Sitting of 28 July 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to Order [26th July], and agreed to.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendment.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (A) be made, that the Standing Order hereinafter stated in Schedule (B) be repealed, and that the new Standing Order relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (C) be made:

SCHEDULE (A)—AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS
Standing Order 4, line 1, leave out from beginning, to "a," and insert "Whenever an application is intended to be made to bring in."
Standing Order 39, line 27, leave out "Southern Rhodesia," and insert "the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland."
Standing Order 64, line 24, after "acquisition," insert "by."
Line 25, leave out "by or."
Standing Order 67, line 38, after "acquisition," insert "by."
Line 38, leave out "by or."
Standing Order 99, line 1, leave out "conservancy," and insert "river board."
Standing Order 162, line 2, leave out "gas or."
Standing Order 190, line 4, after first "the," insert "short."
Standing Order 220, line 69, at end, insert—
(h) notice of the day proposed for the second reading of the bill shall not be given for a day later than the seventh day after that on which the bill has been ordered to be read a second time; provided that when the House has resolved to adjourn to a day beyond the seventh day, notice may be given for the day to which the House has adjourned or the following day.
Standing Order 224, line 6, leave out from "shall," to "whether," in line 9, and insert "decide whether or not the Bill is of such a nature that Standing Orders 4 to 68 should apply to it and if he decides that those Standing Orders should so apply he shall report to the House."
Standing Order 237, line 28, leave out from "person," to second "on," in line 29.
Standing Order 238, line 9, leave out "ten," and insert "eleven."
Standing Order 239, line 21, leave out paragraph (2), and add—
(2) The name and address of the applicant, if any, shall be endorsed on any order so laid and on all copies of the order so deposited and made available.
Standing Order 240, line 26, leave out "specified on the face of," and insert "endorsed on."
Standing Order 243, line 29, leave out "specified on the face of," and insert "endorsed on."
Standing Order 244, line 54, leave out "specified on the face of," and insert "endorsed on."

SCHEDULE (B)—REPEAL OF A STANDING ORDER
Standing Order 239A (Deposit of duplicate plans, &c., in the Private Bill Office).

SCHEDULE (C)—NEW STANDING ORDER
Deposit of duplicate plans, &c., in Private Bill Office
239A. If under a special procedure order it is proposed to authorise the compulsory acquisition or use of land, or if the order relates to any works or to any area of land or water, and the said works or area are described by reference to a map or plan, a copy of a map or plan of the said land or works or area shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office on the day on which the order is laid before this House.
The object of these Amendments is to clarify the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, and in some cases to bring them up to date. In particular, the new Standing Order 239A improves upon the repealed Standing Order 239A in that it ensures that, wherever necessary, maps or plans illustrating Special Procedure Orders shall be available for the use of Members from the day on which such an Order is laid before the House.
Question put, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  SUEZ CANAL ZONE BASE (ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the resumption of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government over the Canal Zone.
  Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a further statement about the negotiations with Egypt over the future of the Suez Canal Base, with particular reference to the use of civilian contractors.
  Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in the position to make a statement on the progress of the talks between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Egypt on the evacuation of British troops from the Suez Canal Zone.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will reply to these Questions at the end of Questions.
  Mr. Shinwell: Pending the statement which the right hon. Gentleman is going to make in answering these Questions, and while I have no desire to prevent either my right hon. and learned Friend or my hon. Friend from putting any questions themselves, this point has occurred to me. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in making his statement to the House this afternoon, refer to the possibility of the resumption of the export of arms to Egypt in the meantime; and, secondly, will he say anything about the negotiations on the subject of Egyptian intervention with shipping in the Suez Canal?
  Mr. Eden: My statement will deal with the actual agreement, and I think the House will be willing to wait for that announcement. It is a quite normal and courteous way of replying to Questions by such an announcement.
  Mr. Shinwell: That is all very well, but the right hon. Gentleman has indicated
  462
  that he is not going to say anything about these two matters, although they are indicated in the Questions on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Eden: I have only told the House that I will make a statement at the end of Questions. It seems to me the normal and courteous way of proceeding to answer hon. Members' Questions.

  GERMANY (RE-ARMAMENT)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official discussions he had with the Soviet Foreign Minister at Geneva regarding Germany and European security.
  Mr. Anthony Eden: None, Sir.
  Mr. Warbey: As peaceful co-existence is now the policy of the Government, and as this new policy was so successful at Geneva, would not the right hon. Gentleman apply it to the next problem—Germany—and take advantage of the tentative suggestions put forward in the new Soviet Note to propose a four-Power conference on Germany?
  Mr. Eden: I think that if the hon. Gentleman reads the Soviet Note he will find out that that is what they suggest.
  Mr. Warbey: I was not suggesting that. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was suggesting that he should follow up these tentative suggestions and might himself suggest a four-Power conference?
  Mr. Eden: Thank you very much.
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a detailed statement on the Government's proposals for according sovereignty to Western Germany.
  Mr. Anthony Eden: I have nothing to add to the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Warbey: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister left this matter in complete obscurity? Can he now answer at least one question and say how the Bonn Conventions are to be brought into effect and separated from E.D.C. without legalising the uncontrolled rearmament of Western Germany?
  Mr. Eden: There are methods by which that can be done, but I do not know that I should enter into them at this moment.
  Mr. Warbey: Does not the whole House desire to know exactly how this matter can be dealt with?
  Mr. Eden: The Question is about the sovereignty of Western Germany, but it is clear that arrangements can be made covering rearmament if it was so agreed and desired.

  SOUTH-EAST ASIA
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs his proposals, following the successful conclusion of the Geneva Conference, for economic aid to the countries of South-East Asia.
  Mr. Anthony Eden: The existing arrangements for economic aid to the countries of South-East Asia will continue. No decision has yet been taken as to what additional measures will be necessary or possible.
  Mr. Warbey: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the additional measures are under discussion, because the present paltry assistance under the Colombo Plan is quite inadequate to provide an effective counter to the Communist challenge in South-East Asia? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Burma Prime Minister said recently that he is not afraid of the Communists because he has a better programme than the Communists?
  Mr. Eden: I am very conscious of the economic aspects of this problem, and certain discussions are going on, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the Colombo Plan.
  Mr. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the new countries of South-East Asia, such as Indonesia, which are trying to build up their own independence, such economic aid is welcomed?
  Mr. Eden: We shall do what we can in all these matters.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Government can support with an ample contribution the work in Southern Viet-Nam, similar to that which has been done in Korea by the United Nations?
  Mr. Eden: I would like to consider that suggestion.
  Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the improved situation in South-East Asia, he will communicate with the relevant authorities at the United Nations revising Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development and announcing Britain's willingness to participate financially without waiting for the realisation of an agreed scheme of internationally supervised disarmament.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): No, Sir. The position is still as indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in his reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) on 2nd June.
  Sir R. Acland: Do not the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary feel that we might have obtained even better terms in South-East Asia if this fund had been in operation four years ago and we now had behind us the enthusiasm in the people there for the sort of work it would have been doing? Is it not rather foolish to deny ourselves the advantages which this fund can give by allowing the Russians the power to veto it?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the rather valuable suggestion of the United Nations Association on this matter, that even if we can get the full support of America we should start it on a more limited basis?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Undoubtedly we shall look at that sort of point in due course.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Under-Secretary of State undertake to ensure that the Government will consider again before September whether, in view of the changes in the course of events in South-East Asia and elsewhere, it is not very urgent to keep this fund on its feet?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the original reply of the Minister of State to which I have referred, he will see that it is clear that Her Majesty's Government did not envisage being in a position to contribute

  465
  to such a fund until resources became available, and I cannot see that happening before September.
  Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not enter into any commitments or make any expressions of intention which might lead to military action in South-East Asia without first making a thorough examination of the proposals for a general settlement which are now being put forward by the Chinese Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Anthony Eden: I am not aware of any such proposals. The policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of South-East Asian security has been clearly stated to this House.
  Sir R. Acland: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall not enter into expressions of intention or other informal arrangements, very similar to those which we had with France in 1913–14, which are quite capable of leading to military operations, without first exploring alternative possibilities?
  Mr. Eden: I have fully explained our policy to the House, and I think it is well known.

  TOURIST TRAVEL (PASSPORTS)
  Mr. John Edenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the official proposals from France and Belgium that Great Britain should join with them in abolishing passports for day and weekend visitors; and whether, in view of the desirability of further developing tourist travel, he will agree to this relaxation.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Her Majesty's Government have received no such proposals from the Belgian Government. The French Government have made several approaches with a view to a resumption of the pre-war practice. Their proposals have been carefully considered, but on 31st December, 1953, the French Ambassador was informed that Her Majesty's Government had with great regret come to the
  466
  conclusion that they could not agree to the re-establishment of the pre-war facilities.

  UNITED NATIONS (REFUGEES)
  Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government refused to support the plan recently submitted to the United Nations Economic and Social Council by Dr. van Heuven Goedhart, the High Commissioner for Refugees.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Because Dr. Goedhart's proposal assumes international responsibility for the economic integration of refugees. This, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, is essentially a matter for the Governments of their country of residence.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Will not Her Majesty's Government reconsider this matter? Does not the Minister realise that this is one of the most human problems left as a result of the recent war, and does he not feel that there is a moral obligation to these people?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: This country has been second only to the United States in helping refugees since the war. This is not a new policy. It dates from the handing over of the care-and-maintenance responsibility of the Refugee Organisation in 1950 to the Governments of the countries responsible.

  TRADE WITH CHINA
  Mr. Jayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the agreements reached at Geneva on 20th July, he will make a statement about the relaxation of restrictions on trade between the United Kingdom and China.
  Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now, following the truce settlement in Indo-China, propose in the United Nations that the special embargo imposed on trade with China in May, 1951, be rescinded, and that exports to China be subject only to the same strategic restrictions as are in force in respect of shipments to Eastern Europe.
  Mr. Anthony Eden: As the right hon. Gentlemen are aware, a Chinese trade

  467
  mission recently visited the United Kingdom and a British trade mission is to visit China. These talks cover all trade outside the strategic embargo. As for goods falling within the embargo, these are a matter for international decision, and I have no statement to make on that at the moment.
  Mr. Jay: As this embargo was originally imposed on account of the Korean War, and as the cease-fire has been achieved both in Korea and Indonesia, thanks partly to the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman, will the United Kingdom Government not now take some initiative in the United Nations to get relaxation?
  Mr. Eden: These are questions which range far beyond the view of Her Majesty's Government. They are connected with the possibility of a Korean settlement. I would not be able to add anything to what I have said this afternoon.
  Mr. P. Roberts: Is it not a fact that the Chinese trade mission over here seems to be wishing to acquire large quantities of steel and other strategic materials? So long as we have no evidence of peaceful co-existence with that country will my right hon. Friend watch the situation very carefully?
  Mr. Eden: It is natural that countries should wish to acquire things on the embargo list. I was dealing with our position which, as my hon. Friend will be aware, is covered by what I have said.
  Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the fact that the somewhat comparable problem of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc in Europe has been the subject of fairly successful international consultation resulting in an easing of, at any rate, some of the restrictions, would not the right hon. Gentleman think the time is now opportune for negotiating international discussions of the same kind to lead to something like the same result?
  Mr. Eden: I do not wish to be enticed beyond what I have already said.

  SAUDI ARABIAN FRONTIER DISPUTE (ARBITRATION)
  Mr. E. Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make a statement about
  468
  the negotiations with the Saudi Arabian Government regarding the frontier dispute on the Trucial Coast.
  Mr. Anthony Eden: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to report to the House that we have now reached agreement in principle with the Saudi Government regarding the terms on which the frontier dispute on the Trucial Coast shall be put to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal will consist of five members, of whom one will be nominated by Her Majesty's Government acting on behalf of the Sultan of Muscat and the Ruler of Abu Dhabi, and one by the Saudi Government: these two will then choose three neutrals. This Tribunal will be asked to determine the common frontier between Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, and sovereignty over the Buraimi zone.
  The Saudi official, Turki, and his party is to be withdrawn to Saudi Arabia, and we on our side shall withdraw the posts which we put out after his appearance in the oasis. Each side will then contribute 15 men to a police group which will be stationed in the oasis to maintain law and order during arbitration.
  As for oil operations, the disputed areas are to be divided into two parts, separated by a neutral zone. In the northern part our companies will continue their operations, and in the southern the Arabian American Oil Company will be free to prospect. This, of course, will be without prejudice to the claims of the parties at arbitration.
  The arbitration proceedings will take time. But I am sure that the House will share my satisfaction that it is now possible to go forward to a solution of this long dispute, and to the full restoration of our traditionally friendly relations with Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. Wakefield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the war those who, like myself, represented the British Government in the Persian Gulf, received the most generous co-operation from His late Majesty Ibn Saud? Is he further aware of the gratification which all of us who are interested in the restoration of good will between ourselves and the Saudi Arabian Government feel at the announcement that my right hon. Friend has made?
  Mr. Stokes: In arriving at these arrangements have steps been taken

  469
  definitely to see to it that the cost of the oil which will be under British influence will be so adjusted as to conform to the cost of production instead of conforming to the American wish to keep the price up according to the cost of production in their own country?
  Mr. Eden: The agreement provides for our oil companies to continue their operations. It also safeguards the interests of the rulers. I do not think we have got beyond that stage at the moment.

  AUSTRIA (OCCUPYING POWERS)
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has sent to the request made by the Austrian Government for a meeting with occupying Powers to discuss ways of alleviating the burdens of occupation.
  Mr. Anthony Eden: No reply has yet been sent, but the Austrian proposal is being sympathetically considered.
  Mr. Davies: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that reply, may I ask him whether, if this meeting takes place, he will draw once more the attention of the Soviet Union to the fact that no obstacles stand in the way of the Austrian Treaty being concluded, and that in that way the burden of occupation can be finally concluded?
  Mr. Eden: I shall be glad to pass on the hon. Gentleman's wise comments.

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (NEGOTIATIONS)
  Mr. Morleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made for compensation to British nationals of the overseas staff of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Limited formerly employed in Persia.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Negotiations in Teheran are concerned with compensation to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Any compensation to members of the staff is a separate issue for which my right hon. Friend has no responsibility.
  Mr. Morley: Can the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend use his influence to see that members of the staff who lost very
  470
  good jobs when the oil company withdrew from Persia, and who now have very badly paid jobs, get some share of this compensation which is to be given to the company?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think that the hon. Gentleman should address his inquiries to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is responsible for that aspect of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
  Mr. T. Williams: Could not the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of how many of the employees are really the employees of the Government?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Not without notice.

  ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAYS (BRITISH SHAREHOLDERS)
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that in the present negotiations with the Argentine it will continue to be made clear to them that Her Majesty's Government views with displeasure the manner in which British shareholders of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways have been treated over the years and that they still look to the Argentine Government for eventual compensation.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Yes, Sir.

  LEIPZIG KIRCHENTAG (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasons why a number of representatives of British churches were unable, through the action of British officials in Germany, to attend the recent Kirchentag in Leipzig.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: The hon. Member is misinformed. The only applications to British officials in Germany of which I am aware were those of 11 persons who applied quite correctly through the British member of the Interzonal Facilities Bureau. All these applications were transmitted to the Soviet Visa Office in Berlin within two days of their receipt, and daily reminders were also sent. On 1st July the Soviet Visa Office approved

  471
  two of them and the two successful applicants were so informed. As the Soviet authorities still gave no answer about the other applicants, it was not possible to inform them whether their applications had been successful.
  Mr. Driberg: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the comment and report from a responsible Free Church newspaper which I sent to him, and will he say what factual errors, if any, there are in that comment?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I cannot go into detail at the moment, but the comment was based on misinformation, and I have given the House the correct information.
  Mr. Driberg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the persons who applied through the British authorities were not able to get there in time, whereas those who applied direct were?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is not the fault of the British authorities, as I have made clear in my answer.
  Mr. P. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that it is rather typical of certain sections of the Opposition to try to blame British Government officials when usually it is the Communists who are at fault?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: We see that too often.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Flour Improvers (Agene)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Food if he can yet make a statement in respect of the banning of agene in flour for human consumption.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): Not yet, Sir.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that an undertaking was given by a Government spokesman on 2nd December, 1953, that a statement was likely to be made within two or three months, and is he not aware that for some considerable period a baker in the West Country has been selling large quantities of bread free from agene and chemicals? What is the Ministry doing about that?
    Dr. Hill: I am aware of the need for an early decision. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the hands of an expert committee which is seeking an absolutely safe alternative. My right hon. and gallant Friend will make an announcement as soon as that expert advice is ready.
    Mr. Stokes: Why does not the Minister's Department encourage the millers to give people decent bread instead of the poison which they now supply?
    Dr. Hill: Because he prefers an expert examination of the facts before making loose assertions.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in the new process, which has been going on as a commercial proposition, no chemicals at all are used? Is it not a good bread in itself, and why does not the Ministry do something about it? If it is not a good bread, why does not the Ministry warn people about it?
    Dr. Hill: I am aware of the aeration process to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is one of the methods being studied, but, until the study is complete, it cannot be authoritatively stated what the new method will be.

    Bacon Pigs (Guaranteed Prices)
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Food if he will withdraw the guaranteed prices for bacon pigs until a free market is restored between the farmer and the bacon curers.
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir. The guaranteed prices are paid to implement an undertaking to producers. The method of sale does not affect their purpose or necessity.
    Mr. Holt: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he and his right hon. and gallant Friend are really very happy about the present arrangements which have been in force since 1st July? Will he say to what extent there is a monopoly as a result of the agreement between the Fat Stock Marketing Corporation and the bacon curers, and how many bacon curers are now outside that agreement?
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. Friend's responsibility is to implement the guarantee, whether to the individual producer or to producers formed together in a voluntary organisation like the Fat Stock

    473
    Marketing Corporation. The issue which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is not the concern of my right hon. Friend, and it might appropriately be put to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Bullard: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, in the matter of the production of bacon pigs, in which quality and uniformity are all important, it is very desirable that these pigs should be sold through a marketing organisation rather than by the method of auction sales?
    Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir.

    Canadian Apples
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Food what arrangements are being made to allow imports of Canadian apples during the forthcoming season to meet the consumers' needs after the home-grown crop has been disposed of; to what extent this trade may be resumed; and what consultations he has had with Canadian interests to ensure that the domestic market may depend upon an adequate and varied supply of fresh fruit from North America.
    Dr. Hill: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave on 26th July to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Commander Donaldson).
    Mr. Hughes: Cannot the Minister be a little more explicit, and cannot he give the housewives a little more variety in the matter of food supplies?
    Dr. Hill: I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the answer to which I referred, which makes this, as it essentially is, a question of dollars.

    Eggs
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that eggs have increased in price from 2s. 6d. to 4s. 9d. per dozen; what evidence he has to indicate the future price trends; and what his policy is in regard to egg production and price.
    Dr. Hill: The price of eggs always rises at this time of the year, and no doubt this annual pattern will continue. But the price is appreciably lower than a year ago and lower than under control and subsidy the year before.
    Mrs. Mann: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. and gallant Friend made a statement in the House a week ago saying that eggs had fallen in price when, in point of fact, they have nearly doubled in price from 2s. 6d. to 4s. 9d.? Is the latter part of my Question too difficult for the hon. Gentleman to answer?
    Dr. Hill: The price always rises between the flush period and midsummer. The point of comparison is between that time this year and the same time last year, and the comparison shows a reduction in price.
    Sir W. Smithers: On the more general question, will the Ministry make it clear to the public that controls are the cause of shortages, that the restriction of consumption restricts production, and that it must take time for the application of sound principles to show results after the inefficiency and incompetence of the Socialist regime?

    Fatstock (Grading and Deadweight Scheme)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the operation of his Department's fatstock grade and deadweight scheme during the first three weeks of meat decontrol; if he is satisfied that generally the supply of home-killed meat and the demand are settling on a basis that is fair to producers and consumers; and if he can give a current estimate of the subsidy payments on account of the collective guaranteed payments and the guaranteed individual prices.
    Dr. Hill: There are now official graders at 166 centres and some 160 wholesalers are registered under the scheme. The answer to the second part of the Question within the limits of experience to date is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the third part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Departmental Estimates which included £34·7 million for the nine months ending next March.
    Mr. Hurd: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether an increasing number of farmers are making use of the Ministry's grading and deadweight scheme as an alternative to the auctions or the Fat Stock Marketing Corporation?
    Dr. Hill: It is a little early, after only three weeks, to measure trends of that kind.

    Bacon and Ham
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Belfast bacon has been increased to 6s. per lb., and cooked gammon from 7s. 4d. to 9s. per lb., while alternatives to these, such as sausages, meat and fish, are correspondingly increased; and if he will reimpose controls.
    Dr. Hill: I am not so informed. The average price of bacon is about the same as before decontrol, and from this weekend there will be bacon in some districts at much lower prices. The reply to the last part of the Question is: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Mann: I am not at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not informed. As a matter of fact, is he aware that when he asks housewives to take action by avoiding high prices the alternatives to which they have to resort are also all correspondingly increased?
    Dr. Hill: But the statements in the hon. Lady's Question are inaccurate. For example, she refers to cooked gammon, where the range of price is between 7s. 4d. and 8s. per lb. as compared with between 11s. and 12s. under the Administration of the party opposite. Secondly, the Index of Retail Food Prices shows that the figure for June is no higher than it was a year ago.
    Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the high cost of living, will the hon. Gentleman admit that the time has come when the British people should be sold Danish bacon at the price which the Government pays for it, and not be exploited by the Government to the tune of £30 million a year as they are at the present time?
    Dr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question on Danish bacon I shall be glad to answer it.
    Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that, unfortunately, some people are grossly exaggerating increases in the cost of living?
    Dr. Hill: Some people are denying, for political purposes, the validity of the figures which they themselves used.

    Butter
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food the price of butter in June, 1951, and June, 1954.
    Dr. Hill: 2s. 6d.; and from 3s. 8d. to 4s. 2d. per lb.
    Mrs. Mann: We have just had a reply that butter was 2s. 6d. a lb. in 1951, and that it is now costing from 3s. 8d. to 4s. 2d. a lb. Surely that gives the lie to all that hon. Members opposite have been saying about there being no increases. Are we to take it that when butter goes from 2s. 6d. a lb. to 4s. 2d. it is a reduction?
    Dr. Hill: But that is an element in the cost-of-living index.

    CYPRUS

      Port Development
      Sir F. Grahamasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the policy of Her Majesty's Government about creating a new port in Cyprus; and where this is likely to be situated.
      The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): My right hon. Friend fully appreciates the importance of port development in Cyprus and, at the request of the Government of Cyprus, advisers from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation are undertaking a survey of the flow of trade through the ports in the island. They will advise the Cyprus Government what developments, if any, are desirable. It is therefore too early to reply to the second part of the Question.
      Mr. Driberg: When conducting the survey, will the Government pay special attention to the fact that there are in Cyprus a large number of historic buildings of unexampled beauty and interest, and will they take care to see that so far as possible nothing is done to spoil these ancient buildings?
      Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir. I can certainly give that assurance.
      Captain Ryder: Will the Minister bear in mind that the decision to proceed with the deep water port at Cyprus will not only bring great benefit to the Colony, but will also be a clear indication to our

      477
      friends there that our interest in the Colony is an abiding one and not merely a passing one?
      Mr. Hopkinson: Yes. At the same time I think that we must await the report of the committee of inquiry.

      Enosis Movement
      Mrs. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what he estimates to be the volume of support in Cyprus for the Enosis Movement; and what measurable opposition there is to it among the people of the island.
      Mr. Hopkinson: I understand that there are many shades of opinion. The movement is certainly widely supported in the Press and from the pulpit, but there is strong opposition from a not inconsiderable part of the population of the island.
      Mrs. Jeger: Would the Minister not agree that it might be possible to get a definite answer to this question if the Government would consider holding a referendum of their own?
      Mr. Hopkinson: The holding of a referendum or a plebiscite is not a piece of political machinery which fits in very well with British ideas, but in any case I would ask the hon. Lady to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.
      Mr. Wyatt: Would the Minister say whether the Government, if they are going to return to the Front Bench, are going to give some attention to the problem of Cyprus and not wait until it explodes in their hands like the Suez Canal base and then have to go out of the Chamber again?
      Mr. Hopkinson: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the very last answer which I gave, he would have heard me say I was going to make a statement at the end of Questions.

    HONG KONG (HEALTHY VILLAGE)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what rents will be charged by the Hong Kong Housing Society for the flats they are proposing to build on the site of the Healthy Village; what are the qualifications necessary for renting these flats;
    478
    and what compensation will be paid to the present inhabitants of the Healthy Village who have to demolish their houses;
    (2) how many of the occupants of the Healthy Village who will not be rehoused by the Hong Kong Housing Society will be allowed to remain on that part of the site which is not needed by the Society.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I am consulting the Acting Governor, and will write to the hon. Member when I have his reply.
    Mr. Rankin: In the meantime, would not the Minister do something to try to get another site secured for the Hong Kong Housing Society? Would he not agree that it is a bad thing to interfere with this excellent little community?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on a previous occasion which, I think, made the position perfectly clear.

    MAKERERE COLLEGE, UGANDA (EXTRA-MURAL STUDIES)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Director of Extra-Mural Studies for the University College of East Africa has not been appointed; and what the University College authorities are doing with the money.
    Mr. Hopkinson: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) in reply to a Question on 23rd June, the University College of East Africa at Makerere is an autonomous body. This is therefore a matter for the college authorities.
    Mr. Rankin: I quite appreciate that fact, but surely the Minister can do something in this matter, because he is aware, I think, that this post was advertised over a year ago. As this extra-mural work is proceeding quite satisfactorily at Entebbe, is there any reason why it should not proceed now in Kenya and Tanganyika?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I think that my right hon. Friend in his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 23rd June, made quite clear what his interest was in this matter of extra-mural work.

    479
    He made his interest perfectly clear, but it would not be proper for him to intervene in a matter of this sort.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Would the Minister agree that one of our big difficulties in colonial society is a lack of what we may call cultural activity, particularly in East Africa of all places? Would he therefore do his best to indicate to the university in the territory that it ought to begin, and should begin as early as possible, some extra-mural classes in Nairobi?
    Mr. Hopkinson: With respect, I think that the answers given on this subject will help in that direction.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the Minister make it clear that this extra-mural work has his complete support, and say so to both the Governments concerned?
    Mr. Hopkinson.

    NIGERIA (MOKWA AGRICULTURAL SCHEME)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will hold an inquiry into the methods of working of the Mokwa agricultural scheme in Nigeria, and the factors which led to its failure.
    Mr. Hopkinson: This scheme has been taken over by the Government of the Northern Region of Nigeria on 1st June for further experimental work. My right hon. Friend sees no grounds for an inquiry at this stage.
    Mr. Johnson: Can the Minister confirm or deny that much of the difficulty in the past has been caused by the attitude of the local Emir who almost seems to wish to discourage these settlers coming into this scheme? Would he endeavour to convey to the Northern Territory Government that this sort of thing has not been helpful in the past and will not be helpful in the future?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I have not the information to confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, but certainly the scheme has been taken over by the Northern Regional Government. They have asked for a C.D. and W. grant to help to carry it out, and it is certainly their intention to make a success of it.

  MALAYA

    Constitution
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how he proposes to review the Malayan Federation agreement in view of his refusal of a Commission to consider it from outside Malaya but inside the British Commonwealth; and if he will ask the Sultans to suggest how their powers should be reduced in the interest of democratic government.
    Mr. Hopkinson: My right hon. Friend has not refused such a commission. The first part of the Question therefore does not arise. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No." I would, however, refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 21st July.
    Mr. Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. Can he say whether in the near future some approach will be made to the Sultans to see whether or not they, as a body, would be prepared to limit some of their powers so as to get more democratic representation inside Malaya?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I do not think that question arises at all. We are concerned with the working of the new constitution, and the Commission which it is suggested should sit would be going into that particular aspect of the matter.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that any extension of political power in Malaya will mean taking powers from Sultans? Does he think that the Sultans will agree to that? Would it not be wiser if he consulted some body such as a committee composed of those representing the Commonwealth rather than the Sultans in regard to this?
    Mr. Hopkinson: The position is that the Sultans have said that at their next meeting with the High Commissioner they will give further thought to the matter, but at this stage I do not think I can say any more as to the precise way in which an inquiry can be carried out.

    Teaching Posts (Graduates)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that only a small number of

    481
    Malayan graduates accept teaching posts; what is the reason for this; to what extent teaching appointments are reserved for non-Malayan teachers; and what steps he proposes to take to induce more Malayan graduates to take up such posts in Singapore and the Federation.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Malayan graduates are still comparatively few, and most of them prefer to enter the Civil Service rather than become teachers. No teachers' appointments are reserved for non-Malayans. No special steps are thought necessary to attract Malayan graduates to the teaching profession since the position is expected to right itself naturally as their numbers increase.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister quite satisfied that the salaries and other conditions for Malayan graduates are on an absolute equality with other people?
    Mr. Hopkinson: While there is no doubt that the remuneration prospects for teachers both in Singapore and in Malaya are very good indeed, we have no reason to think that the pay is in any sense a deterrent to their job.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that since the establishment of the university at Singapore five years ago only 14 graduates have taken up appointments as teachers? Would he examine the position and find out why it is that such a small number of graduates are going into the teaching profession in Singapore and in Malaya?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I gave the answer in reply to the Question, but I would point out that of some 435 graduates from the university of Malaya, no less than 42 in the past five years have obtained Diplomas of Education and are believed to have joined either Government or aided schools in the Federation or Singapore.

  KENYA

    Mr. Pinto
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been reached by the Advisory Committee on Detainees in the case of Mr. Pinto.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Mr. Pinto's appeal was due to be heard on 26th July. The Advisory Committee's decision is not yet available.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the Minister give this matter very careful consideration indeed? Is he aware that Mr. Pinto, while he has expressed the grievances of Africans, has taken a leading part in denouncing the violence and activities of Mau Mau, and will the Minister consider this issue very carefully?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I think I should be very unwise to comment on this matter pending the decision of the committee of inquiry.
    Mr. Brockway: If I will send the right hon. Gentleman information on the lines of my supplementary question will he forward it to the Governor?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I am always glad to receive information from the hon. Member, but, as I have said, it would be very unwise if I were to comment to the extent that he has done on this particular matter.

    Parliamentary Delegation Report (Appendix)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what organisations he has supplied copies, for the information of their members, of the unpublished appendix to the recent Report by the Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Copies have been sent to a number of organisations and societies whose names I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They have also been placed in many libraries where they are available to responsible persons on application.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the political parties, and it is not the Labour Party, is widely distributing this document among its members? Is he also aware that the "Voice of Kenya" is supplying it to any person who applies for it, and that this document, which is supposed to be kept in our Library, is being widely distributed?
    Mr. Hopkinson: This document has, with the approval of the Government—
    Mr. Manuel: Where are the members of the Government?
    Mr. Hopkinson: —been sent to a number of societies, and we believe that it should be given maximum publicity consistent with public decency and so on.
    Mr. de Freitas: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Government. Where are the Government? There are only two Whips and a junior Minister on the Government Front Bench. Surely the Government should be here?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Brockway: I want to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on this matter. A Parliamentary Delegation went to Kenya and presented a Report to this House. It had an appendix which is a private document and is restricted to the Library of this House. I have evidence that the Colonial Office sent this document to certain political parties for the information of their members and it is being widely distributed. I would ask for your ruling as to whether a document of this private character should be used in that way.
    Mr. Alport: Further to that point of order. Is the House not aware that that particular document is not a secret document but was, in fact, produced by the information office of the Kenya Government and was distributed long before it was included in the proposed appendix to the Report?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Minister whether this is not a breach of the undertaking given to the House? When the Parliamentary Delegation was compiling its Report it included this appendix as part of the Report. We were then informed by the Secretary of State that the Government had decided, for reasons which I can understand, that this part of the Report should not be published but that a copy should be available in the Library. Are we to understand now that, without any notification or without consulting anyone, that decision has been changed and copies have been given to certain individuals and private organisations? Is not that a breach of the undertaking given to the House?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I do not think any undertaking was given to the House at all. The Secretary of State merely announced that he did not propose to publish this document as part of the White Paper, and the reason for that
    484
    was that the White Paper was available for purchase at railway stations and other places where young people of all sexes could have seen it and it was thought undesirable that they should read some of those facts.
    But perfectly correctly, in the interests of prosecuting the campaign against Mau Mau, it was decided to send a number of copies of the document to such bodies as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the Trades Union Congress, the Conservative Commonwealth Council, the Royal Empire Society and others. I understand that it has been supplied as well to a number of Members of Parliament who asked for a personal copy. That is perfectly consistent with everything that has been said.
    Mr. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when those copies were supplied to these organisations, it was intimated to them that it was the view of the Government after due consideration that it should not be published, and has the Minister secured an undertaking from these organisations that they would not publish it?
    Mr. Hopkinson: It was not the decision of the Government that it should not be published. It was their decision that it should not fall into improper hands or be delivered to undesirable quarters. We were concerned solely with the interests of the young people.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one copy of this document was sent to the Labour Party and has been placed in the Library of Transport House? In the case of other political parties, the document has been sent for the information of their members, and is being distributed by those parties to their members.
    Mr. Alport: Is the Minister aware that the details contained in that report were actually included in an article written by Sir Philip Mitchell and published in the "Manchester Guardian" about eight weeks ago.
    Mr. Manuel: That has nothing to do with it.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the explanation of the apparent discrimination clearly that there are no young people in the Conservative Party and, therefore,

    485
    it would not fall into wrong hands or the hands of juveniles if circulated by that party to their members.
    The following are the organisations:
    To the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for its branches overseas, the Conservative Commonwealth Council, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party. Trades Union Congress, Royal Empire Society, Royal African Society, the Imperial Institute, International African Institute, Royal Anthropological Institute, Fabian Society, Over-Seas League, African Bureau, Church Missionary Society, International Missionary Council, Conference of Missionary Societies of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Universities Mission to Central Africa. In addition, I have arranged for libraries in this country to receive copies which will be available to responsible persons on application.

    Detained Persons
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons are now detained without trial in Kenya; and in what places and conditions they are detained.
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans are held in concentration camps, or villages behind barbed wire, in Kenya; and how many of them are used as labour for public and private employers.
    Mr. Hopkinson: About 40,000 persons are at present detained under Emergency Regulations. Of these, 10,000 are in Works Camps in the Central Province, Rift Valley and Narok, 7,000 are in detention camps at Mackinnon Road, Athi River and Manda Island, and 23,000 are in Anvil reception centres at Mackinnon Road, Manyani and Langata.
    Conditions in the camps are governed by the Emergency (Detained Persons) Regulations, 1953. Accommodation is in huts or tents, piped water is laid on and hospital accommodation is provided. Those held in works camps are voluntarily employed at local market rates on public projects such as irrigation, bush clearing and agricultural betterment.
    Mr. Craddock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very full reply, but I am shocked to learn that so many people
    486
    are under detention. Will he be good enough to look into the third part of my Question—which concerns the conditions under which so many people are detained, and which I have learned are very unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Hopkinson: Our information regarding these conditions does not tally with that of the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, as my right hon. Friend said in his speech in the Kenya debate last week, a great deal of money has been spent on these camps and great care has been taken to ensure that they are well run. We have a good testimonial from the Church Missionary Society in regard to these conditions.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Can the Minister say how many of those 40,000 people have been detained without trial for a long period, or is he not aware that it is very disturbing and certainly not in harmony with what he called British ideas in the last Question?
    Mr. Hopkinson: There is another Question which is down to be asked on that point, and which I shall answer if it is reached. Briefly, the position is that these persons are held either under detention orders, in which case they have the right of appeal to an advisory committee which is, in effect, a trial—
    Mr. Stokes: It is not a trial.
    Mr. Hopkinson: At any rate, they have access to an appeal committee or, alternatively, they are in process of being screened and will subsequently either be released or detained.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how long it is intended to keep these men in detention before bringing them to trial? Have the Government set any time limit in this question?
    Mr. Hopkinson: The work of screening is going forward extremely quickly, as the House was informed during the debate on Kenya.
    Mr. Stokes: Does not the Minister remember that not many weeks ago I was told—I think by him—that the whole screening process would be through in about four months? I did not believe it; I told him that at the rate it was going when I was there it would take about nine

    487
    years. What does he really mean now? It is no use saying that the process is going on; we know it is. How quickly is it proceeding?
    Mr. Hopkinson: It is going on faster than was expected, and a great deal faster than the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
    Mr. Stokes: Will it be finished in three months? A few weeks ago the Minister told us that it would be completed in four months. He now says that it is going to be finished quicker than he expected. Are we to understand, therefore, that the screening is to be finished in three months? Surely I am entitled to an answer to that question?
    Mr. Hopkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question on that point—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] This Question deals with the conditions in the camps, which is quite a different question from that raised by the right hon. Gentleman. If he cares to put down a Question on the subject, I shall be prepared to answer it.
    Mr. Craddock: Owing to the unsatisfactory answers which have been given, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what form of legal aid is given in Kenya to parties charged with serious offences which carry a penalty less than the death penalty.
    Mr. Hopkinson: There is no established practice in this matter, which is dealt with administratively, but in difficult or complex cases the trial judge may require counsel to be assigned to the accused.
    Mr. Craddock: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this should be put upon a satisfactory basis, so that these indigenous people can have representation, which at least gives them justice?
    Mr. Hopkinson: We must remember that a large number of persons are involved. When I said that it is dealt with administratively, I meant that it is done with the help of district officers or district commissioners, who in many cases are men whom the accused persons know and trust and who are able to help them.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that the Charter of Human Rights does not apply to these people? Are we to understand that coloured people can be treated in any fashion? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Did hon. Members listen to the Minister's reply?
    Mr. Hopkinson: It the hon. Member will read my original reply, together with the supplementary. I think that he will see that that is not so.
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Europeans, Asians, Africans and persons of other races, respectively, have died in Kenya while under arrest in Her Majesty's prisons or in places of detention during the last two years.
    Mr. Hopkinson: In the period 1952, 1953 and the first half of 1954: 402 Africans; no Europeans or Asians.
    Mr. Craddock: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that conditions under which so many people die ought to be improved? Will he kindly give further attention to this matter?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I do not think there is any reason to believe that the number of deaths is in any way out of proportion to the number of persons detained.
    Mr. Hastings: Can the Minister state the principal cause of death? Can he say whether a great many died from tuberculosis contracted while they were under arrest?
    Mr. Hopkinson: We have asked the Governor by telegram to let us have that information. Certainly a number of cases are due to tuberculosis and malaria.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman pursue this investigation quickly, as there is evidence that the incidence of tuberculosis is growing? Will he look at that matter in relation to the conditions existing in these camps?
    Mr. Hopkinson: We are watching the position very carefully, and we shall continue to do so.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will ask the Kenya Government to increase the rate

    489
    of Income Tax to the level of the United Kingdom, in view of the recent further grant of £4 million from this country.
    Mr. Hopkinson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Benn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that by having a differential rate of Income Tax between Kenya and this country we are, in effect, providing an economic subsidy for the higher ranges of Income Tax payers in Kenya? Does not he agree that that is not the best way in which the money of British taxpayers can be spent upon colonial development?
    Mr. Hopkinson: The Government of Kenya have already raised taxes this year by £2½ million, which represents 10 per cent. of their total revenue. Although the rates of tax upon the lower incomes are relatively lower than those in the United Kingdom, the persons with the highest incomes pay a rate which is three-quarters that of this country. People here are getting a great deal inure for their money in the way of old-age security, free education, and many other things which are not available in Kenya.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the standard of living and the educational progress of the Africans are to be maintained it is essential that people in this young and growing country should not have a penal rate of taxation?
    Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree.
    Mr. Benn: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government regard this as the best way of helping to raise African standards of living?
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the Minister state whether, if the Government intend to continue with this policy, they will consider making Kenya a grant-aided territory?
    Mr. Hopkinson: No. I think everybody understands the position. The economy of Kenya was perfectly sound and prosperous until the emergency. The emergency brought special charges and difficulties, but once it is at an end Kenya will be in a position to pay her way as she was doing before.
    Mr. Jay: Is not what my hon. Friend said quite accurate, that these are subsidies by the United Kingdom taxpayers? Why should the wealthy taxpayers of Kenya pay a lesser rate of taxation than those here?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I made the matter quite clear. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] What the right hon. Gentleman said is not the case, having regard to the different circumstances of the two countries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has a statement to make on an alteration of business?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. It has been arranged through the usual channels for a debate to take place on Egypt tomorrow. It will arise on a Government Motion, and it is hoped to conclude the debate by about 7 p.m. Afterwards we shall proceed with the Committee and remaining stages of the Appropriation Bill. I understand that representations will be made to Mr. Speaker for time to be earmarked on Friday for a debate on disarmament. If, Mr. Speaker, you are able to fall in with this suggestion, then the Government would propose, with the agreement of the House, to suspend the rule for two hours, which would mean that the House would sit until 6.30 p.m. on Friday instead of 4.30 p.m.
Mr. Wigg: Is not this another example of how the Government are taking away the time of back benchers? Would not the right hon. Gentleman think it far more dignified if we were to meet on Saturday or next week and thus provide more time for debate and so preserve the rights of back benchers? Mr. Speaker, I would ask you this question. Have you fallen in with the Government's plans in this matter?
Mr. J. Amery: Having regard to the fact that we have been 72 years in Egypt, and whatever view may be taken of the agreement that has been arrived at, is it not rather a pity that only half a day should be allotted to the discussion of this extremely important departure? I do not know whether the responsibility for the allocation of time in this instance lies with the Leader of the House or with

491
the party opposite. It is a matter for the usual channels, I think, but I ask the Leader of the House to consider making the debate a full day's debate.
Mr. Crookshank: I think it is very good of the Opposition to make it possible for us to have this important debate tomorrow. With regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), this proposal does not interfere with private Members' rights because, unlike today's Motion, the Motion will come before the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Mr. Attlee: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it plain to his hon. Friends that a day on Appropriation is always a matter for the Opposition, and that we have, in fact, departed from custom in order to give the Government an opportunity of making a statement on Egypt and the House an opportunity of considering it? The reason it is proposed that the debate should be terminated at about seven o'clock is that it is right to preserve the rights of private Members who have constituency points which they wish to raise. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it plain that, when we return after the Recess, the Government will make up for the time which the Opposition have so graciously conceded to them?
Mr. Crookshank: It is because I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's solicitude in this matter that I expressed my thanks to him for his co-operation in helping us to have a debate which all the House wants as soon as possible.
Mr. Mellish: But what about making up the time?
Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. Speaker, you will remember that a few days ago I raised with you as a matter of order discussions between the usual channels and agreements reached whereby the time and the rights of private Members were sacrificed. The point I raised with you had regard to the very Bill that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, which is down for Second Reading today, the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. Since then a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pursued the point further with you.
492
I think that it would be right to say that a great deal of anxiety has been disclosed about the limitation of the rights of private Members on an occasion which is traditionally and by custom of this House theirs. What we are told today is that, in order to enable part of the Conservative Party to pursue peaceful coexistence with the other part, the rest of us who are private Members in the House are to sacrifice still another large portion of these two days which are by custom ours.
I do suggest to you that, whatever the practice may be about agreements being reached between the usual channels for the convenience of official groups and official Members, it ought not to be operated in such a way as to take away from the ordinary private back-bench Member probably the only opportunity that he has throughout the year of raising questions that cannot otherwise be raised. I suggest to you, therefore, that it is quite wrong that this practice should come to be abused, and that private Members are entitled to your protection.
Mr. Speaker: It is my recollection of the last 25 years as a Member of this House that very frequently the Consolidated Fund Bill has been chosen by the Opposition as an occasion to raise a major topic. I think that has been the practice during all my time. We remember debates on foreign affairs and various other things taking place on this very Bill. I see nothing new or revolutionary in the idea that the Opposition should use the debate on this Bill as an occasion for raising some major topic which they wish to raise. That is in accordance with the practice of the House.
As regards what I have just heard about tomorrow's business, the arrangement of business on the Order Paper is a prerogative of the Government, a1nd if they put down a Motion on Egypt as the first Order and the Bill next, that is quite in order, and no point arises for me to rule upon.
Mr. Silverman: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have observed the consequential loss of private Members' time resultant from these arrangements. My right hon. Friends had a subject for discussion for the first part of tomorrow to which they attached, and in my opinion correctly attached, very considerable

493
importance. The result of the rearrangement is to transfer that debate to Friday. Friday is the very last opportunity this Session for private Members to deal with matters which they wish to raise and of which they have given notice. By the custom of the last three or four years the allocation of time on an Adjournment day has been left to you. As I understand it the time for that day has already been allotted. The result of these arrangements was first that we would lose half of today, but now, in addition, we shall lose half of tomorrow and then half of Friday, the Adjournment day. I should say that if you take all the facts together, they will show that this is becoming an absolute abuse and invasion of the rights of private Members.
Mr. Speaker: If I understand correctly what has just been suggested by the right bon. Gentleman, all that will happen is that, instead of having a debate from 3.30 —or whenever we are allowed to get on with business—until 7 o'clock tomorrow, we are to have a two-hour debate on Friday. That debate, if I understand the matter correctly, is to take place after the private Members who have subjects on the Adjournment have had their say. So the total loss is an hour or an hour and a half of the time that had been allotted for the debate on disarmament.
Mr. Paget: There is one further point, Mr. Speaker. It must be a matter of very great importance that of the short time allocated, from about 3.30 until 7, probably two-thirds will be occupied by Privy Councillors. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the debate on Egypt should continue so as to provide back benchers with some opportunity to take part in it? Then if there are matters to be debated of less general importance, although of great importance to the individual Members concerned, they can be debated on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and the debate on that Bill can continue until 11 o'clock on Friday morning.
Mr. Speaker: That plea is quite correctly made to me but the power of satisfying it does not rest with me.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Further to the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), would it be possible for the
494
Leader of the House to give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will make no effort to move the Closure on what is obviously one of the most important debates of this Session?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think we can proceed with these matters now.
Mr. Greenwood rose—
Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to ask the Government when they propose to move the Closure.
Mr. Greenwood rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?
Mr. Greenwood: Surely it is perfectly in order for an hon. Member, when the subject of the business for the week is under discussion, to ask the Government what are their intentions in respect of a particular debate? All I am asking, in the interests of hon. Members on the back benches on both sides, is that there shall be no effort on the part of the Government further to curtail the amount of time at the disposal of Private Members.
Mr. Keenan: Further to that point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Under the very difficult circumstances, is it not possible for the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends in the Government to recognise the difficulty in which the House finds itself? There is insufficient time to accommodate either the Government or the back benchers. Cannot this difficulty be overcome? Surely the importance of the Suez Canal and the other matters to be discussed are such that we ought not to go on holiday next week. Why cannot we meet next week?
Mr. Warbey: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: I have had a lot of questions addressed to me in the guise of points of order which were not points of order. I hope that this is a point of order to which I can give a reply.
Mr. Warbey: I am raising an additional point of order—namely, to ask whether any of the rearrangements of the timetable which were announced will in your view impede the rights of Members to oppose the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Speaker: That is a debatable Motion and I do not see that any statement on business can change a debatable Motion into one which is undebatable.
Mr. Lewis: May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, ask the Leader of the House whether he will reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) about meeting next week? All hon. Members on this side of the House are willing to meet next week.

SUEZ CANAL ZONE BASE (ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT)
Mr. Anthony Eden: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on Egypt in answer to Questions Nos. 5. 11 and 2.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have reached agreement in principle with the Egyptian Government on the future of the Suez Canal Zone Base. The full texts of the Heads of Agreement and of the Annex on the organisation of the Base will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT and will also be made available as a White Paper this evening. Meanwhile, I should like to give a short summary of their provisions.
The Heads of Agreement provide that those parts of the Base which we require shall be kept in efficient working order and capable of immediate use in the event of an armed attack by an outside Power on Egypt, or on any member of the Arab League, or on Turkey. If such an attack takes place, Egypt will afford to the United Kingdom the necessary facilities to place the Base on a war footing and to operate it effectively.
In the event of the threat of an attack on any of the countries I have mentioned there will be immediate consultation between the United Kingdom and Egypt.
The installations we are retaining are required to assist in the supply and maintenance of Her Majesty's Forces in the Middle East in peace. They will also hold certain war reserves. They will be operated by civilian labour through firms, British or Egyptian, under contract to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. These contractors will be afforded by the Egyptian Government all
496
the facilities which they require for their work. Her Majesty's Government will also have the necessary facilities for the inspection of these installations.
The Heads of Agreement have been initialled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, to whom Her Majesty's Government are much indebted for the decisive part he played in the final stages of these difficult discussions. [An HON. MEMBER: "The next resignation."] Negotiations for a formal Agreement will now begin.
Our forces will be withdrawn from the Canal Zone within a period of 20 months from the date of the signature of the formal Agreement.
That Agreement will last for seven years from the date of signature. There is provision for consultation between the parties during the last year of its duration as to what arrangements are necessary on its conclusion.
The Agreement will also include a clause recognising the economic, commercial and stategic importance of the Suez Canal, and will express the determination of both parties to uphold the 1888 Convention guaranteeing freedom of navigation.
There is also a clause providing for overflying, landing and servicing facilities for aircraft under R.A.F. control.
There will be many points of detail to be worked out in the drafting of the Agreement itself.
It is the conviction of Her Majesty's Government that this Agreement will preserve our essential requirements in this area in the light of modern conditions. We are convinced that in the Middle East as elsewhere our defence arrangements must be based on consent and co-operation with the peoples concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Cyprus?"] I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abide by the terms of the Tripartite Declaration of 25th May, 1950, relating to peace and stability between the Arab States and Israel.
I have discussed this point with the French and the United States Governments and find them both equally determined to uphold that Declaration.
It is our hope that it will now be possible to establish our relations with Egypt on a new basis of friendship and

497
understanding. Her Majesty's Government believe that this is also the intention of the Egyptian Government. The Agreement should thus contribute to a reduction of tension throughout the Middle East as a whole.
Following are the texts:

HEADS OF AGREEMENT
It is agreed between the Egyptian and British Delegations that with a view to establishing Anglo-Egyptian relations on a new basis of mutual understanding and firm friendship, and taking into account their obligations under the United Nations Charter, an agreement regarding the Suez Canal Base should now be drafted on the following lines.
2. The agreement will last until the expiry of seven years from the date of signature. During the last twelve months of this period the two Governments will consult together to decide what arrangements are necessary upon the termination of the agreement.
3. Parts of the present Suez Canal Base will be kept in efficient working order in accordance with the requirements set forth in Annex 1 and capable of immediate use in accordance with the following paragraph.
4.

(i) In the event of an armed attack by an outside Power on Egypt, on any country which at the date of signature of the present agreement is a party to the Treaty of Joint Defence between Arab League States or on Turkey, Egypt will afford to the United Kingdom such facilities as may be necessary in order to place the Base on a war footing and to operate it effectively. These facilities will include the use of Egyptian ports within the limits of what is strictly indispensable for the above-mentioned purposes.

(ii) In the event of a threat of an attack on any of the above-mentioned countries, there shall be immediate consultation between the United Kingdom and Egypt.

