portland, D.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Linlithgow, M.

  Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

  Milford Haven, M.

  Bristol, M.

  Reading, M.

  Northumberland, D.

  Camden, M.

  Willingdon, M.

  Albemarle, E.

  Airedale, L,

  Hillingdon, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Hindlip, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Audley, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Baden-Powell, L.

  Birkenhead, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Barnby, L

  Keyes, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Belper, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Bennett of Edgbaston, L

  Kinnaird, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Blackford, L.

  Layton, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Leathers, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Braintree, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Howe, E.

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Braye, L

  Luke, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Brocket, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Broughshane, L.

  Melchett, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Cadman, L.

  Milne, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Carrington, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Perth, E.

  Cherwell, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Radnor, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Cornwallis, L.

  Monson, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Courtauld-Thomson, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Croft, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Ypres, E.

  Cromwell, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Allenby, V.

  Cunliffe, L.

  Pender, L.

  Astor, V.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Bearsted, V.

  Denham, L.

  Remnant, L.

  Buckmaster, V.

  Denman, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Camrose, V.

  Dorchester, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Cowdray, V.

  Dormer, L.

  Rockley, L.

  Devonport, V.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Salter, L.

  FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Furness, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Ennisdale, L.

  Savile, L.

  Hambleden, V.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Sherwood, L.

  Hudson, V.

  Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegall.)

  Somers, L.

  Knollys, V.

  Foley, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Leverhulme, V.

  Fraser of North Cape, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Long, V.

  Freyberg, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Margesson, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Portal of Hungerford, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Glenconner, L.

  Trevethin, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Gretton, L.

  Tumour, L (E. Winterton.)

  Weir, V.

  Hacking, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Wimborne, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Vansittart, L.

  Woolton, V.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Harris, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Webb-Johnson, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Resolved in the negative, and Resolution disagreed to accordingly.

  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS)
  6.50 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this
  750
  Motion stands in my name on the Order Paper together with four other Motions. Formally, I think it will be necessary to take the vote of the House upon each Motion, but perhaps it will be convenient if I address your Lordships in one, I hope, short speech dealing with all those matters. This is a matter which last year and the year before I brought before your Lordships, and last year I thought it would be right to go at some considerable length into the very complicated and difficult machinery by which these several sets of regulations and Acts are preserved. I do not think it will be necessary to do that again, because it is useless to repeat what I said then, which I think was accurate, and can, if necessary, be found in Hansard.
  The most convenient way—because this is a complicated subject—will be to ask your Lordships to look at the White Paper. Your Lordships will see from the first paragraph of the White Paper that on December 10 next a number of emergency enactments and Defence Regulations will come to an end unless they are continued in force by Orders in Council made in pursuance of Addresses to Her Majesty. They are there set out. First of all, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and the Defence Regulations which are kept in force by the Act; then certain other Defence Regulations which had originally been kept in force until December 10, 1950, under the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, and the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, which is there referred to. They are kept in force by annual Emergency Laws (Continuance) Orders. There is also Section 3 (1) and Section 6 of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946. which extend respectively Parts I and III of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, and the Sugar Industry Act, 1942. Then, again, there are certain temporary provisions in Section 49 of the Patents Act, 1949, and the First Schedule to the Registered Designs Act. 1947. Motions will be put before the House in regard to all those matters. They all deal with the emergency regulations which were passed in or after the war.
  It has been our constant endeavour to reduce the number of those regulations as much as we possibly can. While the present Government were in Opposition they consistently attacked Her Majesty's Government for being so slow in reducing the number of regulations, and since Her Majesty's present Government have been in office we have been consistently attacked by the Opposition. I think that in the course of last year the Government have done much of which they may well be proud. We have consistently aimed at reducing the regulations, upon this principle: that it was not sufficient merely that there should be administrative convenience; it should be a matter of sheer necessity that the regulations should be preserved. They should not be preserved
  752
  merely because they were useful in an emergency and were, therefore, still retained to meet an emergency which might or might not arise. We aimed at a less comprehensive range of control, and finally we have done this. Many regulations were passed which, in happier times, might well have been embodied in substantive legislation but were conveniently passed in the form of regulations. As time has passed, experience has shown that it is necessary that those regulations should be embodied in permanent legislation, and that has to some extent been done, and to a further extent will be done in the course of the ensuing twelve months.
  If your Lordships will be good enough to glance at the White Paper, you will see that in 1953 no fewer than seventy-six regulations have been eliminated and seventeen more have been partially eliminated. No less than one half of the regulations which we inherited in 1951 have now gone, and I hope that your Lordships will think that that has been a satisfactory rate of progress. If your Lordships will look at paragraph 4, you will find set out the list of regulations which have been eliminated. There were one or two to which my particular attention was called last year, and I remember that I promised that I would give my personal attention to them. One in particular was Regulation 89 with regard to the use of force in entering premises. I believe that both the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, who is not here, were particularly anxious about that. Those are the Regulations that are gone.
  If your Lordships look at paragraph 6 of the White Paper you will find there a summary of the progress which we have made. I do not want to boast unduly, but I think it reflects a great deal of credit, not only on Ministers but on the Departments which have been concerned, that we have been able to make this progress. Now the Motion on the Order Paper, under Section 8 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, proposes that that Act should be continued, and the regulations which are set out in the White Paper beginning with number 46 and going on to 105 should be continued for one year. After the rather emotional de-