5. The organisation of the Base will be in accordance with Annex 1 attached.
6. The United Kingdom will be accorded the right to move any British material into or out of the Base at its discretion. There will be no increase above the level of supplies to be agreed upon without the consent of the Egyptian Government.
7. Her Majesty's forces will be completely withdrawn from Egyptian territory according to a schedule to be established in due course within a period of twenty months from the date of signature of this agreement. The Egyptian Government will afford all necessary facilities for the movement of men and material in this connexion.
8. The agreement will recognise that the Suez Maritime Canal, which is an integral part of Egypt, is a waterway economically, commercially and strategically of international importance, and will express the determination of both parties to uphold the 1888 Convention guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the Canal.
9. The Egyptian Government will afford overflying, landing and servicing facilities for notified flights of aircraft under R.A.F. control. For the clearance of any flights the Egyptian Government will extend most favoured nation treatment.
10. There will be questions of detail to be covered in the drafting of the agreement including the storage of oil, the financial arrangements necessary, and other detailed matters of importance to both sides. These will be settled by friendly agreement in negotiations which will begin forthwith.

ANNEX 1
Organisation of the Base
Her Majesty's Government shall have the right to maintain certain agreed installations and to operate them for current requirements. Should Her Majesty's Government decide at any time no longer to maintain all these installations they will discuss with the Egyptian Government the disposal of any installation which they no longer require. The approval of the Egyptian Government must be obtained for any new construction.
2. Following the withdrawal of Her Majesty's forces the Egyptian Government will assume responsibility for the security of the base and of all equipment contained therein, or in transit on Egyptian territory to and from the base.
3. Her Majesty's Government will conclude contracts with one or more British or Egyptian commercial firms for the up-keep and operation of the installations referred to in paragraph 1 and the maintenance of the stores contained in these installations. These commercial firms will have the right to engage British and Egyptian civilian technicians and personnel; the number of the British technicians employed by these commercial firms shall not exceed a figure which shall be agreed upon in the detailed negotiations. These commercial firms will have also the right to engage such local labour as they may require.
4. The Egyptian Government will give full support to the commercial firms referred to in paragraph 3 to enable them to carry out these tasks and will designate an authority with whom the contractors can co-operate for the discharge of their duties.
5. The Egyptian Government will maintain in good order such installations, public utilities, communications, bridges, pipe-lines and wharves, etc, as will be handed over to it according to agreement between the two Governments. The commercial firms referred to in paragraph 3 will be afforded such facilities as may be required in their operations.
6. Her Majesty's Government will be afforded facilities for the inspection of the installations referred to in paragraph 1 and the work being carried out therein. To facilitate this personnel shall be attached to Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo. The maximum number of such personnel will be agreed between the two Governments.
Mr. Attlee: In view of the fact that we are to have a debate tomorrow, I do not think it would be proper for me to ask many questions, but I should like to

499
ask one: in view of the statements which were made by the present Prime Minister on the absolute necessity of having troops in Egypt for the defence of the Suez Canal and the violent language which he used when any proposal was put forward from this side of the House for withdrawal from Egypt, may I ask whether this agreement has the Prime Minister's consent?
The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary.
Mr. Assheton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the news which he has given us will be a great shock to millions of Her Majesty's subjects all over the Commonwealth and is also a matter of very grave concern to many of his own supporters?
Mr. Eden: I really cannot accept what my right hon. Friend has just said, that it will be a shock to Her Majesty's subjects all over the Commonwealth. That is a statement which I could not possibly endorse. For one thing, I do not think that any Member of this House is entitled to speak for the Commonwealth as a whole. I must add that the Commonwealth Governments have been kept in the fullest touch with every stage of these discussions, and I have no reason whatever to believe that the Commonwealth Governments endorse the views which my right hon. Friend has just expressed.
Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his statement with regard to the Suez Canal means that there is now to be effective, free facilities for the transit of shipping through the Suez Canal, including shipping destined for Israel? Secondly, is he satisfied that the interests of Israel have been adequately safeguarded? Thirdly, is it the case that the information which he has now given to the House was first of all given to a committee of the Conservative Party upstairs?
Mr. Eden: I have done nothing improper so far as the committee upstairs is concerned. I have as much right to speak to the members of my party as the right hon. Gentleman has to speak to his. I found the experience agreeable, as I trust that he always does. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question about Israel, we have, of course, had very much
500
in mind the question of relations between Egypt and Israel. The position about the Canal, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, does not arise out of the Agreement of 1936, of which this is a replacement, but under the Suez Canal Convention of 1888.
Mr. Shinwell rose—
Mr. Eden: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer this important question. The position about the Suez Canal arises under the Suez Canal Convention of 1888 and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the trouble has arisen as a result of the war between the Arab States and Israel. It is the wish of the whole House to try to reduce tension between the Arab States and Israel, and I would ask the House to judge for itself whether we shall be better able to use that influence if we have an agreement with Egypt or not.
Mr. Speaker: I should like to remind the House that we are to have a debate tomorrow.
Mr. Manuel: Not for the back benchers.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) should not take such a gloomy view. While questions to elucidate some facts are useful, I do ask hon. Members to refrain from anticipating the debate tomorrow.
Mr. Shinwell: I am rising on what, I hope, is a point of order; you, Sir, will advise me whether it is a correct point of order or not. It is this. It is already intimated that there is agreement on both sides that the debate will have the Closure applied, or at any rate it will be suspended or adjourned, at seven o'clock tomorrow. We shall therefore have a very short debate, and, in these circumstances, would it not be in order to ask one or two supplementary questions to elucidate the facts?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman has said differs from what I tried to say. The expression of strong opinions is debate, but asking Questions to obtain facts is quite another thing.
Mr. Shinwell: In order to elucidate the facts so that hon. Members may be properly informed when the debate takes

501
place tomorrow, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions bearing on his statement? One is this—whether, pending the formal Agreement to which he referred, arising out of the present Agreement, is it intended to supply arms to Egypt? The second point I wish to put is this—whether the tripartite Agreement to which he has referred does not make it clear, beyond any possibility of doubt, that no arms will be supplied to any of the Arab States unless there is a firm assurance that they will not commit an act of aggression against any other State in the Middle East?
Mr. Eden: There is nothing whatever in this Agreement which compels Her Majesty's Government or permits Her Majesty's Government to supply arms to Egypt. That, of course, is a position which would have to be related, as the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said, in its general context to the engagements we all have under the 1950 tripartite Agreement.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. You stated, Mr. Speaker, that, in view of the fact that there is to be a debate tomorrow, there perhaps would not be the necessity to have too many supplementary questions. May I draw to your attention the fact that a number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House intend to take part in the debate on the Motion concerning the Adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess? In view of the fact that that time will of necessity come out of the hours already suggested by the Leader of the House for the debate on Egypt, which is to end at seven o'clock, is it not a fact that the debate on that Motion concerning the Adjournment may go on until four, five or six o'clock, which will mean that we shall have only one hour's debate tomorrow on Egypt, and that, by the time the Front Benchers have spoken, the back benchers will have no time at all? I therefore again ask you to make some arrangement so that the rights of back benchers are protected in this matter.
Mr. Speaker: To some extent back benchers have their rights in their own hands, and if there is a long debate on the Motion for the Adjournment, that, of course, may take up time, but we must see how we get on. I cannot anticipate.
Miss Ward: On a point of order. May I ask whether I should be in order in suggesting that there are back-bench Members on this side of the House as well as on the other side?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the whole House is conscious of that fact.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: On a point of order. May I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that so far no back bencher on either side has had an opportunity of asking any supplementary question on this issue of Egypt?
Mr. A. Henderson rose—
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman had a question on the Order Paper for answer today he was promised an answer in a statement after Questions.
Mr. Henderson: May I ask whether it is intended to continue the alliance between the two countries which was established under Article 4 of the 1936 Treaty?
Mr. Eden: This will be a new instrument, when it is negotiated, which will take the place of the 1936 Treaty.
Mr. P. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his statement the Suez Canal Convention of 1888. Is there as yet any indication at all from the Egyptian Government that they will even consider re-establishing freedom of the Canal?
Mr. Eden: The respect in which there is interference with the Canal or prohibition of the passage of goods through the Canal arises from the Israel-Arab war and the failure to settle their armistice. It is in that context that Egypt has stopped the passage of certain strategic goods to Israel. The whole House wants to try to reduce tension and to get a final settlement between the Arabs and the Israelis. I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not a good idea to start improving our relations with Egypt and making that a better foundation.
Mr. Paget: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the general satisfaction that the Prime Minister has at last recognised the necessity of this measure? In what

503
respects are the present Heads of Agreement worse than those which were available to us two years ago? Are they in any respect better?
Mr. Eden: Comparisons are always odious. Our hope is that this arrangement with the Government now established in Egypt is one which can develop in real friendship between the two countries. At least, I hope that the House will give it a real chance to do so.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: For our guidance in studying the White Paper, can my right hon. Friend say whether these terms are more gentle towards Egypt than those offered by his predecessors in office and by himself earlier on?
Mr. Eden: I much regret that I have not had time to make that comparison. I have not negotiated this arrangement on the basis of finding whether this or that was better or less better than anything offered before. What I have tried to do was to reach an arrangement which I thought was fair and reasonable between the two countries and which I was justified in putting before this House.
Mr. S. Silverman: While I fully endorse the Foreign Secretary's view that the interests of Israel will gain more an improvement of general relations in the Middle East than by a continuance of their present or past relationship, will the Foreign Secretary nevertheless bear in mind that the attack by Egypt on Israel, out of which, the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, the present prohibition of passage through the Suez Canal arises, was itself an act of completely unprovoked aggression? Was any reference made during the discussions to the continued existence of this infringement of the arrangements with regard to the Suez Canal and free passage through it?
Mr. Eden: This is a subject which has been fully discussed on a number of occasions between us and the Egyptian Government. I should be quite willing to go into it in the debate tomorrow, but I do not think that I should deal further with it now.
Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that any treaty along the lines now proposed would depend upon the stability of the Egyptian Government, and since
504
the Egyptian Government's stability will depend very largely upon its economic stability, will the Foreign Secretary say whether, in addition to this Canal arrangement, Her Majesty's Government propose to try to negotiate a trade treaty with Egypt, and if so, when they propose to begin?
Mr. Eden: One of the results of this arrangement should be to improve our commercial relations with Egypt, which would assuredly be of benefit to both countries. It is also our hope that the increased resulting stability in the Middle East will be of benefit economically as a whole. It may be that other countries may also be able to do something to help economically.
Mr. Wigg: The Foreign Secretary referred to the movement of troops from the Canal Zone as a withdrawal. Will he kindly say at what date that word came into use in the Foreign Office and was accepted by his party, remembering that the Prime Minister used the word "scuttle" repeatedly?
Mr. Eden: The hon. Member may prefer "redeployment" I do not mind.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is becoming a debate.

CYPRUS (CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS)
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): Her Majesty's Government have decided that the time has come to take a fresh initiative in the development of self-governing institutions in Cyprus. They are convinced that, given good will, an early start can be made in associating the people of Cyprus in the fuller management of their own affairs. They wish to make it clear once again that they cannot contemplate a change of sovereignty in Cyprus.
The proposed constitutional arrangements have not yet been worked out in detail, but will be broadly as follows. In 1948 a constitution was offered which would have given a high degree of internal self-government, but, although the offer has remained open for six years, it has not been taken up by responsible and representative political leaders. Her

505
Majesty's Government have therefore decided to wait no longer but to introduce in the near future a modified constitution providing for a legislature containing both official and nominated members—together forming a majority—and elected members and also for the appointment to the Executive Council of some unofficial members of the legislature to take charge of Departments. This will mark a first step along the road of constitutional advancement and will enable Cypriots to take a part in operating self-governing institutions and exercising responsibility both in legislation and in the executive control of administration. The Governor has been instructed to take all action necessary in preparation for the introduction of a new constitution on these lines.
British administration in Cyprus, besides bringing much prosperity to the island and safeguarding the rights of all sections of the population, has maintained and still maintains stable conditions in this vital strategic area. Her Majesty's Government are resolved Ito continue their vigorous policy of economic development in Cyprus. The efficient administration in the island, in which a large number of Cypriots play a most effective part, has brought about vast improvements in health, agriculture, communications and many other fields. Since the war great strides have been made, thanks to a stable currency linked to sterling and a sound budgetary policy. Cyprus has access to the London loan market on the favourable terms which are available to Colonial Governments. The Government's plans for economic development are estimated to cost £15½ million over the 10-year period 1946–56.
Substantial direct assistance has been given from United Kingdom funds under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts and Cyprus will receive assistance from the additional funds which Parliament will be asked to provide for colonial development and welfare. Water supplies have been piped to hundreds of villages, denuded mountains have been re-afforested, malaria has been expelled, the effects of soil erosion are being vigorously combatted, and industry has been encouraged and developed. The question of port development is at this moment being actively studied.
Her Majesty's Government fully recognise that the Greek-speaking and
506
Turkish-speaking parts of the population have close cultural links with Greece and Turkey. Without sacrifice of those traditions. Cypriots have before them the prospect of expanding opportunities in economic, social and constitutional development.
Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister has made a very important statement and my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself will want time to consider the full implications of what he has said; I reserve our rights in that regard. I should like, however, to ask some questions.
First, have any discussions taken place in recent weeks between the new Governor and the leaders of responsible parties in Cyprus? Second, are the Government taking fully into account the possibility that this step may be rendered nugatory by a boycott in Cyprus, and has the policy been decided upon bearing that possibility fully in mind? Third, on the details of the constitution—I cannot offhand make the comparison—how do the new proposals compare with the 1948 constitution? Finally—which is important—are these steps being taken with the full intention that they shall lead eventually to full Dominion status, which means that when that status is reached Cyprus will have the right to decide its own future?
Mr. Hopkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me four questions. First, he asked whether there had been any discussions with responsible party leaders in Cyprus. Of course, the new Governor, who has been there now for some six months, has been taking every step to inform himself as to opinion in all sections of the Colony, but there have been no discussions with the leaders of the two main political parties, the Nationalists and the Communists, neither of whom have been willing so far to operate the 1948 constitution, which has been open to them.
As regards the second point, of course there is always the possibility of a boycott of any new constitution, but we must hope that enough men of good will and of moderate views will come forward and take part in the new constitution, both as nominated members and as elected members, and that this, in due course, will lead to further co-operation by the political parties.

507
The right hon. Gentleman asked me for certain details in regard to the new constitution. I cannot give him those because it has not been settled yet. I cannot go any further than what I have said, except that there will be a majority of nominated plus official members, although there will be provision for elected members. In the 1948 constitution, the right hon. Gentleman will remember, it was the other way round and there was a majority of elected as against official and nominated members.
The last and the most important question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me was whether in due course this would lead to self-government—I think he called it Dominion status—and the right, I take it, to opt out of the Commonwealth. Certainly this is a first step on the road to self-government and it depends on how the new scheme is operated by the parties in Cyprus as to how fast we can go along on that road. At the same time, my statement has made it quite clear that there can be no question of any change of sovereignty in Cyprus—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—no question of any change in sovereignty. That, therefore, would act as a limitation on the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman put in the last part of his question.
Mr. Griffiths: As I have not the details of the 1948 constitution before me—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has them here—I asked him a question as to the comparison. I gathered from his reply that there is one important difference, that whereas before there was a provision for an elected majority, now there is not. May we ask what prompted the Government to make an important change of that kind?
It is the declared policy of both sides of the House and of the whole of this Parliament that our policy in the Colonies is to guide and assist them gradually towards self-government within the Commonwealth, and we have always declared that self-government within the Commonwealth will reach the stage at which they will be, within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster, independent and entitled at that stage to decide for themselves their future relations with the Commonwealth. Are we now to understand that, so far as Cyprus is concerned, it is not proposed that this constitutional
508
development shall take its normal course which it has in other places, in conformity with the policy of this House?
Mr. Hopkinson: The reason Her Majesty's Government are to put forward revised proposals for a constitution is that, when the 1948 constitution was drawn up and offered to the Consultative Assembly, the full co-operation of the main parties was presupposed, but that co-operation has not been forthcoming and they have not been willing to operate that constitution of 1948. In many other respects certain of these political leaders in Cyprus have shown that the necessary co-operation to operate such a constitution would not be forthcoming, so in fact the constitution would not work. We are therefore proposing a constitution which we hope will work.
In regard to the second part of the question, it has always been understood and agreed that there are certain territories in the Commonwealth which, owing to their particular circumstances, can never expect to be fully independent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are some territorities which cannot expect to be that. I am not going as far as that this afternoon, but I have said that the question of the abrogation of British sovereignty cannot arise—that British sovereignty will remain.
Mr. Griffiths: The Minister is aware, as we are aware, that there are small territories in the Colonies to which at any given stage, so far as it is possible to foresee, the grant of Dominion status would be meaningless because of their circumstances, but what he is saying is different. If I understood him correctly, he is saying that in Cyprus it is not intended that, at the appropriate stage in her evolution, she will have conferred upon her Dominion status with all the rights that go with it, not because she is not able to do it but as a matter of policy. Is that what the Government have decided?
Mr. Hopkinson: I do not think I can add to what I have said already on this point.
Mr. C. Davies: The Minister used these words in his statement, that this was the first step along the road towards constitutional development. It is only right that we should know exactly what he

509
means by that. Does he really mean, whether it is a long step or a finicky step, that this will lead to full self-government by the people of Cyprus? If he does not mean that, then what meaning does he or the Government attach to the words used by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States recently with regard to the self-government of peoples?
Mr. Hopkinson: I have made it quite clear that this is a first step towards self-government, but it depends on the way in which it is operated by the people of Cyprus as to how rapidly we can move along that path. I have also said that the question of sovereignty does not arise. In regard to the declaration made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States recently, it was made perfectly clear in that statement that independence should be given to those peoples who desire, and are capable of sustaining, an independent existence. What is now proposed in regard to Cyprus entirely conforms with that provision.
Mr. Alport: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that in the new constitution there will be sufficient safeguards to prevent its subversion by Communist minorities in the interests of a Communist régime in that country?
Mr. Hopkinson: That is certainly our intention. Of course, there is a Communist Party in Cyprus and it is probably the biggest and the best organised. While we want to establish a legislature, it certainly would not be in the interests of anybody to do so in a form in which it would be Communist-dominated. As we made clear in British Guiana, we are not prepared to tolerate the establishment of Communist régimes in British Colonies.
Mr. Bevan: In the first instance, may I ask you, Sir, to appreciate the fact that we have just had an exceedingly important statement—once more made immediately before the House rises; that the statement itself will be fiercely resented by the population of Cyprus; that it follows closely on the heels of the statement made by the Foreign Secretary; that we are leaving Egypt directly as a consequence of the fact that we are not welcome there and that we cannot stay amidst a hostile population; that we are,
510
in fact, establishing the Middle East Command in the middle of a hostile population, made more hostile by the extraordinarily unfortunate language used this afternoon—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should ask a question.
Mr. Bevan: I am asking a series of questions, Sir. Is it not a fact that this is the case, and that when he made his statement the right hon. Gentleman flatly contradicted himself, because it has always been understood that self-government—
Mr. Alport: On a point of order. In view of your Ruling earlier this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that the object of a supplementary question should be to elicit information, is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make statements at great length which are in any case highly inaccurate and tendentious?
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged for the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that, unless the matter is cleared up today, there will be immediate repercussions in Cyprus? That is why I am asking the question—how does the right hon. Gentleman interpret the Statute of Westminster except as the right to contract in or to contract out of the Commonwealth? That is precisely what sovereign rights mean. Is it not, therefore, the fact that, if Cyprus is not to be permitted at any time full sovereignty, that is a denial of complete self-government by Cyprus? How, therefore, does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile all those considerations, and is this not a most unfortunate statement to make at this time?
Mr. Hopkinson: I made it perfectly clear in my original reply that, as far as this particular territory is concerned, the question of sovereignty does not arise. I also said to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) just now that we are all agreed that certain territories have to be dealt with in particular ways, and that it is not possible to treat every British Colonial Territory in exactly the same way. In referring to the Egyptian negotiations, the right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that Cyprus is British territory, whereas the position in Egypt is that we are dealing with the presence of a force there under treaty rights. I

511
do not see any reason to expect any difficulties in Cyprus as a result of this statement, and I would only add that I think it is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government that nothing less than continued sovereignty over this island can enable Britain to carry out her strategic obligations to Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
Mr. Wyatt: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"The making of a highly ambiguous statement by the Government about the future of Cyprus which can only add confusion at a moment just before we rise for the Summer Recess, and at a time when there can be no possibility of further clarification."
Mr. Speaker: I could not accept such a Motion as within the Standing Order.
Mr. J. Griffiths: You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that you will not accept my hon. Friend's Motion under the Standing Order, but, in order that we may be able the better to judge, I wish to ask the Minister a question. We have not yet heard from the right hon. Gentleman when the new constitution is to come into operation. Are we to understand, therefore, that the Government do not propose to implement this policy until the House resumes? If it is the Government's intention to implement it before the House resumes, does that not affect any Ruling which you, Sir, may give on the question of Standing Order No. 9?
Mr. Speaker: I took the position to be that this was a preliminary statement for the introduction of a new constitution. No one knows whether it will be worked or adopted. It is not by any means urgent as yet. We have plenty of time to discuss it when we come back.
Mr. Callaghan: If it is the case that it is not urgent, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why in his preliminary paragraph the Minister said that the Government had decided that they could wait no longer? Why make a statement of that sort today? Does not the fact that the Minister made a statement to the effect that the Government can wait no longer indicate that it is urgent? It is
512
definitely and certainly a highly controversial matter of public importance, because the Minister has made things far worse than they were before.
Mr. Speaker: The mere fact that a Minister makes a statement does not make the matter urgent within the Standing Order. The hon. Member himself said that the preliminary paragraph was an ambiguous statement. It is a very general statement, and nothing in it brings it within the Standing Order.
Mr. Wyatt: On a point of Order. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister chose this afternoon to make the statement, and if you gave him permission to do so, it was because the matter was urgent and so that he could make it before the House rose, otherwise you, Sir, would not have allowed it and he would not have made the statement. Surely, it must be urgent to get this matter clarified before the House rises. As the consultations which the right hon. Gentleman described are to take place before the House meets again, it will be too late when we return in October to have any influence on whatever the Government do, because the preliminary steps prescribed will have been taken.
Mr. Speaker: There are degrees of urgency. Because it is proper to make a statement before the House rises, that does not necessarily bring it within the Standing Order. On the statement, I have formed the definite view that nothing will happen until the House comes back, and it is my view, alas, which matters. I do not think it urgent in the sense of Standing Order No. 9, and I cannot add anything to what I have said.
Mr. J. Griffiths: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I put a question to the Minister? Can he tell us when it is proposed to introduce the new constitution?
Mr. Hopkinson: These negotiations and discussions are bound to take time, and my own impression is that it will be some months before the new constitution can be introduced. But the Governor will be getting to work on it and making his plans at once. He will be going forward during the summer. I am afraid that I cannot give any definite date.
Mr. Griffiths: Can we have an assurance from the Minister that no

513
irrevocable step will be taken in this matter before the House resumes in October?
Mr. Hopkinson: I am certainly willing to give that assurance, but, in the meantime, I would not want operations to be held up. The new constitution will be drawn up, and I hope that we shall be in a position to lay it before the House in the form of a White Paper, or otherwise, when the House reassembles.
Mr. Wyatt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member still wishing to discuss the submission made under Standing Order No. 9?
Mr. Wyatt: What I want to discuss, Mr. Speaker, is something which arises out of the Minister's last two answers, because he has made it perfectly clear that a constitution is actually to be drawn up between now and when we meet again in October. Although the constitution may not be put into force, it will very probably be brought to this House in such a form that we cannot then materially alter it. Does not that, Mr. Speaker, make it an urgent matter for discussion before we rise?
Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear that there is nothing which brings it within the Standing Order. That is the only matter with which I am concerned, and I would call the attention of the House to the hour.
Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. This statement is so important, and, in our view, so outrageous and hypocritical that some of us intend to initiate a debate on it on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. Alport: Is not the use of the word "hypocritical" an unparliamentary word, Mr. Speaker, and should it not be withdrawn?
Mr. Speaker: I think that to imply that an hon. Member of this House is a hypocrite is distinctly out of order, if that was the intention of the hon. Member. The hon. Member should, I think, refrain from using language of that sort.
Mr. Driberg: I am perfectly willing to withdraw the word, but may I say how deplorable it is that the hon. Member opposite should be unconscious of the hypocritical nature of the statement.
Mr. Bevan: May I make a respectful submission to you in respect of your Ruling just now, Mr. Speaker? It is, of course, correct that a statement has been made, and if the negotiations are to continue, there is no urgency. The Minister, when he made his statement, did refer to a number of conditions which are to be precedent to the new constitution. They change the nature of the previous undertaking in order to provide a majority of nominated members as against elected members, and the statement was made that in no circumstances can Cyprus look forward to full self-government.
These are two statements of the utmost urgency, and they are to govern the discussions with the Governor and those with whom he is to discuss the constitution. May I respectfully suggest that they are statements of such very great importance that, even if Standing Order No. 9 cannot be invoked, it is impossible to allow the Government to obtain the Consolidated Fund Bill without having a debate upon them?
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with me.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. John Rodgers: I understood that it was the custom of the House, if any hon. Members wish to refer to another hon. Member personally in the course of the debate, to give notice of their intention to do so. Yesterday, during the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Television Bill, the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) made certain statements about a firm with which I am connected. Had I had notice of the intention of the hon. Member, I would have corrected him immediately; although I was not in the Chamber at the time, I was attending a Committee upstairs. His remarks were as follows:
"I am told that the first six months of commercial television programmes for this country are already in the vaults of Messrs. J. Walter Thompson and Co., in London. I hope that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) will be here later to deny that. Perhaps it is a little exaggerated, but it applies to a very large proportion of the programmes. They are already canned, they have been shown

515
to American audiences and they are hiding in the vaults of that largely American-controlled advertising concern in London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 278.]
The firm in question, first, has not brought a single programme from America for use on the I.T.A. stations when they start; secondly, it has not produced itself or through any other organisation any programme in this country for broadcasting through I.T.A. stations; and thirdly, it has no vaults in which to hide anything.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: We are very glad to have that assurance that this American-controlled advertising agency has, in fact, had no control of programmes for commercial television in this country. As regards—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a personal statement, and it is not debatable. I thought that, perhaps, the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) would wish to make some—s
—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Mayhew: As I understand, the only personal element was the question whether I was in order or not in referring to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) when he was not present in the House. I am prepared to be guided by you on that point, Mr. Speaker, but, as far as I am aware, there is no rule to say that one may not refer to an hon. Member who is not present.
Mr. Charles Royle: Do we understand that it is out of order for any hon. Member to refer to a firm with which another hon. Member is associated?
Mr. Speaker: The statement, which I have read in HANSARD, did mention the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) by name, and associated him with it. The hon. Member has denied it, and we ought to leave the matter there. There is no point of order in all this at all. It is customary if one hon. Member intends to refer to another to inform him. It is not a matter of order at all.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE (RETIREMENT)
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a letter from Sir Frederic William Metcalfe, K.C.B., Clerk of the House, as follows:
28th July, 1954.
"Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that, after thirty-five years in the service of this House, I desire as from the end of this month to resign the patent of Clerk of the House of Commons which it has been my proud privilege to hold for the last six years.
During my twenty-four years at the Table I have seen many events memorable in the history of Parliament and of our country, and owing to the chances of war I have sat at no fewer than five different Tables of the House. I count myself fortunate to have been Clerk of the House at the first sitting in this new Chamber in 1950 when many Speakers and Officials from Parliaments overseas visited Westminster to take part in our ceremonies.
It is with great regret that I leave the service of the House and I wish to express to you, Sir, to all occupants of the Chair and to all Members of the House in this and previous Parliaments, my deep gratitude for the kindness and courtesy which I have always experienced. The friendship and loyalty of all my colleagues has made my work happy, and I am confident that they will continue to serve this honourable House with the devotion that we all feel for our ancient Parliamentary institutions.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
FREDERIC W. METCALFE."
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Crookshank: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we have heard with great regret the terms of the letter which you, Mr. Speaker, have just read. I therefore give notice that, in accordance with precedent, a Motion will be proposed tomorrow expressing our thanks to Sir Frederic Metcalfe for the long service which he has rendered to this honourable House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

CYPRUS (CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS)
4.37 p.m.
Mr. Tom Driberg: If I am causing any inconvenience to my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have not anticipated that there would be a debate at this time on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, I regret very much the necessity for doing so. My excuse is that we have had sprung upon us without any warning, just on the eve of the long Summer Recess, one of the most extraordinary and dangerous statements that have ever emanated even from that Tory Government opposite.
During the replies to the many pointed questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), it seemed as though, whether through not fully understanding what he was being asked or for some other reason, the responsible Minister was attempting, semi-obtrusively, to revise the Statute of Westminster. We have always understood that self-government means self-government, including, as my right hon. Friend has said, the right to opt out or to contract out of the Commonwealth. This happened in the case of Burma. We may or may not regret the fact that Burma chose to sever her link with the Commonwealth and to become an independent sovereign State, but nobody in this House questioned Burma's right to do that.
Now the Minister who made this extraordinary statement on the question of Cyprus has enunciated an entirely new interpretation and application of this doctrine of self-government and the right to contract out. The right hon. Gentleman says that there are some territories in the Commonwealth which can never
518
expect to have complete self-government. This, surely, is the abandonment of a general principle of colonial development which we had thought was common to both sides of the House, even though we on this side have always done our best to press it forward rather more urgently and speedily than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We thought that it was generally accepted, as a principle, that the various Colonial Territories should be assisted as speedily as possible towards responsible self-government, and always hitherto self-government has been taken to include, under the Statute of Westminster and the ordinary arrangements for Dominion status, the right to contract out.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Would the hon. Member quote the precedent or authority to show how he arrives at that conclusion? I do not interpret it at all as he does in regard to Australia, New Zealand or such countries. If he had chapter and verse or some authority for what he is asserting I should be obliged to him for giving it.
Mr. Driberg: I am obliged to the hon. Member, but I do not think that he can have been listening to what I said: I quoted the example of Burma.
Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May we ask the Leader of the House whether he can send for a member of the Government who has some responsibility in this matter? Notice was given that this matter would be raised on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That is not a point of order.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): That has been done, but I did not understand that this subject was coming on in this way and my right hon. Friend did not. A message has been sent and I apologise. Knowing that steel was to be the subject to be taken at once, I suppose my right hon. Friend assumed that another opportunity would be taken to debate Cyprus, as this is not the only opportunity available for the purpose.
Mr. Driberg: I am much obliged to the Leader of the House. I see how the misunderstanding arose, but I think that

519
the right hon. Gentleman could at least have waited to see what happened when the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill was proposed before rushing out to his tea. I do not blame him for wanting his tea, after those extraordinary exchanges across the Table of the House; but he might just have waited till the Question was proposed.
Before the supplementary questions and answers were reached, the Minister had already announced some rather startling provisions in this new constitution which, apparently, is to be foisted on the people of Cyprus. I cannot think why the Minister was so optimistic as to suppose that they are any more likely to accept this new constitution than they have been in the past six years to accept the 1948 constitution which was offered to them. The same conditions still apply, and it seems equally unlikely that anyone will co-operate—except a few stooges, if I may use that vulgarism in this context.
However, in telling us about the new constitution, the Minister made it quite clear that it would not be anything in the nature of a dangerously democratic constitution—nothing like the Constitution that was originally given to the people of British Guiana, for instance, which had to be reversed so hurriedly when the people of British Guiana took advantage of it in their own interests and against the interests of the City of London.
The Minister said, as I understood him, that there would be more nominated than elected members in the legislature. Perhaps when he replies to what I am afraid may be a rather protracted debate, he will tell us exactly what proportions of nominated and of elected membership are projected in this constitution?
I ought perhaps to explain why, in the natural heat of the moment, when I was announcing, as I hoped, to the Minister—although he did not understand what I tried to say—that we would raise this matter at once on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, I used the word to which exception was taken by an hon. Member opposite. I said that the statement had been, as I thought, hypocritical. That seemed to me an appropriate word, because it really is rather too obvious when a Minister announces what purports to be a great advance in democracy, a
520
new constitution and all that, on the very same day as the withdrawal from Egypt is announced, and everyone knows that the base in Cyprus is to be very considerably enlarged and that the only real interest of the Government Front Bench and hon. Members opposite in the welfare of the people of Cyprus is that they should provide a convenient, peaceable and co-operative base.
That is the truth of the matter and that is why I said that all this talk about progress and self-government was hypocritical, when, in the next breath, the Minister was saying to them, as it were, "Of course, we are not going to let you have proper self-government ever, because you are strategically too important to our interests."
When the Foreign Secretary was making his announcement about Egypt a little earlier, he made a very wise remark, with which all of us on this side of the House would concur, about the necessity for having the "consent and cooperation" of the population around a base. If we have a large base in a foreign land we must have a friendly people around it; otherwise, we shall not be able to operate it effectively, as we have seen over the last year or two, particularly in the Suez Canal Zone. I would seriously ask the Minister what consent and cooperation he expects to get from the people of Cyprus in the operation of the base that is to be developed there? What consent and co-operation does he expect if this new constitution is to be foisted on them without any real democratic test of their desire for it?
The Minister knows as well as everyone else knows—if I may use that offensive word again, it is one of the many hypocrisies of public life in this country —that 90 per cent. of the people of Cyprus, perhaps ill-advisedly or foolishly, want Enosis, or union with Greece. Personally, I have never been able quite to understand why any progressive or Left-wing Cypriot should want to come under the control of a Government of the nature of the present Greek Government; but that is what they prefer. As has often been said, people prefer self-government to good government: it may even be that the people of Cyprus—foolishly, as we think—prefer Greek Government to good government.

521
That, however, is their affair and, to refer to hypocrisy yet again, it makes absolute hypocritical nonsense of the so-called Potomac Charter to interpret it in the sophistical way in which the Minister interpreted it when a Question was asked him by one of my hon. Friends. No one reading the Potomac Charter or the Atlantic Charter would realise that there were all these reservations and qualifications and that the distinguished signatories really meant, "We are going to give self-government some day to some parts of the various Empires of the world as and when they deserve it, when they can show they will be good boys; but some of them, even if they want it, will never be entitled to self-government at all."
Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member is saying that self-government in the sense in which he invites the House to construe it is the right for a people to "go it alone." Is he aware that the issue of Enosis is whether they shall belong to Greece or Britain and that in either case they would not get the self-government which the hon. Member wants? It is purely a question of sovereignty in that sense, Britain or Greece, and it is obvious that they want Britain.
Mr. Driberg: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for interrupting me again. Each of his interruptions makes it possible for me to say something in, I hope, simple enough terms for him to understand; and I can clarify it more and more each time the hon. Member invites me to do so.
Self-government, surely, has always been taken to imply and include self-determination. Self-government or independence, as in the case of the Sudan—to quote another instance from more recent history than Burma—means that a people which achieves its independence has a perfect right to say, "We are going to be on our own, a sovereign Power"—like Burma; or, "We are going to remain within the Commonwealth"—perhaps under a special new arrangement, as in the case of India or Pakistan or Ceylon. Or, again, there is a third possibility: an independent people, on achieving self-government, might say, "We will come to a special arrangement with another power"—such as Greece.
When we were discussing the Sudan, before Sudanese sovereignty had been
522
achieved, it was always envisaged by this House, by Government spokesmen and everyone else, that it must be left entirely to the discretion of the Sudan, after independence had been achieved, whether they wished to apply to join the Commonwealth, or whether they wished to make a special treaty arrangement with Egypt, or whether they wished to remain completely independent. I hope I have made my point clear.
I do not want to take up undue time. I have just launched the subject in a rather imperfect and haphazard way. But it seemed to me that there were such dangerous implications in what the Minister said that the matter had to be cleared up at once, in case he was simply blundering, so that the blunder could be corrected overnight before the news travelled too widely in Cyprus, from Famagusta to Nicosia, from Larnaca to Limassol, through the length and breadth of that island which some of us know and love—that small and beautiful island whose most engaging and likeable people are surely, at this time of day, entitled to a better deal and truer democracy than they are apparently going to get from this Tory Government.
4.54 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I feel that it is incumbent that a reply should be made from this side of the House to the remarks of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) who has chosen, in accordance with his rights, to raise this matter on the Consolidated Fund instead of continuing with the proposed debate on steel. The very few observations which I make must, of necessity, also be haphazard and I will be brief with regard to them.
I think it is perfectly plain that at this moment it was incumbent on the Government to make their position quite clear with regard to the sovereignty of Cyprus. I would agree with what was said from the benches opposite that this must be to some extent related to the present situation which has arisen in Egypt. My beliefs on that aspect are, of course, well known. About 30 or 40 years ago my own father was a judge in Cyprus and during the many years when he was in a judicial capacity there Enosis, as it is known, was pressed—the desire of some members of the Greek community to be returned to, and to become part of, the sovereign State of Greece, because that

523
is the point—was then uppermost in the minds of the people. That was 40 years ago and it has remained in the minds of many of the Greek orthodox leaders for the whole of that period.
It is interesting to note that it is only since the troubles arose at the time of Abadan, and the troubles which have arisen over the situation in Egypt, that this question has been brought to the forefront of political feeling in Cyprus and Greece. It is in that light that we must look at it. There never was any great enforced demand for Enosis or to go back to join the Greek people, that is to say, a desire by the Greek people in Cyprus to be affiliated with Greece. They have no history or traditional background nor have they ever been part of Greece at any time.
It arises, by reason of the political propaganda at the present time in Cyprus, in two ways. First of all, there is the Communist propaganda, and if the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Maldon were to take effect in the near future and the Greek natives of Cyprus were to have the right to determine what other minorities would have to do, the result would be to play straight into the hands of the Communists. They would merely be supporting the views of the Greek Orthodox leaders—Makorios, and others—who were entirely against the most restrained and modern leaders in that part of the world.
If, at this stage, it is not made plain that we intend to remain in the immediate future and be assured of our sovereignty in Cyprus as in the past—as it has been made plain today by the Government—there will be the greatest danger of immediate trouble both by the Communists and also, I regret to say, by the Greek orthodox leaders, who are trying to introduce Enosis at this stage because they feel that at a time when we are reaching certain arrangements with Egypt it is an opportune time to press home their attack.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has stated that the agitation is, in effect, an agitation by the Greek Church leaders, and that it is being pushed forward by them against the responsible expression of orthodox opinion. Can the hon. Gentleman say
524
who it is who is expressing a contrary sense to the Greek Church?
Mr. Rees-Davies: In the first place, I have no doubt whatever that to a large extent—because although it is a minority it is very extensive—Turkish opinion throughout the whole of Cyprus is quite clearly in favour of British sovereignty, as opposed to a take-over by Greece. Furthermore, the European community there, which is extensive and to whose welfare the Minister referred this afternoon—
Mrs. Lena Jeger: May I ask the hon. Member—
Mr. Rees-Davies: answer a question—
Mrs. Jeger: Are not the Cypriots Europeans?
Mr. Rees-Davies:—are Clearly not against it. That is a second volume of opinion.
Thirdly—and this is the point I was making for the hon. Gentleman—there is no tradition or background of any kind of Greek sovereignty there. Therefore, if they be of racial Greek descent in Cyprus they have no more right to contend that this island should be returned to Greece than an Italian who comes to this country—or a Greek, or any person who becomes a British subject—has the right to say that Britain should go back to Greece.
Mr. Driberg: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me twice to ask for an explanation. What I was arguing was that they should have at any rate some independence and self-government, or that they should choose what they wanted to do; whether they wanted to stay in the Commonwealth, or go in with Greece or remain as they are now. That is all I was saying, and it seems to me that the hon. Member is evading that point.
Mr. Rees-Davies: I think that the question put by the hon. Member for Maldon might be answered in this way. At this moment the vital question which must be made plain is that our sovereignty there shall be supreme. When, in the future, we get a democratic Government established, the supposed self-government—I am using that word because I disagree with Enosis, and it is thought that self-government of the people could be

525
possible even within the British Commonwealth—it may be that in the years ahead a claim for the right of self-determination might arise.
I may be wrong, but in my view that is not self-government. The right of self-determination would not arise for some years and, as I understood it, what the Government were saying was that this was the right moment to state two facts: first, that our sovereignty in future shall remain as in the past; and, secondly, that we shall carry out certain reforms although they may not receive the support of the two main parties, the Communist Party and the Nationalist Party.
I entirely agree. I do not believe that we should support anything which would lead to further penetration by the Communists into the Colony and I do not believe that we should accept the arguments of the Nationalist Party, because I do not believe that the Greek Orthodox leaders are doing what is right. They are misleading the people of Cyprus in order to capture a small island for the sovereignty of Greece and not for the benefit of the people.
5.1 p.m.
Mrs. Lena Jeger: It must be a matter of regret to all of us on this side of the House, and even to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the House is going into Recess and giving this last message to the people of Cyprus for some time. It will be many months before we can discuss the matter again, many months during which there will have to be difficult negotiations in Cyprus with the Cypriot leaders, and it seems most unfortunate that the negotiations should have to go on at a time when the House is not sitting. We have had to seize spontaneously on this opportunity, our only one for many weeks, to put a different point of view.
We could have a very long and interesting debate on the history and ethnography of Cyprus, but I do not think that that is the business of the House in the present situation. For many years we have not taken the question of Enosis sufficiently seriously. I should like to remind the House of the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir Winston was Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office. He said to the Legislative Council in Cyprus:
526
"I think it is only natural that the Cypriot people who are of Greek descent should regard their incorporation with what may be called their mother country as an ideal to be earnestly, devoutly and fervently cherished. Such a feeling is an example of the patriotic devotion which so nobly characterises the Greek nation."
Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: When was that said?
Mrs. Jeger: That was said to the Legislative Council in 1907. I think that the right hon. Gentleman's words are eternally true.
Moreover, there was a period when the Government took a slightly more sympathetic view of the question. That was during the First World War, when in 1915 Cyprus was offered to Greece by the British Government in return for the immediate entry of Greece into the war. At that time Greece was not able to enter the war, but she did so a short time afterwards. However, the offer for the union with Cyprus was not renewed by the then Government. Since then the people of the island have certainly not decreased in any way in their interest and enthusiasm for what they regard as their proper destiny.
Hon. Members take a very wrong view when they suppose that this is just a Communist plot. It may be that when a referendum is held the result is not always what one would wish, but that is no reason for discrediting referenda and imagining that they are inspired from a certain source. It was a matter of great regret that on the last occasion when Cyprus was discussed in another place one noble Lord said that the result in favour of Enosis showed that the country was Russian dominated. Lord Winster said:
"I never expected anything else. To my mind, the plebiscite ran absolutely according to form. …"
He spoke of it as:
"… following the best Russian example—or the example of countries that are Russian dominated …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd February, 1954; Vol. 185, c. 1078.]
As long as there is this attitude among Members of either House the Cypriots will not enter into discussions about their future with very co-operative feelings. We have plenty of evidence of widespread support for the movement. In answer to a Question which I asked in the House today the Minister had to admit that support for Enosis was widespread among the people of the island.
Mr. Raymond Gower: I do not want to dispute what the hon. Lady has said, but I should like to know whether her experience accords with mine. Has she found that the large numbers of people who come from Cyprus to this country are extremely proud of what they describe as their British citizenship? I suppose that many Cypriots come to her constituency as they do to mine and I should like to know whether her experience is the same as mine.
Mrs. Jeger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have certainly had considerable experience. About 10,000 Cypriots have come from their sunny island to the smoke and chill of St. Pancras in search of work in the back kitchens of Soho and Bloomsbury. I am sure that the Minister knows that I have tried to assess the viewpoint of Cypriots in this country and I find complete agreement among them. It may be that there is something peculiar about Cypriots who live in St. Pancras, but as they happen to form the vast bulk of Cypriots in this country it would be wrong for me to say other than that there seems to be complete support for Enosis, and that not one Cypriot in St. Pancras has ever put a different point of view to me. It may be that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) will be able to bear out what I say.
On the question of the plebiscite it should be remembered that that was taken when the Ethnarchy asked the Governor to carry out the referendum and the Governor refused. Therefore, when the Ethnarchy carried out a plebiscite with the result that 95 per cent. of the Greek population voted for union with Greece, it seems a little unfair for us to say now that there must have been something wrong with the referendum. Surely the answer is that if we were not prepared then to carry out such a referendum and to give the people an opportunity to express their opinion we should do it now as a matter of great urgency.
It is a matter of great puzzlement and confusion to the people of Cyprus who regard themselves essentially as Europeans with a long tradition of culture. It is a serious blow to their pride that the people of the Sudan whom they regard as perhaps a little less forward, a little less educated, should have been given the opportunity to express their point of view
528
on their constitutional future when the opportunity is denied to the people of Cyprus. This must be confusing to our friends in the island.
Now we are in a serious situation. As we know, the Greek Government are raising the question before the United Nations. It is a matter on which we must ask the responsible Ministers to take action, treating it as an emergency. The Greek Government will certainly not hesitate to raise the question before the United Nations. The Minister today referred to the strategic importance of Cyprus. The Greek Government have already made it perfectly clear that, as a member of N.A.T.O., they are prepared to offer full facilities to other N.A.T.O. Powers, including of course Great Britain, in any strategic purposes which we might work out together.
I should have thought that from a strategic point of view the chance of making the best use of Cyprus would have been enhanced had that policy been carried out in concert with the Greek Government, following the wishes of the majority of the Cypriot people, and not carried out in a situation in which feelings are exacerbated and in which the local population can again put us in the unfortunate position which has arisen in Egypt. I recognise that there are constitutional differences between the position in Cyprus and that in Egypt, but the common denominator is a hostile population.
The crux of the question is whether we believe not merely in self-government but also in self-determination by the peoples of the Commonwealth. We have to accept that our view may not always be right and may not always prevail. Many hon. Members regret what has happened in Burma and there may be some who believe that a mistake has been made in the Sudan, but surely the governing principle, in this day and age, of any happy or successful Commonwealth Government must be the acceptance of the supreme power of the will of the people themselves.
The Cypriots have expressed this point of view. They refused to co-operate when a constitution was offered them a few years ago. I am informed that since that time there has been some increase in the support for Enosis, and it therefore seems that the chance of obtaining

529
the co-operation of any representative Cypriots, other than purely nominated "stooges." must be much less now than it was a few years ago.
I am afraid that the hope expressed rather glibly this afternoon that all would go well in Cyprus is one which will not be fulfilled. The urgency which has been given to this question by events in Suez makes it all the more important that we should have a further statement this afternoon, before the House rises, which will help the Cypriot people to see the Government's intention. A further statement should be made on which talks can be held, because nothing said so far this afternoon by the Government could possibly form the basis of any useful or progressive talks to bring about happiness in Cyprus.
5.14 p.m.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) referred to a speech made by the Prime Minister in 1907 in which he recognised the natural aspirations among Hellenes in various parts of the world for unity with Greece and, in particular, the aspirations of Cyprus, where he was speaking at the time. It may be relevant to mention that since 1907 Greece, for which country we have the greatest admiration—a country with which we have a long tradition of friendship—has, unfortunately, been involved in no fewer than five wars. We have seen the tragedy through which she has passed.
It may be said that if, in spite of these difficulties, many of the people of Cyprus are anxious to unite with Greece, then surely the feeling must be very strong indeed. The House would be unwise not to take account of the great sentimental urge for Hellenistic unity. But let us see where that urge has led the Greek people in the past. I believe that the proportion of Greek people in Izmir before the Greco-Turkish War was as great as it is in Cyprus today and that some Hellenistic sentimental urge led to a great tragedy. As a result, many Greeks have been expatriated from Izmir.
I wonder whether those Cypriots who live in the hon. Lady's constituency—and they are her constituents—have given full thought not only to what their own position would be, but also to what would be
530
the position of Cyprus. I am not referring to the view adopted by the hon. Lady, because I recognise the altruistic nature of her speech. Have these people given full thought not only to what their position would be, but also to what would be the position of Cyprus, a territory for which we are responsible, if the Cypriots were to achieve that union which they are being urged to seek?
Mr. Crossman: Would the hon. Member not regard them as adults, able to make up their own minds? If he disagrees with them, does he not think that he should let them decide for themselves?
Mr. Macpherson: I remember listening a few years ago, when I first came into the House, to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) speaking about plebiscites and referenda, with particular reference to Scotland, and saying that in his view a plebiscite was never a satisfactory way of determining a matter of this description.
We should be very careful of this sentimental urge. One of the great troubles has been that the opposite point of view has not been sufficiently expressed in Cyprus. One of the reasons for which I welcomed my right hon. Friend's statement today is that it provides some possibility for another point of view to be expressed. We must remember what the history of Cyprus has been since the war. First of all, we had the great development of Communism in the island. At that time there were many Communists in Grece, and the Communists in Cyprus were keen on the idea of the union of Cyprus with Greece.
What happened? An attempt was made to outbid them. A party of the Right arose in an attempt to outbid the Communists in Cyprus so that we now have two extreme points of view. I welcomed my right hon. Friend's statement, because it gives some hope that more moderate counsels will prevail.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson: How does the hon. Member think that the other party, by which I presume he means the Greek Orthodox Church, could outbid the Communists by standing for Enosis unless Enosis was what the people of Cyprus wanted?
Mr. Macpherson: I have already indicated that it is very easy to play on

531
sentiment on this matter. Politics is not only a question of sentiment; it also involves a responsibility for the lives of the people of Cyprus and for their future well-being.
The reason why I am glad that my right hon. Friend has made his statement is that by making it crystal clear that the question of sovereignty cannot arise at present and removing the issue from the field of politics he is making it clear that there will be a possibility for the people to work gradually towards self-government and of stating their real interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My right hon. Friend did not say the opposite. He spoke of working towards self-government and this was the first step.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Did not the right hon. Gentleman put two limitations? It is true that he said that he was taking the first step towards self-government, but did he not make it very clear that there never will be a last step, that there will not be any change of sovereignty and that that is ours for ever? Did he not also say that if it should ever happen, which God forbid, that the majority of the people of Cyprus should be Communists we would interfere by force to prevent their having the form of government which they desired?
Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend certainly never said anything of that kind. I never heard the word "force" used.
Mr. Hopkinson: I said, first of all, that this was a first step towards self-government, which we hoped would go forward with the co-operation of the people of Cyprus. I was questioned about sovereignty and I said that this did not involve any question of change of sovereignty and that that was something which we did not contemplate. I said that there were certain territories in which the question of the exact degree of independence which a Colony could achieve would depend upon its circumstances. [An HON. MEMBER: "Malta."] Malta is one territory with almost the same population and which is not a territory which can be self-governing.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman makes a speech now he cannot make one again on Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. Hopkinson: I was asked questions, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which, with your permission, I should just like to answer. I was asked about the question of the establishment of a Communist régime. I repeated what was said at the time of the British Guiana incident last autumn that a Communist régime would not be tolerated, because it is a negation of independence and self-government.
Mr. S. Silverman: Is not that exactly what I said?
Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member made play with the fact that force would be used to prevent it. We are anxious to get a constitution going in which such force would have no place.
The House should really regard the situation as it is in Cyprus at the moment. We have these two extreme parties on either side, each competing on a sentimental basis for the support of the Cypriots but with neither having any responsibility for the government of the country. Surely the Government's proposals are the right thing to do when there are two parties of this kind. Surely we do not imagine that the whole country supports Enosis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We know, for example, that the Turks take the opposite view.
Let us give the opportunity for opinion to be expressed freely through a democratic constitution. Surely, by these proposals we are taking the first step towards achieving that. The House should welcome this first step and the opportunity to have these matters freely discussed in an assembly in Cyprus, instead of the present non-co-operation of the two extreme parties which is exercising the greatest moral suasion on the people. We know the Communist methods and we know how the Orthodox Church is refusing to marry and baptise people until they receive full support in this matter.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Can the hon. Member give a single instance of that happening?
Mr. Macpherson: I cannot quote a definite instance just now, but surely it is common knowledge. This has been reported again and again. It is well known. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Even if this suasion is less than I represent it to be, surely it is right at present to get