  753
  bate in which we have for so long teen employed, I can only think that your Lordships will not want me to discourse at any length on these matters. I would rather, if I may, and if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and others, agree, simply stand upon what is in the White Pager; and if there is anything further the noble Lord wishes to know, I will do my best to answer him.
  The other matters have not been formally called on, but your Lordships will see from the White Paper that we ask also for the continuance of certain other regulations under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, and we ask also that certain regulations under the Patents and Registered Designs Act should similarly be continued. I may say in regard to those that it will not be necessary to preserve them for long, because their subject matter is being embodied in legislation. This is a matter which was raised last year, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. I told him, and it has turned out to be correct, that this matter would be embodied in legislation. I think I am right in saying that the Bill is in draft. I do not want to be disrespectful to the House in any way. These matters are important enough, I know, but we have the general background in previous years, and the details appear sufficiently in the White Paper. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not think that I am failing in my duty if I now move the Motion standing in my name. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth clay of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  7.2 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that he has in no sense been disrespectful to the House and that the explanation which he has given to us of the Motion before the House is entirely adequate for the occasion. I cannot pretend that the matters before the House at this moment have the drama and excitement of those
  754
  which we have just been discussing, but I would suggest to the House that they are no less important. I do not propose to interrogate the Lord Chancellor upon the contents of the White Paper, and especially on the particular regulations which have or have not been repealed. The noble and learned Lord rather congratulated himself on the extent to which the then existing regulations have been revoked in the past year or are being revoked. I find there are still ninety-seven regulations in force as against 217 two years ago. At this rate it will take some years before they are finally disposed of.
  But there is a somewhat disturbing feature about these regulations which your Lordships may have overlooked. One of the regulations which is being revoked is that dealing with food and drugs, and this is being reimposed in permanent legislation in the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill which was before this House on Tuesday. In this Amending Bill, powers are taken to submit no fewer than twelve different regulations in the place of the one which we are revoking. If it is thought that by means of revoking regulations we are putting an end to them, I can only say we are doing nothing of the kind. We are, in many cases, simply multiplying them, but placing them in permanent rather than temporary legislation. That is not a matter which is particularly relevant to the subject before the House to-day, but it is something we ought to bear in mind. If all the powers under that Bill, which seeks to make permanent existing regulations, are taken and regulations introduced, we shall have multiplied the number of regulations by twelve. I realise that the House is not in any mood to go into detail on this matter. We on this side accept the Prayer. We will watch closely the efforts of Her Majesty's Government in the coming year, and we hope that next time these regulations come up it will not be in this rather rarefied atmosphere and that we may have an opportunity of discussing the matter in some greater detail.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I support the Motion and thank the Lord Chancellor for what I take to be a virtual promise that by this time next year most of these orders will have gone into the form of permanent legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I said "all" it was under a mis-

  755
  apprehension. I should have said "most of them." We shall continue to tackle this matter and I think a great many more of them will certainly have gone altogether, or be embodied in permanent legislation. It is a matter of degree.
  LORD REA: For that I am sure we are all most grateful. I do not wish to detain the House, but I do notice the clumsiness of the procedure, particularly in the Patents Order of 1953 and the Registered Designs Order. I do not doubt the necessity for continuing these Orders, but it seems that your Lordships are asked to express the opinion once a year that there is a state of emergency, when possibly no emergency has arisen. That is rather clumsy and I suggest that the whole thing should be taken into the purview of the Government.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very much obliged to the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Rea. The number ninety-seven is a little alarming, but the great proportion of those ninety-seven are administrative provisions and not of a substantive character—and they are not in the least, I think, offensive, They are necessary to make effective the other and fewer substantive regulations. We shall certainly take notice of what Lord Rea has said.
  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  7.6 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have already explained to your Lordships the position in regard to these matters, and it may perhaps suffice if I move formally the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.

  Schedule
  The following Regulations of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, namely,—
  Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of Her Majesty's forces);
  Regulations eighty-two, eighty-three, eighty-four, and eighty-five (False documents and false statements, obstruction, restrictions on disclosing information and entry upon, and inspection of, land);
  Regulations ninety-one to ninety-three, ninety-seven to one hundred and two, and one hundred and five (General, administrative, legal and supplementary provisions).
  Parts I, II, III and IX and Schedules I and II of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939.
  Parts I and II and Schedule I of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1940.
  Regulations one and six of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939.
  Regulation one and paragraphs (4) to (10) of Regulation five of the Defence (Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths) Regulations, 1942.
  Regulations one and two and paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation three of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941.
  The whole of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.
  —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the same observations apply to this Motion, and with your Lordships' permission I will take the same course. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the enactments specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.

  Schedule
  Subsection (1) of section three of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946 (which, as amended by section four of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, extends certain provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, relating to wheat and land drainage).
  Section six of the said Act of 1946 (which extends the Sugar Industry Act, 1942).
  —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  PATENTS (EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF EMERGENCY) ORDER, 1953
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, to this Motion precisely the same observations apply. The terms of this Order are, as I have said, already embodied in the draft Bill which will shortly, I hope, be before this House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Patents (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1953, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  REGISTERED DESIGNS (EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF EMERGENCY) ORDER, 1953
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I repeat verbatim on this Motion what I said on the last. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1953, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  LICENSING (SEAMEN'S CANTEENS) BILL [H.L.]
  7.9 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. — (Lord Lloyd.)
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  Clause 1 [Power to authorise grant of retailers' excise on-licences for seamen's canteens]:
  On Question, Whither Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD SILKIN: I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. The House will remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill I raised one or two matters on behalf of my noble friends to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, replied, promising that he would give further consideration to them. There were three matters in all and on two of them I shall say nothing further because the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has satisfied me. There is one matter to which I want to refer briefly. The Bill deals with canteens and provides for the licensing of these seamen's canteens, and makes special provision. I have no quarrel with that. The point I made on Second Reading was: how could it be secured that the character of these canteens remained? What happened if they ceased to be canteens for seamen and deteriorated or degenerated into places where seamen could get intoxicating liquor and nothing else? I felt that if that were the case there was no need for giving them special treatment. It was only because these establishments were canteens, as well as places where intoxicating liquor was sold, that there was a justification for this special provision. I think I have the noble Lord's permission to say that I have been in correspondence with him. He has sent me a letter which entirely satisfies me, but I think it right that the assurances he gave me in that letter should be repeated publicly, as briefly as he likes. It was for that reason that I have raised this matter on Clause 1.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): It is quite true, as the noble Lord says, that I have been in correspondence with him about this matter and I am perfectly ready to repeat what I said to him in my letter and to give him, and I hope the House, all the reassurances I can. As I think I said to him on Second Reading, the main practical safeguard in my opinion, and in the Government's opinion, lies in the character and purpose

  759
  of the canteens themselves and of the bodies which provide them. These canteens are in no way commercial undertakings. They are provided by voluntary welfare bodies which are co-ordinated and supplemented by the Merchant Navy Welfare Board itself. I think your Lordships will be aware that this is a body of very high standing. On it there are all the seamen's societies, and unions representing all ranks of seamen, and also the Government Departments concerned. The whole purpose of their activities, including, in particular, the provision of these clubs, is the welfare of the seamen—that they shall not be dependent for their recreation and entertainment on the ordinary facilities of a port, but shall have somewhere of their own where they can relax and amuse themselves in decent surroundings. That is their whole purpose.
  LORD SILKIN: And to eat.
  LORD LLOYD: Yes; to eat, drink, sleep and do all the other things that people normally want to do when they are off duty. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord's fears are in a sense a little unreal because of the nature of the body concerned in running these hostels. I also think that the legal safeguards in this Bill are quite effective. The body providing the canteen has to be approved by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, and the canteen requires a certificate from the Minister, which must be renewed annually. These welfare arrangements for seamen are now a national institution, and I do not believe that any Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in any conceivable circumstances would give his approval to a certificate if the canteen had degenerated in the way suggested by the noble Lord. After all, the Minister is answerable to Parliament, and there is no doubt that he would place himself in an impossible position if he did so.
  Then there is a further safeguard. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 2 (2) of the Bill he will see that rules have to be made as to the persons entitled to use the canteens, and those rules have to be approved by the licensing authority; and he will see that a failure to observe the rules is a ground for refusing to renew the canteen's licence under Clause 4 (3).
  760
  So here again the licensing authority will have an effective control over the kind of people who are allowed to use the canteens. They will also have the general power to refuse the renewal of a licence if a canteen is improperly conducted. I did try to see whether there was something further we could do to allay the noble Lord's fears, but I feel that any satisfactory amendment to the Bill would be difficult to find. I think that the Bill is water-tight. We have done our best to make it so, and I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will be prepared to let the matter rest now.
  LORD MATHERS: This Bill is an improvement, so far as I can judge, on the present position, and I see that the licensing authority will now be the normal licensing authority for the district. I hope I may take it that that means that there will be police opportunity of visiting the premises and police supervision: that it is not simply left to the canteen itself to run things as it will. I suggest to the noble Lord that thus an additional safeguard is brought in by interesting the local authority in the position.
  LORD LLOYD: That is perfectly correct, as I think I said on Second Reading. The police will now be allowed to pay visits to these canteens in the normal way, should that be necessary, and this is an additional safeguard.
  LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has, in fact, repeated what he has told me in correspondence. I entirely accept it and on that understanding I have not put down any Amendment.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported without amendment.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  7.17 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.