533
going a constitution in which various opinions can be expressed. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend's hopes will be realised and that instead of refusing to co-operate, as the parties have done so far, the parties will now enter into talks with the Governor, and that there will be an opportunity to take the first step. We should all welcome this first step towards self-government. It would be wrong not to take it.
It may be said that the proposed constitution is not an advance on the previous one, but suppose one had elections with only two main parties. One never can tell, but they might combine. The Orthodox Party and the Communists might combine for a specific purpose, but surely once we made it quite clear that sovereignty is not to be parted with at the present time, it would immediately result in a deadlock. Therefore, it would be absolutely absurd to establish that constitution now. We know that other opinions exist in Cyprus. Let us give the opportunity of having them expressed. That would be one of the effects of getting an Assembly going. I welcome this step and I hope that the House will also welcome it.
5.27 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I do not think that anyone in this House can be under any misapprehension as to the importance of the statements which have been made by the Government on Cyprus. Whatever views can be taken of it, something has been said this afternoon which will affect very materially not only the lives of the people of Cyprus but the security of the Eastern Mediterranean and our relations with the Greek people for a long time to come. I only hope that this is not a further instance of the party opposite doing the kind of thing which it did at the time of the Boston Tea Party and refusing to recognise a strong feeling which has been held over a long period of years by a people who hitherto have avoided violence for the most part.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) is the last person that I would ever have expected to have to accuse of laying himself open to a charge of being presumptuous, but he presumed to ask whether the Cypriot people had really considered the position that they would be in if they left the British Commonwealth. This is an adult people.
534
It is a far more adult people than many others whom we have encouraged towards self-government. However much we may imagine that their material well-being will be less good if they leave the British Commonwealth, I do not think that we have any right to say therefore that we ought to do what is in our power to put a brake upon their march in the direction in which they want to go, namely, towards self-determination.
Mr. Macpherson: Surely that is contrary to what we are doing. We find that there has been no response to the previous offer of a constitution and we are now taking a first step. So far from that being a brake, it is an encouragement.
Mr. Mallalieu: We have found that there was no response in the direction of co-operation under the first constitution which was offered; and now we offer another one which is in no way better than the first.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Worse.
Mr. Mallalieu: That is putting on a brake, considering that there has been a lapse of time, a passage of years as the Prime Minister so often expresses it, between the offer of the first constitution and this offer. We should have offered before now a proper solution which, if the Government had not had its head in the sand, would have been the one most likely to further not only the interests of the Cypriots but our own.
I asked the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, what were the other expressions of Cypriot opinion upon which he was relying when he said that the Greek Church had been furthering this agitation for a long time and nobody else had; and that the leaders of the Greek Church had been furthering this agitation in defiance of expressions in a contrary sense in Cyprus. All he could answer was that the Turks and the non-Greek Europeans had expressed those opinions. That may be so, but from the best opinions I can get —and I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong on this point —80 per cent. of the people of Cyprus are Greek and 96 per cent. of that 80 per cent. voted in favour of Enosis, or union

535
with Greece, in the plebiscite which has been somewhat smeared by the party opposite.
Therefore, it is surely not correct to say that there has been any substantial expression of Cypriot opinion in a sense contrary to Enosis. If I am wrong, I ask the Minister to enlighten us on the point when he replies. If there has been any responsible expression of Cypriot opinion against Enosis in the last 20 years, would he give particulars of it? It would be surprising if there were none, but it will not be enough to say that there has been some.
We want to know what particular expressions there have been in a sense contrary to Enosis. In my submission, there has been none worth considering in face of the expressions of Cypriots in favour of Enosis in their Press, their speeches and in their personal contact with us in this country. Is there, for example, a single newspaper published in Cyprus, whether in Greek or in English, which is against Enosis?
Mr. W. T. Aitken: There is one paper. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the "Cyprus Mail," which has held forth against Enosis on some occasions.
Mr. Mallalieu: I could not accept that instance. I am familiar with the "Cyprus Mail," and to say that it has held forth substantially against Enosis would not be accurate.
Mr. Aitken: If the hon. Gentleman had read the paper very carefully, he could not talk like that. I get the paper almost every week and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I could produce for his benefit leading articles attacking Enosis in a way that I think none of us here would like to do in public.
Mr. Mallalieu: I presume—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I would point out to the two hon. Gentlemen that this is a Second Reading debate. We are not in Committee.
Mr. Mallalieu: I shall not continue the point, much as I should like to. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet also said that it was improper for us to speak about Cyprus being returned to Greece.
536
In a sense that is true, as Cyprus has never been under Greek sovereignty. It is wrong strictly to talk about returning Cyprus to Greek sovereignty. It would not, of course, be wrong to talk about returning the Colonial Secretary to the City, because he was there once, he was a City man always, and doubtless will be again in a few days or a few weeks. It is contrary to the strict interpretation of the words to talk about returning Cyprus to Greek sovereignty, because there never was Greek sovereignty until comparatively recent times when the Turks were turned out of Greece. Since then the territories occupied by Greek people have come under Greek sovereignty. Cyprus is the last one to remain outside. It is not just an agitation dating from the time of the Abadan crisis, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said.
The hon. Member said that this agitation was started then, by the leaders of the Greek Church. Has he forgotten what took place in 1931 in the island; what his own supposed leader the present Prime Minister said in 1907 about Cyprus; what Gladstone said in 1897, which was that he hoped that Cyprus would become a Greek island in the near future? This agitation has been going on ever since there was such a thing as Greek sovereignty. We should be most unwise in our own interests to bury our heads in the sand and to refuse to recognise the trend of events in the Eastern Mediterranean.
As far as we can tell from the Government's statement, we are hoping increasingly to use Cyprus as some kind of base for our defensive arrangements in the Eastern Mediterranean. How can it be supposed that our efforts in that direction will be furthered unless we win the co-operation of the Cypriot people? What hope is there of our doing this unless we make towards them the gesture of granting the self-determination for which they are asking?
It is said that for security reasons we must hold on to the island of Cyprus. Is it not a fact that the Greek Government have openly stated that they will give us all facilities for defence in Cyprus, or in any other part of Greek territory if we will allow the Cypriots to follow their own passionate desire to come under Greek sovereignty? How can it be said that we are in any way furthering our own strategic interests in the Eastern

537
Mediterranean by hanging on to this island, dog-in-the-manger like, against the wishes of 80 per cent. of the population? Should we not be seeking rather to gain their co-operation and to maintain the friendship which our country has traditionally had for the Greek people, for whom we certainly express admiration? How can it possibly be said that we have our own interests in mind in refusing the legitimate aspirations of the Cypriot people?
We need not only the co-operation of the Cypriots but of our friends the Greeks. I hope that the Government will think again on this matter and will not just bring up a rehash of the old constitution. I hope they will take the bold step which is necessary to secure our interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and will give the Cypriot people what they have been asking for, mainly peacefully, for so long.
5.39 p.m.
Mr. W. T. Aitken: It seems that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House have been stampeded into this attitude of Enosis in the same way as the Ethnarchy have stampeded the people of Cyprus. I can give the House three good reasons why we are in Cyprus and why we should stay there.
The first reason is security. I do not think anybody can possibly argue, considering the kind of world in which we live today, that we could be secure with a base on a small island under a weak and unstable Power. Anybody who thinks that political conditions in Greece are such that Communism could not prevail at any time in the next year or two is not very well informed about conditions there. No base on a small island can possibly be as secure as a base over which we hold complete sovereignty. I do not think anybody can possibly argue against that.
The argument which is so often made about a base in the midst of a hostile population seems to me to have no validity whatsoever in the case of Cyprus, because the people in Cyprus are not hostile to Great Britain. Anybody who has visited the island, as I have done, knows perfectly well that the people of Cyprus are anything but anti-British. In spite of the intensity and fervour with
538
which the Enosis campaign has been conducted, the people of Cyprus are still very pro-British, and the Enosis campaign has, as one hon. Member said, been running since 1878, and even before that under the Turks, although not so strongly. The base cannot be secure unless it remains under our sovereignty.
We also have to consider the welfare of the people who live in Cyprus. There is no doubt that the material welfare of the people who live in Cyprus is better than the welfare of the people who live in Greece, and infinitely better than the welfare of the people who live on the Island of Rhodes. The Island of Rhodes was handed over to the Greeks at the end of the war. It was under Italian sovereignty before that. Many people of Rhodes are in a condition of semi-starvation. They are trying to emigrate to Cyprus, and a number have already emigrated there. They have come to Cyprus because conditions in Rhodes are so bad.
The average Greek-speaking Cypriot will admit that he is better off, and will say that he is in favour of Enosis. But if he is told that tomorrow the island will join a political union with Greece, what happens? I can tell hon. Members what happened in the case of one Cypriot whom I know. I shall not give his name, for reasons which will be understood. The moment the Greeks announced that they were going to raise this matter with the United Nations, he moved his money out of Cyprus into England. Those things would seem to be in complete contradiction.
Mr. Bevan: Would the hon. Gentleman say that that attitude is characteristic of most Cypriots?
Mr. Aitken: That is rather an unfair question to put. I am not going to say that that is characteristic of most or all the Cypriots in Cyprus, because I do not know.
Mr. Bevan: I thought the hon. Gentleman's point was that, although it was perfectly correct to say that most of the people in Cyprus express a desire for kinship with Greece, nevertheless if they had to choose between that and surrendering the advantages of their association with Great Britain, they would sing a different tune. If that is the case, why not try it?
Mr. Aitken: Either the right hon. Gentleman has not understood me or I have not made myself clear. What I am trying to indicate is that the connection between Enosis and the immediate conditions under which the Cypriot lives is not always clear to all Cypriots. I do not think that the average Cypriot realises that Enosis is in any degree imminent. I am sure that if he did think so, many material considerations such as those which I have mentioned would operate.
This question of material welfare is very important, because if people are better off as they are, if people realise that Enosis will make them worse off, that would be a perfectly fair choice. But I do not believe that the average citizen in Cyprus realises that. I do not believe that the average Cypriot farmer or worker who voted for Enosis realises that his conditions would be very much worsened under Greek sovereignty. The reason they do not realise it is to be found in the very nature of the Enosis campaign. This is a campaign run on lines which we in this country have learned to mistrust for the last 200 years. We do not like plebiscites run by the Church. We do not like plebiscites in which only one side of the question is put.
Mr. K. Robinson: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs tell the House very clearly that the Ethnarchy offered that this plebiscite should be run by the British Government, and the offer was turned down?
Mr. Aitken: I think anybody who has examined the situation is perfectly aware that the Ethnarchy have on several occasions asked the local government to run their own plebiscite, but this would still make it a one-sided plebiscite. If anybody thinks that a plebiscite run by the local government would be a fair plebiscite, I will explain why it would not be.
A plebiscite run by the local government would be exposed to exactly the same one-sided pressures as the plebiscite run by the Ethnarchy, because, first of all, the vast majority of the people in Cyprus speak Greek and a great many do not speak English or read English newspapers. Secondly, the Byzantine Church is the main driving force in the Enosis movement. A Church running a political campaign exposes itself to very grave dangers and temptations to which
540
no religious body ought to expose itself. To my mind, elections and political questions are not suitable methods for the Church. We do not like it here, and we do not like it in other countries. We do not like it in Ireland.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I have very great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about the suitability of the Churches taking part in elections. Having lived a great deal in Ireland, I can understand what he means. But would he not admit that in the case of the Church in Cyprus the position is rather different, in that every bishop has to submit himself to election by a body composed as to more than half by the laity?
Mr. Aitken: I am aware of that, but that still does not make me less suspicious of that kind of plebiscite.
The first reason which I have given why we should remain in Cyprus is security. The second reason is the welfare of the people, and I do not believe that the people of Cyprus realise what would happen to them if the sovereignty of Cyprus were transferred to Greece. Thirdly, I do not trust plebiscites, and I do not think that we in this House ought to trust plebiscites of any kind, especially if they are run by the Church.
My last point is that there is nothing in the whole character and development of our colonial policy which would preclude Cyprus eventually determining her own fate. There is nothing to prevent a community like Cyprus eventually being able to determine its future, but it must be able to determine it with full knowledge and understanding by the people. The Gold Coast has had more experience of running its own affairs than Cyprus has had. The Gold Coast has a much more advanced constitution than the Cypriots had prior to 1931. Unless the Cypriots are in a position really to understand what the choice is, unless they have had a taste of self-government and the advantage of running their own affairs, I think the British Government are quite right to insist that we retain the sovereignty of Cyprus.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I think we all wish we could hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) more often in this House. I

541
thought what he said was extremely instructive and, if I may, I should like to make a resumé of what he said. He gave three reasons for standing firm in Cyprus. First, it was important for our military security. We could not be squeamish about little things like national independence where military security was at stake. Secondly, he said that where elections go against us they obviously do not represent the will of the people. If as a result of a plebiscite or election one gets the wrong result, one must educate the people. Thirdly, he stated that we must stay because it was good for Cyprus to be under British rule.
I wonder why the hon. Gentleman and some of his friends opposite object so much to certain actions of Soviet Russia? To what do they object? Here is the principle that where military security is concerned we have the right to occupy a country, whatever its national ownership may be, to disregard all plebiscites or elections, and to tell those people that it is good for them to be under our rule. I wonder whom we think we are deceiving? Whom do we think we are taking in with all these ridiculous announcements and this talk from the other side? I wonder who will be deceived by the Minister's statement about all the good we have done for Cyprus and how we really want to give them self-government —but, of course, not to let them do what they want to do. Oh, no—we give them everything else and deny them what they really want.
This has been going on for a long time. We have been told by those opposite that this island had never been under Greek sovereignty. It happens to be the only one of the hundreds of islands of Greece which is not part of Greece proper. It is not part of Greece proper because Disraeli swopped it with the Turks in 1878. It became part of Britain in 1878, and believed that as a Colony of Britain it would get independence, but it is as a result of being a British Colony that it has been denied the independence and Enosis which have been obtained by every other one of the Greek islands.
To the Cypriots we say, "It is all for your good. We know you better than you know yourselves." There are some 10,000 Cypriots who have come to Britain and have their own ideas about this. But we know better than them. Even when under the great influence of this Metropolis
542
they remain obstinately convinced of their grievance and remain in favour of Enosis; they feel Greek; they are Greek —even then hon. Gentlemen say, "No, no, gentlemen—with time and trouble we shall teach you not to be Greek."
How often in our colonial history have we said the same thing? It is an ironical fact that we are starting the trouble in Cyprus on the same day as we have the ignominious end of the trouble in Egypt. May I say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this retreat from Egypt is a scuttle. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen said, "We shall be tough. We shall not give way. Where our national security is concerned we stand firm"— and 18 months afterwards they crawl into the conference room.
Captain Robert Ryder: What would you do?
Mr. Crossman: For two and a half years I have been saying that since an agreement was inevitable the sooner it was done the better. The Government knew it—everyone knew it except the Tory rebels and the chief rebel on the Front Bench. For 18 months he has prevented the agreement with Egypt which is now being concluded with much worse conditions and is likely to cause the most crave trouble in the Middle East.
The difference between a scuttle and a negotiated settlement is this. If one negotiates genuinely wishing an agreement and while one is still free to concede it, one gains the kudos which the Socialist Government gained when we handed over India voluntarily. But these people have kept on for 18 months saying, "Oh, no, it is impossible to go out unless there are left 4,000 British in British uniforms." But now the work is to be done by British civil contractors and Egyptians. What is the change? The change is that one old man has got older and given way. He has kept 80,000 men there and spent £100 million in order to transform what might have been a magnanimous action into the scuttle of imperialists who fail to keep up their imperialism.
I warn the House about Cyprus and all the grand talk that there is now—that we will be tough, give them a moderate constitution, and so on. We will put the base there and then the Enosis movement will get going and there will be the same dreary story as there was in Palestine and

543
other parts of the world. One puts in troops and all the rest against the will of the people. One talks of being tough, and of making moderate constitutional reforms—which only have the effect of enabling the Nationalist forces to exploit the situation against one. Then one sends British troops, one arrests all the nationalists, then de-arrests them and makes one of them Prime Minister a year later. There was a time when the whole present Cabinet of the Government of Israel was arrested as terrorists and I said then that the time would come when Israel would have its independence. We said that Egypt would have its independence, but there was no genuine independence for Egypt with 80,000 troops close to Cairo. And now it comes years too late and under the worst possible auspices.
Then, immediately after the announcement of this ignominious agreement, there is the announcement that we will go into the same dreary business in Cyprus. Why blind ourselves to all the facts and believe all these half-truths? There has been a plebiscite showing 95 per cent. of the people of Cyprus wanting Enosis, but the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds knows better than those people. He says that if the really responsible people got nearer to the point they would not believe in Enosis. There is a simple way to try that out—give them the chance to get nearer the point and decide for themselves.
That is exactly the chance which is to be denied them under the present proposal. The present proposal is that, since under a constitution which did not appeal to anyone in Cyprus a majority of the members of the legislative council were elected, in future they shall be nominated. If someone is not content with half a loaf, he is given the crust instead. [Interruption.] We are told solemnly by the Minister that we shall really please the Cypriots by giving them, in 1954, a legislative council with a nominated majority. Far less was offered and refused five years ago, yet we are told that this will stem Enosis and that it will stem Communism. We have been told from the other side that we cannot have Communism in Cyprus, but do not hon. Gentlemen realise that the Communists exploit the nationalist movement? The Communists are becoming popular in
544
Cyprus because they recognise the genuine nature of the nationalist feelings. The best pointer to the genuineness of Enosis is that the Communists have exploited it; they are no fools, and they are on a winner there.
Here I should like to say a word or two about what happened at the meeting of the sub-committee of the Defence Committee of the 1922 Committee. If reports are true, the sub-committee of the Defence Committee of the 1922 Committee—which, of course, was the whole of the 1922 Committee—met a fortnight ago to duscuss Suez. We hear that the Prime Minister took with him to that meeting a great map of Suez. He opened it to show what would happen if an H-bomb exploded. It would wipe out the whole of that area. With an emotional catch in his voice, the Prime Minister told his hearers to look at the map which showed the Suez base, a large area 120 miles by 50 miles, which would be wiped out, and he told the sub-committee it was a dead loss. How grateful the Egyptians will be to the British now that we are getting out of the Suez base and removing this threat from them! But now we are transferring the base to Cyprus, do we expect the Cypriot to be pleased at the privilege of having the headquarters of Middle Eastern Command? Millions of pounds are being spent on the barracks there, and I expect the same contractors are doing this work as did the work on the barracks at Gaza which were not completed before we were thrown out of Palestine.
Mr. Aitken: Has the hon. Member not thought what the position of the Cypriots in respect of the H-bomb would be if we passed the Cyprus sovereignty to Greece? It would be exactly the same as it is now.
Mr. Crossman: I am discussing whether the Cypriots are attracted by the proposal to transfer the British Middle East Base from Suez to the island and whether it will strengthen or weaken their desire for Enosis. If I were a Cypriot and a democrat in Cyprus, I would say, "God forbid that any base in my country should be available for any American bomber, because it is a grave risk." The risk is almost as grave as a non-aggression pact with a Communist state.
We are told now that the Suez Base is a death-trap, that the Egyptians are too

545
awkward and too hostile and that the best thing would be to move it to Cyprus. Let me assure the House that the Cypriots will not welcome us. They want independence, not occupation. There are some places in the world where we can talk about being trustees for a backward people, but there is no trustee excuse in Cyprus. We acquired this island in 1878, not for economic exploitation, but to keep it as a possibility for the future. The then Government thought that some use might turn up some day for Cyprus and so we should keep it in cold storage. We neglected the island and not until a few years ago was there any economic development there. Nothing was done for it.
I was in Cyprus twice recently on my way to and from Israel, and I should just like to add that if the British Colonial Office had done for that island one-twentieth of what has been done by the Israelis for Israel—and it is roughly the same size—it would be a far more prosperous country, because potentially it is far more prosperous than Israel. Its rainfall is much greater, and it has good prospects, if the rain water is properly controlled.
In the last few years, I agree that we have done something for Cyprus, but that was just when nationalism in the island was beginning to be heard. That is when we start appeasing people in our Colonies. For generations we neglected Cyprus. We kept it in cold storage, in the belief that there would be a use for it some day. Now it is going to be useful—because we have scuttled out of Egypt.
But we are going to make exactly the same mistake in Cyprus as we have made in Egypt and elsewhere. We know already what the will of the population is. It is overwhelmingly in favour of incorporation with Greece. Hon. Members opposite may talk about that meaning a lower standard of life, but democracy means the right to have a low standard of living if that is what the people want and if that is the way they want to live their own lives. Have we learned nothing from Ireland? Human beings sometimes prefer to be free with fewer of the material advantages. If we could only learn that now it would be a step in the right direction.
Do we not understand that the Cypriot prefers to lead his own life in his own way? Heaven knows, he has not had
546
much from us until recently, so that his standard of life was low anyway. But when we decide that the island should become our base, then we begin to develop it economically. I beg the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, who made this astonishing statement today, to go back to the Cabinet and ask it to change its mind. It is changing its mind about so many things today that it can afford to change its mind once more on Cyprus.
What are we telling the Cypriots today? On the day of the announcement of the evacuation of Egypt, the Cypriots are told that Britain is tough; that she is going to retain her sovereignty over the island. That means only one thing. May I say that the tragedy of the Middle East is that there is not a country there whose people have got their rights from the British without murder? In every case we have resisted as long as they made their demands peaceably, and we conceded appeasement when they began violence against us.
Mr. H. Hynd: Except in India.
Mr. Crossman: I am talking about the the Middle East. That is what has happened in Jordan, in Persia, in Palestine and in Egypt. In every one of those countries they have learned the lesson that British imperialism is something that gives them nothing unless they take it by force or the threat of force.
The Cypriots are a peaceable people, but they did burn down Government House a few years ago. If the Minister of State continues to make the sort of insulting statement that he made today, he is creating the very Communist movement he says he is determined to prevent. How can the Cypriots organise themselves to get independence? They can only do it either through the Church or through the Communist Party. Those are the two organisations which are fighting for them.
What is it that we have promised the Cypriots this afternoon? We have told them that Britain is getting tough about sovereignty and we are offering them a less progressive constitution than that which they rejected six years ago. In effect, what we are saying is, "Never in any circumstance will this little island be allowed to have its independence; the right to choose whether it should be a

547
member of the Commonwealth or not." But nobody can be a true member of the Commonwealth without the freedom to choose not to be a member of the Commonwealth. That is the essence of what is, after all, one of the greatest voluntary associations in the world.
We are denying this right of choice to the Cypriots because we want to substitute that island for the Canal Base as our Middle East headquarters. The Prime Minister told the sub-committee of the Defence Committee of the 1922 Committee that the H-bomb would destroy the Suez Base, but now we propose to bring the dangers we are removing from Egypt to the people of Cyprus. I warn the House that this will lead to trouble.
I say to the Colonial Secretary that in the last eight years we have antagonised all the forces in the Middle East which we could have had for our friends because we continued to put military expediency and strategic expediency before political principles. Constantly we have been told that we must be "realists," but that sort of realism is infantile lunacy. Surely by this time we have learned the lesson that a military base is useless if the civilian population are opposed to us. We have to withdraw eventually with a considerable wastage of troops and we loose the good will of the people of the territory in question.
Now we propose to lose the good will of the Cypriots. We first went there in 1878, and now we are in the position that even the Cypriots living in London would far rather see their island a part of Greece. That is the result of 70 years of British rule in that island. We are now to follow a policy of accelerating anti-British feeling in the island, and it is done in the name of military realism. It is done by a Government which because of their Tory rebels got tough in Egypt, but then had to clear out. I say that if it is the right thing to evacuate Egypt —and it is—then it is the right thing to evacuate Cyprus, and to do it in good time.
That is the case we put from this side of the House, and we want to hear what the Colonial Secretary has to say about it. He may say something less repellent and hypocritical than that which came from the ex-Foreign Office official. The
548
Cypriots will understand what he means by all the talk which we have heard from him today. It will stimulate their resistance; it will make the base useless, and make the Government look even more ridiculous than they look this afternoon.
6.11 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton)rose—
Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. This debate arose out of my attempt to move the Adjournment of the House during the supplementary questions which followed the statement upon Cyprus. I think it is unreasonable that I and other hon. Members who are interested in the subject should not have been called before the Minister.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman. This debate is on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the Adjournment or anything else.
Mr. Wyatt: Is it necessary to call the Minister? We all know what he is going to talk about.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is the practice to call Front Bench Members when they rise.
Mr. Lyttelton: I had not intended to intervene on the subject of Cyprus, except for one reason—that this may well be the last occasion when I have the honour of addressing this House. I have no doubt that that will give great satisfaction to some hon. Members opposite. But now, after hearing the extremely irresponsible and dangerous speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) I find it necessary to say a few words upon the subject in any case.
We all understand the hon. Member's policy; it peeped through some of his remarks. He said, "If I were a citizen of any country, whether it was a British dependency or anything else, I should never permit a British base to be located there." That is exactly what he said, and it means, "I prefer to run every risk of being enslaved rather than allow people of the British Empire to be stationed in my country." We all recognise what that argument is, and we also recognise the policy which underlay all

549
the speeches I have heard, namely, that whenever anybody asks for anything, even when there are no ordinary democratic means of finding out what it is they want, we are committing a great mistake and being provocative if we do not immediately give way.
I want to try to bring this subject back towards the facts. Let us examine the question of security in the Eastern Mediterranean. Not a single speaker from the benches opposite has even mentioned Turkey in the course of his remarks. The hon. Member for Coventry, East, who knows so much about the Middle East—
Mr. Crossman: I certainly mentioned Turkey.
Mr. Lyttelton: Only in the historical sense. I want to refer to it in the present sense. Are hon. Members opposite aware of the position which Turkey occupies in the defence plans of N.A.T.O.? Are they aware that 18 per cent, of the population of Cyprus is Turkish-speaking? Is no account to be taken of these facts? They have not been mentioned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—when I have been in the House. I am only making the point that any talk of Enosis will have the gravest effect upon Turkish opinion. It is worth making the point that 18 per cent. of the population of Cyprus are Turkish-speaking, but it has not been made by anybody so far.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the fact that 18 per cent. of the population of Cyprus speak Turkish has not been mentioned, but that is not correct. I referred to it a great deal. Have there been any representations from Turkey upon this question? If so, what?
Mr. Lyttelton: I said that in the scheme of the defence of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkish opinion and the solidarity of Turkey in the arrangements are of primary importance. That point has not been made while I have been in the House, and I heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) in full. The mere statistic that 18 per cent. of the Cypriots speak Turkish might well have been mentioned.
Eastern Mediterranean security demands that we maintain sovereign power in Cyprus. That is expert opinion. Some
550
hon. Members opposite expressed the opinion that we would be much safer if we allowed a country to become attached to some foreign Power and then established our base there by treaty. That is a curious argument to advance. A large part of the argument of the hon. Member for Coventry, East, was devoted to drawing a comparison between the situation in Egypt and that in Cyprus, but that is wholly inapposite to this discussion. There cannot be any going back on expert opinion in this matter.
I believe that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg)—when I was not in the House—said that the talk of self-government for Cyprus was hypocrisy, or words to that effect. He knows that in many parts of the British Colonial Territories there is a very large measure of self-government, while the Governor and, consequently, Her Majesty's Government, retain certain powers in their hands in connection with external relations and defence. However desirable it might be, in everybody's opinion, it is not possible at this stage in the world situation to give Cyprus full control over her external relations and defence, any more than it is possible at this moment to go still further and say that the external relations and defence of Cyprus are matters for the Greek Government.
Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Gentleman used the phrases "at this stage," and "at this moment." Possibly there is a very important difference between his view and that of the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs because the main point of the Minister of State which alarmed and disturbed some of us was that the term "self-government" could never be applied in its full sense to Cyprus, and that this was one of the territories, under the Potomac Charter and other agreements, which could never enjoy full self-government with independent self-determination.
Mr. Lyttelton: It is a most unlikely thing in any future we can foresee. I never used the term "never" and neither did my right hon. Friend.
One of the things about which the hon. Member for Coventry, East became most effervescent was the fact that we were now leaving Egypt. He said that he advocated this step two years ago. At that time it would have been disastrous, but now, with the H-bomb and various

551
other weapons in existence, quite a different set of circumstances have arisen. However, I was not on that point but on the point of self-government.
I should have thought that we would all have agreed that, within the framework of Eastern Mediterranean security, which we have to preserve, we should make every attempt to engage the population of Cyprus, as far as possible, in the responsibility for managing its own affairs. Since 1948 Cyprus has had before it a constitution, which, if I may use the phrase, it has not taken up. Are we, therefore, just to sit down and make no attempt to broaden the basis of the Council in Cyprus? I would remind hon. Members opposite who are not on the Front Bench that the constitution offered in 1948 contained this clause:
"It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the field of debate and legislature should be restricted as little as possible. The Constitution must provide that the Legislature may not discuss the status of Cyprus within the British Commonwealth, but apart from this no subject need be ipso facto excluded."— [Colonial No. 227, paragraph 16.]
It would be interesting to know whether that is still the official attitude of hon. Members opposite, or whether the official attitude now is that we should follow the policy enunciated with so much froth and effervescence by the hon. Member for Coventry, East and hand Cyprus over to Greece. If it is the latter, the sooner it is stated the better, and the easier it will be for the Government to knock down the case. I can hardly imagine that that is the official Labour Party attitude, but it is a little difficult to know because of the sharp difference there is between Members opposite below the Gangway and those above it. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Tory Party?"] Well, these things happen, but it would be interesting to know what is the Labour Party's official attitude about that. That constitution has not been taken up and it seems to me the commonest of common sense that now we should at any rate make some advance towards broadening the basis of the administration.
Another point I would impress upon hon. Members opposite is that to plunge into things like Enosis when there is no democratic basis for the formation of public opinion is very dangerous. What we want to do is to give Cyprus the fullest
552
measure of self-government, bit by bit as she is able to exercise it, but always within the framework of British rule. We cannot now, in the interests of the Cypriots and of Mediterranean security, think of the junction of Cyprus with Greece.
In all British Colonial Territories, we do not admit the right of any foreign Power, however friendly, to interfere with the sovereignty of the British Crown. Let me make it quite clear that that applies to Cyprus as well as to every other British territory. We want to build up self-governing institutions, and if they will not take up the present constitution, as they have not done—and it has been lying on the table for six years—we have now to broaden the basis of the administration by taking action of our own. What cannot be done by agreement has to be done by what is popularly known as unilateral action now. There is nothing forcible about this. It is an attempt to broaden the representation of the Greek-speaking and the Turkish-speaking Cypriots in the management of their own affairs. The attitude of those who have said that we should do this by handing over Cyprus to a foreign Power is quite unworthy.
We have to be patient in these affairs. Those who deal with colonial matters know that one of the most dangerous things is to try to do by Tuesday week what has taken years to work out. I can imagine no more disastrous policy for Cyprus than to hand it over to an unstable though friendly Power. It would have the effect of undermining the eastern bastion of N.A.T.O. It would have the effect of depressing the standard of life of everyone in Cyprus. How many times have I heard in the last three years hon. Members opposite say that the first thing we have to do is to raise the standard of life in this and that country. This proposal of theirs to hand Cyprus over to another Power would have the effect of lowering the standard of life in Cyprus.
So on those grounds I am afraid there can be no other policy than to endeavour —patiently, especially when one side does not agree with all that is proposed—to build up self-governing institutions in Cyprus so that the people there may take an increasing responsibility for their own affairs. It is very likely that when those institutions have been built up the

553
Cypriots who do not agree with us will take a very different view of the Enosis proposals from that which they may take now in the present atmosphere, whether created by the attitude of the Church and a certain amount of propaganda or not. Then, too, some hon. Members opposite will be ashamed of many of the things that they have said, which cannot do any good at all in the present situation, but are in some sense an incitement still further to promote the Enosis campaign.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: The Secretary of State began his speech by intimating personally to us what we have gathered from reports in the Press, that this would be his last appearance in this House. In the last three years I have crossed swords with him as often as any Member of the House. I have done so not for personal reasons, but because of disagreements with him about policy. Now that he is leaving and we break off the battle I would say, "Never mind that now. That is over. I wish him well."
The debate has arisen because of the statement made by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. I hope that the Minister will intervene in the debate again because neither he nor the Secretary of State has clarified some of the issues which have arisen out of questions put to him today. The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said that it was proposed to bring into operation a new constitution. He did not give the details of it, but he laid down this basis for it, that there is to be a legislature and that in the legislature there would be an official majority and an unofficial minority, which means that the elected element will be the minority.
In the constitution that was offered to Cyprus before, and to which reference has been made, the reverse was the position. There was to have been an elected majority. I would ask the Minister since the Government now feel another offer has to be made to Cyprus to encourage constitutional advance, why the Government have made a change in that material and important respect. The Secretary of State has not told us, and I hope the Minister will intervene later to tell us.
The next question is, when it is proposed that these changes should come into operation? I ask the Minister of
554
State for Colonial Affairs, or the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister, as he is about, to confirm that no irrevocable step will be taken before the House resumes its Sittings in October and has an opportunity of fully discussing the matter.
Mr. Lyttelton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take it from me that we certainly give that pledge. A start has to be made, and the first thing is that the Governor must have wider opportunities of discussing these proposals with the political parties. It will take some time.
Mr. Griffiths: Yes. I particularly ask that because I would say, after consultation with my right hon. Friends sitting with me on this Bench, that we want time to consider this statement and to consider the whole matter. We reserve our position on it, because the matter has not been considered by our party since the statement was made. I want it to be understood, since the House is to rise on Friday, that no final step will be taken in this matter and that the Government will not act upon this policy of bringing into operation these proposals until the House resumes in October and the matter can come before the House again. I want to get that clear.
Mr. N. Macpherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his noble Friend welcomed this statement in another place today?
Mr. Griffiths: No, I am not aware of that. I am for the moment speaking for myself and for my right hon. Friends, after consulting those of them here now.
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said that this was the first step towards self-government for Cyprus. He was asked whether it included a pledge to Cyprus that the evolution of self-government within the British Commonwealth envisaged at the end the reaching of that constitutional status which we still describe as Dominion status, which is clearly defined in the Statute of Westminster, and which, when reached, enables the territory concerned to make up its own mind whether to stay in the Commonwealth, or to become severed from the Commonwealth, or to join with any other country.
As I understood, the Minister said that the offer did not include that at any stage —not "at the present stage." If that is true, it will be a departure in the case

555
of Cyprus from the policy we have laid down for the Colonial Territories. It is true that there are problems about the smaller territories, but there are no problems comparable with the one in this case. As we understood the Minister, never was Cyprus to obtain to the position in which it could have Dominion status and, therefore, be free and entitled to decide for itself.
It was the hope of the Labour Government—I still adhere to the hope—that the people of Cyprus would work with us by accepting a constitution. We not only offered a constitution, but also offered to discuss it. We did not say, "This is the constitution, and you will accept it"; we said, "This is the basis for discussion." The present Government are not saying to Cyprus, "These are the proposals that we are putting forward, and we invite you to discuss them." I still urge the Government to consider whether that ought not to be the line to be followed.
My predecessors and I refused a referendum. I am not attracted by a referendum. I and my predecessors wanted to work out our colonial policy, which was to create institutions in all the Colonies so that they should eventually reach the stage where they would be fully self-governing. I not only want to create in those Colonies self-government; I want it to be democratic self-government, and I want there to be social justice as well. I want us to reach a stage where we not merely hand over power; I want us to hand over power to a democratic country with democratic institutions by whom the power will be wielded democratically. I am convinced that the only real independence is democratic independence. What other kind of independence is there?
I understand that no irrevocable decision will be taken before the House resumes after the Recess. The Labour Party want to consider the whole position in the light of the changing situation and also in the light of the changing strategic position. It was the hope of the Labour Government, and in particular of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, that the Middle East's strategic situation would be solved—it is a great pity that it was not—by mutual arrangements covering all the countries in the Middle East. If it had been possible to secure such an arrangement in which
556
Greece, Turkey and all the other countries could have taken part, the whole problem of Cyprus and strategy in the Middle East could have been reconsidered. Unfortunately, that opportunity has not arisen, and we are now faced with the present situation.
If a constitution is imposed, there will be a likelihood of elections and a boycott, and in six or 12 months' time we shall have contributed nothing towards a solution of the problem in Cyprus. I believe there is a chance of a settlement if we offer not a constitution but discussions on a constitution, with the undertaking that the constitution will be a beginning towards democratic independence as defined in the Statute of Westminster, and then when that stage is reached it will be for the people of Cyprus themselves to decide their own future, as the people of India and Burma have done, and the Gold Coast will do. That would be the wisest and the best course to follow.
There was a passage in the Minister's statement with which I agree. Certainly, since 1945—and, to some extent, even before that—our colonial administration has done a first-class job in the social and economic fields in Cyprus. The job that we did in the field of health under the five-year plan to wipe out malaria was one of the finest pieces of co-operative effort to raise the standard of life of a people in the record of our colonial administration during the last eight or nine years.
The Labour Party will consider this matter as a party and we shall make up our minds after reviewing the whole situation in the light of the changes which have taken place and with the desire to build up democratic self-government in Cyprus. I do not want to discuss the merits or demerits of this matter at any great length now. I repeat that the Labour Party reserve their decision; we want an opportunity fully to consider the matter and to make up our minds in due course.
6.36 p.m.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: I am very sincerely sorry that the speech which we heard just now from my right hon. Friend may be his last in the House. Whatever differences I may have had with other right hon. Friends who sit on the Government Front Bench as Ministers, I have certainly nothing but admiration for his tenure of the Colonial Office.

557
This country and, in particular, the Colonial Territories owe a great debt to him for the sincerity with which he has approached his task and for the resolution with which he carried out his policy once he made up his mind what it was he wanted to do. Whatever else may be said about him in the future, the record which he will leave behind him at the Colonial Office will be outstanding in man's mind by reason of the fact that he carried out a just policy with great courage in the face of considerable unpopularity. His policy was based on what he believed to be right, and no man on earth can be asked to do more than that.
I lived for six months in Cyprus during the war. I realise that it is very dangerous to rush to conclusions as to what the civilian life of a country is when one is stationed there as a soldier, especially in wartime. In time of war, it is especially dangerous to attempt to judge what the politics of a country are. I sometimes think that people serving in the Armed Forces who return to this country and start telling us what the political situation is in the countries where they have been ought to have that consideration in mind.
I should like to give the House one or two observations which I hope will be helpful to hon. Members and will assist the Government in making up their minds as to how to go about the tasks which they have now set themselves.
In the first place, I most heartily endorse all that was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken). I am convinced that the security issue in respect of Cyprus is the overriding one, whether we like it or not and whether those who live in Cyprus like it or not. My reason for thinking that it is overriding is that I cannot perceive in the foreseeable future the slightest chance of the Cypriots themselves being able to provide the revenue necessary to ensure the defence of Cyprus. That seems to me automatically to lead to the conclusion that someone else has to be very largely responsible for providing the security of Cyprus. Who is in a better position to do this than ourselves in conjunction with the other signatories of N.A.T.O.?
I have an historical note here which, I think, may be of interest to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs and. I think,
558
the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) earlier in the debate referred to our obligations arising out of our acquiring Cyprus from the Turks in 1878. History sometimes takes a long time to work itself out. I have here a copy of the letter which Lord Beaconsfield wrote to Queen Victoria on 5th May, 1878. It reads:
"If Cyprus be conceded to Your Majesty by the Porte and England at the same time enters into a defensive alliance with Turkey, guaranteeing Asiatic Turkey from Russian invasion, the power of England in the Mediterranean will be absolutely increased in that region, and Your Majesty's Indian Empire immensely strengthened. Cyprus is the key of Western Asia."
The point which I particularly wish to draw to the attention of the House from that quotation is where it refers to an alliance guaranteeing Turkey against the possibility of Russian invasion. One can say that we have had to wait 80 years before that treaty has materialised. We now have the N.A.T.O. Treaty, which really does this very thing.
I would say, because I disagree with the Government about what they have done in Egypt, that to my mind today is a very black day in British history. I would also say that the importance of Cyprus from the security point of view becomes infinitely greater than it was while we had as our policy the maintenance of troops in Egypt. I feel, therefore, that the security aspect of our relations with Cyprus must be the overriding one, not only from our own point of view, but also from the Cypriots' point of view. I cannot see how Cyprus as a country can ever possibly afford from her revenue to finance or even to man, still less to equip, adequate forces.
Mr. Driberg: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for being so frank about the real reason why he wants us to remain in Cyprus. On the limited point of the inability of the Cypriots to provide for their own defence, surely he would agree that the same is true, for instance, of Burma to a certain extent, and also that it is possible for an independent Cypriot nation to enter into defence agreements with other nations.
Major Legge-Bourke: I see the point of the hon. Member's question perfectly well. I think that the less I say about Burma the better. I have already listed Burma in a long chain of withdrawals,

559
of which I certainly do not approve, looking back on it. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is dodging the point."] I am not dodging the point. So far as defence is concerned, surely one of the greatest measures of true sovereignty is whether or not it is possible to defend oneself if attacked. I cannot see that, given the best will in the world, the Cypriots will ever be in the position to do that, the world situation being what it is and the nature of modern war being what it is.
I hope that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), from what I have said, will not suppose that as a result I would obstruct anything which was likely to lead the Cypriots to the greatest measure of self-government possible. I have not had an opportunity to read the statement which the Government made today about the future of Cyprus, but nothing that I have heard in this debate has led me to suppose that the Government want to obstruct that process. All that we are trying to do is to face the reality of the situation, namely, that Cyprus cannot possibly defend itself, or have the revenue to defend itself, or pay for its own defence. Therefore, there must be some difficulty in the Cypriot issue which normally goes in granting self-government.
I think that there is another important aspect which hon. Members who have not been to the island of Cyprus cannot possibly have appreciated; that is, that there is a very marked difference between the Cypriots who live in the towns and the Cypriots who live in the countryside—an enormous difference to which we in this country are not at all used. With our State education, such as we have it today, and with the readiness to take an interest in current affairs that there is both in the countryside and in the towns of this country, we perhaps overlook the fact that in a country where the peasantry have very simple ways and a certain reluctance to over-exercise themselves in any type of employment, it is very difficult to see the way clearly ahead as to how self-government should come about.
I hope that the Government will be very careful to see that, whatever form of self-government they put up, it will not result in the townsmen of Cyprus alone ruling or advising as to what should be done for the island as a whole. I
560
think that the difference between the outlook of the townsmen in Cyprus and that of the peasants in the countryside is so great that if we tried to rule the country from the town this would inevitably cause great unhappiness in the countryside.
I think that those who have met the Cypriots in the countryside have rather a warm corner in their hearts for them. They are not over-energetic and they have the most simple methods in agriculture. To see them threshing is a wonderful sight, in a way, because it conjures up the idea of almost primitive methods. To see, for instance, a chair placed on a board in which sharp flints have been inserted in the underside and the whole contraption being dragged round and round by a donkey on a summer's day makes one wonder what modern agricultural methods could do for that island.
This is one aspect of the island's life which I have painted to show how markedly different it is from this country, and how terribly dangerous it is that we in this country should assume that everyone has the same approach and the same needs when we start talking about self-government. We have a great advantage over those people. We are far more civilised and cultured in many ways, but they have something of their own which we have not got. It is wrong for us to suppose that by pumping something from our system into theirs it is automatically going to work.
There is one other political aspect beyond that upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds touched earlier. It is true, I think, to say that there has been a good deal of political interference over Enosis so far as the Church there has been concerned. In my recollection, one of the most awkward situations which arose every year in Cyprus was the attempt to celebrate the Battle of Navarino of 1827. That battle resulted in a crushing defeat of the Turko-Egyptian fleet at that time by Britain and Russia very largely, and that date is still celebrated regularly every year in the villages of Cyprus, particularly by the Greeks.
If we are not very careful, if we grant all that Enosis is now asking for, we may find that we have done a shocking injustice to the 18 per cent., or whatever it may be, of the Turkish population in the villages. Obviously, little disputes

561
like that need careful watching, especially when they become village festivals, or attempted village festivals, at the expense of a small section of the population of those villages. One has a certain obligation to see that that sort of trouble does not get out of hand, which is what it easily could do.
More by bad luck than anything else, that island happens to be geographically in a position which automatically makes it of supreme strategic importance from the point of view of preserving world peace against possible Russian aggression. I do not think any of us welcome that fact. I am quite certain that if the arguments that have been used about hydrogen bombs for our removing ourselves from Egypt are applied to Cyprus, the position of Cyprus is truly terrifying.
I agree with those—I think I was one of the first ever to raise it in the House —who say that of all places where not to put G.H.Q. Middle East, Cyprus is it. But that is a matter of opinion, and obviously the Government will inevitably take the best military expert opinion they can get at the time; that, obviously, does not agree with my point of view. Nevertheless, all the lessons of the last war show that islands are difficult places on which to have vital things. And on top of that there is now the hydrogen bomb, which has already blown one island out of existence and has left a hole in the floor of the ocean a mile wide. And yet we are moving our great Middle East headquarters into Cyprus. I certainly do not agree with that.
If we go from Egypt, Cyprus becomes of even greater importance to us than it is today. I do not dispute the deployment argument. It must, I think, apply, and we must break up our forces into what might be called penny packets rather than having them all in one lump sum. The question is where to go and what to put in the various places to which we go.
My feeling is that the wrong decision has been made; that is why I say that today is a black day in British history. But so far as Cyprus and the particular issues before us this afternoon are concerned, I think that the Government are right to claim that the security of Cyprus affects the sovereignty problem of Cyprus very materially, and that the previous Government were right when they said they were not prepared, as the present
562
Government are not prepared, to discuss the sovereignty of British territory with anyone. It is a matter for us to make up our own minds about, and in the interests of Cyprus herself and of this country I say that we certainly must preserve that position so far as sovereignty is concerned.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: This has been to most hon. Members who have been in the House and listened to it, a very important debate. It is unfortunate that it had to push out another subject that hon. Members on this side of the House wanted to discuss, but we had no idea of the nature of the statement that was to be made. I want to protest once more against these very radical alterations of Government policy being announced immediately before the Recess, when the House has no normal opportunity of discussing them.
The speech to which we have just listened is characteristic of the courage and honesty of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge Bourke). He is very plain spoken about these matters, and perhaps he was quite right when he said that in one respect this was a black day for Britain; for what has fallen from the lips of the Colonial Secretary and from the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs today has shown that the Conservative Party has not changed one little bit.
The party opposite would, indeed, not only have scored a victory, but they would have put our foreign policy on an intelligible foundation, had they said, "We are leaving Egypt because we consider that we have no business to remain in a country if the people of that country do not want us." Had they said that, and their whole policy had been consistent with it, it would amount to an intelligible and coherent design in foreign affairs.
The Colonial Secretary said that we are leaving Egypt because of the advent of the hydrogen bomb. Therefore, we are saying to the people of the Middle East, "We are not leaving Egypt because we recognise the rights of the Egyptians, or because we do not want to be bad friends with Egypt. We are leaving Egypt only because it is not now militarily tenable" The Government emphasise that by saying, on the same day, that so

563
indifferent are we to the wishes of people that we are to establish our base in Cyprus; and we tell the people of Cyprus quite bluntly that if the existence of the Middle East Command there and their self-government are inconsistent, their self-government must be abandoned. That is what the Government have said.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely is quite right when he is so sorrowful about the situation. What he is now saying is that Great Britain has not changed her attitude to the world at all, that we have not adjusted ourselves to the facts of the modern world, and that we are still as imperialist as we ever were but we are not as strong as we were. In other words, we are still as traditionalist as we ever were before but, unfortunately, we have to abandon place after place because we have been driven out. So we are not leaving because we are better; we are leaving because we are weaker.
I can quite understand that a traditional Conservative weeps over that situation. He has a nostalgia for the days when he would stay where he wanted to stay, no matter what the people of that country thought about him. He has not moved at all. He has not awakened to the fact that we on this side have tried to point out over and over again that the forces of nationalism in the world today form some of the strongest emotional urges with which every nation has to deal, and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said in what, I consider, was a most remarkable. Coherent, cogent speech—[Laughter.] I do not know what hon. Members opposite are laughing about. When we were urging them more than two years ago to do what they have now done today, they jeered then just the same. They have learnt nothing at all. Now, they are repeating, on Cyprus, exactly the same arguments that they advanced to us two and a half years ago with respect to Egypt. They talk about the overriding military, strategical considerations.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely told us just now exactly what a Burmese during the war told me the then Prime Minister told him. A very representative Burmese visited this country, with very great difficulty indeed,
564
to try to negotiate with the Prime Minister self-government for Burma. All that he wanted from the Prime Minister at that time was a promise that when the war was over, Burma would be given self-government within the Commonwealth. That is all he wanted. What did the Prime Minister answer—or so he told me? He said, "What is the use of giving Burma self-government? She is too weak to defend herself." That was the answer, and that is exactly the hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer, that no nation ought to be given self-government if it is too weak to defend its independence. We had better give it up here, because we are too weak to defend our independence.
Every argument advanced from the opposite side of the House for the existence of the American bases in Great Britain is an argument that we are now too weak to defend our independence. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman accept the logic of that? I will give way to him if he wishes. I understand his reluctance to intervene, but the fact is that there is hardly a nation in the world which is now strong enough to defend its independence. We have reached a situation in which the traditional attitude of the Conservative Party is no longer relevant, but they will not wake up to the situation.
Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman is using his usual imagination when transcribing what I actually said. I would ask him to remember that one of the things I said—and I think he will probably agree when he faces it—is that the sovereignty of a country ultimately is often judged by whether it can defend itself. I do not see in the future the slightest likelihood of Cyprus being able to provide her own defence.
Mr. Bevan: That is exactly what I said the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. If he does not understand what he said, we are quite clear about it. If he will only face facts, he will agree that that is an argument against any nation having independence, because no nation can now defend itself. Therefore, that point is irrelevant.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Cypriot peasants are different from the townspeople, and he described in graphic terms the way in which they

565
get water and thresh their corn. If he went to India he would see at the present time people living under even more primitive conditions than that, and yet in India is to be found one of the most remarkable examples of the beginnings of self-government among backward people in any part of the world. I should imagine that everybody is hoping, because it is in the British Commonwealth, that India will succeed in her attempt.
Major Legge-Bourke: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that many of the benefits which those people are now deriving were originally brought into being by the British-Indian Civil Service.
Mr. Bevan: Then why have we not conferred the same benefits upon the people of Cyprus who are literate and, therefore, could take advantage of those benefits?
Now that we are leaving Egypt, why could we not give the civilised reason for doing so, the reason which the soldiers gave and the reason that we were given by the generals in the Canal Zone—that we could not stay in Egypt because a hostile population made it impossible to have a modern military base in its midst? That is what they told us. It is not because of the hydrogen bomb because, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, this island to which we are retreating would be wiped out by the hydrogen bomb, so we are not going from a weaker place to a stronger place. We are not even going to a more inaccessible place, because it is nearer.
It would be far better if we accepted the logical fact that in the modern world we can only govern people eventually with their own consent and we cannot have even reasonable military relations with them unless they are prepared to accord them. The Middle East Command is going from Egypt to Cyprus, and the function of the Foreign Office is to create in Cyprus as friendly an atmosphere as possible among the people in Cyprus for the hospitality of our troops. That, surely, is their first duty. If we are leaving Egypt for the reasons that we all know about, and if we are to take up residence in Cyprus, surely it is the duty of the Government so to adjust their policy as to produce as
566
friendly an atmosphere as possible in Cyprus.
Instead, what have they done? The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs bluntly tells the Cypriots that they can only get their own way by doing what the Egyptians have done. That is what he said. In fact, when we try to plead in the House for some consideration for their own wishes we are told that we are mischievous. If, in this House of Commons, no voice is raised for the legitimate aspirations of colonial peoples, then they are driven to nothing but violence in order to get their own way. That is why we are here. The only way in which we can conceivably get orderly development towards self-government in the British Empire is through those people feeling that they have their advocates here. If they have not got them here, they must have them in their own streets.
This is an open invitation by the British House of Commons to the people of Cyprus to take whatever measures they think they can take to make things as uncomfortable as possible for us when we establish a base there. I think that is a most unfortunate and undesirable thing to say, and it was not in accord with the much wiser sentiments which fell from the lips of the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, because if there was any division at all in this House it was the division between the last speech of the Colonial Secretary and the speech of the Foreign Secretary. In fact, so mischievous was the Colonial Secretary in his last speech that he made as much trouble as possible for us with Greece because he talked about the Greek Government as being unstable. Judging by what is happening upstairs, if unstable Governments make por allies, this one is rocking to its death.
I think that the juxtaposition of those two statements today, the one about Egypt and the one about Cyprus, was most unfortunate because they will be interpreted throughout the Middle East not as we would wish them to be interpreted, that we have adjusted ourselves to the realities of the modern world, but that we have a reluctant Conservative Government clinging to their old ideas, being driven from one position to another because they have neither the moral stature nor the physical strength to defend themselves.
7.9 p.m.
Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I make no apology for continuing the debate on Cyprus because, as has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), this is, in part, a black day; but, whether it is black or white, it is certainly an historic day because we have to make very serious new decisions about the disposal of our forces throughout the Commonwealth and about what we are going to do about the colonial areas which are important strategically and to which, for various reasons, we are not anxious to give immediate self-government.
We should consider for a moment how this statement on Cyprus came to be made today, because the background of it is Partly the key to it. First, the Government had their difficulties with the 1922 Committee, and that is politically of no small importance at the moment. Having forced their way through the 1922 Committee, or by-passed it, and having insisted on carrying on with leaving Egypt —which they knew to be right and as the Foreign Secretary said was fair to the Egyptians themselves—they realised that they would have to throw something to the 1922 Committee to keep it quiet. So they threw to the Committee the proposition that, although we may have been driven out of Egypt, we do not propose to be driven out of Cyprus. That was the nature of the bargain made over Cyprus.
However, the difficulty the Government were in was that, having made the bargain, having said, "We will promise you never to get out of Cyprus if you will let us get out of Egypt," they then had to put a better gloss on it for the world at large than a mere abrupt determination to stay in Cyprus. Consequently, we had that long constitutional explanation and the not very clear proposals made by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs this afternoon.
This simply will not do, because the Government are getting the worst of both worlds on it; they have not really satisfied their 1922 rebels, who are still angry about Egypt and are worried about Cyprus—because even the mere mention of self-government, disguised though it was this afternoon, is enough to throw them into a panic. It has certainly not
568
done anything to satisfy the people of Cyprus, because it has proposed a nominated and official legislature.
So there can be no real expression of the feelings of the people, whatever the elections throw up, because they can never be translated into action, since the nominated and official members of the Assembly will have the majority and that will prevent any minority proposal which the government do not like from getting through. Consequently, they have said, "You may have self-government so long as you do not want self-government."
The only result can be to create not less Communists—I can understand the Government being worried about the number of them on the island—but more, because we cannot damp down national feeling in Cyprus by this action. It will be inflamed further, and will make more solid the coalition between the Church and the Communists—incidentally, it is the only place in the world where there is such a coalition—and it is the Tory Government who are strengthening this.
The Government should have taken a long-term look at the future of Cyprus. I understand that the object is to get a secure base there, particularly as that base will have to be expanded as a result of the withdrawal of troops on active service from Egypt. I understand that, and I also think it is correct. Nevertheless, we have to do it in a way which is consistent with the rights and feelings of the people who live on Cyprus. There is a real defence problem involved there, just as there is in the case of Malta and Gibraltar, and other territories which, at the moment, are not to get self-government and for whom some arrangement has to be devised to satisfy them.
It was interesting that in the same week as this statement about Cyprus has been made a delegation has been here from Malta. The Minister has seen the delegation, but not the Secretary of State. It has been given a brief answer to its general proposition, which is a sound one. The proposition is that Malta would like to be integrated with this country and to send two or three Members of Parliament here to take part in our deliberations, and to continue to be a part of this Commonwealth and have a fuller hearing in this country for their grievances.

569
Here we have the extraordinary case of a Colony wanting to get closer to this country, not farther away. Yet the Government, in a very intelligent way, are brushing all that aside and not looking at the possibilities of the proposal. And the same sort of thing arises over Gibraltar. In the case of Cyprus, however, there is a different problem. First, it is probably much too big to be integrated with this country, even supposing it wanted to be. Secondly, the national feeling will rise. Thirdly, the Cypriots happen, rightly or wrongly, to want to join up with Greece. In this case, therefore, there is a third party besides ourselves and the Cypriots.
It is no use the Secretary of State saying, "It has always been our custom never to discuss any section of British territory with a foreign country" because this is an entirely new situation. It is one in which the inhabitants of the British territory concerned want to become a part of this country and the Secretary of State declines to have any discussion with them. It does not create a precedent, however, in the sense of saying that any country which likes has a right to talk about our Colonies; it only creates a precedent in that here are the inhabitants of an important area who want to join up with Greece.
The nub of this matter is not whether or not the constitution offered today is far from likely to lead over a long period of years to self-government; it is not whether or not we are to try to run Cyprus by brute force; it is whether or not we are to discuss practically what could be done with the Greeks in order to give us what we want and what the Cypriots want. What we want is a secure base. What they want is a link with Greece. Also, Greece happens to want us to have a secure base in Cyprus, too, because she is a member of N.A.T.O. and also has a pact with Turkey. So everyone concerned wants to have a secure base on Cyprus.
In that case, the way is open. The Greeks themselves have made it clear that they are willing to talk about this in detail and to give us the base we need. It has been said by the Secretary of State that, in the opinion of some unnamed experts, unless there is complete sovereignty over the whole territory there cannot be a satisfactory base. This is nonsense. We
570
have a very satisfactory base at Gibraltar and yet we do not have sovereignty over the hinterland. At the moment we have a fairly secure base in Hong Kong—at any rate, it is secure as long as the Chinese allow it to remain there. The only reason why it might not then be secure is because of the overwhelming force which the Chinese can mount against it.
There is no reason why we should not create in Cyprus now, while feeling is sympathetic towards the idea, both in Greece and in Cyprus, a kind of Hong Kong. It is perfectly easy to have a kind of Hong Kong which is ceded territory; not a territory for a term of years, but a permanent cession of a sufficient part of the island to provide a harbour and the necessary military base, which is the arrangement that was made about Hong Kong and which has been made about Gibraltar.
We have no particular concern in governing Cypriots. That is not our desire. We do not want to govern any part of Greece either. What we are concerned about is the base. What we ought to be concerned with as a leading nation of the free world is only having bases in a way which is consistent with the rights of the inhabitants of the country concerned.
Mr. R. T. Paget: Has my hon. Friend considered the situation of the Turkish population of Cyprus, who are very nearly a quarter of the total, and who would object desperately to being handed over to Greece?
Mr. Wyatt: Yes, there is a Turkish minority, but it is 18 per cent., not a quarter. The question of minorities is always difficult and is always advanced to prevent progress towards self-government or the wishes of the majority being achieved. We had the same thing in India and in Burma. We have had the same thing wherever we have had the problem of trying to arrive at self-government. It is a solvable problem because there must be consultation about what is to be done about the Turkish minority and all the rest of it. I am saying, however, that whether we were there or not, there would be a Turkish minority. There was one there before we arrived. It is not our duty to deal with the affairs of the Cypriots. The only

571
reason why we want to deal with them is because we want a secure base there.
I believe that it would be quite possible to work out a kind of Hong Kong or Egypt in Cyprus to give us all that we need in the way of a base, which means that instead of losing the friendship of the Greeks we should retain it and be able to show the rest of the world that while we are trying to maintain bases to defend not only ourselves and the Commonwealth but the free world we are doing it in a way acceptable to the people who have to live in the territories where the bases are situated.

BRITISH GUIANA
7.21 p.m.
Miss Jennie Lee: The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs has had a very gruelling day. From Question time onwards he has carried the main burden for his Department. His right hon. Friend has, to a certain extent, anticipated his retirement. Keeping that in mind, I would not trouble to raise a matter of minor importance.
But whatever our discomforts may sometimes be in this House, they are nothing compared with those about which I have given the right hon. Gentleman a little notice and which I now want to have discussed. I am greatly distressed at the reports that have been coming to me about prison conditions in British Guiana. It is part of the same story as that of our relations, previously debated, with Egypt, Cyprus and India. Apparently we have to go through phases when in our dealings with people who are weaker and poorer than ourselves we use our power not to help them, but to attempt to repress them.
I am particularly concerned to have whatever information the Minister can give me about the conditions in the prison in which Mr. Jagan has been held. I believe that the prison is known as Brickdam. It is in Georgetown. My information is that it is a very old building. I am told that the building was at one time condemned, but is now being used again. I am told that the standards of the building and the general conditions do not conform to our international obligations and do not conform even to the standards that have been laid down by the British Prison Commission. I have
572
no desire to make any statement that exaggerates the problem. I am aware that whatever is said will be reported in British Guiana and may be reported in this country and that there are many people in both countries who are concerned to know the truth.
Will the Minister tell me whether this prison is as out of date as my information leads me to believe? Will he tell me the size of each of the cells and whether it is a fact that cells which were intended for single occupants are being used to house as many as three prisoners? I am also informed that the diet which is being supplied to the prisoners is below the standards that are laid down in our prison regulations. It may he that the calorific content of the food given to the prisoners is up to standard when it reaches the prison and that for some reason the full amount does not reach the individual prisoner. I am making no charge, but I should like to know the facts.
I appreciate that the Minister has had short notice of some of these questions, but I should like him to tell me as much as he can, and I should like his assurance that he will make investigations into conditions in this prison and in any other prisons in British Guiana. At least, we need not have it on our conscience that we have under our control people who are confined under substandard conditions and who are not given the amount of food which they are entitled to receive. I am particularly concerned since I have not been brought to interest myself in this prison issue because of the usual run of criminal offenders.
I do not mean to imply that criminals should not also be provided with proper standards in gaol, but in this gaol there are a good many political prisoners. It would appear that some political prisoners are being sentenced to hard labour and are housed in a building which in part is not even weatherproof, that the cells are overcrowded, that the diet goes below standard and that sometimes the people who are subjected to these conditions are people whose crime is simply in their agitation to obtain a free Government in British Guiana they have gone outside the area to which they were confined.
Another aspect of this subject makes it urgent that it be dealt with. There is

573
a great deal of discontent in British Guiana, discontent which finds expression even in the Right-wing Press. It was believed that when we set aside their democratically elected Government that at least there would be rapid progress in dealing with the basic economic ills of British Guiana. Indeed, one of the charges brought against members of the People's Progressive Party was that in the four months during which they were in office they failed to do a real job of work in tackling the economic problems of the country. We have discussed that issue before in this House. But even the Right-wing Press of British Guiana is now protesting about the fact that we have had dozens of commissions and reports and that there is a dictatorship in British Guiana with all the power in the world: but no solid progress is being made.
I should like to give one illustration. Two weeks ago, on 14th July, I asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was being done about the Brown Report on "Land Settlement Problems, and the Economic Production of Sugar Cane by Individual Farmers in British Guiana." I have no reason to believe that there has been any radical change in the situation in British Guiana since I asked that Question.
The reply was:
"His report on the Economic Production of Sugar Cane by Individual Farmers has been discussed locally with the sugar producers"—
Note, merely discussed, little or nothing has been done—
"who are in the best position to take action upon it, and Bookers Sugar Estates, Ltd., are launching a pilot scheme under the direction of an agriculturist from the Sudan Gezira Scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 39–40.]
Here we are, not four months but more than eight months after an elected Government of British Guiana has been set aside and we are told that recommendations which we understood had been accepted by the Government from the Brown Committee and from the Lacey Committee have not been carried out. It is a travesty to turn to Bookers Brothers, the great sugar interests in British Guiana for serious action. They are not concerned with promoting schemes to help individual farmers.
I did not give the Minister advance information of this question, but it is not unconnected with the issue of conditions
574
in the gaols. First, we take away the leaders elected by the people, then we put them in gaol, then we mix them with the criminal population and then apply both to the criminal and political prisoners conditions which I should be delighted if the Minister could now tell me are not as bad as I am led to believe. Are they up to standard? It would be a good thing for all concerned to have that point cleared up. I hope that they are not as bad as I have been led to believe.
I hope that so far as there are faults in the prison system they will now be remedied. We must remember that we are a dictatorship in British Guiana. The best way to make enemies for this country, and the best way to make the problems of British Guiana permanently insoluble, is to continue to behave in the way that, according to my information, our prison authorities are behaving.
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): I do not propose to make any more comments on the question of Cyprus because I think that when hon. and right hon. Members read tomorrow the statement I made earlier today, with the comments I made after that statement, in conjunction with the statement of my right hon. Friend, they will find that answers have been given to most of the points raised this afternoon, including those raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
I wish to deal briefly with the points raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), of which she gave me notice earlier this afternoon—that is to say, the first points she made dealing with prison conditions in British Guiana, particularly concerning Dr. Jagan. Dr. Jagan was recently transferred from Georgetown Prison to the penal settlement at Mazaruni, 60 miles in the interior. This settlement is healthy and isolated and has the advantages of elevation and good drainage. We have no information to lead us to suppose that there is overcrowding in this penal settlement and we understand that the transfer was made because of the better accommodation in the settlement. Offhand, I cannot give any particulars about the prisons in Georgetown, but I will get information on that question and

575
write to the hon. Lady about it. If conditions are bad there we shall see that they are improved.
The hon. Lady asked whether prisoners in general in British Guiana were getting a proper diet. The answer is that prisoners are fed in accordance with a statutory diet scale and the prison surgeons have power to vary the diet for medical reasons. At the Mazaruni settlement vegetable farming and animal husbandry are carried on by the prisoners and this ensures a supply of fresh vegetable produce and milk for the prison population. Miss Haglund visited the Colony and inspected the diet in the case of the Georgetown Prison and was apparently satisfied with it. I can only comment that the majority of prisoners have shown improvements in health and weight.
The third point concerned prison conditions in British Guiana with reference to hard labour. The hon. Lady asked whether political prisoners were sentenced to hard labour. At the moment, there are no political prisoners as such. There are a number of people who have been put into prison after being brought before the courts in the ordinary way for offences under the Emergency Orders. They have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for actions against the law, not for political activities. In some of those cases the sentences have included hard labour, but I understand that Dr. Jagan was sentenced to six months' imprison-ment without hard labour. In any case, after an X-ray examination and a doctor's report Dr. Jagan has been excused strenuous exercise or any hard living while in prison. The hon. Lady asked about the state of the prison building in which Dr. Jagan is imprisoned, but perhaps she was not aware then that he had been transferred from Georgetown.
Miss Lee: I was not making that point particularly in regard to Dr. Jagan. It is always a fact that the prisoner who is head of an organisation is liable to have a little better treatment than the other prisoners. What I was concerned about was the report which had come to me about other members of the People's Progressive Party jailed for political reasons and still in Georgetown Jail.
Mr. Hopkinson: I have undertaken to look into the position of Georgetown Jail
576
on which I have not any information. I am informed that the buildings in the Mazaruni penal settlement are in good order and are what they should be.
The hon. Lady also raised a question about sugar production, about which she said she had not given me notice, and I am not in a position to give a detailed reply. I do know from personal knowledge and contact, however, that the heads of Booker Brothers are in great sympathy with schemes for developing tenant farms and small freeholdings in British Guiana. They believe it is right to encourage the establishment—one might also say the creation—of this middle-class of responsible people who will pull their weight in political matters. I cannot believe that Booker Brothers are in any way hindering the development along the lines the hon. Lady had in mind.

HOUSING (REQUISITIONED DWELLINGS)
7.36 p.m.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: For some time we have been discussing the question of Cyprus and from there we went to British Guiana. Now I hope to come down to earth and deal with a problem which is just as important to the ordinary man and woman of this country, but which may not affect so large a number. I want to raise with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the question of requisitioned dwellings used for housing purposes.
As the House will remember, during the period of the war when people were being made homeless by enemy action and their houses were being destroyed the Government took powers to requisition empty dwellings for the purpose of housing families made homeless in air raids and other actions of the enemy. In most cases the Government requisitioned houses already empty because those who previously lived in them had gone to country areas. Some of those people were fairly well-off and others not so well off. In the post war years a number of those dwellings have been derequisitioned in cases in which the original owner wanted to come back and live in his house. For all practical purposes we are now left with a hard core for which it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to

577
proceed any further in the field of de-requisitioning unless the Minister does something about it.
I want to raise the question as it exists now. As the Parliamentary Secretary said in an answer to a Question a few days ago, there are now 69,400 premises under requisition for housing purposes. He estimated that at least 100,000 families are living in them and that gives an approximate figure of 325,000 persons. At least three-quarters of these families live in London, and to some extent in Birmingham and Liverpool and some of the other larger cities; but in the areas of 48 local authorities where there are more than six such families per 1,000 of the population there are 76,500 families concerned. In my own constituency of Acton, there are at present 767 families living in requisitioned dwellings.
I think that these figures can, as I have already said, be described as the hard core of the problem—and it is a hard core because practically all these local authorities cannot themselves, unaided, solve the problem of derequisitioning these buildings because nearly all of them have no land on which they can build new houses to transfer these people into so that the dwellings they occupy may be derequisitioned.
I raise this matter because I have been very concerned about the persistence of friends of the right hon. Gentleman who sit behind him who, for some time, have been urging him on to take a course of action which, in my view, would be unjust and which would create great hardship. The right hon. Gentleman set up a working party on this question of requisitioned dwellings and they have presented to him three reports. I do not propose to attempt to inflict upon the House any kind of summary of these reports, but I will say that the right hon. Gentleman is to some extent acting upon the recommendations contained therein; and I am not sure that by so acting he is doing the right thing by the local authorities and by the families who are to be displaced.
The working party put forward four main recommendations to deal with this problem. It said that where the number of families in requisitioned dwellings are between 2 and 3 per 1,000 of the population, and there are not more than
578
100 families, the whole of those dwellings should be derequisitioned by 10th December, 1955; that where the ratio is 3 to 5 families per 1,000 of the population, and there are not more than 250 families involved, all the dwellings should be derequisitioned by 10th December, 1956; and that where the ratio is somewhat higher—5 or 6 families per 1,000 of the population—and not more than 350 families are involved, the whole of those dwelling should be derequisitioned by 10th December, 1957.
Where the problem is more acute, and there are more than 6 families per 1,000 of the population, or more than 350 families together in the area of the local authority, the working party referred the matter to the Minister for his determination because it was unable to make a recommendation as the problem was so acute.
The right hon. Gentleman has been carrying out the first three recommendations, and he has now been issuing ultimatums to local authorities that by these particular dates, they must derequisition all their requisitioned property. That is leading to a great deal of hardship. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) raised this matter in the House a day or two ago, in a Question to the Minister, in which she asked:
"if he is aware that his instruction to Southport Town Council, Lancashire, to serve notices to quit on 23 families living in requisitioned houses will mean that these tenants will be made homeless, as no instruction to rehouse has been made; and if he will notify the town council not to evict those families until suitable alternative accommodation has been offered them."
The Parliamentary Secretary declined any responsibility for the consequences of this, and threw it back on the Southport Town Council—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)rose—
Mr. Sparks: I propose to read what the hon. Gentleman said in reply. He stated:
"My right hon. Friend has not instructed the council to serve notices to quit. The council were advised in October, 1952, that all requisitioned properties should be released by 10th December, 1953. As the council had failed to comply, my right hon. Friend issued

579
a direction to the town clerk on 20th May, 1954, that the properties still held on requisition should be released not later than 31st August next."
There was no regard whatever to what was to happen to the families in the derequisitioned houses.
Mr. Marples: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who wishes to be fair, would like to read a little further. He is now confusing derequisitioning with eviction. He will realise, if he reads an answer which I gave to a supplementary question by his hon. Friend, that I said that the council could acquire the premises—still retain them and keep the families in them—but on the normal and usual basis and not on the basis of requisitioning.
Mr. Sparks: I quite agree that that is so, but if the local authority refuses to do that what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it? Will he compel them? That is the whole point: he will not do that. It is no use telling the Southport Town Council and other councils that there is no need to put these people out into the street, that the councils can buy the houses or lease them. If the councils say, "We shall not do that," what will the right hon. Gentleman do? That is the whole point.
I was about to proceed a little further. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange produced a letter which was sent, presumably by the town clerk of Southport, to these 23 families in which the following sentence appeared, apparently at the end of the letter:
"…if you fail to vacate the premises I shall reluctantly be compelled to take the appropriate steps to have you evicted from the premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 270, 272.]
It really is not good enough if this sort of thing is taking place in Southport, where the problem of requisitioning is not so acute as what it will be in London. I am afraid that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that these tactics will succeed in London, Birmingham and Liverpool he is asking for a riot, because the folk just will not tolerate that sort of thing.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the recommendations of the working party's report and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to adhere to those dates unless and until the local authorities concerned have made satisfactory provision for rehousing. I hope,
580
before I sit down, to make one or two suggestions as to how that could be done. Adherence to the dates in the working party's report will undoubtedly create hardship. There is no guarantee whatever that the families concerned will not be made homeless in the process, and no guarantee that urgent cases on the housing list, which are far more urgent than those of most of the families in requisitioned premises, will not be superseded by the transferring of families from requisitioned dwellings.
Therefore, the suggestions of the working party are largely inoperable, and they are unfair to families on the housing list because precedence is given to families in requisitioned dwellings. They are unacceptable to owners, because most of the owners of these dwellings do not want to receive them back with a family in occupation; they want vacant possession, which they claim they are entitled to, and they want vacant possession in order to be able to sell the property—
Mr. John Hay: No.
Mr. Sparks: I do not want to take up too much time, but some of my hon. Friends wish to say a few words on this subject, and I think they will satisfy the hon. Member that there are quite a fair number of such houses that have been vacated, are now up for sale, and have been for some months.
Mr. Hay: I do not think that the circumstances justify the sweeping accusation which the hon. Member has just made. We all know that there are a great many owners of requisitioned property who wish to get back into the houses which they formerly owned, and who, at the moment, are living in most cramped and unsatisfactory conditions.
Mr. Sparks: There are few such owners—
Mr. Hay: There are a great many.
Mr. Sparks: There are only a few dwellings in that category. Only a few such owners still have their dwellings requisitioned—
Mr. Hay: No.
Mr. Sparks: I say that there are only a few. I have had experience of this and I say that the number is very few. If there are owners whose houses have

581
been requisitioned, and who wish to rehouse their families in those houses, there is no local authority in the country which would not make special efforts to assist them. But a large number of dwellings already released from requisition have been acquired by the owners so that they can sell them and make a good price.
Mr. Hay: Quite untrue.
Mr. Sparks: It is not. I know what I am talking about—
Mr. Hay: So do I.
Mr. Sparks: I want to make a few suggestions about how this problem may be solved. I consider that the right hon. Gentleman must go much further than the recommendations contained in the report of the working party. But I would urge that he does not act in the way that his hon. Friends have suggested, because if he does he will create grave hardship. The Minister should consider making a scheme whereby as many as possible of these properties might be acquired by local authorities. I do not mean that they should all be so acquired, but there are a large number of houses which would be suitable for inclusion in local authority housing pools.
The Minister should request local authorities to submit to him schemes for the acquisition of these requisitioned dwellings, and, in addition, he should give loan sanction for the purpose and extend to such acquisitions the benefits of the housing subsidy. Such a scheme as I have suggested would be workable with financial help for reasons which I have not the time to discuss now. Such a course of action would help considerably towards solving the problem. I am not suggesting that property should be acquired in cases where the owners required it to live in and that in such cases they should be forced to sell their houses to local authorities. But such cases are few. In most cases the owners would be satisfied with a reasonable price for their house.
Local authorities would undoubtedly have to pay vacant possession value, and unless the proposal is coupled with the extension of rate subsidy they would find that the rents which they would have to charge would be impossibly high. It
582
would be essential that the Minister persuade the Exchequer to waive what is called recovery of the cost of conversion or improvement carried out to the property during the period of requisition.
In some cases, local authorities have spent money in converting requisitioned houses into flats, and it is a condition that when such property is sold, the value of the improvement must be deducted from the compensation payable. If local authorities acquired these houses, that condition should be waived and that would ease considerably the financial problem. In addition, these properties should be eligible for the improvement grant under the 1949 Housing Act.
I could say a good deal more on this subject but several of my hon. Friends wish to speak because this is a problem which affects not only London, but Birmingham, Liverpool and many other parts of the country. I repeat, if the Minister proposes to yield to the pressure of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and derequisition these premises by sending ultimatums to local authorities that from a certain date all dwellings must be de-requisitioned and the people living in them evicted, it will cause a great deal of hardship and suffering. I believe that my proposals would provide a better solution.
7.56 p.m.
Mr. Percy Shurmer: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has introduced this matter. I wish to discuss it from a different angle. The situation is different in Birmingham, where people who are dispossessed of their houses are found accommodation by the local authority, with the result that they are occupying houses which could have been occupied by people at present living in rooms.
Yesterday I had a Question on the Order Paper addressed to the Minister which, unfortunately, was not reached, and so I was unable to put a supplementary question to him. In my Question I asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government
"whether he is aware that many houses have been derequisitioned in Birmingham and other cities while people are still living in rooms; and whether he will circularise all local authorities, recommending that only when a house is required for the occupation of the owner or a member of his family should it be de-requisitioned."

583
The written answer included the statement:
"No. The derequisitioning of privately owned dwellinghouses does not reduce housing accommodation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,27th July, 1954; Vol. 53,1, c. 35.]
That is not true. If the houses were let again, or if they were required by the owner or a member of his family, that would be understandable. But the Ministry has acted far too hastily in this matter. In our large cities and towns there are thousands of people who are still living in rooms.
What is happening in Birmingham? There we requisitioned a number of large houses which were converted into flats; and I could take the Parliamentary Secretary to my constituency and show him dozens of houses only a stone's throw from my own home, including two beautiful flats, where all the windows and grates have been smashed by children. This property has been standing idle for the last six months. Yet nearby may be found examples of overcrowding, where eight and nine people are living in one room.
If that is what is called derequisitioning, it should not be allowed. We ought not to permit houses to be derequisitioned and to stand empty so that the owners can dispose of them at the highest price. We have over 50,000 people on our housing register in Birmingham, although our housing record is as high as that in any part of the country; but there have been a great many people who have come to Birmingham because there is plenty of work in the city.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton mentioned land. We are short of land in Birmingham. I do not know where we can build houses for our people, and yet we find the houses are being left standing empty. I do not understand why the Department has allowed so many houses to stand unoccupied for sale to the highest bidder for as long as 12 months when, in the same road, other people may be living in overcrowded conditions. There is one road in my constituency along which, on Friday morning, a funeral procession will pass of a man and five children who were burnt to death in a little rat-trap of a house. We have 40,000 of these rat-traps in our city. I have represented Birmingham for some time and I know the position there.
584
There is road after road of derequisitioned houses many of which have been made into beautiful flats and many of which have been unoccupied for six or nine months, and sometimes more, simply because the Corporation have been able to derequisition them and place the tenants in new houses.
We cannot allow these conditions to continue. The Department talks about its wonderful housing programme and how it has stepped up housing as against other building.
Mr. Marples: Against what?
Mr. Shurmer: Against schools, for instance. The schools being built today had their foundations laid during the life of the Labour Government; but we are not discussing that now.
I am surprised that the Department acts so hastily in derequisitioning these houses. No house should be allowed to stand idle in any city for any length of time where people live huddled together in rooms. That state of affairs makes for unhappiness and it does not help the morale or the health of the people. It causes incidents such as the terrible tragedy that we had in my constituency on Sunday morning.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that this derequisitioning makes for more housing accommodation. I want him to take action to tell local authorities that until the situation is eased no house should be derequisitioned unless the owner wants it for his own accommodation or for that of his family. Owners should not be allowed to hold people to ransom, selling to the highest bidder and leaving other people to live in rooms. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some encouragement to believe that something will be done in the matter.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. David Weitzman: I am glad that this subject has been raised. In this House we deal with many different problems and spend a great deal of time on various aspects of our affairs—foreign policy and all sorts of important questions. Now we are discussing a human problem of the greatest possible importance.
It is easy to talk about the rights of owners and about owners being deprived

585
of houses for a considerable time, but when we have this extraordinary human problem in connection with housing, with which all of us have to deal, something more ought to be done than has been done so far. Today virtually no housing authority has the right to requisition a new property in order to alleviate housing difficulties. If only because of that it is vital that housing authorities should be allowed to retain the requisitioned properties which they now have for as long a period as possible.
If the Minister directs these authorities to release the requisitioned properties they hold, then he is making the conditions such that the position of the authorities is made impossible. I should like to illustrate this argument in a practical way by reference to boroughs which form part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. In the Borough of Stoke Newington, which has a population of only 50,000, there are 607 requisitioned properties now held by the housing authority. That represents 1,128 housing units and in those units there reside 4,060 persons. Eight per cent. of the population of the borough reside in requisitioned properties. I add the information to show the importance of the figure, that we have a housing list of some 2,300 families.
In the Borough of Hackney there are 1,803 properties held on requisition, representing 3,413 units, and the live cases on the housing list number over 6,000. When one remembers that in both boroughs, as in many other parts of the country, the only practical way in which the problem can be dealt with and new houses built is by pulling down existing properties and building on the sites, with the obligation of rehousing the people who are deprived of the places they live in when they are pulled down, and when one also remembers the further difficulties that will be created with the coming into law of two new Measures shortly—the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill and the Landlord and Tenant Bill—it is obvious how essential it is that the housing authorities should retain for as long as possible the requisitioned properties which they now hold.
There is another point which I desire to raise. As I understand the position, the maximum allowance permitted as reimbursement for repairs is £25 per unit. That is the ceiling figure. When one
586
knows the type of requisitioned houses —very often large old properties which need a considerable amount of repair—one realises that the figure is totally inadequate. The Borough of Stoke Newington made direct representations to the Ministry and pointed out that in the years 1950–51 and 1952–53 the amount of repairs worked out at an average of over £38 per year. Now they are told that the amount must be limited to £25. I respectfully suggest that that figure is inadequate to keep these properties in habitable condition.
I would also mention a case that occurred in the Borough of Hackney which shows the way in which the Ministry acts in this problem. The Minister directed the council to derequisition a property in which the council's licensee, an old-age pensioner now widowed, was living at a rent of 15s. per week. The decision to derequistion was opposed very strongly by the council, but the Minister insisted upon it and said that the Ministry had arranged with the owner that the licensee could remain, presumably at the same rent.
Now the owner, as he is entitled to do, has increased the rent to the standard rent, which is at least twice the amount the old lady was paying as a licensee of the council. The old lady has no other means except her old-age pension, and she is unable to pay this amount. She is not upon the council's housing list, and is not eligible to be upon it. As she has no money to pay the rent, there is no solution to her problem. That is the direct result of interference by the Minister in a particular case about which I have written to him.
I hope the Minister will look again at this problem of de-requisitioning. There is a great deal in the fact that if one travels through London and its surroundings one sees many houses which for months have "For Sale" boards upon them. I know that an argument can be put forward, as was said by an hon. Member opposite in an intervention, that an owner whose property has been requisitioned for a considerable time may want it for himself. Those cases are few, and in most cases where an owner desires his property back after he has been kept out of it for a considerable time and can show that he wants to live in it and has nowhere else to live, the local authority

587
will do everything it possibly can to restore it to him.
But where is the justification for de-requisitioning a property when the owner merely desires to dispose of it and, under the conditions in which we live today, is ready to allow it to remain empty with a "For Sale" board upon it until someone with sufficient money to buy it comes along? Surely it is wrong that that should happen in the present state of affairs.
One of my hon. Friends suggested a scheme for dealing with this problem, and many other suggestions can be made, I suggest that the proper way to deal with derequisitioning is to recognise the difficulty of housing authorities and say to them, "The Ministry will not make any direction unless the council's consent to derequisitioning." Surely it is the Minister's duty to help in every way possible towards a solution of the problem. It is not a question of party politics; it is a question of dealing with a human problem. I urge the Minister to look at the problem of derequisitioning anew and consider the possibility of making arrangements whereby councils can be assisted in the fine work which they are doing in rehousing and not have obstacles put in their way in the efforts which they are making.
8.14 p.m.
Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: I hope that the Minister will accept the very strong submissions made by my hon. Friends and agree that the matter is one of very grave concern indeed to the majority of local authorities. It is of particular concern to those which have long waiting lists or applicants for municipal houses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) said, it is of particular interest and concern in Birmingham, and indeed in my own constituency.
If the housing circumstances were normal, there would be something to be said for the Minister's present policy of derequisitioning, but I wish to impress upon the Minister that the housing conditions in the majority of our towns and cities are certainly not normal, despite the fact that we are building about 300,000 houses a year. Unless we appreciate how abnormal the housing
588
situation is today, we cannot possibly judge the present scheme of derequisitioning.
Birmingham has 50,000 applicants on its register. That by no means illustrates the gravity of the housing problem in Birmingham. In addition to those applicants for houses, there are many thousands of families in the city who have houses which cannot by any means be described as fit for habitation. Many of these people have been waiting for houses for 10 years. Many of them are grossly overcrowded.
I know from personal experience that there are families in my constituency consisting of up to 10 people who have no chance of being rehoused by the local authority at an early date. This is for the simple reason that, although large numbers of houses are being built, the number of four-bedroomed and five-bedroomed houses is comparatively small. Most of the requisitioned houses are fairly large compared with the municipal houses now being built; they are old but they provide the necessary accommodation, and in many respects they are eminently suitable for applicants with large families who cannot get local authority houses except by waiting for many years.
We have also to remember that there come to the offices of a local authority in a large city like Birmingham week by week and month by month cases for rehousing submitted by the medical officers of health because of the presence of active tuberculosis in families. There are also houses which, because of their dangerous condition, have to be demolished, and they are by no means few in number.
I understand that in the Birmingham courts last year there were more than 1,000 eviction cases. These have also to be considered by local authorities. In many instances the evicted persons have been tenants of incontestable soundness and the rent has been paid regularly, but simply because of the pressure of the present law, which the Government refused to alter in the recent Bill, they are being evicted. I had such a case only last week. A person who had lived in the same house for 41 years with her parents was, on the death of the second parent, immediately served with notice to quit and was evicted. These

589
are the conditions which apply, and that is the background against which the Minister must judge the effectiveness and the humanity of the present scheme of de-requisitioning. These conditions cannot be regarded as normal.
Now that the circumstances have changed people who in some instances left their own houses to escape from the bombing—I am not blaming anyone for doing that; I lived in the centre of a very heavily bombed area, and I know what those conditions meant, but other people were compelled to remain where they were—want to come back. If they want their former houses in order to accommodate their own families, I should raise no objection to that, and, as far as I know, local authorities give those cases every consideration. I have yet to heat of a single case of a local authority declining to permit the retransfer of those families. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) said, it is undoubtedly true that many people want to regain possession of these houses simply in order to sell them and make some money. That is grossly unfair in the conditions which exist in our cities and boroughs.
The pressure which the Ministry is exerting upon local authorities to get rid of their requisitioned houses should be dropped. It is certainly not justified. In Birmingham, as the Minister knows, over 2,000 families are now living in requisitioned property. In view of the ordinary demand for houses, it is impossible for the local authority to derequisition except on a very slow and gradual basis. It is a matter of very grave concern to local housing authorities.
I hope that the Minister will assent to the submissions which have been made tonight. The present policy of the Government is anti-social and against the interests of the community, and ought not to be pursued in existing circumstances. So long as there is a desperate shortage of houses, no pressure should be exercised by the Minister. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us that a change of policy is to take place and that local authorities will be permitted to work their housing schemes in their own way and will not have to deal with requisitioned houses as suggested by the Minister.
8.23 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The reasons which animate the Government in their approach to the problem of derequisitioning are based not upon social arguments, but upon purely financial considerations. The Parliamentary Secretary will probably remind us that the cost of requisitioned property represents a direct charge upon the Exchequer. We know that the difference between the compensation paid to the owner of requisitioned property and the amount of rent charged by the local authority to the occupant of that property has to be borne by somebody, and is, in fact, borne out of Exchequer funds and not out of local rates.
In those circumstances, if the Government wage an economy campaign and start looking for items of expenditure which can be cut they soon consider the question of requisitioned properties. As has already been pointed out by my hon. Friends, however, the need for housing is as great as it was two, three, four or five years ago. In those circumstances it is very undesirable that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or the Government generally, should maintain this pressure upon local authorities to derequisition even faster than they have done hitherto.
The pressure campaign organised by the Minister has not been without some effect. There have been not insubstantial reductions in the number of requisitioned properties in various districts, resulting in not insubstantial savings to the Exchequer. We have been told by the Government that there must be a maximum of about 300,000 new houses a year; that is about as much as the economy can be expected to stand. The Ministry has now realised that schools, factories, hospitals and other such buildings are needed, and that the whole of our building force and materials cannot be directed solely to providing housing accommodation. Having come to that decision, it is surely all the more inappropriate to continue this pressure campaign.
What is the position in any local authority which has a long waiting list for houses? Every time anyone is pushed out of requisitioned premises he becomes another applicant on the waiting list of the local housing authority. In those circumstances, the number of applicants can never be reduced,

591
because if a local authority has 1,000 families living in requisitioned properties, when the derequisitioning of those properties is carried out all those families have to be provided with other accommodation by the local authority. Thus, the local authority is very much worse off than it was before.
Mr. Sparks: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend is quite correct in saying that a local authority must provide other accommodation. There is no obligation whatsoever upon the local authority to do so. If a local authority receives a direction from the Minister that on and from a certain date it must de-requisition all its requisitioned houses it can serve notices to quit upon the occupants of those houses and they must get out. There is no obligation upon the local authority to rehouse them.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I agree with my hon. Friend. When I mentioned the obligation of a local authority I was referring to its social and moral obligation. It can certainly serve notices to quit upon every tenant of such premises.
Mr. Sparks: Local authorities are doing it.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In some cases local authorities are doing it, but any local authority which has serving on it men and women with social consciences does not do such a thing. A social conscience is not encouraged by the present Government, however.
The Minister admits that it is necessary to have some kind of plan, because without one it will not be possible for him to maintain the building programme at the present level of 300,000 houses a year, but when we try to find out how this plan is being operated we are given somewhat vague answers.
Only the other day the Minister of Housing and Local Government in reply to Questions on this aspect of the matter said that the total number of houses completed depended on prior planning and on sufficient labour and materials being available. We all know that. He said that resources varied from region to region. I would quote one sentence of his. He said:
"While I have, therefore, had to take some steps to see that the programme does not get out of step, I do not attempt to control it within
592
precise figures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1157.]
I think hon. Members and the country are entitled to know what steps the Minister is taking to see that the programme does not get out of step and how this mechanism, which is being somewhat mysteriously operated somewhere, is applied.
In some cases it so happens that a local authority that has, perhaps, done exceptionally well finds that, by reason of these mysterious steps the Minister reserves to himself to take to see that the programme does not get out of step, its housing activities are being retarded. That is an additional reason, which I shall not develop now, why it is difficult for the local authorities to embark upon this policy of wholesale de-requisitioning which the Minister is trying to operate. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to provide us with some information on some of the points raised by my hon. Friends, because I can assure him that there is very deep feeling on the subject all over the country.
8.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) for raising what is a very human problem. It is a problem the discussion of which can sometimes generate a great deal of heat, and perhaps sometimes it is seen out of perspective in consequence. However, that is because the human factors involved tend to cause us to be excited and so to confuse judgment.
If any passion is to be generated I think that I personally am in a position to be more heated than any other Member of the House, for the reason that when I came out of the Army after five years' service my flat was requisitioned and I had to live in rooms. It was left empty for some time while I had to argue with a London authority about going back to my own flat. I did not leave that flat to sell it for a large sum of money. I left it because I was, not compelled, because I voluntarily joined the Territorial Army, but required as a Territorial to go on service.
Thus it is not always the fact that the property owner leaves his property because he wants to make a profit out of

593
it. It is not always the fact that property that is requisitioned is the property of an owner who leaves it because he wants to make a profit out of it. Eventually I got my flat back. I mention this experience to show that I have some personal knowledge of requisitioning, to show that I know what it is like to expect to go back to one's home only to find a little notice on the door saying, "Requisitioned," even though the place is still empty and may remain so for a considerable time.
Mr. Sparks: The hon. Gentleman had no objection to a bombed-out family being in his flat while he was away, had he?
Mr. Marples: No, but I rather hoped that there would be a place for me to live in when I came back. It is not unreasonable to enjoy occupying one's own flat. It was not unreasonable that I should look forward to enjoying the occupation of my own flat when I came back. That is not an unreasonable request to make after five years' service. However, I had quite a dispute about it, and it took a lot of argument before I got it back. I realise—and I want to make it clear— that the human aspect of this problem is sometimes difficult to calculate.
The hon. Member for Acton was kind enough to give me notice of some of the things that he said. At the moment, properties are being steadily released, but most people in the country are not in the 48 difficult areas in London. No new requisitions are now being made. When the Government took office there were about 86,000 properties held; that represented 130,000 families. The number is down to approximately 66,500, and that is 100,000 families, and the great majority of those—over 50,000—are in the London area.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) raised two points. One was the financial burden on the Treasury. He dealt with that so skilfully that there is no point in my labouring that theme. He also said that we were retarding housing. He uses words in a very odd way at times. I am glad to tell him that Lambeth is now building six times more houses than in 1951, and a deputation I saw the other day seemed to think it satisfactory. I think the hon. and gallant Member covers the Lambeth area.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In order to clarify the situation, I represent the Brixton division of Lambeth, which includes two other constituencies as well.
Mr. Marples: They are fortunate in being so well represented.
The Working Party made two Reports and it is on the recommendations of that Working Party that the Minister is, in part, acting. It is not a question of acting on his own view, it is a question of acting on the recommendations of the Working Party, which was composed of representatives of all local authority associations. There was a representative of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which represents all the big boroughs. In the first Report, the Working Party said that authorities with between one and two families per thousand of the population in requisitioned property should release the property at the end of this year. In the second Report it recommended that other authorities, with up to six families per thousand of the population in requisitioned property, should be set a time table for releasing them by the end of 1957.
That deals only with those local authorities where the problem is not great. As the hon. Member for Acton rightly pointed out, the Working Party was unable to reach any conclusions on the 48 authorities, almost all in London, which had more than six families per thousand of their population in requisitioned property. The Working Party made no recommendation about those authorities. My right hon. Friend has not decided yet what line of action he will take in this connection and I will call his attention to the suggestions which have been made tonight, including those constructive suggestions made by the hon. Member for Acton. I will see that they form part of the agenda when this matter is being discussed. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his suggestions.
We are pressing local authorities to reduce their holding of requisitioned property within the recommendations of the Working Party, and in doing so we have asked them to pay particular attention to those cases where owner-occupiers are suffering hardship through being deprived of their property. That is a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer).

595
Hon. Members have no doubt armed themselves with the Interim Report of the Working Party. They will see, on page 6, that the evidence submitted by the Association of Requisitioned Property Owners was fairly reasonable. It did not ask that property should be derequisitioned so that that owners could make a profit. It said
"that requisitioned properties should be released in the following order of priority: (i) to the owner who requires the property for his own occupation."
I think no one would dispute that many people have property which they want for their sons or married daughters, and they have some right to it
"(ii) to the owner who resides in part of the property, and there is incompatibility with the licencees in the other part."
I think every hon. Member knows how difficult it is when two ladies share the same kitchen. More friction and domestic vicissitude has been caused by that than by almost any other cause. I will not enter into the reasons which cause it to happen, but I think the conclusion which I have reached is the right conclusion. The third category is
"the owner who has been, or is, compelled to remove to a district other than that where the requisitioned property is, and is in consequence suffering financial hardship."
Many cases occur where a man has had to move from, for example, Birmingham to Manchester. If he has requisitioned property in Birmingham, he may suffer a good deal financially.
If hon. Members will look at the evidence given by the Association of Requisitioned Property Owners, they will see that the property owners did not make extravagant claims. We in the Ministry have always impressed upon local authorities that they must try to judge the relative hardship, because it is a relative hardship in many cases, and it is a judgment which is not easy to make in the majority of cases, because somebody will have hardship inflicted upon them. The Working Party said that it had a good deal of sympathy with these representations and my right hon. Friend also has sympathy with them, but I do not think he has unduly pressed any local authority to derequisition a house unnecessarily. Derequisitioning is not synonymous with eviction. Houses were requisitioned under Emergency Regulations, either
596
those of 1939–15 years ago—or those of 1945—nine years ago. They were requisitioned in an emergency. That does not mean that the occupants should quit. The local authority can do many things. First, they can lease the property from the owner by agreement or apply for a compulsory purchase order which will be submitted to my right hon. Friend, and in many cases they have done that. They can also say to the owner, "Will you take part of it and leave the tenants in the other part?"
Mr. Wheeldon: In the instance I quoted, derequisitioning is absolutely synonymous with the eviction of the lessee.
Mr. Marples: I will look into that, but generally speaking it is not necessarily so. The hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) mentioned a case at Southport. In that particular case, my right hon. Friend acted, not under the second Interim Report of the Working Party, but under the first Interim Report, in which it was recommended that it should be released by December, 1953. Southport is a constituency with a certain amount of resources. I have heard harsh things said about certain seaside towns and the resources which they have. They can take over that property, if they wish, at any time. As a matter of fact, some of the local authorities have been singularly successful in taking over property. Manchester are buying 15 and negotiating for a further 289. Sheffield are buying 86. Bristol has purchased 86 over the last three years and are still negotiating for a further 100 properties. Leeds have acquired 23 while a further 30 are subject to active negotiation.
Mr. Sparks: That is all right, so far as it goes; but what is the hon. Gentleman going to do with people like the Southport Town Council who refuse to buy and are not prepared to buy? On the other hand, he is insisting that they must derequisition. That means that families have to go out.
Mr. Marples: The local authority have a duty under the 1936 Housing Act to the people in their area. If any local authority fall down on their particular task, it is up to my right hon. Friend to consider what action should be taken if they do not carry out the statutory duties.
Mrs. Braddock: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Town Clerk of Southport, in the opening sentences of his letter, informed 27 tenants in requisitioned houses that he had instructions from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that they must be out by last Monday? Has he asked for a copy of the letter sent by the Town Clerk, and will he see that, when any instructions are given about derequisitioning, along with the instructions there is a request to rehouse the people concerned? Is he aware that in Southport people were taken from their own areas in Liverpool and Bootle, not at their own request, and were sent into this area by the local authorities concerned? Now they have lost their title to housing in both Liverpool and Bootle because they have been out of the area for 10 or 12 years. These are matters which are giving great concern, and the Southport people are being told that they are—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Lady must not develop a question into a speech.
Mrs. Braddock: —they are only allowed until 31st August and then they must go out or they will be evicted. Will he say whether he agrees with that, and what was the instruction given?
Mr. Marples: I can only reaffirm what was said at Question time on that particular case, that neither my right hon. Friend nor the Ministry have given any instruction that tenants shall be evicted. I will ask for a copy of the letter and will look at the first paragraph to see whether I can analyse what the Town Clerk said and what his reasons were. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend has said no such thing. He has not said that they shall be evicted, and we are urging, as much as we possibly can, that all local authorities should acquire the property, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Acton. He went further and made suggestions about monetary arrangements, because his mind is always acute on local authority finances; but we will certainly look at his suggestions for assisting the purchase.
I want to make these comments regarding the purchase or leasing of properties. The hon. Member for Acton said that if a house had been improved or converted at Exchequer expense, when a local
598
authority bought it it would pay a price arrived at on the assumption that the house was still in the state in which it was requisitioned. A great many of these houses were converted after requisitioning, at Government expense. The value of the properties has, therefore, been increased. The Government can seek to recover these increased values from the local authorities if they buy the houses. But whatever we can do in theory, in practice we have been extremely lenient and have made in effect a concealed grant to the purchase The hon. Member for Acton will be well aware of this.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) called my attention to a particular case. I should like to look into it myself before the Recess and I will write to the hon. and learned Member. If any hon. Member has a case of hardship—as, for instance, the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange thought she had at Southport—and will write to my right hon. Friend or to me, we will do our utmost to see that there is no hardship. It it is not the intention to make local authorities evict people. Our idea is to carry out the recommendations of the Working Party, where no hardship is involved, by seeing that a local authority acquires the houses on a proper basis; that is, not on an emergency basis.
Mrs. Braddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give instructions to local authorities that if they require houses to be de-requisitioned, there is an obligation upon them to see that the people who are being dispossessed are being found suitable alternative accommodation?
Mr. Marples: They have that already. Under existing legislation, local authorities have a duty to house people in their area; the hon. Member for Acton will confirm this. It would not be right for my right hon. Friend to lay down what priority a local authority should follow in allocating its pool of housing accommodation.
Mrs. Braddock: This is most important to the people who are likely to find themselves on the streets. Has the Minister said that a local authority, although it is required or is asked to derequisition, must not do so until it is able to offer suitable alternative accommodation to its tenants who will be dispossessed?
Mr. Marples: Generally speaking, we have given the notice recommended by the Working Party—that is, over 12 months—that a local authority should either derequisition the house or acquire it on another basis; and it is the authority's job to house its people in its area.
We do not lay down orders of priorities, not even whether an ex-Service man should be given priority; in some areas such a person cannot even get on the housing list. The allocation of the pool of accommodation is a matter for a local authority to decide. If it thinks that a family in requisitioned property is in greater hardship than a soldier coming out of the Forces, it gives the proper priorities. The Minister cannot lay down what an authority should do. It would be resented and it would not work, because local conditions vary greatly.
Mr. Weitzman: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that when the Ministry directs a local council to derequisition property, with the result that people have no home, there is an obligation on the local council to rehouse those people? If so, what is the authority for saying that there is any such obligation?
Mr. Marples: When my right hon. Friend asks a local authority to derequisition, it is left to that authority to acquire the property, either on lease, by putting in a compulsory purchase order—
Mr. Weitzman: Where is the obligation?
Mr. Marples: The general obligation is under the 1936 Act.
Mr. Sparks: An authority might refuse to carry it out.
Mr. Marples: Perhaps I should not mention it in this context, but Coventry refused to carry out certain things and three commissioners were appointed. If a local authority does not carry out its statutory obligation, it is up to the Government to take proper action. I stress that my right hon. Friend has never told a local authority that it should evict people, and I hope no one in the House will say that he has. The Acton Borough Council called together a number of the 48 "hard core" authorities, as they are termed, to consider the problem and we
600
hope that they will press forward with the reduction of their holdings or give constructive suggestions, as the hon. Member for Acton did. We at the Ministry are prepared to listen to any constructive suggestions which hon. Members may have for overcoming a very grave and very nearly insoluble problem.
I want to assure hon. Members that it is sometimes very heartbreaking when people come to see me about these matters, as they sometimes do. The other day we had to consider the case of an old lady of 78 in a requisitioned house with incompatible tenants; they were at loggerheads all the time, and she did not know which way to turn. What does one do in a case like that—turn her out of the house or turn the others out? I assure the House that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of this grave human problem, and we will consider carefully any constructive suggestions which are made.
Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that if a serious international situation arose, the Government would commandeer everything necessary for the benefit of the nation. Why is it that the Ministry, who can act if they like, allow so many vacant properties to stand idle for months on end in the large towns and cities which are so badly overcrowded, simply because the owners are waiting to get the greatest amount of money for those houses? Surely it is just as important to requisition properties for the benefit of the morale of the people in peace-time as it is in war-time?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Ellis Smith.
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. A few days ago there was posted in the Lobby of this House an indication from Mr. Speaker that after my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) had raised certain matters I would have an opportunity of catching Mr. Speaker's eye. I have been here very nearly the whole day waiting for that opportunity. Now I find that by an arrangement which I know nothing about, and of which no indication was given, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is called. I understand that he is raising a matter of some substance. My point was a short one; it would take about 10 minutes and it would be

601
followed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport who would occupy, I suppose, about another 10 minutes.
Surely, if one has had an indication in writing, posted on the wall, that one would be fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye after the debate on the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton—though I entirely agree that it is within the right of the occupant of the Chair to select any speaker he wishes at any time—the hon. Member who has had that intimation should reasonably expect to be called.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know nothing about that arrangement. In any event, this debate has not followed that arrangement at all. This debate has taken place on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. What I am trying to do is to meet the wishes of the House and to proceed to the next subject.
Mr. Sparks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not correct that if my hon. Friend wishes to remain here he will be called in due course and that the debate on this Motion will not be closured?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is nothing to do with the Closure. Unfortunately, I cannot call more than one hon. Member at a time.
Mr. de Freitas: I am only protesting that, having stood in the queue, I was not called in due order as indicated by Mr. Speaker. I think that is quite wrong.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I had called the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) would have made his protest.
Mr. de Freitas: No, his subject was due to come up tomorrow.

SPORTS FACILITIES (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE)
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I made no complaint about that interjection because it is only consistent with what I have had to contend with all my life in watching over the interests of the people to whom I belong.
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that I am not looking after the interests of the people I represent?
Mr. Smith: All my hon. Friend has to do is to look at the record of the General Elections since 1930 to find the answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and I have been pressed by many municipalities, by trade union organisations and by other public-spirited people to raise this question tonight. My hon. Friend is privileged to be an alderman of the Stoke City Council and is a member of the Education Committee. She has a long record of service and welcomes the opportunity of speaking on their behalf in this debate. I shall try to provide evidence to show the correctness of the line we are taking, I shall make some observations upon the position of British sport and I shall appeal for more Government encouragement. Let me make it clear that neither I nor my hon. Friend will make any reflection on the public-spirited men and women who run the voluntary organisations of this country; in my view, they deserve more encouragement and more financial support.
There is great concern in the important industrial area we represent, and also in the greatest industrial area in the country where some of us live, as the following extract from the "Evening Sentinel" of last night shows:
"The Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent (Alderman Mrs. Barker) intimated last night that she would ask the City Council on Thursday for better facilities for youth athletes. 'I am going to remind them of what has been happening to youth athletics,' she said. I am going to tell them what we need.' Urging the athletes to aim at the Olympic Games, she added, 'Even if you do not get there, you will be the better for trying'."
In the same locality another municipality is making provisions for a cycle track and other things for the North Staffordshire Harriers.
For years in this country there has been too much complacency and there is a danger in leaving matters until it is nearly too late. We had evidence of that this afternoon. We are constantly having evidence of it in the international field, and some of us could provide evidence to show that the same thing is happening in industry. Tonight, however, I am speaking about sport and the need for playing fields.

603
Recently we have had some severe shocks and we deserved them. In my view it is not too late, provided the Government profit by our recent experience. According to "John Bull" of 24th July, we did not win a single contest in the Olympic Games in 1952, and also, according to that paper, we do not hold one Olympic record. Those who saw the international football games at Wembley, or at Berne and Basle, on television, were bound to admire the Bulgarians, the Hungarians and now the Germans. The Germans lost the war and, for the second time in my life, we won the war, and yet we find ourselves in this position. At the same time, there is no doubt that we have now received a jolt and the effect of that jolt should be reflected in this House with the idea of urging the Government to take action.
We have had further evidence at the British Games Meeting at the White City and at other international assemblies. Ferenc Puskas, captain of the Hungarian football team said—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not quite clear how far the Ministry of Education can be responsible for British football.
Mr. Smith: Those who are very closely acquainted with the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education know that in connection with the provision of playing fields and the encouragement of sport on an area and regional basis the Ministry are supplying coaches for the schools. Our boys are now receiving the benefit of coaching at the expense of the Ministry of Education and I speak from that standpoint. The captain of the Hungarian team said:
"I will tell you what is wrong with English football. I saw it at Wembley and at Budapest. You have not yet learned from your experience. You stick to the conventions of 25 years ago. The English experts have ignored the enormous progress made on the Continent."
It is time that we profited by our experience, and the responsibility for that lies at present with the Minister of Education.
I believe that we can produce many more men like Roger Bannister, Chris Chataway and Stanley Matthews provided that we modernise our methods and profit by recent experience, that we organise to achieve our objective and the Ministry
604
of Education provides more financial support.
There is more in this issue than appears on the surface and more than some middle-class politicians may think. A representative of the "Daily Express" who recently attended a football match in Baku said that the people there were very full of life and vitality. So are our own people. Provided that they are given the chance and that we modernise and organise, I am convinced that within two or three years we shall again be able to hold our own in international events.
I used to be very indignant when before the war certain hon. Members cast serious reflections on our fellow-countrymen. It was common in those days to compare our people unfavourably with the people of Germany. It upset me because I was convinced that if our young people had a chance they would prove dynamic and be able to hold their own with the people of any other part of the world. The answer which proved who was right came during the war, during that 12 months when we stood alone and our young men defended this country which became the base for the Allies, while some people were taking a long time to clarify their attitude towards the war. It was our own young men and women who saved this country and dealt a devastating blow against those Germans who were seeking to dominate the world.
Those young men and women are as good as ever they were, but we are now all put to the test because we need to modernise and organise in order to give them a chance so that they may hold their own with other races. If Britain is to remain a great country, if we are to make the contribution in life which our history deserves, physical fitness will be more important in the future than it has been in the past.
It has been my privilege to have been associated with many of the leading scientists of this country and to know the work they are doing. We are in the forefront of scientific development. The same applies to engineering, to steel and to work at the coal-face; but unless we adopt such a policy as will be outlined this evening, we shall not have a state of democracy which will enable us to be so dynamic and physically fit as people on the Continent and in other parts of the world. With those ideas we

605
are pleading that more support shall come from the Ministry of Education.
Physical fitness is more important than ever and will be still more important in the future. It is a contribution to good health. Those of us who have been as near death's door as it is possible to be and those who have been concerned with domestic tragedies know that we would not have pulled through but for good bodily health and physique. We want our fellow-countrymen to be in a position not only to produce more and to work harder, but to save needless suffering. We can save life if physique is as fit as it should be. We are pleading for a policy which will save life and eliminate needless suffering, a policy which has a good psychological effect in regard to one's attitude to life.
This also has an important effect on output. For many years it was my privilege to act in a representative capacity. It is easy to speak here, but where one is put to the test is in industry. Having been engaged in one of the largest concerns in this country, where 25,000 are employed daily, I know—as do many others who know the importance of maintaining the morale and the good will of the people—that this has an important bearing on output. Friends of mine tell me that when Manchester United are playing well and winning the output at Metropolitan Vickers can be relied upon to go up.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I feel that the hon. Member is going fairly wide of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education.
Mr. Smith: Is that so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? If you follow closely you will find that I am leading up to proving that the Ministry of Education has responsibility for the provision of playing fields, the provision of financial support and for the policy I am outlining. If in the future this country is to hold its own this policy has to be adopted. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston), who has great responsibility for the running of one of the largest foundries in the country, states that when Tottenham is doing well the output there goes up.
Mr. George Thomas: It is the same in Cardiff.
Mr. Smith: Anyone who knows anything about modern industrial life, as the hon. Gentleman does, will know the importance of physical fitness to the people to whom I belong. Before coming here, I knew the tempo of industrial life, of which no one has any idea unless he has been engaged in competitive industry and had the experience of competition that many had between the wars. We were subjected to micro-motion study—timed not to seconds but timed by films, every operation being watched. This had an effect upon one's physique. Then there is the effect of repetition work upon the nervous system.
We are constantly being appealed to for harder and faster work. All this indicates the need for more relaxation, for the provision of other interests, for joys and thrills to which our people are entitled. Too many people in this country have talked for years about the need for harder and faster work. Seldom do they talk of the effect of that on the physique of our industrial population. If this country is to maintain its own in the face of world competition in the future, the Ministry of Education will have to organise along the lines for which we are pleading.
There are too many in Britain who are constantly blaming people rather than understanding why people act in the way they do. Modern industrial life demands modernised sport, physical fitness and relaxation. That urgently requires organised State and municipal action and encouragement. What do we find? Here I would interpolate that I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Those of us who have been in the House for nearly 20 years have good cause to bless those who now provide us with the Library facilities that they do compared with what was available when we first came here. I have here some evidence provided by the Librarian to show the correctness of what I am saying. It states:
"There does not seem to be much of relevance in HANSARD except for your Question of 22nd June, 1948."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very sorry. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member's speech, but the subject he has chosen is "Recreation fields and the responsibility of the Minister of Education." I cannot see how the Library comes into that.
Mr. Smith: That is very unfortunate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will restrain myself in that matter. Some of us, however, know something about Standing Orders; we have had some experience in this House; we are students of affairs and understand matters fairly well. We have also had experience of presiding over some of the largest assemblies in this country. Therefore, what I was seeking to do was to provide evidence to show that, just as I respect the Chair, so I respect the services of those in the Library. All I was doing was to give them a pat on the back, something which they seldom get and which, in my view, they deserve, for the service they render us.
The Librarian goes on in this letter to say, and this I hope you will note in particular, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the financial assistance referred to by the Minister
"in answering your Question is that given by the Minister of Education under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937"—
have you noted that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?—
"and Section 53 of the Education Act, of 1944."
What we are pleading for is an extension of these Acts—for their full implementation and for increased expenditure out of the total sum which is allocated to the Ministry of Education for its purposes. The estimate for this grant in 1953 was £200,000. In 1954 and 1955 it is to be reduced to £140,000. While the revenue derived from sport includes £1,340,000 from football, a total State grant of £140,000 is disgraceful. The Government take approximately £4 million out of sport, which is scandalous. I ask for an increased grant and more financial encouragement for physical fitness and sport.
We have voluntary workers in the industrial areas who are doing wonderful work. In Stoke-on-Trent there is a man, known by the young people affectionately as "Pop" Daniels, who has given 25 years' service to youth activities. He is typical of thousands of public-spirited men and women who have devoted their lives to the encouragement of physical fitness, and who work harmoniously with the local education authorities.
608
I ask that there should be further encouragement for such people, and that more playing fields be provided in areas where there are now none at all. Our children are summoned by the police for playing in the streets, but they have nowhere else to play. While some children are fortunate enough to enjoy the facilities afforded at Eton or Cambridge and Oxford and other places, in the areas where the work is done there are no playing fields at all.
In Stoke-on-Trent, one of our industrial areas, we have not one sports centre—not a single cinder track. In Manchester the Northern Athletic Arena at Fallow-field is admired by the sporting fraternity as one of the finest athletic arenas in the world. It has provided this country with some of its leading athletes. Now, because of financial difficulties, it is in danger of being taken over by greyhound racing interests.
I have often looked with admiration at the thousands of young men and women whose physical fitness arouses our best emotions, and yet we are now in danger of losing what facilities we have for providing for their recreation. It is time that the Ministry took steps to provide such facilities. Twice in my lifetime we have won a war. As a boy I toured the Continent after the First World War playing for an Army football team, and I was never better treated in my life. Yet Germany and Italy, who lost the last war, are now providing more encouragement for physical fitness than is provided in this country. Italy deducts £4 million annually for sport from the pools. We take £4 million out of sport. The Germans take £125,000 a week from the pools for the encouragement of sport, while we allow millionaires to be made out of pools and out of sport.
We ask that the Ministry should give urgent attention to this problem and that greater financial support should be provided. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the willingness of the Parliamentary Secretary to consult his officials and to take part in this short debate. At the same time, I would point out that all we have done is to take advantage of our Parliamentary rights in raising this issue which will give great satisfaction to our friends in the country.
9.21 p.m.
Mrs. Harriet Slater: In supporting what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I want to try to relate this topic to the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education. I speak chiefly on behalf of those thousands of children for whom no playing fields are provided by the Ministry. My hon. Friend has already said that through the medium of television we have been able to see many outstanding sporting events of an international nature during the past few months.
I am sure that hon. Members, especially the men, will have been grieved time and again to see British teams outplayed by people from abroad. Not one athlete in the 1952 Olympic Games set up a record for this country. I have often sat in the Tea Room after a television broadcast and heard some of the men become as heated when discussing the games as they do about arguments and debates in this Chamber. Just like every audience at a football or cricket match, they think that they could have played the game in a much better way than those who were on the field.
The arguments always raise the same questions. Everyone agrees that we should have more concentrated training and that we should start earlier with our training. It is in that respect that I want to relate the matter to the Ministry of Education. It is no use isolated people breaking speed records unless we can follow up their performances by allowing more people to join in and to represent us in international events. It is from the children that we shall draw our future cricketers, footballers and atheletes to represent the country. Therefore, we must provide more facilities for them.
Since I came to this House I have repeatedly asked the Minister of Education to state when she intends to relax Circular 245 as it affects the question of playing fields. On every occasion she has replied, as she did last week and as I expect her to reply tomorrow, "Not yet." It is true, of course, that new schools have playing fields provided as they are built, and that is right. Last week I went to look at Kidbrooke. There is not merely a magnificent school building there; there are also magnificent playing fields.
610
If the policy of the Ministry that playing fields shall be provided only where new schools are built is to continue, it means that thousands of children will be condemned to spend their time in old schools with no provision at all for playing activities outside the schools. It is on behalf of those forgotten and neglected children that I wish to make a plea tonight.
Many of the old schools—we are told in the Report of the Select Committee that there are about 600 black-listed schools and that many of them may have to remain in use for 10 to 15 years—have been robbed even of their existing hard playgrounds because of the increasing child population. Horsa huts and other temporary buildings and improved lavatory accommodation have had to be build upon the restricted space where they have had their hard playgrounds.
I want to illustrate that by reference to my own constituency. Stoke-on-Trent is an area of close concentration of factories, homes and schools. The factories are next door to the school playgrounds. The children in the schools have smoke pouring into their classrooms from the factories producing the pottery which is so valuable to the country.
Besides that, Stoke-on-Trent has very little space left for the provision of playing fields. It has many marl holes and spoil heaps from collieries and factories, and in my constituency almost every bit of playing space has gone. What is left is nothing more nor less than spoil heaps, places on which shawds, the term used for broken pottery and glass, are put as rubbish.
Stoke-on-Trent compares very unfavourably with other local authorities in playing field facilities. With a child population of more than 22,000, Stoke-on-Trent has 13 acres of playing fields, including the grammar school and all, which represents 0·6 acres per 1,000 child population. Wolverhampton has 16,250 children and 180 acres of playing fields, representing 11·8 acres per 1,000 children. Smethwick, a very much smaller local authority, has 6,300 children and 23 acres of playing fields. Also, Stoke-on-Trent does not own one cinder track or other large playing space for athletic training.
My local education authority has estimated that if it was to implement the 1944 Act in respect of playing fields it

611
would need 441 acres, and yet at present it has only 13 acres. There is not a single playing field in my constituency with the exception of one girls' grammar school and one secondary modern school. I have proposed to the Minister of Education that we should at least be allowed to make a beginning on the space which we call the Trubshaw Cross area.
This could not be called agricultural land by any stretch of the imagination. It is tucked away in the middle of factories, in a very densely populated area. It has on it colliery heaps, and much rubbish from the potteries has been deposited there. But the land belongs to the local education authority and there is, therefore, no question of having to purchase. What has to be done is to level the ground and make it safe for the children by removing the shawds, glass and refuse. The teachers in that area have, by their own effort, cleared one small Part, which has now been made available to some of the children.
This site is surrounded by 13 schools, with a child population of 4,400 between the ages of 7 and 15. With one exception, all those schools are old. Four have been blacklisted for many years, but none is likely to be replaced in the near future. To the pleas which are made on behalf of these 4,400 children the Minister repeatedly turns a deaf ear and says, "We are very sorry for you. We should like to help you, but we cannot do anything yet."
In the debate on education which took place on Monday last the Minister said that the question of painting and other measures for bringing schools up to date was a matter for local authorities. She said that she has asked Her Majesty's Inspectors to report to her any school or place where they think this is not being done. When she made that statement she was not thinking of playing fields, because she has completely shut them out ever since she decided to make economies on behalf of the Government.
I have here a report which was made in relation to Park Road School, which is in a mainly residential area of Stoke. It is the best building of the 13 schools, and at one time only middle class children attended it. Her Majesty's Inspector says:
612
"Facilities for organised games are inadequate The boys have only a small bare, sloping and uneven piece of land for football and a similar area for cricket. The school playgrounds are too small and slope too much for games and ball training. These conditions are thrown into relief by the absence of gymnasium, changing rooms, and showers in the school building."
Not one of those 13 schools, or many hundreds of other schools in the country, can ever hope to have a gymnasium or a shower.
Some of these 13 schools have very little playground space. Moorland Road, which is a girls' school with 1,067 pupils, has 0·6 acres of playing space. Middle-port, with less than 500 children, has 0·16 acres. High Street—a boys' school and a very good one—has 0·185 acres. I could go on giving figures for the rest of the 13 schools to show how little space there is, and how few facilities there are for training in athletics, football, cricket or netball. I was a teacher in one of those schools, and for years, when I wanted to give my class netball, I had to put dust upon a cinder tip in order to mark out the lines. If it was a windy day we had to imagine those lines.
The Minister may say she is not able to make a grant to cover the whole cost of making such playing fields as the one I have mentioned, but we ask her that she should at any rate see that we can make a beginning. If only we could make a beginning it would be an encouragement to the local authorities and to the teachers and to the children themselves, and it would encourage them themselves to do what they could to improve the facilities. My hon. Friend has already mentioned Eton and Harrow. It has been boasted many times that the history of this country was made on the playing fields of Eton. I am asking tonight that something should be done for the children who have no playing fields at all.
A fortnight ago we had the national athletic competitions at Ashington, and my own city for the first time brought back five firsts, and the two girls in my division who won a first were girls not in a secondary modern but in a grammar school where playing fields already exist. We in our city believe that we have a good football team in Port Vale. Port Vale and teams like that depend on the schools for future footballers. They

613
depend on the training that the schools are able to give.
One of the things in Monday's debate that caused me very great concern was the accusation made against some teachers. I thought it despicable that there were suggestions that some of our teachers did not measure up to the standards of those in the independent and public schools. There are hundreds and hundreds of teachers who give up every Saturday morning and many Saturday afternoons, and night after night, on behalf of their children in primary and secondary modern schools.
Mr. G. Thomas: And buy the equipment, too.
Mrs. Slater: Yes. Not content with spending all day in school they become the leaders and trainers of youth outside school hours in football and netball and athletics. Those teachers are making tremendous sacrifices for the children. Very often they give up their home life for the children. We are asking tonight that those teachers who make those sacrifices shall be given some encouragement from the answer to this debate.
The Prime Minister said not very long ago that it would be too bad if we could not do anything until we were able to do everything, and all that I am asking is that the Minister of Education should show a little human kindness, realise that she is responsible for not only the children in the new schools but for the hundreds of children who are condemned to spend their schooldays in bad schools, and from tonight make up her mind that she will relax some of the restrictions she imposed in Circular 245.
9.40 p.m.
Mr. Tom Brown: I want in a few words to reinforce the plea put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). The speeches to which we have listened have reflected the experience of my hon. Friends in their constituencies. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is here and I express my appreciation of the fact that he has come to the House to listen to our plea this evening.
I want to refer to my own experience. Before corning to the House I was chairman of a Part III education committee
614
for seven and a half years. That committee controlled 11 elementary schools, a school population of 4,020 and a teaching staff of 109. During my chairmanship I tried to make some provision for organised games for, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, organised games are included in the school curriculum; but it is no use having organised games in the school curriculum unless we have playing fields on which children can play those organised games.
As one who had a vision of what the situation ought to be, I made up my mind that we could not fulfil the meaning of the curriculum unless we had playing fields, and I said, "We will have a drive for playing fields." In making that drive to secure playing fields for the schools our problem was that we were unable to find the land. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, all around us were pit heaps and flashes. The moment we stepped on to good land we were told that we could not have it because it was required for agricultural purposes. I can understand the wisdom of that but the fact is that another Department—I must exempt the Parliamentary Secretary from this—failed to play its part in the restoration of that land and by its failure also prevented children from obtaining playing fields.
I want to support the claim by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that land is available in close proximity to the schools provided that the Departments responsible for the restoration of that land join with the Ministry of Education and spend a few thousand pounds on the land in order that it may be levelled, drained, and have soil added. It will then become a playing field.
During my chairmanship three new schools were built and in embarking on the building of those new schools one of the essential points which we had to consider was that playing fields should be connected with them and that sufficient land should be bought not only for the buildings but also for the playing fields in order that the children could enjoy organised games. We have a playing field with the Moss Lane Council School, with the Hindley Green Council School—the village in which I lived—and the Argyle Street Council School, but for the other eight schools there is not an inch of land which the children can use for organised games.

615
On behalf of those children I join with my hon. Friends in asking the Minister of Education and the other Departments concerned to get to work to provide playing fields. We must see to it that land which has now been long derelict—and we have some derelict land in my area—is properly used. This is land which is crying out to be put to good use by any sensible statesmen. They would not find it necessary to take agricultural land for the purpose of playing fields if they went the right way about it.
I think it is true to say, when examining the development by great industrial concerns which has taken place over the last 25 years, that they realise the importance of physical fitness and therefore they have provided playing fields and recreation clubs for their employees. I admire the great industrialists—and I help them in every possible way, as I have done recently in my own district—who see the importance of the physical fitness which results from the facilities which they have provided for their employees. That physical fitness is reflected in the factories and in the workshops. If it is essential that physical fitness should play an important part in productivity—and it is, provided that we do not swing the pendulum to the other extreme—then it is equally essential that the children at school should have the opportunity of taking part in organised games.
There is a lesson to be drawn from this. Is it too late in the day to make champion runners, too late to make good footballers, too late to make good cricketers? What we want to do, in the words of an old Lancashire collier, is to "catch 'em young and train 'em in the direction they should go."
I have often said—and I hope I shall not be misunderstood—that there appears to be a strong line of demarcation between the non-industrial areas and the industrial areas. I am pleading for the same vision and the same drive to provide facilities for the boys and girls in the industrial areas as are given at Eton, Harrow, Winchester and other places. I admire the school authorities for providing those facilities. Every time I go near those places, I stand and admire what has been done. While I have admiration for what has been done, I ask myself the question: Why should they
616
enjoy all these facilities which are denied to the children of the industrial workers?
I say that it is essential that there should be a drive in this direction. I know that it means "brass." I am fond of using that word, which is a Lancashire word for money. I know that it means money, and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that large expenditure on capital investment, etc., will not allow it. We are always getting that story. Almost every time we plead for some improvements for the industrial workers, we get the cry, "We cannot afford it." But we can afford it. I pay tribute to the great work which has been done by many of the voluntary organisations, which have been referred to by my hon. Friends, in raising money by voluntary efforts in order that the children may enjoy organised games in proper surroundings and with proper facilities.
I recall the battle which I had in 1925 and 1926 with the Department which the Parliamentary Secretary now represents. When I advocated shower baths at the school in my village, those in authority were up in arms against me and said that they could not afford it. That was at a time when practically 99 per cent. of the cottages in the village had no bathing facilities whatever. I fought the matter with the President of the Board of Education and finally the concession was yielded to me. People said to me that the children did not want baths, but after organised games on the playing fields they do need them. They want to enjoy the same facilities as are given to universities and colleges.
I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to see that his Department does not try to cut these things down. After all, on whom do we depend for the future? It is to the children now passing through our hands that we must turn. They only pass this way once. It is our job to see that as they are passing this way proper facilities are given to them, so that they may enjoy the full fruits of organised games and fit themselves for the tasks which the nation will call upon them to do when they grow up.
9.52 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Swingler: As a representative of the county of Staffordshire, I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and

617
my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). We from North Staffordshire try to operate as a team in this House. We admire the teams in our constituencies and we try to emulate them.
We are proud of Port Vale because we realise the hazards and obstacles that that team had to overcome in comparison with some of the favourably placed clubs. We admire men like John Ikin, who comes from a small mining village in my constituency and has risen to the top rank of cricketing in this country. Therefore, those of us from North Staffordshire make no apology for raising the urgent question of providing the children, particularly in great industrial areas, with much better facilities for physical education.
The Ministry of Education should recognise that in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire it has two of the most progressive educational authorities in the country, two education authorities which since the war have been endeavouring with might and main to alter the situation over which they have control in order to provide genuinely equal opportunities for physical and mental education for the children of their areas.
But those education authorities have a terrible inheritance. The city which my two hon. Friends represent has less than 20 per cent. of grammar school places in proportion to the total secondary school places in what is a large industrial area. We have a terrible inheritance of old, archaic and dilapidated schools in which facilities are cribbed and constricted.
That is why we in Staffordshire have put forward to the Ministry projects for comprehensive schools, not because we believe in the comprehensive school as a shibboleth of Socialism, but because we believe it is the only solution to getting rid of the 11-plus examination and the selection tests and providing equal opportunities. But we consider that we have not had a fair deal from the Ministry of Education.
The Ministry of Education has refused to approve the Staffordshire development plan for providing better school facilities in this way, and we have had to fight every inch to provide these better educational opportunities. The moratorium
618
on educational building, which was one of the first steps of the present Government, meant the loss of 1,000 primary school places in the Staffordshire education plan of 1951–52.
Having said that, I want to say straightaway that I recognise one of the difficulties of the Ministry of Education in an area such as North Staffordshire in providing the additional space that is required if the children are to have, together with their school buildings, playing fields and space for physical recreation. I know that, because in my constituency we have trouble over every inch of ground that is required for housing purposes. That is because my constituency, like those of some of my hon. Friends, is subject to mining subsidence. So much of the land is sterilised and unusable for anything between five and 20 years because the mineral valuer says that subsidence is likely to occur through coalmining operations.
That makes much more difficult the building of houses and schools and the provision of space for all sorts of purposes. Large quantities of land are written off for the time being. The result is the attempt to encroach upon agricultural land, and I recognise straight away the agricultural case. Every inch of ground that can be preserved for food production is required, and we have got to be as economical as possible in the use of ground.
One of the results in constituencies like mine is that school buildings are much more expensive. Some of the schools have to be erected on rafts because they are built on land that is subject to mining subsidence, and to try to avoid the damage that mining subsidence may cause in future, one is compelled to resort to the method of building houses and schools upon these rafts, which is very expensive. That involves an additional burden on the local education authority, and also, of course, in the form of grants from the Ministry of Education.
That brings me to the point which has been emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). Side by side with this situation, we have acres of land particularly in these great industrial areas and coalmining areas which are derelict. There is a lot of land in my constituency where small mining operations have been carried out. Sometimes

619
the land is left in a shocking condition, with its mounds, pit heaps, slag and devastation. Anybody who has travelled through Staffordshire in a train, particularly through the Black Country of South Staffordshire, will know that acres of land have been devastated by industrial operations. They are left derelict although we are up against a land shortage, and when we demand more land in order to provide homes for the people or better schools or playing fields for the children, we are told that there is a shortage of sites. This is because we will not provide the funds to reclaim these large areas of devastated land. There lies the solution of this problem.
If a complete survey were to be undertaken of all this derelict land, we would find that there is sufficient not only to provide for those things I have mentioned, but also to enable the Minister of Education to provide playing fields near the sites on which are built the older schools which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, suffer from constricted facilities.
This therefore, is no insoluble problem. The question is, who will take the initiative in reclaiming the derelict land; who will provide the funds so that the children of these industrial areas may have those open spaces which are easily available for children in areas that have not been devastated by large scale industrialisation? This must be done if they are to exercise the talents which they have already displayed in soccer clubs like that of Port Vale, and so contribute their talents to the sport of the country.
10.3 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: My hon. Friends have rendered a service to the children of this country by raising this important question. I know they have raised it as a constituency matter and it so happens that I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) on Sunday last. I have never seen so much smoke in my life as I saw in Longton on Sunday, and my sympathy goes out to people who have to live in such conditions. Therefore, my hon. Friends are to be congratulated on having brought forward this question tonight.
620
I have got up to speak because the National Union of Teachers is profoundly interested and concerned in this question. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that the Minister has received deputation after deputation from the teaching profession asking for reconsideration of the matter of playing fields. The T.U.C. has joined with the teaching profession, and we find that the whole of the organised workers of Great Britain are making a request to the Ministry to change their priorities.
I believe that our priorities are wrong and that our emphasis is in the wrong place in modern society. We are trying to cure juvenile delinquents when they reach the courts and we might avoid delinquency if we provided more playing fields such as those for which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South asked, though I am not suggesting that the delinquency figures are any higher in his area—probably they are lower. It is the considered opinion of the teaching profession that in the overcrowded areas of this country the lack of playing space is one of the prime causes of juvenile delinquency.
I ask the Minister whether he can hold out any hope that Circular 245 is to be amended if it is not to be withdrawn. Surely we are not to go on for ever saying that we have no more money to spend on this provision. We are refusing expenditure on the physical training of our young people at a time when the numbers of young people in the schools are increasing rapidly. This is a matter of major concern and I am glad to support my hon. Friends.
10.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): I am grateful to the hon. Members who have spoken for the tone in which the debate has been conducted and the reasonableness and moderation with which points have been put. Nobody will suppose that at this stage I am really going to come down like a fairy godmother in the last act and distribute what is wanted. The most useful thing that I can do is to make sure that everything that has been said today is fully understood and digested in the Department, and that I will do.

621
I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) for his kind words to me. He will know that by no fault of anybody's I am 24 hours ahead of schedule and to speak from one's brief on this kind of thing 24 hours ahead is not always very easy. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will forgive me if on the details I appear to be less well informed than I hope I sometimes put up some kind of pretence of being. I am very sorry indeed that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) should have been pushed back in the queue in order to enable us to come in today.
Mr. de Freitas: Since I have heard the debate, I have had no regrets whatsoever.
Mr. Pickthorn: Without appearing to do what would be even worse than reflect on the Chair, and that is compliment the Chair, it was nobody's fault and none of us was trying to get in the hon. Member's way.
If I can begin with some of the things about which I agree with most speakers, I should like to say that, like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I also have had a great deal to do with scientists, and especially with the best scientists. I quite agree with him that English scientists are better than other scientists, and I also agree that Englishmen are better than other men and a great deal better than other men, except the very best Scotsmen and Welshmen. I also agree with the hon. Member about the value of health, which indeed, after a tough conscience, is the most valuable thing in the world. I agree about the natural relation of sport and exercise to health.
I do not think that the hon. Member was quite fair in attributing complacency on this matter to my right hon. Friend or to Ministers in general, or in attributing to us the responsibility for having been beaten by the Hungarians. I have no doubt that if my right hon. Friend or I had taken a hand or placed a foot, the results would have been different, but in fact we were not invited.
I will try a little later on to indicate what seem to be the nature of our responsibilities. I think that the hon. Member perhaps drew them a bit wide. He quoted from the "Daily Express"
622
and I was almost tempted to quote from the "Daily Express," but I think that I will not.
Mr. de Freitas: It is gone.
Mr. Pickthorn: No, I have not lost it. It is here somewhere, but on the whole I will not, because I am quite certain that somebody would say that I said what it says, and I should hate to run that risk; but I invite the hon. Member to look at the "Daily Express" for 27th November, and after that he will find it a little difficult to quote it as an authority for his view in this matter.
We all know that the hon. Member, like me, has been an infantryman and we all know how the bayonet-fighting officer thinks that nothing matters except bayonet fighting. People whose special interest and business is physical training and especially ball games are a little apt, sometimes, to exaggerate the importance of ball games. I thought the hon. Member was guilty of some exaggeration when he seemed almost to think that it would be rather better if we had lost a couple of wars and won an international football match than the other way round.
The hon. Member spoke of "if Britain is to remain great and make the contribution our history deserves"—I suppose "our history" is a shorthand phrase for 600 years of Tory misrule—but I do not believe football is all that important. Fond as I was of playing it and as I am of watching it, I think it is possible to overdo it. I think it possible to overdo the argument that when Hotspur are in winning vein output goes up at St. Albans, because some other side—it might even be Port Vale—are in losing vein and output is going down there. On that argument I do not think it really worth while to have football matches at all: we might go on having output on the level, and let it go at that.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Call it a draw.
Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member will not think it part of my responsibility to try to get taxation reduced, nor would other hon. Members think it part of my responsibility to deal with subsidence—a problem with which I am also familiar from a constituency point of view. I do not think these are things I can do anything about.

623
More than one hon. Member spoke about extensions of the Acts and increased expenditure under them. I do not think it would be expected that I could answer on those things in any kind of detail, but I will try to indicate what seems to be essential about this matter. First, I hope no one will suppose that either my right hon. Friend or I am less concerned about children or less convinced that it is a good thing for children to take exercise—always, one hopes, under rather remote and tenuous guidance—in the open air. There is really nothing between the two sides of this House on those points.
Secondly, some hon. Members may remember Mr. Kipling's story about how World Government came—the setting up of an institution which was to look after communications, and how, since in fact we cannot do anything without communications, the Board of Communications very gradually became the super-Government and everything else, and so we got World Government. It has not happened that way yet, but the arguments of some hon. Members opposite were almost on that assumption—which I have heard even from the highest ecclesiastical authorities—that anything that makes any impression on the mind or body of the human being is educative and, therefore, is education. If we started using "education" in that way, the Minister of Education would become a sort of super Pooh-Bah, and there would be no need for any other Ministries at all, which in many ways would simplify administration. It seems to me, no doubt from a rather selfish point of view, that the number of debates in the last two or three days have rather tended to support that assumption.
What are the more or less direct and real responsibilities of the Ministry of Education in this business of fostering physical fitness? First, and much the most important, are the schools. I will make sure that the constituency points which have been put in the debate are looked at very carefully by those who are most administratively interested. I do not think that anyone who spoke from the other side of the House pretended that everything had been right about these things until about three years ago, and that everything had gone wrong since, so we need not stop to argue about faults of that sort. Also,
624
to a lesser extent—it is only because the population is less—the establishments for further education—these and the schools are first responsibilities; and in these what can be done by central direction will be done to see that games are properly organised, etc.
Incidentally I may say about the Battle of Waterloo, when "it was won on the playing fields of Eton"—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I agree with the hon. Member but he ought to have been in the House earlier—on the playing fields of Eton or wherever it was won, the point was that the games were wholly unorganised. The boys themselves made up their minds and did the whole thing—made up their own rules and all the rest of it. It is not a very good example to use in this argument on either side.
Even in this matter of physical education and games-playing, etc., in schools, my right hon. Friend is not solely responsible. These things are closely watched by local education authorities through their organisers and inspectors, and by Her Majesty's Inspectors. I think it is fair to say, and I have made it my business as much as I could, in a very short time, to cross-examine, that they are quite enthusiastic and quite determined to do their best about the matter.
Under Sections 41 and 53 of the Education Act, 1944, there is power to provide facilities for physical training and recreation—for instance playing fields, to give an obvious instance—where that is not appurtenant—I hope that is the correct legal term—or appendant to a particular school. That is a second responsibility.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend, in her Ministerial capacity, does, in direct grants to national voluntary associations, support projects which are outside the concern of any particular area or even of L.E.A.s in general. She makes a substantial grant to the Central Council for Physical Recreation, which I think selects and directs the coaching of which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South spoke. For similar purposes she also makes direct grants to the Hockey Association, the Fencing Association and two or three other organisations.
These are the direct and specific responsibilities about which, with the indulgence of the House, it is necessary for me

625
to say something. All the rest is really past my competence, and even if I had briefed myself better than I have done it would not be appropriate for me to discuss it more than by way of reference or illustration. I very much welcomed what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said about the good work done by voluntary organisations in this connection. I hope he knows—I believe that what I am about to say is mutual—that the Ministers, officials in the Department and inspectors are on the best of terms with these associations and I think I may fairly say that esteem is mutual.
If he will forgive me for saying so, I cannot think him right—although almost always do think him right—in the importance he attaches, especially in relation to the Ministry for which I am speaking, to these great international events. In France, a country which I know well, there have in recent years been attempts, largely helped by André Gobert, whom some people may remember as a great lawn tennis player, and others, to organise games and open-air activities, camping and so on, largely on the English model. I do not know so much about Germany, but so far as I have been able to hear about them, and from what I have observed in France, I do not believe it is true, as was suggested—perhaps unintentionally—by several hon. Members, that this country is doing less than other countries in the encouragement of children and young people in some kind of outdoor activities or in learning to play some sort of game.
I do not believe that we should find it a good exchange if we did less of that and more of just producing two or three people who could beat the world in a particular sport. I remember some years ago André Gobert in a conversation with me said something which might be considered paradoxical by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but which he stuck to, despite the arguments of other experts who were present: it was then the time when the French were winning everything at Wimbledon, and he said the reason was because there were so few Frenchmen who played lawn tennis. In France, the moment a person was out of the kindergarten stage, he was invited to play with better players and was pushed on. So that anyone with more than average aptitude—certainly in the textile towns of the North-East and in Paris and Lyons
626
and one or two other large towns— went on and on. In England, on the contrary, a player might be good enough to get in his college six, but not into his university side. But he would be perfectly happy in that position because there would be thousands of other people at a similar level. I do not believe that anyone would think it a good thing to change that sort of goodness among a great number of people, in order to try to improve a few.
I am fortified in that belief by a sentence which I came across by chance and which was spoken a few years ago. It refers to the then Minister of Education,
"His first objective, however, is the development to the full of each person's physical potentialities and not the fostering of success at competitive games. … I should have thought it was much more important to raise the general standard of physical culture and athletics than to cultivate specialism."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2031.]
I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with that sentiment expressed by their leader when he was Prime Minister and speaking in defence of the then Minister of Education. I do not think there is any party opinion about this. We all agree that it is the right line to take. Annoyed as we may be when we see headlines in the evening newspapers—"England ruined"—we must not allow our actions to be governed by that impulse.
Mr. Spencer Summers: May I remind my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Pickthorn: "Right" but not "honourable."
Mr. Summers: —that in the context of what he has just been saying, and despite the sentiments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, an hon. Gentleman opposite did contrive to beat the chess world champion the other day.
Mr. Pickthorn: I agree. This would take me too far, although on the Motion we are discussing perhaps anything is in order: I could go on for a long time if my audience would stay. I throw it out by the way that most of the best and most important things in life are in fact by-products. This may well be one of the things where, if we give the maximum number of people a chance in this respect, we get a by-product of excellence, which is of much greater value than what we should get by aiming directly at the first level of excellence.

627
On the question of further organisation, these things can be over-organised. Anybody who has been at the Ministry of Education, however grateful and respectful he may be for all the advisory councils and all the rest of it that there are, must hesitate before being anxious to see any more organisations. In this connection we have the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which is a co-ordinating organisation representing something over 100 national bodies and which performs very great services to my right hon. Friend and to the nation. In particular, it is running courses at Lilleshall and Bisham Abbey. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has left: I do not reproach him for that, but I hoped to get a cheer at this point by saying that a similar course is now to be run for Wales. I have forgotten exactly where.
Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) is not the only Welshman in the House. May I say on behalf of the Principality that I am delighted to hear that news?
Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that they will continue to be vociferous in the right direction.
Now I come to the difficult part—the part which everybody knows is always the difficult part of this argument. Reference has been made to the limitations on the development of playing fields in Circular 245. Generally people say "with every respect" when they are about to say something extremely disrespectful, just as when people begin by saying "frankly" they do not say what cads they are but what a cad you are; but with every respect to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown)—and he knows quite well that it is with every respect—it will not quite do to say that I should not say "that we have not got the money," because we have heard that before. I am always very glad when I can debate with the hon. Gentleman because it is always a fair debate and I Always enjoy it. He has brought up children and if, the second time he said that to one of his children, he had been told that it would not do any longer because he had said it once before, he would have taken a very poor view indeed of that retort.
628
Leaving all partisanship out of it, we all know that we thought that we were in a great economic and financial fix three years ago. I suppose almost all of us know that we might think so again in three months' time, but I think that that is less and less likely, touching wood and so on. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not always remember, but at times of crisis their spokesmen admit—and I could make quotations if there were time—that we really cannot treat our internal expenditure and our external expenditure separately and suppose that they do not affect each other. Every time we spend anything on something internal, without getting a short-term increase in productivity out of it, we tend to diminish the value of all the shillings in everybody else's pockets. This used to be difficult economics which I did not understand when I was an undergraduate, but we all understand it now.
The fact is—and hon. Gentlemen opposite know it as well as my right hon. Friend does—that, at the time when the circular was issued, in one way or another economic expenditure would inevitably have been very much reduced, but if something had not been done, it would have been reduced by the continuing—and it would have been the quickening—process of the pound losing a pennyworth of value every month. All sorts of things had to be done, and this was one of the things that had to be done.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may be quite certain that no Minister can be responsible for the Ministry of Education without being very anxious that as soon as that can be undone it should be undone, and very anxious also that if it cannot be undone, it should at any rate be allowed to be a rule with exceptions. As to drawing a line for the sake of argument—although I must not be taken to be admitting that Stoke-on-Trent is the most deserving place in the world—everybody would, of course, wish that things there should be improved as soon as it is possible to do so, with proper regard to other Departments and to overall national decisions.
Everybody will understand that I am necessarily under the limitation which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South elicited when he questioned the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 1st April, when he was told that there must be some consistency of policy in these matters and

629
that, in view of the continued need for economy in public expenditure, his right hon. Friend could not at present consider the proposals which the hon. Member was then suggesting, which were on the lines of those which he suggested tonight. Everybody will understand that I must necessarily be under that limitation.
As to what can be done about playing fields even within this limitation, there are a few things that I could say. There is a little more that I might say, but not very much more, for this debate was supposed to take an hour and we have been about two hours. One thing that I should say is that new schools are going up on the new housing estates, and it is the new schools that are getting the playing fields, and on the whole those are probably the places where it is most necessary to provide them. We are, so to speak, putting down new settlements in the wilds, and the provision of playing fields in such circumstances is a good thing so far as it goes.
If any places where there are difficulties are brought to our attention, we will certainly consider them in the most careful way, but there have sometimes been difficulties about getting land, even on new estates. Where co-operation between housing and education authorities is not perfect, we do our best to put that right, and we shall certainly continue to do our best to put it right.
I have a certain amount of technical stuff here about arranging how to make the best use of an acre and so on, but I imagine that hon. Gentlemen will feel that I have perhaps given as full an answer as in all the circumstances was possible. I hope we have had a useful debate, and I assure the House that every attention that can be paid to it—hon. Members will understand that I can give away nothing absolute—will be paid to it.
Mr. T. Brown: We appreciate the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman is placed, but I should like to put a point to him. He referred to the new schools which are being built, and we all admire the Department for what it is doing in that direction, but can he and his Department do something for the old schools which were neglected many years ago? I know that they cannot do everything at once, but it would be foolish to do
630
nothing at all for those schools just because the Department cannot do everything.
Mr. Pickthorn: I think it is understood that as soon as it begins to become possible to get capital resources for doing something which is not providing schools where otherwise there would be no schools, what the hon. Gentleman suggests will become possible and will be considered with every favourable predisposition.

LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: Over 20 years ago, as an undergraduate at Cambridge, it was my experience to listen to lectures given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I must say that I found his lectures, if more informative, never as interesting as I found his speech during the last quarter of an hour or 20 minutes tonight.
Mr. Pickthorn: It is a long-term action. It is the intellectual improvement communicated by my lectures that makes possible the hon. Gentleman's appreciation now.
Mr. de Freitas: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be equally successful in sowing the seed in the mind of the Minister of Education, so that she may be able to appreciate the importance of playing fields in schools. I spent a couple of years living in a boys' club in the East End of London, where I took the boys in various games and sports nearly every evening and every weekend, and where the question of excelling was not the point. What mattered was that it gave the boys real, healthy pleasure if they could get on to an ordinary playing field. It is of that that we should be thinking, rather than whether we should be able to beat the Hungarian football team.
The point I want to raise is more restricted; it is limited to my constituency. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to 600 years of—as be said hon. Members on this side of the House would say—"Tory misrule." I shall not go into that tonight, but I must point out

631
that for 700 years Members of Parliament have been coming here from Lincoln and complaining, as is their duty. I do not know what they complained about for the first 600 years, but I know that during the last 100 they have complained about the level crossings. It so happened that when railways were built there was a great deal of complaint about them. An hon. Member of the time—Colonel Sibthorpe, who represented Lincoln—was a great complainer. He complained about the danger public libraries would be. He complained about foreigners who came here for the 1851 Exhibition, and spoke of the danger they would be not only to the country as a whole but to the maidservants, daughters, silver and forks and knives of hon. Members. He took a poor view of everything which was reckoned at the time as progress; and especially he complained about railways.
He was caricatured in "Punch" in 1844, and shown attacking a railway engine with a lance, mounted like Don Quixote. He hated railways. It is recorded somewhere that he disliked railways like the Devil, until, in his last years, he compounded with the Devil and took a return ticket to Grantham. He disliked the railways so much that he refused to have any truck with them. But the railways came to Lincoln and laid their tracks right across the High Street. I do not know how true it is, but I have read that the City Council at the time was somewhat alarmed about it and sent its town clerk to interview the railway promoters. He was told that there would be only one or two trains a day, and he went home and told the council that there would be no trouble about it. So today, we have these level crossings, as so often happens, and everyone blames the town clerk and the Member of Parliament—of 100 years ago.
It is such a problem in Lincoln that the City Council has a special committee —the Level Crossings Committee. Anyone who has served on a corporation knows that there are certain committees in which the new boys or the very old boys are put because there is nothing much to do and it keeps them quiet and happy. But so important is this problem to the citizens of Lincoln that the Level Crossings Committee is presided over by the Leader of the Council—the most dis-
632
tinguished citizen of Lincoln, a man who was my opponent two Elections ago—Alderman Hill, the leader of the non-Labour majority on the City Council. At its last meeting it had two Labour aldermen on it; Alderman Snook, the leader of the Labour group, and Alderman Rayment. There was also a distinguished non-Labour councillor, Councillor Bell. Clearly, it is one of the most important committees of the Council.
What is the nature of the problem? The problem is this. Lincoln is divided into two halves. Half the city is on a hill, where are the cathedral and much of the residential area. In the olden days it was almost the only residential part. Down in the plain is the industrial area. The two halves are joined by two streets, but the High Street is the principal one and it is cut and cut again by the railway. The gates of the principal level crossing are closed for 3 hours 18 minutes in the 12 hours between 7.15 a.m. and 7.15 p.m.
That was the estimate after a survey two years ago. That is the highest figure —for Mondays. The Tuesday figure is 2 hours 40 minutes. That is the lowest daily figure. These figures are two years old and are today nearer 4 hours a day. Four hours a day the High Street of Lincoln, which joins the northern and southern parts of the city, is cut in this way. And, of course, not only is the amount of time the road is closed a source of inconvenience; so are the stopping and restarting of the vehicles.
Why must the problem be solved? We are an industrial city; the roads are part of the industrial conveyor belt; and this conveyor belt is broken every few minutes by the gates being closed. Lincoln is not only an industrial city, but is the capital of the second largest and most prosperous agricultural county in England. It stands a good chance of being the first permanent site of the Royal Show, because Lincoln is halfway between North and South and is a fine city in a great agricultural county. I think it still stands a chance of becoming the permanent seat of the Royal Show, but one of the things that counts against it is the level crossing problem.
Sir John Barlow: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us on what authority he makes that suggestion about the Royal Show?
Mr. de Freitas: I welcome discussion of it. I have seen some correspondence in the farming papers about it. [Interruption.] I confess that one of the letters was from me. I am throwing that out as a suggestion. I have heard it discussed and at Windsor recently I overheard some favourable comments on this proposal. I lose no opportunity of advertising Lincoln as a good site.
Lincoln is a touring centre: the cathedral, the Glory Hole, the Carholme, the Roman remains, attract coachloads of tourists from all over the world. But they have to spend much of their time looking at the oldest rolling stock in Britain and the trains which pass and repass across the main street of the city. Industry, agriculture and tourists are important but above all it is on behalf of the ordinary citizens of Lincoln I am pleading, the men and women who live and work there. Why, because of a mistake made 100 years ago, should their lives be made intolerable by this obstruction across the main artery of the city?
What is the solution? The first step is to see that the level crossing is operated in the most efficient way; that is to say, that the police are alert in moving the traffic on as soon as the gates are up, and that the railwaymen close the gates no longer than is necessary. I have investigated both those operations. I am satisfied that the police do everything they can. I am satisfied too that the railwaymen, on the whole, do everything they can.
Some of the problems are not realised by the ordinary citizen. He does not appreciate that the railwayman closing the gates must take account of a train or engine which is some way away. There may be a gap between two trains. A train cannot start or pull up as easily as an omnibus. Therefore, the gates might appear to be closed longer than is necessary.
But the major problem remains the need for the Ministry of Transport to get busy and attempt a solution. My complaint is of lack of interest in the Ministry. On 23rd February this year, during the passage of the British Transport Commission Bill, I intervened for a few minutes and drew the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the need for capital expenditure by the railways to relieve the level crossings at Lincoln. I did not expect an answer then because
634
I had not given notice of the point, but I have not even had any kind of communication subsequently from the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I have not left any letter from the hon. Member unanswered, have I?
Mr. de Freitas: No. That was a speech which I made, and I was followed by the hon. Gentleman. As he did not reply to me then I assumed that he would, as I did in both Departments I was in, go through the debate, find out what points were not covered, and write to say what had been done. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman has left any letter of mine unanswered but I had expected a letter from him.
This letter, dated yesterday, from the Town Clerk of the City of Lincoln, shows how the Ministry have behaved.
"My Council are anxious to get on with the erection of the bridge across the 'Durham Ox' level crossing."
That would alleviate the situation and do a great deal of good.
"Application was made to the Ministry of Transport as far back as Jury, 1951, for the approval to the appointment of consulting engineers. This approval, with consent to the appointment of consulting architects, was received on 13th July, 1954."
That is, three years later. Three years delay.
"My Council are now pressing forward with all the necessary preliminary work."
The Ministry of Transport has shown itself extremely reluctant to help in any way to solve this problem. At the time that the Ministry took over civil aviation, I protested in the House that it was in danger of making our great air corporations into branch lines of British Railways. My protest tonight is much more serious, because the Ministry appears to regard Lincoln as some village on Emmett's "Oyster Creek—Great Tottering" line. Lincoln is a proud and important city, and will not stand for that.
10.49 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I have listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) on the question of level

635
crossings in Lincoln. I am sorry that this problem has been outstanding for so long, but when the hon. Member rose to raise the matter tonight I thought that perhaps it would be to express appreciation of what the Ministry is now doing to meet the wishes of the ancient city which he represents. But it seems that the hon. Member is not wholly satisfied.
Mr. de Freitas: I am not at all satisfied.
Mr. Molson: Indeed the last few sentences of his speech indicated that he was in a critical mood.
Before the war, there was a plan for dealing with the general problem of level crossings in Lincoln. Lincoln is unfortunate in that it has three level crossings. Two of these are in the High Street and one is in Pelham Street. Before the war there was an ambitious scheme for a general by-pass around all the level crossings, and a grant had been promised in 1938; but, because of the outbreak of war, that promise had to be cancelled.
During the war the City Council gave further consideration to the questions of the level crossings. In 1946, they put forward proposals to my predecessor at that time, who was a Member of the hon. Gentleman's party. At once, agreement in principle was expressed by the Ministry of Transport to those proposals which were of a much more modest nature. Instead of the costly general by-pass scheme it was accepted that the two crossings in the High Street would have to remain for an indefinite period. The City Council has made no proposals for altering the level crossings to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the early part of his speech. The scheme which it has put forward deals with the level crossing in Pelham Street.
Mr. de Freitas: That may be literally correct, but by having a bridge the traffic could go through, and a good deal less inconvenience would be caused in the High Street.
Mr. Molson: Exactly; that was the point I was coming to. While it would not be geometrically correct to describe Pelham Street as being parallel to the High Street—by the help of connecting streets they meet at both ends—it is nearly parallel with it. Traffic through
636
the city from north or south can leave the direct route and pass along Pelham Street past the "Durham Ox" level crossing and on to the two great traffic roads leaving Lincoln for the north or north-east.
The proposal put forward in 1946 by the City Council, and accepted by my Socialist predecessor provided for a bridge to be built in Pelham Street. It was then accepted as being a reasonably practical measure which might be taken in the foreseeable future to deal with the problems which the hon. Gentleman has raised tonight. Both during the time of the Socialist Government, and in the 2½ years that this Government has been in office, there have been such limitations on financial and economic resources as to make it necessary for there to be something very much like an embargo on schemes of that kind. As a result of the new programme announced by my right hon. Friend on 8th December last year we have now been able to look forward to a time in the not too remote future when this bridge in Lincoln can be built.
Ever since 1946 the City Council has been asking for two things. It has been asking for the approval of the appointment of consulting engineers in order to make the plans and prepare the specifications for the building of this bridge, and it has also been asking for the announcement of a date when the work could be begun.
It was at the beginning of this present month that we were able to agree to the appointment of consulting engineers, and it was for that reason that I thought that, in contrast with what usually happens when hon. Members raise matters on the Consolidated Fund Bill, the hon. Member for Lincoln would have come here this evening to express his gratitude for the fact that after this long period we have been able to give our approval and agree that the time has now come for the consulting engineers to prepare plans in accordance with the proposals that were put forward in 1946 by the City Council.
I am sorry that I cannot say now exactly when the work can be begun, but we do recognise that this is a matter of great urgency, and we hope that it can be fitted into the new programme in the comparatively near future; but we have now at last been able to agree to the plans being drawn and the specifications

637
being prepared, and I hope, therefore, that both the hon. Gentleman and the ancient city that he represents will feel that after their patience during 100 years, a substantial step forward has now been taken.

LIMBLESS EX-SERVICE MEN
10.57 p.m.
Dr. Horace King: May I say at the outset of this short debate that I am almost disarmed by the generosity of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance who very kindly, at very short notice, has come to reply to the grievance that I wish to raise tonight.
Nevertheless, I want to protest against the failure of the Government to do anything for the disabled ex-Service men. It would be unfair, in this debate, to raise the general issue which I have raised before in the House, of the failure of the Government to do something in this year's Budget for the old-age pensioners, the persons living on fixed incomes, widows and ex-Service men. That has been dealt with recently and adequately in a debate on a Motion moved by the Opposition. I want to raise the specific grievance of the failure of the Government to raise the basic rate of pension for the disabled ex-Service men, and particularly the claim of the ageing limbless ex-Service men.
By ageing limbless I mean one who lost a leg or arm, or part of a leg or arm, or both, in the First World War. There are now alive about 23,000 of some 45,000 heroes who made that sacrifice in the war. If the general debate on pensions that we had the other day was a party debate, I want to make a non-party plea this evening, because some of us try to keep the question of ex-Service men a non-party one. During the last two years we have repeatedly pressed the claim of the limbless ex-Service man. There is an all-party committee of hon. Members interested in the disabled ex-Service men. This committee has met the Minister seven times, and I must say that on each occasion the Minister has been kindness itself, has listened very patiently, and we have received each time the same polite but unsatisfactory answer.
I am here tonight to say, on behalf of the all-party committee, and certainly on behalf of the disabled ex-Service men,
638
that fine words butter no parsnips, and that it is time the disabled soldier had some practical help. Not only have we met the Minister seven times, but we debated this issue in the House on 6th November, 1952, and on 8th February, 1954. Still nothing has happened. The British Limbless Ex-Service Mens' Association has repeatedly, courteously and reasonably pressed on the Minister of Pensions the claims I advance tonight. The general reply of the Minister on pensions matters in the recent debate was, "Wait for the quinquennial review."
Many of us believe that the pensioners should not have to wait—they need an increase now. The special reply of the Minister to the claims of the disabled ex-Service men was, "Wait for the report of the Rock Carling Committee." In case the Minister feels that I am not treating him fairly, I will quote from the letter which I have recently received from him in common with other Members of the All-Party Committee:
"On existing medical advice I have no grounds for discriminating between the elderly limbless or badly wounded and other elderly and other seriously disabled pensioners.…I have stressed on a number of occasions the desirability of deferring a final conclusion on this question of the ageing pensioner until the results of the further investigations of the Rock Carling Committee are known. I sincerely hope that the report we are all waiting for will be available in the not too distant future and that it will be reassuring to the limbless and other badly wounded."
The Rock Carling Committee is a very important medical committee which is doing work not only of national, but of international importance. It is investigating whether a man who gave a limb in the war will pay more in ill-health as the years go on for the sacrifice that he made. The All-Party Committee, the Minister and every medical man is hoping and praying that the result of this scientific investigation will show that a person's heart and lungs are not affected because he has lost a limb and that there is no reason for limbless ex-Service men to fear old age in that way. But whatever the medical testimony may be, we still demand an extra allowance for the ageing limbless ex-Service man.
The case which we are putting repeatedly to the Minister is that the ordinary disabilities and discomforts and handicaps of old age become more grievous in the case of a person who has lost a limb. The men of the 1914–18

639
war could face the disability of being without a limb at first because they had the resilience of youth to carry them through the sort of sacrificial life they had to lead. As they become older that burden becomes more insistent, more onerous.
B.L.E.S.M.A. and the All-Party Committee have been asking the Government for two years to give a special comforts allowance to the limbless ex-Service men of the First World War to compensate for the increasing loss of amenities with increasing years. I had the privilege of attending the annual conference of B.L.E.S.M.A. a few weeks ago. There, I made what I hope we shall always make in the case of ex-Service men—a nonparty speech. The day has long passed when we want a party battle on the claims of ex-Service men.
At the conference there were men from two world wars, and limbless men from every part of the country. It was the most restrained conference that I have ever attended and the most dignified. There was no whining from the ex-Service men. If they groused, it was in the tone that they groused in former days when the officer came round and asked, "Any complaints?" It was good healthy British grousing. The most remarkable feature of the conference was that the limbless ex-Service men there made their most passionate pleas on behalf of other men who were too seriously disabled to be present.
That conference, I could not help feeling, had a sense of disappointment. It was disappointed because it felt that the claims for an increase in the basic rate expressed with moderate reasonableness and advocated for the last two years had been turned down by this House. I tried to explain the great gratitude this House always shows for our war heroes, but it was very difficult to persuade them that we do feel that gratitude when, time after time a simple and modest request is turned down. So, conference went on record as saying that the time had come for their claim for an amenity allowance should not be tied up with the Rock Carling Report, and it was resolved
"That this Conference notes with profound regret the long delays in reaching a decision on the investigations carried out since July, 1950, by the Rock Carling Committee into the long-term effects of amputations on the lives of limbless war pensioners;"
640
and it further protested, in a resolution, that
"… the long delays on the part of the Ministry of Pensions in reaching a decision on B.L.E.S.M.A.'s claim for a special allowance for the aging limbless pensioners of the 1914–18 war, additional to the fixed assessments for amputations laid dawn in the 1919 Royal Warrant, to compensate for the added burden and discomfort of artificial limbs and consequential loss of amenities and activities of everyday life."
Since then, we have again seen the Minister and, for the seventh time, we had a refusal by the Minister to grant, not the broad increases in pensions for which this Government thinks that we must wait in order to have the scientific information from the quinquennial review, but something specific and immediate which could be done within the Royal Warrant. That is a narrow, modest claim, affecting a group of aging heroes of the first world war, whose number is decreasing year by year.
I have intervened in the debate tonight in order to make a protest against the action of the Minister in not giving our case the answer which it so much deserves, and I ask that it be once more considered.
11.8 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) for the very great interest which he takes in the subject of war disability pensions. I have been very grateful to him on a number of occasions for keeping this whole question on a non-party basis which, I am sure, is the desire of the whole House. The hon. Member was kind enough to say that he had given me only a few minutes' notice of his intention to raise the issue tonight, and, therefore, I hope that he will forgive me if I stand here with no prepared brief. But this is a subject which we have discussed at length together, and I know the Minister's views fairly adequately on all the points which have been raised.
As regards the report of the B.L.E.S.M.A. conference, I have read every word of it. It was an excellent conference, and I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kindly references to my Ministry. But, at the same time, I thought his opening remark a little unfair.

641
He said he wanted to call attention to the failure of this Government to do anything for the war disabled ex-Service men. I do not think he really meant that. I do not think any other Government have done more for the war disabled than this Government, although I do not want to make a party point of it.
In 1952, in a particularly difficult economic period, we did give the biggest ever rise in war pensions and my right hon. Friend told the House the other day that he proposes to do something more within the lifetime of this Parliament and guaranteed that the war disabled would have first priority in any pension rises that were made. I think that what the hon. Member wanted to call attention to particularly was not the general question, but the particular problem of the ageing limbless pensioner.
This is not a new problem; it was considered by our predecessors and we have taken on where they left off. In 1946–47, the Hancock Committee considered this question at great length and members of the T.U.C., B.L.E.S.M.A., the British Legion and all the ex-Service associations reported to that Committee. The question that the Hancock Committee considered was whether any increased pension was necessary to compensate for age. That was one of the particular points it considered and it came to the definite conclusion that it was not and that the criterion that the pension should be given for loss of amenities comparing a disabled with a fit man of the same age should continue to hold good. But, as a result of that Committee, a large number of increases in pensions were given.
In the Ministry we are always ready to consider any particular case where anything has gone wrong with a man's stump, where there is shrinkage of the stump or anything of that sort, which necessitates additional assessment to the ordinary pension being given. In 1950, the Rock Carling Committee was set up. Its terms of reference were to consider whether the amputee was more prone to cardio-vascular disorders than any other section of the community and whether the amputee, as a result of the amputation and wearing an artificial limb, might have a shorter expectation of life.
642
That Committee issued an interim Report in 1951 and its final Report in 1953. Having given its final Report, it asked for a clinical examination of 5,000 amputees to confirm the first impressions gained simply from the perusal of a whole lot of medical records. Those clinical examinations were completed in March this year and my right hon. Friend hopes that the Rock Carling Committee will be ready to submit that report within a few months. He also hopes that it will not show that the amputee must expect a lessened expectation of life or be more prone to cardiovascular disorders.
I am sure that the hon. Member, who has the war disabled so much at heart, would agree because if that were found to be the case it would bring distress not only to many in this country but all over the world. If the Rock Carling Committee reports to the contrary, we shall have to make a comprehensive review of pension rates for all forms of amputations, and I can guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that we will undertake that.
Dr. King: Does that mean that if the Rock Carling Committee reports as we hope it will, that there is no cardiovascular deterioration because of lack of a limb, the Government will not give any consideration to B.L.E.S.M.A,'s amenity claim?
Brigadier Smyth: What I said was that if the Rock Carling Committee reports that the amputee is more prone to cardio-vascular disorders than other sections of the community, obviously the Government will have to review all their assessments on amputations, and I guarantee that we will do that.
Finally, I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Minister is responsible for all the war disabled—for the blind, the paraplegics and all the other classes of war disabled —and we cannot just consider one class in isolation. That would be considered by other ex-Service associations and by the war disabled themselves as unfair discrimination. Hon. Members can think of many examples. I heard the other day from a friend of mine who was shot through the stomach in the Ypres Salient 30 years ago; he does not feel so good as the years go by, and he has no artificial limb to show for it.

643
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend has the cause of the ageing limbless very much in mind. He has guaranteed to make a review of pensions in the near future, and all the points that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will. I assure him, be most carefully considered.
Dr. King: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take it from me that the limbless ex-Service men do not say that only limbless may suffer in the course of old age and that they would not want their claim to jeopardise any other claims? The claims are more general than that. At the same time, they would not want the Minister not to help the ageing limbless ex-Service men because he was afraid that he would have to help some other ageing veterans with other handicaps.
Brigadier Smyth: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance, but the case as generally put to us is for the ageing amputee. I thought that that was the B.L.E.S.M.A. case which the hon. Gentleman was putting to me, but I feel that the other case which he has now mentioned, with wider implications, is probably a better one.

PRISON, GRENDON UNDERWOOD
11.18 p.m.
Mr. Spencer Summers: I am very grateful for this opportunity of raising a matter which is not only of very great importance to many of my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), but is also of considerable urgency. I do not think it will be necessary for me to detain the House very long, and that, in the light of some noises off which I detected a few moments ago, may provide some comfort to hon. Gentlemen.
There is one matter which I must mention before I come to the main argument that I want to advance by way of protest against the decision of the Home Secretary to proceed, despite objections lodged at a public inquiry, with the erection of a large walled prison in a rural part of Buckinghamshire for non-certifiable psychiatric prisoners.
Owing to the change in the time-table, it has not been found possible for the
644
Minister to be available; nor, indeed, would there have been very much time for him to go into it in any detail. I hope that when he has had an opportunity of studying what I have to say he will put in writing the views of the Department on the matter. I assure him that the same local publicity which may be given to anything that I may say will be given to anything that he may convey to me in writing.
It is no part of my purpose to reiterate at any length the arguments which were advanced at the public inquiry as to why it was objectionable for the Prison Commissioners to choose the particular site known as Grendon Underwood to erect this walled prison. I shall content myself with saying that the objections were unanimous, and came from the county council, the rural district council and every other local organisation, and many individuals. Stress was laid upon the destruction of the rural character of the area; on the effect upon the recruiting of farm labour and the deterioration in the value of the land, and attention was drawn to the fact that many comparable establishments already existed there, and the general effect upon the neighbourhood was also mentioned.
I want to stress the historical fact that a year ago, on virtually the same site, the Prison Commissioners sought to erect an open prison. Local opinion was then divided. The plan was supported by the county council, and the Prison Commissioners finally went on without a public inquiry. At the time considerable local feeling was aroused. In the interval, the people living in the area have become reassured that their fears were misplaced; they have learnt to live alongside the open prison with great good will. It is, therefore, with special regret that they view the proposed advent of a walled prison which will destroy the good will so recently built up.
In a letter dated 1st July, which I have here, the Minister gave the reasons why, despite the objections lodged, he felt it necessary—together with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government—to authorise the Prison Commissioners to go on with the plan. In effect, the Minister gave three reasons for that decision. First, he said there would be local opposition wherever the

645
prison was sited, and that his experience showed that it was generally grossly exaggerated. It seems rather futile to go through the motions of holding a public inquiry—when opportunities for local objections are given—if the response to those objections is, "We knew that was coming. Wherever we made this proposal the same objections would be raised."
Secondly, it was contended that the local population ought not to mind, because the lie of the land was such that the new buildings would be able to be seen only from one direction, so that very few people would notice that the prison was there. To rely upon what one can see as the test of the extent to which a proposal is objectionable is completely to miss the point of the feeling in the district that this area will be completely changed by the advent of a large, walled prison of this character, with a staff of about 300, the local conditions of security being what they are.
Thirdly—and this is the reason I want to stress—it was contended that the site was so eminently suitable that the objections would be overruled. Local opinion has been tested at the public inquiry, and in my intervention tonight I want to ask the Minister to subject the Prison Commissioners' proposals to the same kind of scrutiny as he gave to the objections of local people at the public inquiry.
I consider that they are not justified in their attitude. First, it is contended that they have searched elsewhere and that no alternative site has been found. I am informed that those searches have been to specifications which include a large mansion only a site with a suitable mansion on it could be eligible, I understand. I contend that that is a set of provisions far too restricted. Secondly, it was said that the site must be within 60 miles of London, and the reason why it must be within 60 miles of London was that it might be sufficiently near to London that consultants could go there when required.
I should prefer that the needs of the public in the district should be considered ahead of the needs of the prisoners or of the consultants who may have to go there. If their visits are so regular let the persons dealing with that work be resident in the place. If they visit the place seldom what difference does it make if they motor there from London in two hours or three? It seems
646
to me that it is for Departmental convenience only that the place must be within 60 miles of London. I suggest that far more attention should be paid to the impact of such a proposed plan upon the public and far less to Departmental convenience, and still less to the welfare of the prisoners themselves.
It is from that point of view I want the Secretary of State to look into this matter. At the moment, far too much attention is paid to what the Prison Commissioners regard as the only way they can develop an additional prison. This seems to me to be another case, such as we have heard of in other contexts, of disregard of the rights of the local people. Insufficient attention is paid to them in the carrying out of this business. So I ask the Home Secretary to look at this again, to apply a fresh test apart from that he applied when he rejected the objections at the local inquiry and to challenge the premise on which the decision is based. If he will do that, then there is some chance that common sense and sound views may yet prevail, rather than bad planning and Departmental convenience.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) has made out a powerful case why the Secretary of State should reconsider the siting of this prison. I represent a constituency that is geographically some distance from this village, but which shares in an even more acute form than my hon. Friend's constituency the peril of being overflowed into from the Metropolitan area. I am very glad to see present on the Government Front Bench six Ministers. That shows with what importance this matter is regarded. I am very happy to see the Treasury so powerfully represented. And there are four Members present on the Opposition benches.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: It is quality, not quantity, that counts.
Mr. Bell: If it is quality that counts I am sorry to see that the Opposition Front Bench is empty. It shows how little regard the leaders of the Labour Party have for rural amenities. However, this is a matter that looms large in the minds of the people directly concerned. It is not a small thing when

647
in a little village, an overpowering development of this kind is undertaken. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there has been no lack of broad vision on the part of the local people in balancing national and local considerations. Not only has the prison without walls, which is already there, been accepted without demur, but it has been given a positive welcome. Now, it is suggested that this further substantial development of the same category should be imposed upon this neighbourhood. It can only mean that a small rural community will be almost overwhelmed by the exaggeration of development which is involved in this proposal.
I am told also that 75 acres of good agricultural land will be sacrificed if this development takes place. It is known, of course, that the Vale of Aylesbury contains some of the finest agricultural land in the country. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whom I see present, will intervene later upon this aspect. I hope that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury will ensure that no public funds are available for a project so damaging in its implications.
I only hope that the questions which my hon. Friend has put forward will reach the eyes of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in whose direct control this matter lies, and that he will reconsider the very weighty objections put forward, not only by the village community in their natural anxieties, but also by the Buckinghamshire County Council, which certainly has not taken a parochial view of this matter since it welcomed the open prison and has objected only upon closely argued considerations to the building of the walled prison which is now to follow unless some Ministerial intervention prevents it.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: There is much in what the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) and Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) have said to which I could object, but the occupants of the benches opposite look so tired and weary that it would be in the best interests of the House if they were now allowed to go home.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Committee tomorrow.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
11.32 p.m.

Clause 1.—(LICENSING OF PREMISES FOR SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS.)
Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 1, line 27, at end, insert:
"or
(b) paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954 (under which a slaughterhouse licence is, in the case of certain classes of premises, to be granted as of right subject to the application for the licence being made before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-five)."
In page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) In the application of this section to Scot-land—

(a) in subsections (1) and (2), for any reference to a licence granted under section fifty-seven of the Food and Drugs Act. 1938, in so far as that section relates to the licensing of slaughterhouses, there shall he substituted a reference to a registration under section nine of the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954 (which provides for registration in respect of slaughterhouses), and in so far as the said section fifty-seven relates to the licensing of knackers' yards there shall be substituted a reference to a licence under section thirty-three of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (which provides for the licensing of knackers' yards);

(b) in subsection (3), for any reference to section fifty-seven of the said Act of 1938 there shall be substituted a reference to section thirty-three of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; and

(c) where a local authority refuse to grant a registration in respect of premises under section nine of the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954, expressly authorising the use of the premises in question for or in connection with the slaughter of horses, any such refusal shall, for the purposes of subsection (8) of section ten of the said Act (which allows to a person aggrieved by a decision of a local authority under that section an appeal to the Secretary of State) be treated as a refusal of registration under the said section.

Clause 5.—(PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES.)
Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 5, line 8, leave out from "1928" to "for" in line 14.
In line 17, at end insert:
"and (b) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(3) Where a person convicted of an offence in respect of any such contravention as aforesaid or of an offence against regulations made under section two of this Act is registered in respect of premises under section nine of the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954, or is the holder of a licence granted under section thirty-three of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, the court may, where such registration or licence relates to premises where the offence was committed, in addition to any other penalty, cancel the registration or the licence, as the case may be."

Clause 9.—(INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION.)
Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 6, line 16, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
(2) This Act, except as it applies to Scotland, and except so far as it amends the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, shall be construed as one with the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933.
(3) This Act, as it applies to Scotland and except so far as it amends the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954, shall be construed as one with the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Acts, 1928 to 1953.

Second Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS.)
Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 8, leave out lines 26 to 33.
In page 11, line 22, column 3, leave out lines 22 to 25.

CRYSTAL PALACE—NUNHEAD RAILWAY (CLOSING)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]
11.35 p.m.
Mr. Henry Price: In about six or seven weeks, unless something unforeseen occurs, the branch line from Crystal Palace to Nunhead, which serves my constituency, will be closed. Objections have been lodged to the proposals. They were heard by the appropriate body, the Transport Users Consultative Council for London, and turned down. They have been reviewed by the Central Consultative Council, and, according to my latest information, have again been turned down.
650
I first raised the matter with the Minister of Transport at the end of May, and had a reply dated 10th June. In that letter he said:
"In my experience, the examination of proposals by the consultative committees is very thorough and well balanced and these committees serve a most useful forum for the consideration of the views of the local user interests before any decision is confirmed to withdraw a service."
In support of that contention the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that the Transport Commission had had proposals to withdraw passenger services on 118 branch lines involving the closure of 272 railway stations. He quotes two examples of the Consultative Committee rejecting proposals of the Commission as evidence of the usefulness of the Committee. He will forgive me if I find it difficult to accept two rejections out of 118 proposals as being convincing evidence of the usefulness of this body. I am severely critical of the proposal in which I am particularly interested, first, because of the proposal itself and secondly, because of the procedure adopted, and which I imagine is typical, for dealing with it.
The history of this particular case makes nonsense of that procedure, demonstrates it as farcial and, in my view, shows that it is merely a façade to impress the gullible that the interests of the consumers are protected. The interests of the consumers have no chance whatever. When the railways were nationalised one of the arguments strenuously advanced in favour of it was that the element of profitability would be removed and the most important principle would be that of service to the public. It is clear that in the case of the Crystal Palace to Nun-head branch line the reverse has been adopted. It is the element of profitability that matters and the element of public service has been ignored. According to the case prepared by the Commission, and with which I cannot quarrel, a net annual saving of £65,000 would result from closing the line, the net annual receipts for which were £14,000.
Neither I nor anybody who knows the line is at all surprised at those figures, since there has been no attempt since the war to make this line a commercial proposition. On the contrary, all the evidence appears to prove that there has been a deliberate attempt on the part of those responsible to depress the value of this line, and to make it as unattractive

651
as possible to the public. I have in my possession, and will make them available to the Minister, photographs of two of the stations involved. One, the Crystal Palace High Level Station is in the same condition as it was after the war, with a glass roof open to the elements, and showing many other signs of dereliction. The station is typical of the line in that it has been allowed almost to rot.
No attempt has been made to advertise facilities which this line offers. Perhaps I ought to apologise for a slight exaggeration there. There is one advertisement. Outside one station there is a notice in, I think, these words, "This station is closed on Sundays." As far as I have been able to discover, that is the only advertisement on any of these stations.
Indeed, this is not denied by those who represented the railway at the hearing before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. Mr. Walter, who represented the Branch Lines Committee, Southern Region, British Railways, said that
"it had never been the practice of the railways to advertise in the ways suggested by Mr. Eames. In fact, the cost of advertising regular train services throughout the country had been prohibitive. There were always time-tables available, and information as to excursions, etc. could be obtained from leaflets at the stations."
Here is a gentleman who obviously does not believe that advertising pays.
In private life, I am a paper merchant, and the parallel position would be that I should stay in my office and make no attempt to advise potential customers that I have paper to offer, and adopt the attitude that if they want paper let them come to me and find out what I have got. I know what would happen to my business or, indeed, to any business which followed such a policy. It is hardly surprising that an unhappy fate has befallen this branch line financially.
I suggest that the policy which should be followed, at any rate in London, with its very pressing and special traffic problems, should not be the policy which has been followed here, which is, "The line does not pay; let us close it," but, "This line is not fully used; let us see what we can do to popularise it and thus relieve the load on the overburdened road transport system of London."
Especially should that be so where, as in this case, there is substantial housing
652
development being carried out by the borough council and the county council, which will have the effect of increasing very substantially the number of potential customers for this railway within within the next year or two. But instead, this is the time, when this development is taking place, that the line is to be closed, thus thrusting on to the already overburdened road transport system not only those who use the line at present but those who, when they move into the new housing development, would use the line if it was still there. The road transport system is already strained to the utmost and is now to be subjected to this additional burden.
May I also draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the additional road service to be provided is by the extension of the No. 63 bus route from its present terminus along a road known as Wood Vale, up Sydenham Hill and along the top of Sydenham Hill to Crystal Palace. I do not know whether the residents of Wood Vale and Sydenham Hill have been consulted in this matter, and whether they are pleased or otherwise at the prospect, but I do know that everybody who lives locally realises two things —first, that the turning out of Wood Vale into London Road is extremely awkward and dangerous even for a private motor car, and, secondly, that the first part of Sydenham Hill is very steep, and at the top it is narrow and tortuous.
I very much hope that it is never my fate to be in a heavily laden 63 bus turning that corner and descending that hill under unsatisfactory conditions. It is to the credit of the police and the local authorities that they have both objected very strongly to this suggestion. Yet it is the suggestion which the Transport Commission have advanced as a supplementation of the existing road services in order to cater for the traffic which will be turned away from this railway when it is closed.
It would be possible for me to go into greater detail on the merits or demerits of the proposals, but I wish to criticise the procedure which seems to be of wider significance and greater importance. I would suggest that in London it is wrong for such proposals to be considered in isolation. I suggest that their consideration should be subject to their being in accordance with an overall policy for

653
London. I have already indicated What I think that policy should be, namely, to popularise the use of branch lines to relieve the load on road transport and not the reverse. The Transport Users' Consultative Committee were unable to consider this aspect of the matter because they were not advised of the capacity of the roads to take the additional traffic. Surely that is a point which they should have before them.
My third criticism is perhaps a personal one, though I am not criticising the gentleman in question. The Consultative Committee is dominated by its secretary, who is a very able man with a very powerful personality. He has a long history of close association with railway management. How is it possible for such a man to be objective in his consideration of the proposals lodged by transport users? It is inevitable that, with the best will in the world, he will have a bias. I shall be interested to know, if the Minister can tell me, who appoints the secretary and who is responsible for his salary. To whom does this man owe his loyalty?
My next criticism is of the particular Consultative Committee. Long before the inquiry was completed more than half of the members of the Committee had left. By whom was the decision to overrule the objections taken? Was it by the whole of the Committee before the inquiry was finished, or by the few who were left at the end? When the deputation had finished presenting their case they were asked to withdraw, but the representatives of British Railways and London Transport were allowed to remain. Surely that is a peculiar way of giving unbiased and objective consideration, as they should have done to this case. I understand that the Committee are there to protect the transport users, but one might be forgiven for imagining that in this case they were there to serve the interests of British Railways and London Transport.
My next criticism is, in my view, the most serious of all. The Transport Users' Consultative Committee were clearly told by the secretary to whom I have already referred and by Mr. Walter, to whom I have referred once before, that the local authorities had been consulted and did not object. In fairness to Mr. Walter,
654
who was not so categorical, I think I should quote from his words. He said that
"the interested local authorities had been consulted, but, as the correspondence disclosed"—
I draw particular attention to those words—
"whilst they regretted the possibility of losing the rail facilities, they appreciated the uneconomic condition of the line and did not wish to take part in these proceedings."
The correspondence referred to consisted of letters from the boroughs of Camberwell and Lewisham and the Urban District Council of Penge, of which I have copies. I do not propose to read them all, but I will gladly make them available to the Minister.
I would, however, like to read what I consider is the most significant paragraph in each. First, from Camberwell Borough Council, which, in a letter signed by the Town Clerk, states:
"My Council feel, therefore, that they are justified in protesting most strongly at the manner in which this matter has been dealt with as, in the circumstances, it is obviously impossible for their observations to have been properly considered."
From the Town Clerk of Lewisham Borough Council, there is a part of the letter which states:
"I am now directed to inform you that this Council views the proposal with disfavour particularly in view of the already inadequate travelling facilities in the Forest Hill district."
The views of the Urban District Council of Penge may be summarised from the conclusion to a letter signed by their Clerk:
"The Council respectfully submit that with all the development proposals in hand for housing, sports grounds, cultural amenities, and the like, coupled with existing uses and the need of travellers for a direct service to the City, every effort should be made to keep the branch open for the benefit of the general public."
That is the correspondence referred to by Mr. Walter and the secretary.
I submit that the T.U.C.C. was misled by Mr. Walter and by its secretary; and I think that I should take this opportunity of lodging the strongest possible protest about the behaviour of these two gentlemen, and to say that to have misled the Committee in the manner in which it was misled is extremely reprehensible.
My last criticism is this. The T.U.C.C. rejected the objections, and the matter has

655
since been reviewed by the Central Transport Consultative Committee; who confirmed the decision, but it is not difficult to understand this result, since the secretary of the Central Transport Consultative Committee is one and the same gentleman as the secretary of the T.U.C.C. I do not see how it is possible to condone a position where an appeal against a decision by a body which is dominated by its secretary, as is the T.U.C.C., should be heard by another body which is probably dominated by the same gentleman. Surely, anyone must admit that it would seem impossible to expect an unbiased and objective opinion, and this is, I think, an argument worthy of the most serious consideration.
My concluding remarks must be that I hope that the evidence which I have put to the House, and which I can substantiate with the documents I have here, will satisfy the Minister that this inquiry was not based on all the evidence available; that the Committee was misled and that, if it had been properly advised, it might well have come to another decision; and that the policy underlying this closure of branch lines needs most serious consideration at the highest possible level. I suggest that these matters should not be considered as individual matters, but as part of a policy for London transport and I hope that the Minister, who has been very generous in his treatment of me so far, will be able to give me satisfactory assurances along those lines.
11.55 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): In replying to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. Price) I must make it quite plain that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has no responsibility in this matter. A procedure has been laid down in the nationalisation Act which is well-established and, I think, is working satisfactorily.
The only circumstances in which the Minister is authorised to intervene in the day-to-day administration of the railways is if the Transport Users Consultative Committee dissent from some action which has been taken by the Transport Commission. We consider that the closing down of branch lines is a matter
656
of the day to day administration for which the British Transport Commission is responsible. In every case—and there have been very few—where the proposals of the Commission have been criticised by the Transport Users Consultative Committee the Commission has deferred to its view.
We think it is useful and proper that the Transport Commission and the London Transport Executive should both be represented on the London Committee and should participate in it. I quite follow the argument of my hon. Friend who suggested that these committees should be completely independent and aloof. They have certainly shown themselves to be extremely independent in the scrutiny to which they subject the proposals of the British Transport Commission, but it is of the utmost importance that these committees should be informed by the experience of the Commission and they should work cordially together. We therefore take the view that it is greatly to the advantage of the Consultative Committee that it should contain representatives of the Transport Commission and, in the case of the London Transport Users Consultative Committee, that it should contain representatives of the London Transport Executive.
I was sorry that my hon. Friend spoke in the way he did of the secretary of these two committees. That gentleman is responsible to the Committees he serves. I have every reason to believe that he enjoys their confidence. It really is no reflection on him, but it is a very serious and quite unjustified reflection upon these two Committees, consisting, as they do, of public men, to suggest that they are dominated by their secretary. I can think of nothing more wounding to any body than to suggest that it has not a mind of its own but is dominated by its secretary.
This gentleman has had a distinguished career in transport. He was secretary of the Railway Clearing House, he has legal training, he is the only one of the secretaries who has a whole-time appointment and, I understand, he has been of the greatest value to both the Committees he serves. To suggest that men prominent in industry, in the trade union movement, in the Co-operative movement, men selected by my hon. Friend as representative of the transport users in general,

657
are going to be dominated by their secretariat, is both unwarranted and offensive to them. It is much more a criticism of them than of their secretary.
My hon. Friend has suggested that London should be granted more favourable treatment than other parts of the country in the matter of closing down branch lines. I think there would be a strong case for suggesting that London should be accorded less favourable treatment than other parts of the country. I am much more influenced when it is the representative of some rural area where there is very little in the way of transport who complains that it is proposed to close down an old-established line.
In the case of these unremunerative lines in London where there are so many other forms of transport, it is those residents of London who have not used the lines while they were available who are to blame if they now find that they are being closed down. I would remind my hon. Friend when he talks about profitability that one of the principles of the nationalisation Act was that the British Transport Commission is expected to ensure that, taking one year with another, it covers its expenses, and it is the view of my right hon. Friend that one of the essential methods of efficient and up-to-date administration is to close down lines which are no longer remunerative.
It has been suggested that the Transport Commission neglects branch lines. The Commission assures us that it does what it can to make these branch lines remunerative. Certainly, I can think of no reason why it should act otherwise in view of the fact that there is a substantial sum of capital sunk in them.
Generally speaking, therefore, although my right hon. Friend has no responsibility in this matter, we take the view that the machinery is working satisfactorily and that the Transport Commission is acting wisely and prudently in making
658
proposals to the Transport Users' Consultative Committees for the closing down of lines which are unremunerative.
This matter was considered by the London Transport Users' Consultative Committee on 10th June, 1954. At that inquiry the case was put for those users of the railway who opposed the closing down of the line. My hon. Friend wrote to the Committee and was associated with the deputation of users which attended, but did not himself go. The protesters thought that with more publicity, lower fares and diesel trains, the line might be set on its feet, but the Consultative Committee, having heard their arguments, came to the conclusion that the closing of the line was justified.
It is expected that that will make a minimum saving of £65,000 a year. After the closure of the unremunerative line, it is intended that additional trains shall be run on the Catford loop line where housing developments have led to the need for additional services at peak periods. That will be introduced as soon as the branch line closes. The local authorities affected regretted the proposal to close the line, but considered that the economic case for its closing was overwhelming; and the figures which have been produced all tend to show that. It has been estimated that in a representative week the maximum number of passengers recorded in any one train on any portion of the branch was 152, whereas most trains made up of four coaches have seats for 386 passengers.
For these reasons, it seems to me that the Consultative Committee could scarcely have arrived at any other conclusion than it did, and, therefore, in my view, there is no justification for the protest that my hon. Friend has made against the closing of the line.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.

  SUEZ CANAL ZONE
  SUEZ CANAL ZONE
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL CO (NEGOTIATIONS)
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL CO (NEGOTIATIONS)
  SAUDI ARABIA (SHIPPING AGREEMENT)
  SAUDI ARABIA (SHIPPING AGREEMENT)
  GERMANY (OCCUPATION COSTS)
  GERMANY (OCCUPATION COSTS)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Home-Grown Sugar
  Home-Grown Sugar
  Colonial Citrus Fruits
  Colonial Citrus Fruits
  Subsidised Fruit Imports
  Subsidised Fruit Imports
  Stock-feed Potatoes
  Stock-feed Potatoes
  Ration Books (Saving)
  Ration Books (Saving)
  Imported Wheat (Stocks)
  Imported Wheat (Stocks)
  Butter (Price Reductions)
  Butter (Price Reductions)
KENYA
  Council of Ministers (Programme)
  Council of Ministers (Programme)
  Security Force and Mau Mau (Casualties)
  Security Force and Mau Mau (Casualties)
  Assaults on Africans (Convicted Europeans)
  Assaults on Africans (Convicted Europeans)
  Detainees
  Detainees
  Emergency Regulations (Convicted Africans)
  Emergency Regulations (Convicted Africans)
  Old-Age Security (Committee)
  Old-Age Security (Committee)
  Legislative Council (African Members)
  Legislative Council (African Members)
  Newspapers (Proscriptions and Warnings)
  Newspapers (Proscriptions and Warnings)
  Africans (Executions)
  Africans (Executions)
  Forfeiture Orders (Seized Property)
  Forfeiture Orders (Seized Property)
  European Farmer-Settlers (Immigration)
  European Farmer-Settlers (Immigration)
  Land Policy
  Land Policy
  Military and Police Personnel
  Military and Police Personnel
EAST AFRICA
  Professor Hancock's Mission, Uganda
  Professor Hancock's Mission, Uganda
  Seditious Material Conviction, Uganda
  Seditious Material Conviction, Uganda
  Co-operative Development Council, Uganda
  Co-operative Development Council, Uganda
  Salaries Commission (Report)
  Salaries Commission (Report)
GOLD COAST
  Bribery and Corruption Allegations
  Bribery and Corruption Allegations
  Cocoa Production
  Cocoa Production
WEST AFRICA
  Marketing Boards (Accumulated Profits)
  Marketing Boards (Accumulated Profits)
  Nutrition Research, Nigeria
  Nutrition Research, Nigeria
  Fire Service, Nigeria
  Fire Service, Nigeria
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Banned Publications, Africa
  Banned Publications, Africa
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  MALTA (CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS)
  MALTA (CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS)
  MAURITIUS (CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES)
  MAURITIUS (CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES)
NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Convicted Persons (Transfer)
  Convicted Persons (Transfer)
  Press Article (Sedition Charge)
  Press Article (Sedition Charge)
  African Trust Land
  African Trust Land
WEST INDIES
  Police Force, Jamaica (Personal Case)
  Police Force, Jamaica (Personal Case)
  Political Situation, British Honduras
  Political Situation, British Honduras
  British Guiana (Potomac Charter)
  British Guiana (Potomac Charter)
  Prohibited Immigrants, Trinidad
  Prohibited Immigrants, Trinidad
  Kildare Land Settlement, Portland
  Kildare Land Settlement, Portland
SINGAPORE AND MALAYA
  Sedition Ordinance (Press Freedom)
  Sedition Ordinance (Press Freedom)
  Terrorists (Voluntary Surrender)
  Terrorists (Voluntary Surrender)
  CYPRUS (EMIGRANTS)
  CYPRUS (EMIGRANTS)
  SEYCHELLES COLLEGE (RULES)
  SEYCHELLES COLLEGE (RULES)
ROYAL NAVY
  Defence Equipment Packaging (Remploy)
  Defence Equipment Packaging (Remploy)
  Trebah Beach, Cornwall
  Trebah Beach, Cornwall
  Lieut.-Commanders (Pensionable Service)
  Lieut.-Commanders (Pensionable Service)
SHIPPING
  U.S.S.R. Orders
  U.S.S.R. Orders
  United Kingdom Yards (Orders)
  United Kingdom Yards (Orders)
  POST OFFICE (MAILBAG ROBBERIES)
  POST OFFICE (MAILBAG ROBBERIES)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Woolwich
  Woolwich
  Hospitals (Portable Coin Boxes)
  Hospitals (Portable Coin Boxes)
  Merton and Morden
  Merton and Morden
  Investment
  Investment
  Bookmakers, Cardiff (Installations)
  Bookmakers, Cardiff (Installations)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Band III
  Band III
  V.H.F. Transmitters
  V.H.F. Transmitters
  Reception, Dundee
  Reception, Dundee
  Aerials (Polarisation)
  Aerials (Polarisation)
  North Hessary Tor Station
  North Hessary Tor Station
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Crichel Down
  Crichel Down
  Bomber Pilot (Training Cost)
  Bomber Pilot (Training Cost)
  Troops (Movement to Middle East)
  Troops (Movement to Middle East)
  Wing Commanders (Pensionable Service)
  Wing Commanders (Pensionable Service)
TRANSPORT
  Heavy Vehicles (C. Licences)
  Heavy Vehicles (C. Licences)
  Public Service and Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
  Public Service and Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
  Traffic Laws (Enforcement)
  Traffic Laws (Enforcement)
  London Transport Executive Members (Reappointment)
  London Transport Executive Members (Reappointment)
  Railway Superannuitants
  Railway Superannuitants
  Special A Licences
  Special A Licences
CIVIL AVIATION
  Maintenance Base, Renfrew
  Maintenance Base, Renfrew
  Foreign Aircraft (B.O.A.C. Orders)
  Foreign Aircraft (B.O.A.C. Orders)
  Gatwick Airport (Future)
  Gatwick Airport (Future)
  OIL POLLUTION (RESOLUTION)
  OIL POLLUTION (RESOLUTION)
ROADS
  Speed Limit, New Forest
  Speed Limit, New Forest
  Bridge, Ballachuilish Narrows
  Bridge, Ballachuilish Narrows
  Doncaster By-Pass
  Doncaster By-Pass
  COMET AIRCRAFT (LOSS)
  COMET AIRCRAFT (LOSS)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Trials, Bristol Channel (Lights)
  Trials, Bristol Channel (Lights)
  Supersonic Damage (Ex-Gratia Payments)
  Supersonic Damage (Ex-Gratia Payments)
  MYXOMATOSIS
  MYXOMATOSIS
  FERTILISERS (IMPORT DUTY)
  FERTILISERS (IMPORT DUTY)
  HOUSING, LLANLENNOCH (WATER SUPPLY)
  HOUSING, LLANLENNOCH (WATER SUPPLY)
  DENTAL SERVICE, SCOTLAND (ASSISTANTS)
  DENTAL SERVICE, SCOTLAND (ASSISTANTS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. It is in these terms:
  "I have received your Address praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Materials) Draft Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
  "I will comply with your request."

POST OFFICE TELEPRINTER SERVICE
2.35 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are taking any steps to bring the teleprinter services that may be rented from the Post Office into line with modern conditions.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I am glad to say that the Post Office will soon be able to offer a new unified "telex" service giving communication through teleprinter exchanges with subscribers in this country and in many countries overseas. This will supersede both the present inland "telex" service—which provides limited intercommunication by teleprinter in this country—and the quite separate international "telex" service. It will
192
allow all subscribers to make both inland and international calls. Some increase in rental charges will be necessary, because of rising costs, but the new combined service will give better value and should be a real help to commerce and industry. Charges for communication over private circuits will, be rationalised at the same time. I hope that this simplification will make it possible to meet applications very much more quickly.
The shortage of equipment has now been largely overcome, and the delay in providing teleprinter services on this account has already been considerably reduced. Existing "telex" renters will be connected to the new service as soon as it opens, and we shall then be ready to connect new subscribers. The new "telex" rental will be £160 a year for a line up to thirty miles from a "telex" centre, including one teleprinter, and the charges for inland trunk calls will be reduced to roughly half the corresponding call charge. The charges for international calls remain as at present. They vary from 4s. to £3 for three minutes, according to the country concerned. The new "telex" service will, I hope, be opened in the autumn, and the new charges will not come into force till then.

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (BRIGHTON) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (COWES) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (LLANELLY) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
2.42 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON rose to call attention to the international situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I am sure most noble Lords welcome this opportunity, before the House rises for the Summer Recess, of discussing the international situation. The last debate on foreign affairs in your Lordships' House took place about four months ago, following the Berlin Conference. There have been many important developments in the international field since then. The Geneva Conference, which was decided upon at the Berlin Conference, has taken place and has produced an agreement on Indo-China. A new Note has been received from the Soviet Government proposing a conference within a few months on the problem of collective security for Europe. The prolonged negotiations between tins country and Egypt have ended with an Agreement.
There have been other events and developments which will be in the minds of all noble Lords, but in my view the outstanding event is the settlement reached at Geneva. To have brought to an end the long and costly war in Indo-China is a positive as d indisputable gain. Tributes are due, and I pay them sincerely from this side of the House, both to the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Eden, and to the French Prime Minister, M. Mendès-France, for the courage and patience, the skill and firmness, with which they pursued the difficult task that led to the Treaties dealing with the three Associated States. In my view it was a stroke of genius, as well as an act of political courage, for the French Prime Minister to place a time limit on his endeavours. I am sure it was a factor which had its influence on the discussions on Geneva. I should like also to include the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in these tributes, for his own long and helpful collaboration in a very difficult task
We may have misgivings about some of the provisions of the settlement, but we cannot be half-hearted or apologetic in our acceptance of the capital fact that hostilities have ceased. The measure of this achievement can be clearly estab-
194
lished if we pause to consider what would have been the public reaction and what profoundly grave decisions would have confronted the Western Allies if the Conference had ended in failure. The Indo-Chinese war has been one of the costliest of localised wars. It was costly in blood and treasure. It was costly in the differences and disunity that developed among the Allies. It was costly also in the price that had to be paid for the settlement. Yet the price, I hold, was not too high for the precious gain of peace. It is basic to the international policy of this country, steadfastly held over the years, that problems which divide and antagonise the nations cannot be settled on the battlefield but must be brought to the council chamber and kept there, at all legitimate costs, until peaceful solutions have been found. It is an act of good statesmanship not to allow negotiations to break off when war is in progress if, by any honourable manner of means, they can be carried on, if only to the point where a ceasefire can be arranged. In the Indo-Chinese settlement something of what was lost in battle was retrieved in the council chamber. The terms of settlement, onerous as they were, were negotiated with a measure of give and take on both sides and were not dictated by military conquest. It would be self-deceiving, in my view, to believe that the Communists gained all they had hoped for in Indo-China.
When we examine the position in which the three Treaties have placed the French and the Associated States, a hopeful view of their future relations is not ruled out. In the terms of the Geneva Declaration the three Associated States will be able henceforth to play their part, in full independence and sovereignty, in the peaceful community of nations, while France for her part has undertaken to
"proceed from the principle of respect for the independence and sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam"
in seeking a settlement of all the problems connected with the re-establishment and consolidation of peace in the three States. In similar terms the members of the Geneva Conference have pledged themselves to observe the same principle and to refrain from any interference in the internal affairs of the three States.
The United States have not subscribed to the Agreements, for reasons which have

195
been stated, but they too have pledged themselves not to disturb them by force and have declared that they would view with grave concern any renewal of aggression in violation of the Agreements as "seriously threatening international peace and security."
So far, therefore, as the terms of the Geneva Declaration can carry us, the sovereign independence and integrity of Indo-China has become an accepted fact, not to be upset by force. The peaceful co-existence of the three States is not to be menaced by the introduction of foreign troops and military personnel, arms and munitions, or by military bases at the disposition of a foreign Power. None of the three States is to request foreign aid of a military nature except for the defence of its territory nor to join in any agreement with other States if such an agreement includes the obligation to participate in a military alliance which is not in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter. I stress the importance of these last words. They leave wide open the right of their neighbours and other members of the United Nations to help the new States if they are attacked.
It is the partition of Viet-nam which causes most dislike, especially in the United States, because it places twelve million more people at least temporarily behind the Iron Curtain. But it seems to me that it is on this issue that the Communists made some of the most important concessions. There are to be free and secret elections within two years to reestablish unity, and they are to be guaranteed under an international Commission composed of representatives of India, Canada and Poland. In the meantime, every one in Viet-nam is to be allowed to decide freely in which zone he will live. This will make it possible for those who do not wish to stay in the Communist Zone to move into the Southern Zone. Everything depends, of course, on the way the agreed proposals are interpreted and applied and observed in practice. To be effective for the avowed aims of the settlement, they must be carried out in good faith, both in the spirit and in the letter. The test of good faith lies in the months ahead, and we may be sure that their practical application will be followed with the closest scrutiny by all concerned.
I do not believe it is too much to say that the acceptance of these Agreements did more than stop the war in Indo-China. It added three more to the new Asian States that have gained the right to exist in freedom and independence since the foundation of the United Nations. Set in the wide perspective of the great upsurge of nationalism among the Asian peoples (however unscrupulously it has been exploited by internal and external Communists), I feel it is impossible to minimise the significance of the Geneva settlement. Out of that deep movement ten new Asian States have been born since the end of the Second World War, and have gained political independence. The birth pangs have been painful for most of them, and for Korea and the three Associated States dangerously agonising both for themselves and for the world. But surely we can see now that we stand in the presence of a momentous new development in human relations. We are witnessing, as my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence once urged upon your Lordships' House, the unfolding of a mighty historical drama. Great Britain has played a notable rôle in this great drama, as India, Pakistan and Ceylon bear witness. The United States, Holland and now France have played their part, too, in ending old colonialism and in preventing pitiless Communist colonialism from taking its place. A similar upsurge has shown itself in the Middle East, and also in Africa. And it is in that setting, in that vast framework of political liberation, I suggest we must place the Indo-China Agreements.
Ideological aggression, backed and enforced by arms in the prosecution of localised wars, lies at the root of many of the world's troubles to-day. Now, for the first time in two decades, the world is free from "hot" war. What are the chances now of the "cold" war being brought to an end? Both the Communist world and the free world have proclaimed their desire and readiness to live together in peaceful co-existence. Do both sides mean the same thing? We have yet to find that out. I think it is at least permissible to interpret the attitude of Soviet Russia and Communist China at Geneva as evidence not only of their readiness to drive hard political bargains, but of their fear of driving matters to extremes. It was no less apparent to Mr. Molotov and

197
to Mr. Chou En-lai, I have no doubt, that failure to attain a settlement of the Indo-China conflict must lead to an intensification and widening of the armed struggle. That was the dreadful alternative that justified Mr. Eden and M. Mendès-France in their unremitting efforts to keep the Conference going and to get an Agreement. I am equally convinced that Russia and China both shrank from forcing, any of the issues in dispute to a point where a breakdown of the negotiations would have brought the Western Powers up against the conclusion that the war must go on and be fought to the bitter end. If that had been the conclusion forced upon the Western Ministers at Geneva, decisions involving consequences of immeasurable gravity might soon have had to be taken. I believe, also, that the Communist leaders were concerned not to give the Asian free nations ground for fears that China was bent on a policy of conquest. We can be thankful that the danger of extended war, and its possible development into a world atomic war, was averted by the Agreement.
But if Asia is now free from war, and international tensions there may be expected to relax, conditions of long-term peace and security have yet to be established. No one can expect sudden changes; but there are some decisions that cannot be postponed indefinitely. The question of the seating of Communist China in the United Nations, and a decision on the future of Formosa are major issues in the development of peace in Asia. No one can be blind to the strength of American public and official opinion on these issues, and we must all have respect for their deep feelings; but, at the same time, I think we must recognise that the China seat question cannot be held up indefinitely, and that before long not only Communist China but other excluded States will have to be brought into the United Nations.
Then there is the proposal to set up a South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. Peace in South-East Asia is a matter of vital concern to the Colombo nations, three of which are members of the Commonwealth. I am sure that we all agree on the need to protect peaceful nations from aggression. I read recently that United States diplomatic representatives in "a number of capitals" have started
198
consultations with the object of a conference being called to negotiate a collective security pact for South-East Asia. There will, I feel, be general agreement in this House for the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place regarding the, importance of seeming the approval and support of Asian members of the Commonwealth. This applies also to Burma and Indonesia, who are their Colombo Conference associates.
Mr. Eden gave the fullest consideration to the views of the Colombo nations during the Geneva Conference; and I believe there is general agreement that their influence was helpful and constructive. I shall be surprised if the noble Marquess does not tell us that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to keep up the close contact and to see to it that there is the fullest consultation on all matters relating to the defence of peace and security in their area. It must be plain to all of us that no arrangement for this purpose can be effective that does not carry with it at the very least the good will of these free Asian nations. I hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, will be able to give the House some information about the present position, and to tell us which countries are being invited and when the Conference is expected to take place. I recognise, of course, that the process of consultation and examination is likely to take some time. This sort of thing cannot be rushed when the interests and points of view of a large number of countries have to be considered.
I now come to Europe. We have not had long to wait for a new initiative by the Soviet Government. It was generally expected that some new move would be made, and it has taken the form of the latest Note to the three Allied Powers. We welcome the decision of Her Majesty's Government to consult all the N.A.T.O. Powers before a reply is sent. That course seems to me most desirable, first, because the Conference which the Russians propose is to be far wider than a Four-Power Conference, and because the Note makes a particular reference, on lines with which we are all familiar, to N.A.T.O. I will make only two short comments at this stage. The first is that care should be taken to discover whether there is in the Note, or there can be obtained by diplomatic means, any

199
evidence of a more favourable basis for a Conference than that on which the Berlin Conference foundered. None of us, I am sure, wants to see a repetition of an abortive Conference on European problems. My second comment is that one of the most important lessons of the Geneva Conference is that the free world is seriously weakened and handicapped by internal dissensions. It cannot negotiate from strength when there is disunity of policy or aim or methods. Diplomatic skill and diplomatic strength are two different things, and the former is not a substitute for the latter. It will be a good thing, therefore, if the consultations that are to take place regarding the Soviet Note can produce unity of view and of policy.
Now that France is no longer burdened with the war in Indo-China, I hope it may soon be possible for her Prime Minister to obtain from Parliament a decision on the E.D.C. Treaty. The position of Federal Germany, both as regards its promised freedom under the Bonn Conventions, and on the matter of an armed contribution to Western defence through E.D.C., remains to-day what it was more than two years ago when the two Treaties were signed. Noble Lords will no doubt have noted that the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government have agreed in principle that, in the event of the ratification of E.D.C. by France being delayed much longer, Federal Germany shall have her political freedom restored, but that the question of a defence contribution to the West shall be deferred for the time being. France has been informed, and no doubt she has been invited to agree with that.
I think it is only right, if E.D.C. is not going to be ratified, that steps should be taken to restore Federal Germany's sovereignty, as provided for in the Bonn Conventions. I have held this view for a long time. Indeed, in your Lordships' House as long ago as November, 1951, I expressed the view that the restoration of freedom should not be held up indefinitely because of prolonged delay about E.D.C. I do not think that there can be many who will deny that the granting of freedom to the German Federal Republic is due, if not overdue. It will be wrong to keep her much longer in an inferior position, either because it is
200
impossible to get reunification in freedom with Russia's agreement, or because France is not prepared to ratify the E.D.C. Treaty. We need a German contribution to Western defence; but more important still, in my view, we need a free and democratic Federal Germany as a close and active partner of the free world.
There is no doubt what the two main democratic parties of Germany want. This was made clear again within the last two weeks. Chancellor Adenauer said:
"We are on the side of the West."
The Social Democratic Party leader, Erich Ollenhauer, stated only last week:
"There is no question whatever about whether we belong to the West or the East. The decision about this has been taken long ago. The place of the German people is at the side of the free nations of the West."
If E.D.C. is ratified, Federal Germany will gain her freedom and will be able to start upon her contribution to Western defence. But if the conditions contemplated by the agreement of the British and United States Governments come about, the question of a defence contribution will have to be deferred and new arrangements made. It is almost certain that new problems and difficulties will present themselves, since it may involve a national German army without the restrictions provided by E.D.C. Dr. Adenauer has stated that, in the unlikely event of E.D.C. being rejected, his Government would not accept any sort of rearmament under unworthy conditions, such as a German army placed under a kind of tutelage. Equally, on the Western side, there would be far stronger opposition to German forces free from any restrictions than there is to E.D.C. with the limitations which that collective plan provides. If the French go ahead with E.D.C., the difficulties I have mentioned will be avoided. Germany will get her freedom, and Western defence will be reinforced by a German armed contribution. I hope that France will ratify, because I believe that, in the long-term interests of free Europe, E.D.C. provides the best method of dealing with German rearmament.
Finally, there is the question of the Suez Canal Base. General satisfaction, which we on these Benches share, will be felt that Heads of Agreement have been initialled for a new Treaty between this

201
country and Egypt regarding the future of the Base. Noble Lords will have read the official statement that was issued at the end of the successful negotiations yesterday. There has been a realistic approach by both sides and, as a result of reasonable give and take, a matter which has long disturbed Anglo-Egyptian relations has been settled by an Agreement which, as the statement says:
"by removing sources friction and mistrust will help to bring about a growing improvement in those relations."
This is a development of the greatest importance and one that should contribute to the stability and security of the Middle East, which is a matter of vital concern for the free world. I hope that the noble Marquess may be able to give information on two points when he speaks. One of the paragraphs of the official statement says that
"The agreement will recognise that the Suez Maritime Canal, which is an integral part of Egypt, is a waterway economically, commercially and strategically of international importance, and will express the determination of both parties to uphold the 1888 Convention guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the canal."
Can the noble Marquess tell the House whether the Canal is now to be open for the free navigation of Israeli shipping?
My second point refers to the Tripartite Agreement signed by Britain, France and the United States, in which they declared their opposition to the development of an arms race between the Arab States and Israel and said that the supplying of arms is governed by an assurance of non-aggression, and that, in the event of violation of any of these frontiers, they would immediately take action, both within and without the United Nations, to prevent such violation. Can the noble Marquess the Minister of State say whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or will take, steps to secure the agreement of their two partners to an early public reaffirmation of the Tripartite Agreement?
The Cairo statement says that the arrangements contemplated under the heads of agreement will contribute to the maintenance of peace and security, which is the object of both Governments. We all know that there are at present dangerous tensions in the Middle East area, largely because of the absence of peace between the Arab countries and
202
Israel. Peaceful co-existence is as necessary there as in other parts of the world, and while the process of securing formal peace between the Arab countries and Israel may take time, I believe that the opening of the Canal to free navigation by Israeli shipping and the reaffirmation of the Tripartite Declaration would contribute to easing the situation which at present exists between all these countries. I should welcome assurances on the points I have raised.
The Government will have their critics within their own Party because of the Agreement. They may find themselves listening to the same harsh criticisms which they themselves directed against their predecessors when we had to take account of national aspirations in Persia and recognise that force was no solution. We welcome their conversion to principles which we supported, only over Persia but also over Egypt, eight years ago. I think the Government have taken the right course in negotiating an Agreement, and I welcome the ending of a dispute which has for so long bedevilled our relations with Egypt. I beg to move for Papers.

CYPRUS
3.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the proceedings of your Lordships for a few moments in order to make a statement on Cyprus similar to that being made this afternoon in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. Her Majesty's Government have decided that the time has come to take a fresh initiative in the development of self-governing institutions in Cyprus. They are convinced that, given good will, an early start can be made in associating the people of Cyprus in the fuller management of their own affairs. They wish to make it clear once again that they cannot contemplate a change in the sovereignty of Cyprus.
The proposed constitutional arrangements have not yet been worked out in detail, but will be broadly as follows. In 1948 a Constitution was offered which would have given a high degree of internal self-government, but, although the offer has remained open for six years, it

203
has not been taken up by responsible and representative political leaders. Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided to wait no longer but to introduce in the near future a modified Constitution providing for a Legislature containing both official and nominated members (together forming a majority) and elected members, and also for the appointment to the Executive Council of some unofficial members of the Legislature to take charge of Departments. This will mark a first step along the road of constitutional advancement and will enable Cypriots to take a part in operating self-governing institutions and exercising responsibility, both in legislation and in the executive control of administration. The Governor has been instructed to take all action necessary in preparation for the introduction of a new Constitution on these lines.
British administration in Cyprus, besides bringing much prosperity to the island and safeguarding the rights of all sections of the population, has maintained and still maintains stable conditions in this vital strategic area. Her Majesty's Government are resolved to continue their vigorous policy of economic development in Cyprus. The efficient administration in the island, in which a large number of Cypriots play a most effective part, has brought about vast improvements in health, agriculture, communications and other fields. Since the war, great strides have been made, thanks to a stable currency linked to sterling, and to a sound budgetary policy. Cyprus has access to the London loan market on the favourable terms which are available to Colonial Governments.
The Government's plans for economic development are estimated to cost £15½ million over the ten-year period 1946–56. Substantial direct assistance has been given from United Kingdom funds, under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, and Cyprus will receive assistance from the additional funds which Parliament will be asked to provide for Colonial development and welfare. Water supplies have been piped to hundreds of villages; denuded mountains have been reafforested; malaria has been expelled; the effects of soil erosion are being vigorously combated, and industry has been encouraged and developed. The question
204
of port development is at this very moment being actively studied.
Her Majesty's Government fully recognise that the Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking parts of the population have close cultural links with Greece and Turkey. Without sacrifice of these traditions, Cypriots have before them the prospect of expanding opportunities in economic, social and constitutional development.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl for making that statement. May I, on behalf of the Opposition, express the sincere hope that the local population, from whatever origin they are drawn, will cooperate in making this plan a success. I am perfectly confident that they have much more to gain by so doing than by adopting an attitude of opposition. I sincerely hope that the efforts of Her Majesty's Government will to that extent meet with success and co-operation.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I should like to support and endorse what has just been said by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition. On this occasion I think I need say no more than that.

THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
Debate resumed.
3.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has given us once again one of his thoughtful and comprehensive surveys of the whole international scene. As the official spokesman of the official Opposition, he is expected to make a comprehensive world-wide survey—"from China to Peru," one might say. In parenthesis, it may amuse your Lordships to know, with regard to that much-used and hackneyed quotation, that the Peruvian Ambassador, who happens to live next door to me, told me once that, of the batches of cuttings that he received day by day from a cutting agency, a very large part consisted of parts of speeches of orators who on various occasions surveyed the scene "from China to Peru." I am under no obligation to undertake a survey of the

205
present equivalent, of Indo-China to Guatemala—to the relief of the House and to my own relief I propose to choose only two or three of the more salient points among the matters that are in the minds of your Lordships when you come to a discussion such as this.
Like Lord Henderson, I naturally put in the forefront the success—for success it was—of the Geneva Conference. We have been so accustomed to international conferences ending in failure, that it is a relief, and almost a surprise, when one of them leads to a positive result. The Conference on Korea did succeed, if it succeeded at all, by ending the fighting and by providing a settlement of the difficult question of the prisoners; but it has made no provision for the future settlement of time unhappy peninsula. The Austrian Conferences have been proceeding for years, with a wholly negative result so far as the advantage of Austria or any other country was concerned. The Berlin Conference on the future of Germany ended in a failure so complete that everybody has already forgotten that the Conference was ever held. And the Geneva Conference was faced by difficulties so great that it is highly to the credit of all the parties that they should have arrived at a positive result.
Diplomatic negotiations cannot undo or ignore military decisions. The struggle for Dien Bien Phu, the contest which we watched with such harassing anxiety, ended in a total defeat, and a battle for Hanoi seemed unlikely to yield any other result. All the more credit, therefore, is due to those at Geneva, and particularly to the two chief protagonists, Mr. Eden, our own Foreign Minister and M. Mendès-France who brought about the successful organisation of the settlement; and one would add also, as Lord Henderson has done, our measure of thanks to the noble Marquess who is to follow me in is debate for the share which he efficiently rendered in the accomplishment.
A few days ago, when the results of the Conference were announced, I said a few words in your Lordships' House. I said that the results showed how wrong were the pessimists who were continually saying that there was no possibility of an accommodation between East and West. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, did me the honour in yesterday's issue of The
206
Times of taking up that observation and contesting it. He said that he had never heard anyone say such a thing, that a temporary accommodation was impossible. He said that
"… the West give way enough"
accommodation can always be achieved, and he went on:
"… it has been reached at Geneva by handing over more than half of the inhabitants of Viet-nam. Accommodations were likewise reached at Yalta, at Potsdam and on other occasions"—
he also mentioned Munich. He continues by saying:
"Perhaps Lord Samuel is confusing pessimists with realists who say that no durable or abiding settlement—not accommodation—is possible with any totalitarian Power unless There is a fundamental change in totalitarian aim and behaviour."
Of course, we should all agree that no lasting and permanent settlement is possible; but that is not to say that, until that comes about, our only policy should be the negative one of inaction. Would Lord Vansittart favour a policy of a preventive war, since he considers that no settlement is possible unless there is a change of heart among the Communists? That doctrine is one which I am certain that not even the most ultra-extremist would advocate in this country. If that is so, what other policy is there, if there is no change of heart among our opponents? He would say, quite rightly, that we could agree to maintain out defences, to fortify N.A.T.O.; and he would say (and here again I would agree) that it would not be possible to leave the development of atomic weapons either to Germany during the war or to Russia since. But to say that and to stop there is not enough. That we should have strong armaments ready to repel attack?—agreed. But is there nothing more to be done? Is there no hope whatsoever of any progress in any direction towards some kind of settlement?
Two alternatives have been advocated. One is that the leaders of the five great Powers should get together round a table and, without any elaborate diplomatic apparatus, arrive at a settlement of the principal heads which are in dispute. Five men round a table, each with a half sheet of paper—a very delightful ideal. I am afraid, however, that the affairs of the world are far too complicated for us to be able to feel any great assurance

207
that such a meeting would produce a satisfactory result, unless, indeed, the ground had been thoroughly prepared beforehand and the main points privately decided. The other possible alternative is that we should proceed as best we can, stage by stage, piecemeal, one thing after another, gradually removing the outlying and, later, the central causes of dispute. Call that accommodation or call it easement—call it what you will—that has been the course taken by Her Majesty's Government; it is the course supported by the Commonwealth Governments, and it is one which I feel sure the great majority of your Lordships would also approve.
It has had a setback within the last few days in the most shocking outrage in the Chinese seas: the attack on a peaceful civilian aircraft belonging to Britain, and the murder of several of its passengers. To the credit of the Chinese, be it said, they have not sought to deny or to evade responsibility. We have been accustomed, in not dissimilar cases, to receiving a denial of guilt or a prolonged delay in procrastination before any settlement is even thought of. That has not been so here. Immediately, the Chinese Government confessed that the action was carried out by Chinese planes; they apologised, and offered to give proper compensation and redress. It is all the more lamentable that, only a few days later, they commit a similar offence in an attack upon an American ship and planes which were undertaking the work of rescue. All this is greatly to the discredit of the Chinese Government. If that is the sort of civilisation which the new China is offering to the world, the less we have of it the better. It offends against the conscience of mankind—and, as has been well said, a nation, as a man, cannot succeed if he has "the hiss of the world against him."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Viscount, and I agree with what he has said. But I think that, to make the picture complete, he should give some account of the operations of the forces of the Formosa Government in this area.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: No, I do not think that was any justification. It is true that these seas are to some extent in a warlike area, on account of the con-
208
flict that continues between Formosa and the mainland. But that is not a justification for mistaking a clearly marked British 'plane for a Formosan bomber. It is certainly not a justification for immediately attacking it when it was in the air, without taking any steps to warn it off, and still less a justification for pursuing it as it fell through the air, firing again and again, apparently in the hope that no survivors might be left to give evidence of what had happened.
The main issue that has caused anxiety throughout the Geneva Conference has been the divergence of policy exhibited between Britain and the United States. That is perhaps the most serious event that has taken place within the last few years; for upon the unity of these two Governments the future hopes of the world must largely depend. There has been a very definite divergence between British and American policy with regard to China during the last twenty years, almost continuously. We in this country have had a great deal of experience of relations with China. In the nineteenth century we found ourselves in a war in China—the Opium War, as it was called—and there have been other prolonged disputes and constant difficulties. You have there a vast country, one might say inchoate and amorphous, now with 600 million people; and surely it must be obvious that it must be for the Chinese people to work out their own salvation, or the reverse.
The United States has adopted a different policy. In the civil war that arose between the Communists and the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek, the United States definitely took sides, and still insists that the de facto Government of Formosa should hold the seat in the United Nations which the Charter of the United Nations allocates to China. The revolution in China has undoubtedly, from all reports reaching us, the support of the mass of the Chinese people, not only the peasants and the workers but also the educated classes, the universities and the patriotic youth of China. That revolution is no more likely to be undone than the Russian Revolution of 1917. It would have been no friendship on our part towards the United States if we had not made clear that public opinion in this country would not allow us to slip gradually into a position in which we found

209
ourselves involved in an all-out war with Communist China. We may feel just indignation and resentment at this incident of the 'planes; but that is not a reason for adopting excited policies which are doomed to failure. It is a mistake to think in headlines. The American humorist, Alexander Woollcott, said of us:
"The English have an extraordinary ability for flying into a great calm."
It is often afterwards found that that course has been very useful and highly successful.
I am not proposing to touch upon questions relating to Europe, for my noble friend, Lord Layton, will take part from this Bench in the debate to-morrow, and he has an expert (one might almost say a technical) knowledge of the European Community and all that relates to it which is equalled by few and excelled by none in this House. I have to remember that speeches of undue length are strongly disapproved of in your Lordships' House; and I entirely agree with the opinion held so firmly by each one of us that everyone else's speeches are much too long. I shall therefore try not to fall into that disservice but will end my speech (I am still some little way from the end) as quickly as possible. I think there is no word in a speech so objectionable as that word "Finally" when it is afterwards forgotten. It only arouses false hopes.
I will pass to more general observations on the background of the particular problems which we are discussing to-day. I am impelled to do so by the fact that this day is an anniversary. We in this country are accustomed to commemorate the outbreak of the First World War on August 4 because it was the date of this country's entry into that conflict; but the war began on this day's date, July 28, 40 years ago. On that day Austria declared war on Serbia, bombarded Belgrade and invaded the country; and then began the events which have changed the world. It is a common experience that memory is most vivid of events in which one has taken part and which one has observed under great emotion, and my own memory of the Cabinet meetings during those days—the Cabinet of which I am the only survivor in your Lordships' House—is very vivid, particularly when
210
I recall how the course of events gradually unrolled and disaster came closer and closer.
At that time, at the end of July, Sir Edward Grey was labouring desperately to hold off from one another Austria and Russia, then at the edge of war. He was trying to form a combination of two friends of Austria (Germany and Italy) and two friends of Russia (Britain and France) to act as mediators; and at first things seemed to be going well. There were acceptances, but everything depended upon the decision of Germany. We had the most intense anxiety to know what that decision would be. I remember vividly, as it were this morning, going into the Cabinet room rather early before the meeting and finding Sir Edward Grey there alone. I said to him, "What is happening about your mediation proposal?" and he said, with a passion in his voice that I can never forget, "There is some devilry going on in Berlin." Austria was in a war fever, determined to attack Serbia in order to punish them for the assassination of her Crown Prince, and Germany was either unwilling or unable to control her. And so events took their course.
On July 28 the European war broke out. At that time the Five Powers of Western and Central Europe controlled the affairs of the world. Russia, huge and incalculable, was in the background, but too backward in her civilisation to be among the leaders. Now that predominance of Western and Central Europe has disappeared. After the social and political revolution of 1917, Russia has become active and dynamic, her people no longer illiterate and with the mentality of serfdom. She is busy developing her material resources and her armaments. For good or for ill, she is one of the major factors in world politics. China, then and since the victim of anarchy at the centre, and in the provinces of the rule of war lords who were bandits, preying upon the people; her civil service riddled with corruption, her peasants oppressed by landlords and usurers, a land of floods and famines and misery. She suffered the crowning disaster of the invasion by the Japanese and of occupation of a large part of her land, to be followed by open civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists. All that has now been changed, and, again for good or for ill, there is in

211
China a powerful and effective Government. That vast population, with its immense potential resources, is now another new factor in international affairs.
Then, since July 28 forty years ago, there has been another emergence—that of the United States of America. Since the foundation of the Republic and the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine the United States had kept isolated and aloof from European conflicts. That policy she has found impossible in the modern world, in face of German militarism and Russian Communism. And then there has been a fourth emergence: Asia and Africa, forgotten for centuries, are now coming into the forefront of the scene, demanding political freedom and individual welfare and happiness. Such is the world as it now is, to which we have to accustom ourselves. Such is the world to which we have to adapt our policies. Such is the background of the present problems we are discussing to-day—forty years after.
We in this Island throughout that period have taken a prominent part for the sake not only of our own safety and the security of our lives and liberties, but also as a centre of a vast conglomeration of peoples covering a quarter of the globe. With much sacrifice and much suffering, I think on the whole we may claim that we have done our duty. Two or three years ago Sir Winston Churchill said that he had not accepted the office of Prime Minister in order to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. Now, after a lifetime of service, he finds himself, perhaps to his own surprise, presiding not over the dissolution of an old Empire but over the construction and consolidation of a new Commonwealth, including the peoples of many races and religions, all of equal status and liberties. And if this Island is still the leader of that Commonwealth, it is not because we have been able or are desirous to cling by force of arms to the rule of territories, which is no longer needed, but because of the excellence of our institutions, the strength of our resources and the qualities of our people.
And, looking overseas at the nations that are still associated with us, we see Canada increasing before our eyes her population and her productivity, and raising her culture also, with such rapidity
212
that she will soon be one of the foremost and happiest of nations in the world; and Australia and New Zealand, their destinies bright with hope. South Africa, if she becomes more tolerant, more merciful and therefore more harmonious, may yet have a great and happy future before her. And India, who has so fully justified her independence—progressive, humanitarian, taking a leading part in serving the practical ideals of the United Nations: India who first inaugurated the Korean Conference, who undertook the charge of the prisoners, who afterwards supervised the elections in Sudan, and who now is the principal trustee of the settlement in Indo-China. With her are Pakistan and Ceylon. The question of the Sudan has been settled. To-day we have news that the Egyptian controversy is settled. Malaya is on the way to settlement. The states of West, Central and East Africa are rapidly advancing along the path of political freedom and social progress.
As I have said before in your Lordships' House—I have been criticised for saying it, but I insist upon it—your generation may be inaugurating a Second Elizabethan Age. My generation has passed away; only a few remnants remain. The Prime Minister is the only other survivor in Parliament of that great Cabinet of forty, and nearly fifty, years ago. You may be, not merely the witnesses, but perhaps the creators of that Second Elizabethan Age. And if you have to fight an Armada, an Armada of the air more terrible than the first, you will face it and defeat it. But it is more than likely that it will not be so, for no one wishes or desires a third world war. Everyone abhors it. So this coming age may be adventurous, constructive, liberty-loving, brilliant in the arts, materially prosperous, above all soundly moral, let us hope, and spiritually great. In Britain and in the Commonwealth, as I have said to your Lordships before, your generation may now be watching not a sunset but a dawn.
3.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, it will, I think, be for the convenience of the House if some Government speaker, in this particular case myself, takes part in the debate at

213
this stage. My noble friend the Leader of the House will make an intervention (the description is his, not mine) at the beginning of to-morrow's discussion, and then, with the permission of the House, I will at the end of the debate reply to the more detailed questions arid arguments raised, so far as time, information and ingenuity will permit. It is, of course, most desirable that we should from time to time discuss in this House the course of foreign affairs. Her Majesty's Government, as the House knows, are not only ready to give to noble Loris as full information as the circumstances of the moment permit in regard to policy and performance in those many parts of the world where British interests are closely concerned, but anxious, also, to benefit from the accumulated experience of the House in these matters of high international import.
When one listens, as we have just listened, to an example of that accumulated wisdom and experience, such as was contained in the speech, both restrained and inspiring, of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, one begins to realise how rich this House is in personality. I imagine that even half a century ago such debates as these were of some rarity, evoked largely by the sudden emergence of some momentous and contentious issue. Now, momentous and contentious issues are almost a daily occurrence, for if the world has become, as a result of many inventions, a more compact place, it has scarcely become a more companionable one. As your Lordships know, negotiations have been proceeding for some time past for the settlement of several most important problems, the progressive removal of which from the field of controversy would materially increase that relaxation of tension which we profoundly hope will flow from the agreement reached at Geneva with regard to Indo-China. Certainly some, if not all, of these negotiations have been protracted, but questions of great delicacy and complexity were involved, and the issues are far too weighty to be the sport of impatience. It so happens that agreement upon two of these questions coincides with this debate.
I am glad to say that we have now reached agreement, in principle, with the Saudi Government regarding the terms
214
on which the frontier dispute on the Trucial Coast shall be put to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal will consist of five members, of whom one will be nominated by Her Majesty's Government, acting on behalf of the Sultan of Muscat and the Ruler of Abu Dhabi, and one by the Saudi Government. These two will then choose three neutrals. This Tribunal will be asked to determine the common frontier between Saudi Arabia and Abe Dhabi, and sovereignty over the Buraimi zone. The Saudi official, Turki, and his party is to be withdrawn to Saudi Arabia and we on our side shall withdraw the posts which we put out after his appearance in the oasis. Each side will then contribute fifteen men to a police group which will be stationed in the oasis to maintain law and order during arbitration. As for oil operations, the disputed areas are to be divided into two parts separated by a neutral zone. In the, northern part our companies will continue their operations, and in the southern the Arabian American Oil Company will be free to prospect. This, of course, will be without prejudice to the claims of the parties at arbitration. The arbitration proceedings will take time. But I am sure that the House will share my warm satisfaction that it is now possible to go forward to a solution of this long dispute and to the full restoration of our traditionally friendly relations with Saudi Arabia.
I am glad, also, to be able to say that, as your Lordships know, we have reached agreement, in principle, with the Egyptian Government on the future of the Suez Canal Zone Base. The full text of the Heads of Agreement and of the annex on the organisation of the Base will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and will also be made available as a White Paper to-day. Meanwhile, I should like to give a short summary of their provisions. The Heads of Agreement provide that those parts of the Base which we require shall be kept in efficient working order and capable of immediate use in the event of an armed attack by an outside Power on Egypt, or on any member of the Arab League, or on Turkey. If such an attack takes place, Egypt will afford to the United Kingdom the necessary facilities to place the Base on a war footing and to operate it effectively. In the event of the threat of an attack on any of the countries

215
that I have mentioned, there will be immediate consultation between the United Kingdom and Egypt.
The installations we are retaining are required to assist in the supply and maintenance of Her Majesty's Forces in the Middle East in peace. They will also hold certain war reserves. They will be operated by civilian labour through firms, British or Egyptian, under contract to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. These contractors will be afforded by the Egyptian Government all the facilities which they require for their work. Her Majesty's Government will also have the necessary facilities for the inspection of these installations. The Heads of Agreement have been initialled by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, to whom Her Majesty's Government are much indebted for the decisive part he played in the final stages of these difficult discussions. Negotiations for a formal Agreement will now begin. Our forces will be withdrawn from the Canal Zone within a period of twenty months from the date of signature of the formal Agreement. That Agreement will last for seven years from the date of its signature. There is provision for consultation between the parties during the last year of its operation as to what arrangements are necessary on its conclusion.
The Agreement will also include a clause recognising the economic, commercial and strategic importance of the Suez Canal, and will express the determination of both parties to uphold the 1888 Convention guaranteeing freedom of navigation. There is also a clause providing for overflying, landing and servicing facilities for aircraft under Royal Air Force control. There will be many points of detail to be worked out in the drafting of the Agreement itself, but it is the conviction of Her Majesty's Government that this Agreement will preserve our essential requirements in this area in the light of modern conditions. We are convinced that in the Middle East, as elsewhere, our defence arrangements must be based on consent and co-operation of the peoples concerned.
I should like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abide by the terms of the Tripartite Declaration of May 25, 1950, relating to peace and stability between
216
the Arab States and Israel. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed this point with the French and the United States Governments and finds them both equally determined to uphold that declaration. It is our hope that it will now be possible to reestablish our relations with Egypt on a new basis of friendship and understanding. Her Majesty's Government believe that this is also the intention of the Egyptian Government. The Agreement should thus contribute to a reduction of tension in the Middle East as a whole.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Before the noble Marquess leaves Egypt, may I ask him when it will be convenient for anyone who wishes to ask particular questions? Should they put them to the Government now or during the debate?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I believe that the noble Viscount is himself going to take part in the debate. If I am to reply to questions, it would certainly be more convenient if he raised them in the course of his own speech.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Certainly.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not propose at this stage to argue the merits of this Agreement.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess how far, as a result of this debate, the House will be committed to the Agreement?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, this is perhaps a matter which the Leader of the House ought to answer. I had understood that there were a certain number of noble Lords who wished to have an opportunity of testifying to their views in the Lobby. I am therefore arranging that an Amendment shall be put down to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asking the House to approve the Heads of Agreement which have been signed in Egypt, so that if noble Lords wish to challenge that Amendment they will have an opportunity of so doing.
LORD HANKEY: May I ask the noble Marquess whether that Amendment will be put down during this debate, or will it be during to-morrow's debate?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have already handed it in at the Table,

217
and I am ready to give the noble Lord the terms. I do not know whether it would be proper for me to do that now.
EARL JOWITT: I think it would be a good idea if the noble Marquess were to give us the terms of the Amendment as soon as the Paper is available.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think I can give the Amendment. I am not quite certain that it is absolutely correct, but it is practically correct. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will stand as it is and we shall move to add the following words:
"in particular, to move that this House approves the Heads of the Agreement initialled in Cairo on July 27 between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Egypt."
Those are the words and their purpose is to give the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and those who feel like him, an opportunity to testify to their views.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, this seems to me a very drastic procedure. We have not yet seen this Agreement, and we have not yet heard it read. We have seen reports in the Press from Cairo which give different accounts—not very different, and on the whole much the same account—but surely it is rather "stiff" that we should be asked to agree at such short notice. I have been asked by certain noble Lords who generally co-operate with me on this question to make it clear that we cannot approve the statement on the Suez Canal Zone at such short notice and that, before ratification of any Agreement on this subject, we shall ask for an opportunity for a debate confined to Egypt and untrammelled by a wider debate on international affairs.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I support what the noble Lord has just said? We are told that we are being invited to-morrow to approve certain Heads of Agreement of which we have been given a verbal description. The White Paper is to be issued to-night. Half the House is not present to-day. I suppose the Amendment will be circulated in the Papers to-night, but how are the Government going to get in contact with noble Lords who take an interest in this matter? It seems to me pretty quick work, and I should have thought it would have been much better if something were done on the lines which the noble Lord has suggested. It is really a "pretty fast one," if I may use the expression.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The action which I took was entirely in order to meet the anxieties of these noble Lords. I was told of their anxieties, and that they wished to express their views, if necessary in the Lobby. I have sent intimation to other noble Lords that this subject was to be raised. I do not know what the noble Lord is suggesting. The House is rising on Friday. There will be no opportunity for the long and detailed examination unless they wish Parliament to sit longer, and I do not think that would be the wish of the great majority of this House. The Agreement is being discussed to-morrow in another place. Of course, it is always open to noble Lords, when the House meets again, to raise the matter. Anyone can put down a Motion. I cannot tell noble Lords for certain the date of the actual signature of the Agreement: it is impossible for me, at the present stage, to do that. I have done my best to meet the wishes of noble Lords.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Marquess would elucidate a little more? Is there not to be a ratification clause? If my recollection is not at fault, as it sometimes is, I think we have been told that there would be. There was a slight "mix-up" over the Sudan, and the House was given to understand on that occasion that there would be a ratification clause; but in fact there was not. Arising out of that, I think there is on record somewhere a pledge or an undertaking that in the case of the Suez Canal Base there would be a ratification clause, in which case the Agreement would come before Parliament for discussion before ratification. I am speaking from memory, but if that is correct—and it will have to be checked—then we should have a normal discussion before ratification, rather than be rushed into it. I do not use the phrase offensively, but it is pretty short notice. I heard news of this Agreement at eleven o'clock last night on the wireless; we are to get the White Paper circulated tonight, and to-morrow we are to be invited to oppose or confirm approval of the Heads of Agreement. After all, this is an important subject. Egypt is not just an ordinary "muck and ruck" matter, if I may so put it. As I see it, it is a matter of vital international im-

219
portance. While thanking the noble Marquess for his consideration in putting down the Amendment, in order to meet us at our convenience, I think it would be much better to have a regular Egyptian debate when we meet again. I agree that it is impossible to hold Parliament for this purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am entirely in the hands of the House. If the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and others do not wish to have the opportunity of testifying to their views in the Lobby to-morrow, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment, and then the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will stand exactly as it is. The noble Lord asked about the terms of Agreement. They are not known yet. All we have done is to initial the Heads of Agreement. When the terms of the Agreement are known, then no doubt there will be another opportunity. Whether there is to be a ratification clause, or what exactly will be the form of the Agreement, I cannot tell the noble Lord to-day. I am speaking first tomorrow, and perhaps I may then be able to give the noble Lord a little more information.
LORD KILLEARN: Perhaps then the noble Marquess will have checked the previous Papers, because I believe there was an undertaking that there should be a ratification clause in this case, and that consequently the Agreement would come before Parliament.
LORD HANKEY: I think I can give a slight explanation of that. My own impression is not that the Heads of Agreement had to be ratified, but that the final Agreement had to be ratified. I do not remember any statement that the Heads of Agreement which, up to the last two or three days have been the subject of informal talks, have to be ratified. It is the ultimate Agreement come to after conversations of weeks or months, as I think, that will require ratification.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I understood that what was agreed was that Parliament should debate it before the final Agreement. I feel I have a certain grievance against noble Lords. I received a message just before the House met to-day that the noble Lord,
220
Lord Hankey, was seriously disturbed because there was to be no opportunity for him to vote to-morrow, and therefore, to meet his wishes, I took the opportunity, at short notice, of producing an Amendment to the Motion. I have sent messages to inform other noble Lords that there was this Amendment, so that everybody possible should be given the opportunity of knowing and of coming. Now I am told that noble Lords do not want an Amendment at all to-morrow. All this was done in order to please them.
LORD HANKEY: I do not know where my noble friend the Leader of the House gets his information about my thoughts on this subject, but I certainly had not the slightest desire that the matter should be discussed with a view to a Division to-morrow, because I do not think we have had time to consider it. Those who hold my view—and there are a good many in this House—are not expecting to come for a Division to-morrow. We cannot get in touch and we have not all the machinery of Whips, and so on, that the Government have; we have nothing. If we were to have to argue for a vote against an Amendment to-morrow, we should be arguing unprepared, on something we have never seen, even up to this very moment. If I may venture to say so, I do not really think it is right and proper procedure to rush it.
LORD KILLEARN: I was not associated with any suggestion such as the noble Marquess has just put before us. I am sure it was done with the best will in the world to help, but I certainly had no knowledge of any such move having been made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Very well. I take it that noble Lords do not want an Amendment to-morrow. In that case it will not be moved, and the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will proceed as it at present stands.
LORD HANKEY: But the statement I made about the desire of my group not to be considered as committed will remain on the record of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, when this interval began in what I was endeavouring to say to your Lordships, I was just starting to say that in any case I did not propose at this stage to argue the merits of this Agreement,

221
but only to say this: I was never more sure of anything ray own mind Man that the Government's policy and actions in this regard have been wise and right. Some noble Lords, it is evident, may take a different view. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked me in this Egyptian context two questions, one of which I think has already been answered by the terms of the statement which I made. The other, which concerns the Suez Canal, is, I think, in rather a different category, because the question of transit of Israeli ships through the Canal is a matter which arose out of a discussion in the United Nations, and from that point of view it would surely have been an unsuitable matter to discuss merely between us and the, Egyptian Government in the course of the negotiations which have recently taken place. In any event, there is, as your Lordships have already been told, a clause in the Agreement which covers the position in general. But it would not have been suitable to deal with the particular instance to which the noble Lord referred.
LORD HENDERSON: In the Agreement it is laid down, quite specifically, that both nations agree to the freedom of navigation in the Canal, in accordance with the 1888 Convention. Presumably that is the intention of both sides; and, moreover, it is merely recognising the legal position which obtained before the conflict in the Middle East. It seems rather strange, therefore, that one of the passages in one of the Heads of Agreement should be this joint statement and that what we consider and have always considered a violation of the 1888 Convention is to be carried on.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: All I was saying—and I think it is surely correct—is that this matter was dealt with on the international plane by the Security Council, and it would have been a rather strange action if we had proceeded to deal with it from our point of view, unilaterally, in our negotiations with the Egyptians. I would say no more for the moment about Egypt. We may have other questions to raise in later stages.
In one other quarter of the world—and that not the least inflammable—an accord has been reached which has at least put an end to eight years of bitter internecine strife and opened the door to a prospect of a happier and more stable
222
future for the sorely tried peoples of Indo-China. I do not desire to exaggerate the favourable aspects of the Geneva Agreement, but I certainly do not wish to depreciate them. I recently gave your Lordships a summary of the main features and I do not propose to expand or recapitulate them to-day. But when I made that statement the Leaders of both Opposition Parties were good enough not only to welcome its contents but to charge me to convey to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary their congratulations upon his personal contribution to the results achieved; and he has greatly valued their tributes. I should like to take this opportunity, from the viewpoint of one who was in close daily touch with him for the first nine of eleven weeks during which the Conference lasted, to say that I am sure that there was not a single delegation that did not feel itself under a profound debt of gratitude to him for his unfailing patience, resolution and resource. I would desire also to express my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for having been good enough to include me, however undeservedly, in their remarks.
There are, of course, critics of the Geneva Agreement who contend that we could and should have got more favourable terms and ought not to have accepted those which we could and did obtain. Let those critics consider what might so easily have been the price of failure, and reflect that there were moments when the storm clouds of a third world war hung heavy and menacing upon the horizon. Perhaps the shrewdest comment on that school of thought came from General Bedell Smith on his recent return to the United States, when he said:
"I might point out that when we analyse and discuss the results of Geneva, it will be well to remember that diplomacy is rarely able to gain at the conference table what cannot be gained or held on the battlefield."
And has not Monsieur Mendès-France recently told the French Assembly that the terms of the settlement are such as would have been accepted by French military opinion at any time during the past three years?
It is as well to remember that, when the Geneva Conference opened, a war had been raging for nearly eight years; had been responsible for infinite

223
slaughter, havoc and devastation; had absorbed large quantities of men, money and material; had cost France the flower of her Army, and was showing no signs at all of a victorious end. Indeed, we met at Geneva under the sombre shadow of the siege of Dien Bien Phu, which fell after an epic resistance, when we were still engaged upon the opening exchanges at Geneva.
As the situation developed, our policy at the Conference crystallised into certain precise objectives: to obtain a ceasefire; to arrange for the subsequent sorting out and regrouping of the two sides in Viet-nam—and I would only interject here that perhaps the use of the word "partition" by the noble Lord is not entirely correct in the circumstances—to establish the integrity and independence of Laos and Cambodia; to set up an International Supervisory Commission so composed as to give promise of impartial and efficient working; to secure the continued interest in the maintenance of the terms of settlement of those countries which participated in the Conference and to associate with them such of the neighbouring Asian countries as might be willing to take that course.
Looking back upon the proceedings, I think we can fairly say that those objectives have been substantially achieved, though the position in this regard of the neighbouring countries is still under discussion with them. India, Canada and Poland have been requested to serve upon the Supervisory Commission and it has been proposed that representatives of these countries should shortly meet in Delhi to discuss detailed arrangements. As the House knows, we had hoped and striven for the Colombo Conference countries to be invited to form this Commission, since they possessed the merits alike of both propinquity and impartiality. But in the face of stubborn opposition to our original proposals, we ultimately accepted the last-moment alternative put forward by the other side. The invitation to India and Canada was conveyed by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and we are most grateful to these Commonwealth countries for their consideration of it. We can only trust and pray that the high hopes cherished by so many people all over the world, that Geneva marked a significant milestone on the rough and uphill road
224
towards peace, may be justified by the test of time.
Her Majesty's Government have not receded from the position taken up last April in regard to the need for a defensive organisation in South-East Asia but, so long as the Geneva Conference was in progress, they were reluctant to take any step which might in any degree impair the prospects of success. We have, however, certainly neither shelved nor neglected the problem, and representatives of the Armed Forces of Australia, New Zealand, France, the United States and the United Kingdom—the United Kingdom having been represented by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff—met in Washington early in June to examine and advise upon the military factors involved. Later, after, and as a result of, the Washington talks, a United States-United Kingdom study group was instructed to prepare and submit plans to the two Governments, and those plans are now under consideration. The creation of any such system obviously requires careful examination and close consultation in advance. Moreover, Her Majesty's Government are most anxious that as many countries as possible in South and South-East Asia and the Western Pacific should be invited to adhere to such organisation as may come into being. Any project of this kind may, of course, be looked upon with disfavour by the Communist countries, but in face of the Treaty which exists between China and the Soviets they can scarcely find justification for complaint.
It is to be noted that, almost simultaneously with the opening of the Geneva Conference, there opened at Colombo a Conference initiated by the Prime Minister of Ceylon and attended as well by the Prime Ministers of India, Pakistan, Burma and Indonesia. This meeting, the first of its kind, was warmly welcomed by Her Majesty's Government, and close contact was maintained between the two Conferences, so long as the Colombo meeting lasted, and later between the United Kingdom delegation to Geneva and the respective Prime Ministers of the Colombo Conference countries, a contact which has been most valuable to us and I am sure most acceptable to them.
But Geneva was planned with reference not only to Indo-China but also to Korea, and if, in the event, Indo-China appeared

225
the more urgent problem, it was because there were men dying in large numbers every day in Indo-China, whereas in Korea the hardly-won armistice still prevailed. But that priority does not mean that the Korean aspect was in any way overlooked. Indeed, we sat through many hours and days of Communist oratory on the subject, though at the end of it all they had scarcely budged, in spite of all argument and appeal, from the position taken up almost on the first day by General Nam Il, the Foreign Minister of North Korea, who had been one of the leading figures at the endurance test of Panmunjon.
The unwavering contention of the Communists was that the other fifteen countries had lent themselves to an aggressive war launched by the United States under the shelter of the United Nations, and that the peace of an inoffensive North Korea had been brutally violated by the South Koreans, who were now striving, with their associates, to win in the conference room what they had been unable to gain on the battlefield. Their thesis was that the United Nations, having thus itself been involved in aggression, had forfeited all claim to exercise authority over the arrangements for, and the carrying out of, the elections which were to be the prelude to the formation of a Central Government for a united, independent and democratic Korea. By the North Korean plan, these elections were to be arranged by an All-Korean Commission, composed of equal numbers of North and South Koreans, although some four-fifths of the population of Korea as a whole is situated in the South and only the remaining, one-fifth in the North. The effect of this arrangement would of course be that, in the event of disagreement between the two halves of the Commission, the North and the South halves, the North Korean half would have been able to impose a veto and block the holding of any elections for all time. Nor did the prospects of such disagreements between North and South appear very remote, for in our meetings the North Koreans and their friends lost no opportunity of referring to the South Koreans in vitriolically opprobrious terms, and it cannot be pretended—or perhaps expected—that the South Koreans were always fulsome in their compliments in return.
226
One concession was ultimately made: that a Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission should control the actual holding of the elections, though without any voice in the preliminary planning. But it was insisted that this Commission should be again composed of Swiss, Swedes, Czechs and Poles, as in the similar Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission set up under the terms of the Armistice, an arrangement which in the Communist view had apparently given complete satisfaction but in the view especially of the United States, who had had the most and worst experience of it, had been rendered largely unworkable by Communist intransigence. The trouble, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said in that connection, is that in those circumstances the neutrals are neutral and the Communists are Communist; and it would have been futile to accept a second time any such frustrating arrangement. When, therefore, a series of plenary sessions brought no advance at all, the sixteen countries decided that there was no alternative but to bring the proceedings to an end and to incorporate in a declaration their reasons for so doing. But at that last meeting it was made very clear that this was not the end of discussions, which must be resumed at some suitable point of future time, when the atmosphere might be more propitious than had been found still to prevail so soon after the end of active hostilities.
Meanwhile, the Armistice remains of full force and effect. The next step is for the sixteen countries to make their report to the United Nations, on whose behalf and at whose behest they took up the Communist challenge, though obviously no final decisions as to the fate of Korea can be reached except at some further conference at which North and South Korea and the Chinese People's Republic again attend. I recall that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, last week put in a plea for the resumption of negotiations on Korea. I can only assure him that, had he been present at Geneva, he would have been satisfied that more time must be allowed to elapse before there can be any real prospect of a favourable outcome. It would be unwise to risk a second failure so soon upon the heels of the first.
My Lords, if no success rewarded our efforts on Korea, the same is, un-

227
fortunately, so far true of the recent Conference in London on disarmament. The countries of the West there represented put forward carefully and honestly conceived plans, comprehensive in character and effective in design. My right honourable friend the Minister of State submitted a reasonable and practical phased programme for reduction of armaments of all kinds. The Soviet delegation proved, however, to be adamant in their opposition. They either reiterated their already only too familiar point of view or refused utterly even to discuss the Western proposals, or to advance new ones of their own. It was not an encouraging performance, and one can only hope that the present discussions in the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations may prove more fruitful. Certainly Her Majesty's Government and their associates have not given up hope of an ultimately successful issue and will continue to strive towards that end.
In Europe the most important problem which faces us concerns the future of Germany, and in particular the means by which the Federal Republic can make a just contribution to the defence of the free world. When your Lordships debated the international situation in March, many speeches were devoted to these questions. There was, if I recall aright, a large measure of agreement that some way must be found of permitting a certain measure of controlled German rearmament whilst preventing a revival of German militarism. Her Majesty's Government still believe that the conception of the European Defence Community is the best way in which Germany can be enabled to rearm and play her necessary part in the schemes for Western defence. Her Majesty's Government welcome the steps which the French Prime Minister is taking to reach an early decision on this subject.
Should France, however, either reject or unduly delay ratification of the Treaty, then a difficult situation would arise, since under present conditions the Bonn Conventions, which bring the occupation of the German Federal Republic to an end, can become effective only at the same time as the European Defence Community Treaty. This is at the present moment a hypothetical situation and we sincerely trust that it will so remain. But should it become actual, then the United
228
States Government and Her Majesty's Government have decided that it would be right to separate the Bonn Conventions from the E.D.C. Treaty and thereby to restore to the German Federal Republic that authority over their own affairs which the course of events during the past years has fully entitled them to resume.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether, at this stage, he will say a word about the effect of any such arrangement upon the vital question of German unity?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to continue with a statement which requires some precision, so that I do not fall into any error on the subject.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Certainly.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Should that step come to be taken—that is, the restoration of authority over their own affairs, as the result of delay by the French Government, the operation of the European Defence Community Treaty would remain for the time being in abeyance, but it would still be our hope that the European Defence Community would ultimately come into being as the result of French action to ratify the Treaty within a reasonable further period of time.
If France rejects the European Defence Community, or unreasonably delays its ratification, then it will become necessary to consider alternative methods of securing a German contribution to Western defence. It would be wholly wrong to regard the adoption of this policy as the best means of dealing with a situation which we trust may never arise, as being in any way a threat to France. At the time when the study group set up as the result of the Washington meeting was working in London upon the problem, the newly installed French Prime Minister and his colleagues and advisers were devoting their energies to a settlement on Indo-China with a single-minded determination which we deeply admired. As soon as the studies were complete the French Government were promptly informed of the new plan, and it was made entirely clear to them that Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government most earnestly wished for their collaboration in putting the plan

229
into effect if the situation against which it was devised did, in the end, come about.
LORD HENDERSON: Could the noble Marquess say whether the timing of tine new plan is related to a decision, or no decision, by the French Parliament before it rises for the simmer recess?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: On August 15.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It is related to a moment when it would be the view of the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain that undue time had been allowed to elapse, That, in turn, is related to the present session of the French Parliament.
LORD HENDERSON: If I understand the noble Marquess correctly, if there is no ratification in the French Parliament before August 15, or by whatever date it goes into recess, it is then intended that the new plan should come into operation. Is there a possibility that the new plan may be brought into operation during the Recess of this Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes, that is so, in so far as the plan would not come into effect on August 15; but if there had been no ratification by August 15, then the countries concerned would enter into discussion with the other countries concerned as to the method of putting this plan into operation.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Marquess whether the French Government was informed of this plan before or after agreement had been reached between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government in Washington?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I thought I had made clear that they were informed immediately after the study group had terminated its deliberations.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If full sovereignty is restored to the West German Government, is there any obstacle to their going ahead and doing what they like about an armed force?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes, there is. For one thing, there is the fact that the European Defence Community is not disposed of if this arrangement comes into operation. For another thing, there are all kinds of undertakings which, in certain circumstances (which I am not
230
now going into), might be asked for from—and given by—the German Government in that regard. I had just been dealing with the suggestion which has sometimes been made that this was in some form a threat to the French Government. I hope I was successful in dissipating any suspicion of that kind. I believe that at this moment, when the fiftieth anniversary of the Entente Cordiale has so recently been celebrated, the relationship between this country and France should be a source of rightful pride and satisfaction to those who laid the foundations of an understanding which has so vigorously survived the stresses and strains of time.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, we have chosen—I am sure it is the right course—to proceed in these matters, not by an attempt to make some comprehensive, dramatic gesture covering the world for the moment, but stage by stage. It may well be that in peaceful co-existence lies the best hope for the immediate years ahead. But even the most peaceful existence is made more secure by a policy of insurance, and the best insurance of our continued existence lies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the combined strength and resolution of our partners in it. That organisation threatens nobody and challenges nobody. It's motto might well be the old slogan, "Defence, not Defiance." It does no more than bind us in mutual self-protection with our great Allies the United States, with France and with other countries of Europe, so that in association we may command not fear but respect.
Its mission and its motives are none the less regarded with suspicion in some quarters, and we have, as your Lordships know, recently received yet another voluminous Note from the Soviet Government directed largely both against the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Defence Community. That Note is framed in language of unusual asperity, a scourge rather than an olive branch. But we shall, of course, give it careful study in conjunction with all the interested Governments, though at first sight it reveals no new features likely to strengthen the prospect of peace. In the end, peace is the dominant objective of all our foreign policy and all our international relations. And not a peace

231
debased to propaganda uses, to the accompaniment of community-cooing by massed Picasso doves, but a peace deep-seated in the common interests, common aims, common hopes and common prayers of the peoples of the world, a peace not merely upon the lips but in the hearts of mankind.
Following is the Text of the Heads of Agreement and of the Annex on the organisation of the Base, referred to by Lord Reading:

HEADS OF AGREEMENT
It is agreed between the Egyptian and British Delegations that with a view to establishing Anglo-Egyptian relations on a new basis of mutual understanding and firm friendship, and taking into account their obligations under the United Nations Charter, an agreement regarding the Suez Canal Base should now be drafted on the following lines.
2. The agreement will last until the expiry of seven years from the date of signature. During the last twelve months of this period the two Governments will consult together to decide what arrangements are necessary upon the termination of the agreement.
3. Parts of the present Suez Canal Base will be kept in efficient working order in accordance with the requirements set forth in Annex 1 and capable of immediate use in accordance with the following paragraph.
4. (i) In the event of an armed attack by an outside Power on Egypt, on any country which at the date of signature of the present agreement is a party to the Treaty of Joint Defence between Arab League States or on Turkey, Egypt will afford to the United Kingdom such facilities as may be necessary in order to place the Base on a war footing and to operate it effectively. These facilities will include the use of Egyptian ports within the limits of what is strictly indispensable for the above-mentioned purposes.
(ii) In the event of a threat of an attack on any of the above-mentioned countries, there shall be immediate consultation between the United Kingdom and Egypt.
5. The organisation of the Base will be in accordance with Annex 1 attached.
6. The United Kingdom will be accorded the right to move any British material into or out of the Base at its discretion. There will be no increase above the level of supplies to be agreed upon without the consent of the Egyptian Government.
7. Her Majesty's forces will be completely withdrawn from Egyptian territory according to a schedule to be established in due course within a period of twenty months from the date of signature of this agreement. The Egyptian Government will afford all necessary facilities for the movement of men and material in this connexion.
8. The agreement will recognise that the Suez Maritime Canal, which is an integral part of Egypt, is a waterway economically,
232
commercially and strategically of international importance, and will express the determination of both parties to uphold the 1888 Convention guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the Canal.
9. The Egyptian Government will afford overflying, landing and servicing facilities for notified flights of aircraft under R.A.F. control. For the clearance of any flights the Egyptian Government will extend most favoured nation treatment.
10. There will be questions of detail to be covered in the drafting of the agreement including the storage of oil, the financial arrangements necessary, and other detailed matters of importance to both sides. These will be settled by friendly agreement in negotiations which will begin forthwith.

ANNEX 1: ORGANISATION OF THE BASE
Her Majesty's Government shall have the right to maintain certain agreed installations and to operate them for current requirements. Should Her Majesty's Government decide at any time no longer to maintain all these installations they will discuss with the Egyptian Government the disposal of any installation which they no longer require. The approval of the Egyptian Government must be obtained for any new construction.
2. Following the withdrawal of Her Majesty's forces the Egyptian Government will assume responsibility far the security of the base and of all equipment contained therein, or in transit on Egyptian territory to and from the base.
3. Her Majesty's Government will conclude contracts with one or more British or Egyptian commercial firms for the up-keep and operation of the installations referred to in paragraph 1 and the maintenance of the stores contained in these installations. These commercial firms will have the right to engage British and Egyptian civilian technicians and personnel; the number of the British technicians employed by these commercial firms shall not exceed a figure which shall be agreed upon in the detailed negotiations. These commercial firms will have also the right to engage such local labour as they may require.
4. The Egyptian Government will give full support to the commercial firms referred to in paragraph 3 to enable them to carry out these tasks and will designate an authority with whom the contractors can co-operate for the discharge of their duties.
5. The Egyptian Government will maintain in good order such installations, public utilities, communications, bridges, pipe-lines and wharves etc. as will be handed over to it according to agreement between the two Governments, The commercial firms referred to in paragraph 3 will be afforded such facilities as may be required in their operations.
6. Her Majesty's Government will be afforded facilities for the inspection of the installations referred to in paragraph 1 and the work being carried out therein. To facilitate this personnel shall be attached to Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo. The maximum number of such personnel will be agreed between the two Governments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Strang, rises, I ought to consult your Lordships' House about arrangements for to-night. We have had some very interesting and important speeches but they have taken, perhaps, rather more time than was anticipated; and there are still about twelve speakers on the list. It is now a quarter to five. I would suggest that it might be convenient to your Lordships' House if we adjourned at half past seven for an hour and a quarter and resumed after that. I know that noble Lords like an hour and a quarter to give them the opportunity of getting dinner. I do not see any other means by which we can get through our debate in two days.
EARL JOWITT: I feel that that will be a convenient course. We do not want too many speeches to-morrow, or speeches at any great length. We want to get our day's work done if we can, and the course proposed by the Leader of the House is, I think, the most convenient arrangement.
4.48 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I rise to take part in this debate with all the diffidence proper to a Member of this House who is addressing your Lordships for the first time. I do so also in the confident hope that you will not withhold that indulgence which it is your generous custom to extend on these occasions. We must all be grateful to the noble Marquess the Minister of State for the comprehensive survey he has given us of the international situation as seen by Her Majesty's Government. In particular, we should be grateful to him for his lucid commentary on the proceedings at Geneva and his luminous summing-up of the meaning for us all of the agreements reached there. It was indeed a fateful Conference. Nor do we forget the part which the noble Marquess himself played in those proceedings. Our congratulations must also go to the Foreign Secretary for bringing back with him from Geneva one of the most notable achievements of his career. What was saved at Geneva—and much was saved —was in large measure saved thanks to his patience, perspicacity, imagination and superb professional skill. It is also a source of pride to British hearts that he stood so faithfully beside France and her
234
courageous Prime Minister in unswerving comradeship in their bitter hour of trial.
In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, dealt in concrete fashion with some of the more pressing and disquieting aspects of the international situation. He has done so with that moderation and constructive spirit of which, from past official association with him, I have the happiest memories. I do not propose to follow him over all the ground he has covered. I propose rather to submit to your Lordships, as briefly as I may, some remarks upon one or two of the fundamental facts of the international situation, though I cannot hope to do so with the masterly skill shown by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in the speech to which we have just listened. These facts are, so it seems to me, obvious facts: but it is sometimes useful to state obvious facts because, if they are disagreeable, we tend to dismiss them from our minds, and if they are welcome or agreeable we are inclined to take them for granted.
We are now living in the presence of the confrontation of two vast concentrations of power directed respectively from Washington and Moscow. This confrontation was foreseen long ago. The gifted French student of politics, Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about the middle of last century, said of the United States and Russia:
"These two stride forward easily towards a boundless destiny. … The principal instrument of America is freedom, of Russia slavery. … Their points of departure are different, they follow different paths. Nevertheless, each of them seems intended through some secret design of providence to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world."
That remarkable prophecy has come to fulfilment in our own day. Russia, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, pointed out, has become a world Power of the very first order. This is, indeed, one of the dominating facts of our time. But the Soviet Union is something more than a world Power of traditional pattern. What was not foreseen was that this great force, directed by a consistent body of doctrine, and operating through a carefully designed system of political strategy and tactics, implacable in purpose but flexible in method, would take as its objective the establishment of its own particular organisation of society throughout the world. The framers of Communist doctrine and the directors of Soviet policy make no secret of their

235
objectives. It is written for all to read in the authorised expositions of Communist faith. The inevitable collapse of the capitalist world, so they say, is to be promoted and hastened by all feasible and expedient means, not excluding armed force. The tactics will vary from time to time, between ruthlessness on the one hand to seeming magnanimity on the other—and we ought not to allow ourselves to be either intimidated or disarmed by them—but the fixed purpose will remain. Already, in a few short years, the Communists have brought much of Eastern Europe within their system. They have a foot in Central Europe and strong outposts in France and Italy. And if this were not enough, now the myriads of China have been brought within their power and inroads have been made into Korea and Indo-China.
This is indeed for us a perilous prospect, and we may ask ourselves: "When is it going to stop? What is there on the other side?" The answer is that here also there is a corresponding dominating fact. The revolutionary change in the distribution of world power has been accompanied by a revolution in United States policy the significance of which we ought not to underrate and which we certainly ought not to take for granted. The traditional American policy of isolationism meant various things at various times, but in essence it meant that if the United States intervened in the foreign field she would intervene in her own interests as conceived by herself, and that if she became involved in quarrels, they would be her own quarrels and not those of other peoples. The United States would not be her brother's keeper: there came a time when she would hardly be her own.
"We are so snug here,"
said President Coolidge, that maker of memorable phrases,
"nothing they can do can touch us."
Now, in contrast to all this, not only has the United States undertaken the obligations of the United Nations Charter, but she has apprehended the peril which threatened us all and has recognised her prime responsibility for meeting that peril. She has rebuilt her own armed forces in a measure unprecedented except in time of war. She has sustained the economy and nourished the military strength of her Allies. She has
236
joined and, indeed, helped to promote the creation of a grand defensive coalition carrying with it wide military commitments as well as engagements for intimate international consultation. And when the defences were dangerously probed, first in Berlin and then in Korea, there was an unhesitating response from Washington. The credit for these historic acts and policies must in large measure be given—and it is too seldom given—to the Administration of President Truman. In retrospect, it is difficult sufficiently to admire the vision, courage and resource with which this great reorientation of policy was accomplished, once its necessity was recognised. And here I think it fitting, if I may, to recall that in the framing and execution of these policies the Truman Administration had the strong support of that great-hearted, far-sighted, courageous and most lovable man Ernest Bevin, to whom I would, in piety, pay this tribute.
And if, of late, the old isolationism might appear to have become increasingly vocal, if we hear assertions that America should "go it alone" or that the Allies have to be told what they should do, the corrective can be found in statements made by members of the present United States Administration which are in full harmony with the new line of American policy. Speaking about two months ago, Senator Wiley, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said:
"The United States must disenthrall itself of the concept that we either need no allies, or that we can or should dictate to our allies, or that we can ignore the feelings of the neutral nations of the earth. … We must have the moral opinion of the free world and a material pool of co-operation as well. Collective security means just that."
The Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, was even more emphatic when he said a little earlier that it was the clear and firm purpose of the present Administration to treat other free nations as sovereign equals, whether they be large or small, strong or weak, and that never in all her history was there a time when good friends and allies meant so much to the United States. Remarks like those do not so easily hit our headlines as the more violent comments of irresponsible men, but they do, I venture to think, represent the true voice of America, which is too little noted and too seldom remembered among us.

237
In the presence of these two great and dominating facts, what ought to be our own outlook? So far as the Americans are concerned, I have one or two maxims to suggest. For example, we must not expect that they will behave as we ourselves should behave; and we ought not to be surprised or irritated when we find that they do not. Their public men, particularly when they are struggling towards a decision, speak their minds and express their feelings with a singular lack of inhibition which would be out of place here. That is, I think, one of the manifestations of the vitality which characterises their turbulent and boisterous domestic history.
Then again, we should do our best to understand how agonising is the international responsibility which the Americans have so clear-sightedly assumed. They may well be forgiven if sometimes, when their Allies hesitate or demur, they feel that they are sustaining that responsibility almost alone. Above all, we should avoid impugning American good faith. It is traditional in American thought to hold strongly that the policy of the United States should be based on moral principles, and rooted in law and morality. Whatever they may say or do, and however imperfectly they may sometimes follow it, this ideal pervades their minds; and in the solemn issues of peace and war we can be confident that it would be decisive. Even in the general run of affairs their deeds are usually found, on examination, to be more prudent than their words. Like ourselves, they are often perplexed to know hew best to act; they sometimes make mistakes—and, indeed, grave mistakes. Like other Governments, they were baffled by developments in Indo-China where, by a long and unhappy sequence of events, a dangerous breach, military, political and psychological, was opened in the defences in South-East Asia.
It is inevitable that there should be differences between us. Statesmen have to look to the foundations of their power, and in a democratic system a Government cannot depart very widely from the trend of opinion of the people whom they represent. It is manifest that there are some matters on which the British and American peoples do not think alike, and this fact is reflected in the acts and decisions of their Governments. What is
238
essential is that these differences, when they occur, should be brought out into the open between us, with frankness and without rancour, and in good time. But whatever our differences, we must never allow our attention to be drawn away from the essential fact, which is that if we have so far come safely through some dangerous years, and if we are now in a better posture of defence, this is because there has been in Washington what is, substantially speaking, a correct diagnosis of the world situation, followed by a resolute and far-reaching attempt to find a remedy.
Now, my Lords, what is the remedy? It is, if I may try to put it in a sentence, in calmness and confidence to meet strength with strength, will with will, and faith with faith. In these circumstances, is what is called "peaceful co-existence" possible? I think that it is. But the term must be rightly understood, other-wise it may raise delusive hopes. If peace means simply the absence of major war, then "peaceful co-existence" in our time is, I think, not only possible but even probable, provided—and only provided—that the non-Communist Powers maintain their collective strength. The hazards of war, if the contestants are evenly matched, are now more than ever terrible and incalculable. Like any other State, the Soviet Union must be preoccupied, first of aid, with her own survival. She would be unlikely to commit her forces prematurely, or to risk a world war for Communist purposes, unless she could expect an easy victory. We must see to it that no such easy victory would be achieved. If, however, peace is something more than the mere absence of total war; if it is understood to mean a positive spirit of harmony and concord, then I think that "peaceful co-existence" is not to be hoped for. Lenin said, and his words are still, I think, decisive:
"So long as capitalism and socialism exist, we cannot live in peace."
We are left, therefore, with the prospect of a "peaceful co-existence" which means the absence of both peace and war, in the full sense of both words, and which may last for years—perhaps even for generations to come. A better name for this state of affairs would be "coexistence with conflict." This is, in fact, how Stalin himself looked upon it. Speaking of the possibility of temporary

239
agreements with capitalist Governments on matters of industry, trade and diplomatic relations, he said that the existence of two opposite systems, the capitalist system and the socialist system, did not exclude the possibility of such temporary agreements. But he added that the limits to such agreements were set by the opposite characters of the two systems, between which there was rivalry and conflict. Within the limits allowed by these two systems, but only within these limits, agreement, he said, was quite possible. We must therefore expect that the Communist Powers will continue to use every means, short of world war, to penetrate, to disrupt and to dominate the other half of the world, probing the weak spots, internal and external, and calling off the offensive in any particular place only if strong and effective resistance is offered. That is a grievous prospect, but not so grievous as total war, and not so grievous as surrender. It is one which calls for vigilance, steadfastness and the unremitting maintenance of collective military strength.
The possession of vast armaments by a Power which is actively pursuing a self-appointed mission to change the order of society in the world must be met by the creation of an adequate "situation of strength," material and moral, among those whose are threatened. Communist aggression in its more acute forms will cease to be used only if it is made sufficiently unrewarding. Given an adequate "situation of strength" there may be scope for diplomacy to bring about limited agreements or local settlements. The danger here is that the cumulative results of such negotiations may be a gradual retreat, built up of repeated concessions made, so it is thought, for the sake of peace or in order to find an issue from a dangerous crisis. Diplomacy is still an indispensable instrument of State, but a conference in itself is not a substitute for a policy. The fundamental cleavage between the two halves of the world is not to be resolved at a stroke at a brief meeting of statesmen, however highly placed; and no responsible person thinks that it would. Such a meeting might well serve to bring home the realities of the situation to both sides, and to the world at large; and this would be a gain, not a loss. But we should have a care lest, in our search for "peaceful
240
co-existence," we set foot on the path of improvident accommodation with a watchful and persevering adversary, and risk sapping the unity among the free peoples which alone is their strength.
Here, some questions suggest themselves—and with them I come towards my conclusion. Will that unity hold? Will the weaker links stand the strain? And even if unity in strength is preserved, will that strength always, over the years to come, be sufficient, not only to serve as a deterrent to a world war but also to hold the frontiers of the free world, or even its inner fastnesses, against probing attack? It was sufficient at Berlin where, if nothing was gained, nothing was lost. It was sufficient in Korea where, if nothing was gained, the position was preserved, though at extremely heavy cost. But it was not sufficient in Indo-China, where something was lost, and where what was gained was the difference between a lesser and a much greater evil. Or, to open another line of questions: will the Soviet revolution, in course of time, like other revolutions, lose its inner dynamic force and give way before a rebirth of freedom within its frontiers? Will the Soviet Power sooner or later meet increasing difficulties among its satellites and associates, and come to make the search for "peaceful co-existence" a defensive rather than, as it is now, a predominantly offensive weapon in its armoury? Or will the Soviet Union put all to the hazard of total war? On the answer to these questions the future of freedom in the world will depend. The crucial fact of our time is that the struggle for the Communist mastery of the world is now joined.
5.14 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I know I am speaking for all your Lordships—and I am authorised by the noble and learned Leader of this side of the House to speak particularly for my colleagues here—if I extend the most cordial, heartfelt congratulations to the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. Congratulations to maiden speakers are somewhat conventional in this House—a very pleasant convention, too—but when a great public servant distills the fruit of the wisdom accumulated during so many years of helping to save us and the world, then I think we are entitled to try to find some extra words. I can only say

241
that the noble Lord, as I am sure we all feel, has placed us deeply in his debt. If I may drop into a slightly lighter vein, when I was working as an assistant Minister to Mr. Bevin in the Foreign Office, and Sir William Strang, as he then was, was Mr. Bevin's right-hand man, I recall raising some point with Mr. Bevin and asking for a decision. At that time Lord Strang, then Sir William Strang, was in America. Mr. Bevin said: "You must wait until Strang comes back. I cannot work this out without Strang." That was not the only time something of the kind was said to me, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who worked so long with Lord Strang in the Foreign Office, will have much the same recollections.
I have heard it said, I do not know whether accurately or not, that Sir Winston Churchill has described the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, whom we are pleased to see here this afternoon, as the other half of his brain. I may have the quotation wrong: it may be the better half of his brain—of that I am not certain. But I think those who have worked in the Foreign Office would certainly agree that Mr. Bevin regarded Lord Strang, then Sir William, as the other half of his brain. In that capacity, and in so many other capacities, particularly in view of his speech, I can only repeat on behalf of your Lordships this most strongly felt of welcomes.
I do not wish to detain the House too long, though I am going to touch upon a number of themes, which means dealing with them all rather inadequately and rather dogmatically. If the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, had been able to remain, I should have said how interested I was by his survey. But I am sure that that will be conveyed to him by the noble Marquess who leads the House, because I join my noble friend Lord Henderson in expressing our appreciation, not only of his speech this afternoon, but of all that he has achieved at the Foreign Office and recently at Geneva. I would reiterate the pleasure that Lord Henderson expressed, and that I personally feel, at the Agreement reached over Suez. I am sorry myself that there is not going to be this trial of strength. I should not have found it difficult, on this occasion at least, to support the Government, and, like other noble Lords, I would testify my
242
warm support for what has been achieved in that respect.
I feel that if we look round the world, or look back over the last few years for a few moments, we find there has been a wide measure of agreement between the leaders of the Parties in respect of our foreign policy since the war, and that I believe to be a source of strength to a great country such as ours. Of course, there is always the primary duty of preserving our existence as a nation and of helping to hold our great Commonwealth together. But, besides that, we have all—or the leaders have certainly—given practical evidence of a genuine support for the principles of the United Nations, which are, of course, a continuation of the principles of the League of Nations which was so sadly betrayed before the war. I do not want to be too controversial, but I may have to make a few criticisms of my own political friends; therefore, I would say what a welcome change we have found in Conservative policy since the war in regard to these noble ideals. I know that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, resigned because of his principles, as did the present Foreign Secretary; and, of course, the Prime Minister was a critic of the Government in those days. But it is—and I say it in not too violently partisan a spirit—a source of great satisfaction to us that principles for which some members of the present Government stood so strongly before the war, which were otherwise sharply opposed by the then Conservative Government, have found so much following and support in all Parties in recent years.
We in the Labour Party—and this is surely quite a friendly competition in well-doing—feel that these principles are the traditional principles on which the Labour Party has built up its strength over a long period of years. But since the war, as the noble Lord, Lord Strang, has made so clear, it has not been enough to be patriotic. It has not been enough to stand for these principles of collective security and of allowing the general opinion of the world rather than national force to settle disputes. There has also been this task, reluctantly but firmly embarked upon, of organising the defence of the peace-loving Powers against the Communist menace. The noble Lord, Lord Strang, has spoken about that with

243
far greater authority than I could command. I would only say that while there has been this general agreement on foreign policy since the war, it seems to me that there have been two heresies. I am not pinning them particularly on to individuals but I am referring to doctrines. Just as we had in the old days—quite old days by now—the Eutychian heresy on one side and the Nestorian heresy on the other, so on each side of the broad path of wisdom in foreign policy we have had, it seems to me, one major heresy. On the one side there is the heresy (it has arisen not from any lack of patriotism; certainly not from any love of peace; nor even, it would seem, from lack of intellectuality or good will, but from an undue concentration on one factor in the situation) which I would call the nationalist—some would call it imperialist, but I would give the broader word "nationalist" —heresy: and on the other side we have had what I would call the neutralist heresy. And, in passing, I would say only one or two words on each of those.
We in the Labour Party take special pride in such great acts as the liberation of India. It is not for me to say what noble Lords opposite or the Conservative Party would have done if they had been in power. At any rate we take great pride in that emancipation, but we are aware that that act was strongly criticised in certain quarters on the other side in politics. When it came to Persia, the action that we took—and I am not here to defend every detail of every tactical step—which culminated in referring the matter to the United Nations, was held in some Conservative quarters (and I am not now referring to the leaders) as a policy of scuttle and cowardice. I would say that that attitude of criticism sprang from what I would call the nationalist heresy; the policy that in the last resort you have to rely on your own strong right arm or your natural cunning to stand up for your rights, a scepticism about what I would call these new principles which leaders of both sides have supported and are certainly supporting at the present time.
On the other side we have the neutralist heresy. I am not referring to any individuals; it is not a personal matter at all. I think that heresy has been expressed with much literary skill
244
and a good deal of courage and consistency over a period of years in the pages of the New Statesman, which I can certainly recommend if noble Lords do not come across it very often. I can certainly recommend it on literary grounds to noble Lords opposite, and also to any noble Lords who are somewhat short of adrenalin. This neutralist policy has been voiced most effectively in its columns both during the period of the Labour Government, when Mr. Ernest Bevin was Foreign Secretary, and more recently during the period of the Conservative Administration.
Now when I talk of neutralists, let me make it plain that I am not either openly or covertly making some suggestion of disloyalty or Communism or even fellow-travelling, or anything of that kind. I am referring to an attitude which can be held by honourable and intellectual men which is quite different (and there is no reason why it should not be) from the policy that was pursued by the late Government, quite different from the policy now being pursued by the present Government, and quite different from the policy outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who was for so long the official head of the Foreign Office. I would say it is a policy based on the idea that our proper place to-day is midway, or just about midway, between the United States and Russia. I am not saying that a neutralist leans towards Russia; I am just saying that he does not want to lean towards the United States. That policy is one which can be argued for; but I think it is quite contrary to the policy of the men I most admire in public life on all sides and that which is calculated to defend peace and save the world.
That is how I see the general situation, and I think it has been like that for some years. German rearmament has perhaps created a special issue, and I would say that, apart from a few people who, for whatever reason, have special feelings about the Germans, the strongest arguments against German rearmament are put by those who have all along pursued this neutralist course. I believe the real case against German rearmament, intellectually speaking, can be traced back to the neutralist position. I will not linger on that now, because I want to pass on to the immediate situation as I see it; but I felt it right to give the background of my own thoughts and leave

245
other noble Lords to criticise me or put me right as seems to be best.
Coming to the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment, I suppose we have seen developments in the attitudes of all the main countries since we last debated these matters in March. The noble Lord, Lord Strang, whose words will carry much further than mine, mentioned, amid various observations, the need for understanding America. He pointed the way to understanding America and I am sure that his words will be of great value in that country. But, carrying less weight than the noble Lord, I am bound to offer a personal opinion that American policy at the present time is passing through a regret-table phase. I offer that observation; I do not really see how one can avoid that conclusion. I do not see how anybody, making any allowance for our own British prejudices, can do other than regret what seems to us here a deterioration in American policy during the last year or two. I am not stopping to underline the point, but I think that if these debates are studied in America my few remarks, coming from somebody who is as devoted a friend of Anglo-American relationships as anyone in this House, will, I hope, be noticed as indicating a very deep concern.
If we ask, "Is there anything we can do about it?", I would just add this thought to what the noble Lord, Lord Strang, said. Most of us, when we criticise America, whether publicly or privately, do so in rather a petulant way. We do so without any very constructive purpose. I feel that before one criticises America one must be ready to try to assist in some small degree, although it is difficult in the case of another country to assist them to what seems to us a wiser or more restrained outlook. I must not refer too often to the Daily Express, because I must declare, I suppose, a family interest when that paper is mentioned, but I do feel at the present time that the Daily Express is playing a Jekyll and Hyde game in regard to America and Germany respectively. I do not want to say anything more about the attitude of the Daily Express in regard to Germany except this: its whole attitude in that regard seems utterly lamentable. I think the suggestion we have seen—indeed it is more than a suggestion, it is a project
246
which the Daily Express is carrying out—of Anglo-American study groups is to be commended in every way; and though I am not invited to take part in these discussions, I certainly should do so if an invitation came my way. I cannot imagine anything which would be more calculated in practice to assist the kind of understanding which the noble Lord, Lord Strang, has mentioned.
Leaving America and coming to Russia, I suppose that if we take the Communist countries, Russia and China, most of us are beginning to hope that their purposes are not quite so sinister as we imagined. We shall weigh what the noble Lord, Lord Strang, has said—and possibly be a little depressed by it—and ask ourselves whether perhaps he is entirely right. I must not be controversial in arguing against a maiden speaker. I am sure there is a great fundamental element of truth in what he said, but I noted that, in his list of helpful slogans, he included the phrase "We must meet faith with faith." I feel sure that, if any good faith is shown on their side, we should certainly reciprocate it amply on ours. But I must record—speaking, as often, in these debates in a somewhat personal way—my very deep conviction that there could never in any circumstances be an honourable settlement reached with Russia, even, to put it crudely, to "save our skins," which involved a going back on promises made to the Germans.
The German record of keeping promises in the past is not in all ways a record which is honoured outside Germany—and I am putting that very mildly indeed; but when we do get a German Chancellor, as Sir Winston Churchill has said, who gives his word, stands by it and fights for it in. very difficult circumstances, then I should regard it as a criminal action if we let him down. Frankly, I cannot understand how the responsibility could subsequently be avoided if some extreme form of nationalism grew up in Germany. We all remember that the First World War was fought because we refused to treat a "scrap of paper" in the way in which it was treated by the German Chancellor of the day. We have read the account of how the British Ambassador went to see the German Chancellor, and the German Chancellor, I believe, though I

247
never set eyes on him, was, to use a phrase of Sir Harold Nicolson, "morally unassailable"—those were, I think, the words Sir Harold used in one of his books. The German Chancellor, when he was told by the British Ambassador that this march through Belgium by the Germans meant war, said: "But you cannot do that, just for a word, 'neutrality'; just for a 'scrap of paper'. You will tear aside all the ties which unite Britain and Germany and plunge the world into war." In this country, we have never thought it wrong to stand by our word in that particular case, and I agree with everything said about the absolute necessity of keeping our word to the Germans, who are keeping their word with us.
When we come to this question of Germany, we find very deep anxieties. I will not go again over the case for German rearmament—we have so often stated it. There is a great majority in this House, I think, for the principle of German rearmament. We know the strategic case and we know the moral case, in various forms. I was talking to a noble Lord yesterday, with whom I think all who know him would wish to stand well, and he continued to express great anxieties. He detested the idea of discriminating against the Germans, treating them as an inferior people, or anything of that sort, but, all the same, it seemed to him possible that the world would be safer if we went on as we are going at present in Europe, and that, in the last resort, allowing Germans to be put into uniform was taking a step which made for war rather than for peace. I will not try to dispel all those anxieties this afternoon. I would respect them and hope that eventually facts will prove them wrong.
But there are statements of the case against E.D.C., in particular, which seem to me to fall far below a desirable level. Mr. Attlee, in another place, has put quite briefly, as he so often does, the whole gist of the matter. He says [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 530, No. 148, col. 491]:
"I hope that the French will ratify. … We have to build up the strength of the West on good feeling. I myself think that the position is dangerous and, although it may not have been tactful, I am afraid there is truth in what Adenauer said—that the alternative to
248
some form of Germany taking part in collective defence will sooner or later be a German, unrestrained, national army."
So, without trying this afternoon to dispel the anxieties about the German character, or the German character in a national form, which some noble Lords still entertain, I feel that that observation by Mr. Attlee cannot be lightly set aside.
Let me turn for one moment to something like internal controversy. I could not help noticing that in the current number of the New Statesman, the gifted editor is found committing himself as follows:
"I should have more respect for the German re-armers if they would not pretend that their policy was defensive and that E.D.C. was a way of controlling Western Germany and integrating Western Europe."
That is what a lot of people believe it to be.
"Demonstrably, it is none of these things. Dr. Adenauer spoke for all those forces of reaction that we and the Americans are now supporting, when he said at the end of 1951: 'Our chief reason for entering the European Army is to be able to recover our Eastern territories.'"
Many people in politics, in the course of years, say all sorts of things, and a sentence wrenched from its context gives a very poor idea of the policy. I have, however, tried to verify those particular statements because, according to the editor of the New Statesman—and he has put his words on record—the E.D.C. cannot be regarded as a defensive policy. It must in some way be regarded as aggressive. Whoever is right, the point is important.
If one seeks the origin of this particular quotation, one finds it in a pamphlet entitled It Need Not Happen, which has been recently published by the Tribune. In that pamphlet, we find the same quotation. We are told that Dr. Adenauer himself, speaking in Hanover in December, 1951, said:
"Our chief reason for wanting to enter the European Army is to be able to recover our Eastern territories."
I have tried in the last few days to check that statement. In the first place, it is perhaps right to acquit the editor of the New Statesman, because, as I understand from him, he was simply quoting this from the Tribune pamphlet and showing a very proper reliance on the accuracy of a rival newspaper. But if we try to find

249
when this statement was made, it is not easy, because we are told that Dr. Adenauer was speaking in Hanover in December, 1951. So far as I have been able to discover—and I have been given a positive answer—Dr. Adenauer made no speech in Hanover in December, 1951, which makes the search a little difficult, at the start. He did, however, make a speech in Hanover to the newly formed Union of German Expellees on November 17, 1951; and that, I think, must be the speech referred to. I feel it is certainly well to put on record (although I cannot quote the whole speech) the extracts which were sent to me. I hope they are representative—although maybe there is some sentence which has been overlooked—because I think they make its meaning plain.
Dr. Adenauer then said:
"I should like to emphasise very strongly that according to its whole structure the European and Atlantic Defence Community can never be an alliance fit for aggression. Because of its structure it can only be an alliance for defence."
Then he said that which comes nearest to what was reported by the Tribune and later the New Statesman:
"I do believe that the only way for Germany to regain your home"—
he was speaking to expellees—
"and the reunification which is so vital to you and to you and to us, can only be the integration of Germany with Europe."
This is certainly not the same statement as the one quoted in the pamphlet, and if this is the nearest approach to it, then I hope apologies will in due course follow. If some other extract is discovered in this connection it may be that apologies will have to flow the other way. But to the best of my knowledge, and as a result of any inquiries I have been able to make, this statement by Dr. Adenauer has not only been wrenched out of its context but has been seriously distorted.
Even if he had said to these expellees that the chief reason for wanting to enter E.D.C. was to be able to recover the Eastern territories, it is entirely unsupported by any subsequent policy, and it is rather odd that more has not been heard in the meantime. If he had said, "One reason for wanting to enter the European army is to be able to recover our German territories," I do not know why one
250
should have blamed him, though of course it is not the cardinal aspect of his policy. He has said again and again—the Germans have always said—that they cannot recognise the Eastern frontiers as morally binding, but never in any circumstances will they use force to alter them. That, I think, is a vital aspect of Dr. Adenaur's policy, as Lord Strang and Lord Henderson would be the first to recognise. In short, the whole idea that Dr. Adenauer is involved in some aggressive policy, in an attempt to promote war, and that that has been his reason for entering the E.D.C., is, I think, refuted by even the flimsiest knowledge of the man or the policy, or of recent history in this field.
My Lords, I had to say as much as that. I do not want to say more, because I know that there are these anxieties and we must throw our minds into the common pool. Risks exist in the case of every policy, but I myself feel that the course of morality and the course of expediency here run close together. Was it not Sir Edward Grey, or perhaps he was Lord Grey of Fallodon at that time, who said that, "To do the right thing is the right thing to do"? Though that may sound a little platitudinous, I would interpret that in this case as meaning that here we have embarked on a great, lofty enterprise. I believe it contains enormous prospects for understanding and reconciliation between warring peoples. But I would also argue, as has often been argued in this House, that this seems to be the only way of building up the defences which are so essential if the Communist menace is to be held back.
Finally, in a last word or two I would refer to France. I know that I have spoken very often about Germany and not so often about France; but I was in France a week or two ago and had the pleasure of spending some hours with those who are rather close to the present French Prime Minister. I think that anybody who is in touch with France at the present time must feel a spirit of hope where hope had almost died. I am not any prophet—I cannot forecast the future very far; but I should think it possible that the present French Prime Minister has a better chance of carrying through E.D.C. than any Prime Minister that France could find. I cherish the hope, though I have no grounds for say-

251
ing so, that he will in fact wish to carry through E.D.C., and I believe that if he wishes he will be able to do so.
As regards Anglo-French relations, I would suggest that those of us who are concerned with Britain and Germany, Anglo-German relations and associations, and all activities of that kind, carry a special responsibility for seeing that we never fall into the trap of treating Anglo-German relations as a bilateral effort, or of believing that if France is going back at some moment, then is the moment for shifting the alliance across into the German camp. I do not believe that that would be the wish of the most enlightened Germans; it certainly is not the wish of any enlightened people with whom I am in touch in this country. I believe that we have to regard ourselves, the Germans and the French—not forgetting our other friends in Europe: for example, the Italians, the Belgians, the Dutch and the people of Luxembourg as a kind of mystic triangle. With the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, opposite I am rather hesitant to speak very much about triangles, but perhaps he would agree that in politics or in the higher sphere of international friendship, if not in the real field of pure mathematics, we might have a triangle in which all the angles are right-angles. Would that be possible? Some of my noble friends might like to be left-angles. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, would look after that too. In a right-angled triangle, as I recall it, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of the other two sides—is that correct?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The sum of the squares.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was not in any way attempting to rival the noble Marquess in this atmosphere, but at any rate the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Perhaps it is rather nationalistic and I am falling into the trap I warned people against at the beginning, but I suppose we all regard our own country as the hypotenuse in any triangle. In that case I take this proposition as meaning that the home country cannot be squared unless at the same time the other two countries are squared. Putting it into idealistic terms, it means that basically all three countries are intimately
252
related in such a way that no steps can be taken in any far-reaching international scheme affecting one country without the other countries being consulted and being carried along in partnership. I do feel profoundly that in any talk of Anglo-French, Anglo-German, or Franco-Anglo-German alliances—however you may express them, it is the relationship with the triangle as a whole which ultimately matters.
My last word to-day would be this. When we look round the world we study Russia, China, America and Germany, and we come back finally to the question: what is the place that France must occupy if the West is to be a healthy organism? I personally agree that if the French refrain indefinitely from ratifying E.D.C., the kind of steps foreshadowed by the Government must be taken, though it is right for me to remind the House that Mr. Attlee issued a warning on July 14 and asked that before any step of this kind was definitely approved, the House should be called together. But I still hope fervently—and perhaps a shade more fervently after my recent visit to Paris—that this kind of step will not be necessary because E.D.C. will be ratified. That must be the more welcome result. I regard that as the higher course, the best and by far the most desirable courses; and I feel myself that if that does not happen, it is not a question of bullying France or sending ultimata to France, or anything like that, but that France would drop, steadily but surely, out of her proper place in the Western world. I sit down with the thought that I cannot imagine any more supreme tragedy, not only for the West but for the whole of the civilised world, than that France should cease to play the part which we know she alone can play, and which certainly we in Britain are desirous with all our hearts that she should play, now and for ever in the time to come.
5.50 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to extend a very warm welcome to the admirable maiden speech made by my noble friend and former colleague, Lord Strang. A great number of his brilliant predecessors have come from the position of Permanent Head of the Foreign Office to this House, and your Lordships will feel assured, after what you have heard

253
to-day, that he will make the same contribution as they. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who has had the misfortune to contract a minor infectious complaint, to apologise for his absence from this House to-day, as he meant to speak strongly on the cause on which I myself wish to speak.
I am afraid that I cannot penetrate into the line of previous speakers. The statement of the noble Marquess was so complete, concise and persuasive that on these general questions arising out of Geneva I have nothing but compliments to offer. But, in turning to the question of Egypt, I should like, as a preliminary observation, to record my own admiration for the forty or more Members of Parliament in another place who have had the courage to put their country before their Party and have displayed qualities of conviction, persistence and leadership which are in contrast to what we have seen in the general handling of the Egyptian question. No one ought to make up his mind on this question, whatever are his views, without reading Mr. Julian Amery's brilliant article in Time and Tide on July 24, which is extraordinarily pertinent to the latest developments.
I need not say much upon my own position, as I explained it when I last spoke on this subject. I do not pretend to speak on behalf of the Suez Canal Company, which does not concern itself with politics. I speak as an independent Cross-Bench Peer, who accepts no Party Whip and is animated solely by the public interest. I speak also as a friend of Egypt, and I hope that whatever comes out of all this may result in strengthening the good relations between that country and Britain. When I entered this House to-day there were peals of thunder, and I wondered what they portended. I realised, when I heard the statement of the noble Marquess on the Suez Canal Zone. My main impression, on this hasty hearing, was that none of the major objections which have been raised against the Agreement has been met. The whole of the British forces are to be withdrawn, and in consequence the Suez Canal and the Base will shortly be deprived of the most important protection which they have hitherto received. Until yesterday we used to say:
254
"From East to West the tested chain holds fast; the well-forged link rings true."
I fear that after to-day we cannot say that with the same conviction as in the past. I am not unreasonable. I do not say that there are no good points about the Agreement. For example, I naturally greatly welcome the declaration which apparently has been made about the Suez Canal—even as a director of the Suez Canal Company I can welcome that. But noble Lords must remember that both parties to the new declaration are already committed to the 1888 Treaty. I need not go into precise historical reasons, but we are both parties to that Treaty, so two of the parties are, in fact, only confirming something to which a great many other parties are already committed.
I find it difficult to make this speech, for I entered your Lordships' House with a speech prepared for a rather different situation, and have to do my best to adjust my mind. First, I want to look at this Agreement in the light of the main debate which we have had on the international situation, and more particularly in regard to the Far East. Without going right over the ground, I feel that, in spite of the splendid and courageous efforts of the Prime Minister in Washington, and the Foreign Secretary and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, at Geneva, and their really brilliant success in securing a cease-fire and putting certain nations on the road to peace, there is still room for anxiety in the future. There is no advance towards peace in Korea, and the Communists have gained an appreciable success in South-East Asia. It is not a particularly good moment for subjecting the Western Powers to further criticism such as will certainly come in South-West Asia and in France, and in many other countries, over this new Agreement. Notwithstanding the setbacks which have occurred to mutual security, we hear now of new projects of mutual security and intensive work in Washington on military studies in connection with mutual security in the Far East. Into that "complicated and dangerous" subject, as the Prime Minister called it, I will not venture, beyond remarking that for any plan involving support for any country in South-East Asia the free and safe passage of the Suez Canal is well-nigh indispensable.
During the Korean war, 355 warships and military transports of over 2 million

255
net tons passed through the Canal in 1951, and 350 in 1952—over 700 ships in two years. I ought to mention that they were not all connected with the Korean war, but no doubt a good proportion of them would be going to and from Korea or Indo-China. Imagine the embarrassment that would have arisen if that traffic had been brought to a stop. During the Korean war it nearly was brought to a stop by the troubles that arose in Egypt for some months when the Egyption forces, for understandable and explainable reasons, stood aloof and, under the Treaty, British forces had to take their place. I do not know whether this new Agreement, whatever its nature may be, will be such a good deterrent if the position on the Canal and its security is—I will not say imperilled but, at any rate, becomes not so good as it was. Every Member of your Lordships' House can form an opinion about whether security is reduced or not: I shall not go into that question.
We sometimes hear whispers that military opinion now holds that the Suez Canal has lost its strategic significance. That is rather odd to me, because eighteen months ago, when I was in Egypt, the whole of the British forces were abusing what they called the Foreign Office service in London and Cairo for defeatism. When I said goodbye to the leaders, telling them that I was going home to try to warn the Government, every one of them shook me by the hand and wished me the best of good fortune in my mission. But, of course, new factors arise and opinions change. Military opinion seems to have changed a good deal during the years since World War II. First, they allowed the Base, which is a legacy of the First World War, to get too large. Then they dumped into it masses of materials from Palestine, India and Burma; and the garrison was increased to match. No one seemed to notice that the whole outfit was getting out of all proportion to the limits of the 1936 Treaty and becoming a justifiable cause of complaint to the Egyptians, because that enormous mass of troops drew into the Suez Canal Zone a great many base fellahs of the lower classes of the Egyptian population who were liable to cause trouble.
256
In the words of a military authority, the situation was allowed to drift. It was not a good advertisement for military opinion or the Foreign Office. I am not one to criticise military opinion. I was connected with the setting up of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and was its Secretary from about 1925 until 1938, and I have a great admiration for our military leaders. Nevertheless, they are human beings and, like everyone, make mistakes. Here, I do not think the mistake was a mistake of the Chiefs of Staff Committee; I think that administrative considerations were involved and caused this drift. Incidentally, neither the military authorities nor the Government seem ever to remember the object for which the Canal was constructed, and the reason why it has been protected during nearly the whole of its life—namely, the peaceful passage of ships. The tonnage passing through the Canal last year reached the enormous figure of 93 million tons, one-third of it British. This can be accomplished only in conditions of security. That fact has been lost sight of.
Coming back to strategy, the atomic bomb is said to be a new strategical factor. I am not quite sure what effect the dropping of a bomb would have on the Canal. Perhaps it would blow out a new Lake Timsah and improve the waterway. When I heard that story, I laughed aloud. I recalled how, in 1901 or 1902, before the Entente, someone had the same sort of bright idea about Gibraltar and bombardment. It was argued that if Spain and France combined against us, the Rock could not be held, so we had better clear out and exchange the Rock for Ceuta—if we could get it. I was very young and very junior, but my opinion was asked, and I said that we might have a dozen wars before we should be confronted with that particular combination or any parallel combination, and that it would be perfectly absurd to scuttle out of Gibraltar. My position was adopted and Gibraltar was retained. It might well be the same with the Suez Canal. None of us can tell what is going to be the pattern of a future war.
I suppose that a major war would unquestionably bring in these terrible bombs, but it is quite possible that the pattern of smaller wars, especially in the Far East, may be more like the pattern

257
of the recent wars in Korea and Indo-China. Nations will not enter into a major war, if they can avoid it, with such a "chancy" weapon as the atomic bomb about. If they can get their way by a "cold war," or by supporting some nation engaged in war, as the Communist movement in Spain was supported in the civil war there, prior to the Second World War, they will not indulge in the atomic bomb. And neither, very likely, shall we, because populations become so mixed up in that kind of war that you cannot kill great numbers of your enemies without killing enormous numbers of your friends. I submit that if the military authorities were suddenly confronted with a terrible problem, not on the maximum scale but on the lover scale, arising out of collective security, and had to send a lot of material out in great baste—naval reinforcements, aircraft carriers and so on—say, from the Mediterranean, they would take rather a different view about the strategic value of the Suez Canal.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Killearn will deal with the important point of a return in an emergency. But there is another problem closely allied to that on which we have never had an answer. I ask that we should be given an answer to it; and if should also like to know whether the front Opposition Bench can give an answer. I should like to know whether the Government and the front Opposition Bench share the late and greatly admired Mr. Bevin's abhorrence of a vacuum in Egypt—in his own words,
"meaning that we have gone and there is nothing there for security instead,"
which he declared in the same debate in 1946 at which Mr. Churchill made an important statement on return in emergency.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I can certainly answer that question right away. The late Mr. Bevin initialled a Treaty for the evacuation of the Canal Zone—as I think a mistaken issue. He initialled exactly the same proposal as that now before the Government.
LORD HANKEY: I thank the noble Viscount for that statement. It may answer for the Opposition Front Bench, but I do not think it is a "let out" for the Government Bench. Do they, or do they not, believe in this vacuum?
258
It might interest your Lordships to know that not many days ago a detached and distinguished American publicist, Mr. Hanson W. Baldwin, published an article in the New York Times, under the headline, "Projected British exodus from Base leaves defence problem in region." Mr. Baldwin sums up a critical and valuable, but not unfriendly, argument as follows:
"All this"—
that is, the danger of a vacuum—
"is clearly recognised by a projected provision in the British-Egyptian Agreement which would permit the return of British troops to the Canal Zone area in case of war—clearly a dangerous military extemporisation and a poor substitute for a permanent base. It is clear, therefore, that the impending withdrawal is an undesirable military expedient, undertaken partly because of the decline of British power, partly because of our own equivocal policies in the area, partly in the hope of political and psychological gains in the Arab world. The last-named is likely to be an evanescent hope; retreat, particularly under pressure, does not breed respect but more pressure."
That is a remarkable statement.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I am afraid that I missed the name of the military authority he was quoting on the military considerations in the Canal Zone.
LORD HANKEY: It is Mr. Hanson W. Baldwin, a very distinguished writer. I followed him for years in the war. He is one of the most sensible military writers of the day. I have the cutting here, which I will hand to the noble Marquess.
Mr. Baldwin's remark leads straight to the question of redeployment—that is another of these rather vague and pompous phrases which seem to me to be a smoke cloud to cover up a not very creditable retreat. Why should we assume that our farces, having been shouted out of the Suez Canal Zone, would be either welcomed or respected in Jordan, Iraq, Libya, or even Cyprus? I am, of course, aware that there are Treaties with the two former, though of a rather limited duration and, to me, rather vague. Moreover, both of those countries are members of the Arab League, and the difficulty is that much of the prestige which Britain loses as the guardian of the double gateway between the two oceans and the two continents

259
will pass to Egypt—exactly as that American writer said. What would happen to our deployed troops in Iraq or Jordan if Egypt should carry out her barely concealed threat to invade Israel? I do not think that that will happen immediately, but possibly a few years hence it will.
I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have weighed up the potentialities of the broadcasts to Kenya, Tunisia, Morocco and Aden; the reported influx of Egyptian civil servants to Libya and the Sudan, and the actual troubles in Aden, where the new oil installations are due to begin production almost at once. Have they considered, also, the possibilities that arise from the unfortunate statements that have been made in Egypt and in Beirut, to the effect that the British Army helped in averting a war between Egypt and Palestine? To put those things together collectively, they seem to me to suggest that there is someone there who has rather big ideas. I do not know exactly how those will be dealt with if we have not got the Base and a garrison in the Zone. I am very puzzled to know why deployment of the whole of the troops should not have been tried before this question came to a head. Perhaps it has been to some extent—I do not know. We certainly could have sent part of the troops to these countries for deployment and kept a large part in Egypt until the Agreement was reached and we had got to know whether it was a practicable proposition or not, and whether they would be useful in all these different sorts of emergencies. Moreover, we should have avoided this unfortunate moment when our prestige is bound to fall until we can build it up again.
Those are a number of questions which I think ought to be answered. Like everyone else, I hope against hope, in spite of these rather gloomy doubts, that the arrangement will be successful, if it has got to take place, because I do not believe that the British people will tolerate another humiliating "scuttle," especially when they realise that to all appearances—I hardly like to say this after what the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, have said—it followed so soon after the visit to America. If the thing goes wrong, I do not believe that any Government, any Party or any politician could survive the
260
results of a complete withdrawal, under duress, of 80,000 or more British soldiers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What does the noble Lord mean by saying "so soon after the visit to America"? It was rather an obscure phrase. Perhaps he would elaborate it.
LORD HANKEY: It was no more than this: that the conversations gained a new lease of life, which has led to this result shortly after the visit to America. I think that will be found to be true. My memory is not good enough to say what happened in the case of the Sudan, but I think something of the same kind happened then. At any rate, we have that very tactful way of putting it by Mr. Baldwin. I will not go beyond that. I also do not believe that, in the long run, this plan will lead to any financial saving, or that it will serve the cause of peace. The truth is, as I said last December, that it is a gamble with good faith. I am not casting any reflection on the present Government, the President or the Prime Minister; but it is a long-term arrangement, and it depends upon the good faith of a succession of Egyptian Governments whatever be their complexion—and that in a country where Governments change rapidly. We had an earlier example of trusting to a revolutionary leader in the events which led up to Munich. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are quite sure that there is not the same risk here.
6.26 p.m.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: My Lords, I think we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for having raised this debate in the aftermath of Geneva and on the morrow of the signing of the Heads of Agreement with Egypt. These two instruments profoundly alter the strategic picture of the world. It is therefore timely that we should have this debate; that we should adjust our outlook to these new perspectives and that we should consider whether our policies should be revised. I cannot share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, about the Geneva Agreement and what it portends. He made claims for it far in excess of anything that has been claimed by Mr. Eden or Mr. Mendes-France, and, indeed, he exceeded by a long way the sober statement in regard to that Agreement made

261
by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, this afternoon. If, as he thinks and trusts, we are now on the way to building a new world, a new edifice of peace, it is as well that we should begin by clearing away the rubble of illusion.
There is no advantage whatever in setting out to describe Geneva in far-reaching terms. What in fact arises from Geneva? In the first place, it sets the seal upon China as a first-class Power. We are engaged in a day-to-day struggle with Communism. If the noble Lord's view is correct, we must ask ourselves: What is the purpose of N.A.T.O.? What is the sense of building up these vast armaments and making these strategic dispositions throughout the world? As I said, we are engaged in a struggle with Communism, and Geneva has set the seal upon China as a first-class Power. That has modified the balance of power in Asia. Chou En-lai, the spokesman of China at the Geneva Conference, was the pivot around whom all the negotiations revolved. We cannot blind ourselves to the fact drat he gained important concessions for the Communist camp. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said—and I thought he dismissed the matter a little lightly—he has scooped into the Communist orbit another 12 millions of population; he has acquired a rich territory, the Red River Delta, with its rice, and he has gained iron, tin and zinc mines. He has set up his satellite in a very advantageous strategic position. The first effects of this we have seen in the shooting down of the Skymaster and in other threats to the air routes, for this part of Indo-China lies athwart all the principal civil air routes in the East. Therefore China has gained important acquisitions and has improved the situation of Communism.
Next we have to record that the Empire which France built on the ruins of Sedan has crumbled. It may be that France has made political errors—which country has not? At any rate, in the later stages of the struggle, all the Allies proclaimed that France was holding an important bastion for the free, world. In this cause she lost 100,000 soldiers killed, 140,000 wounded and 38,000 prisoners. She evoked the admiration of the world in the defence of Dien Bien Phu. For generations she has sent her young men to Indo-China where they have found an outlet for their constructive abilities and
262
the country was an outpost of Western culture. It is a melancholy ending; France has ceased to be an Asiatic Power. That is very important. She follows the Dutch out. We are left alone as the only Western Power on the mainland of Asia with direct responsibilities for government. Therefore we have a primary interest in these developments.
Now it is said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, or it is implied, that we ought to trust the Communists. But it is not only a question of what they gained at Geneva. We have to pay attention to what Chou En-lai said was to be the policy of China in the future, and his claims were not confined to Asia. He demanded the demilitarisation, as he called it, of Germany; he demanded the abandonment of E.D.C. He demanded the unification of Germany—all on the Russian plan. This is very formidable support for Russia. All this happened at the first international Conference to which China has been admitted. Chou En-lai proclaimed for the first time an entirely new policy for Asia.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes, he proclaimed that he was no longer interested in 7 million ex-patriated Chinese. That was a tremendous concession to the West.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I accept entirely the intervention of the noble Lord. Chou En-lai has said that. He has also said that he demands the demilitarisation of Japan; and he has said that he demands the expulsion of all foreign soldiers from the Continent of Asia. He has said that he demands the abandonment of all foreign bases in Asia. In a word, he has declared a new Monroe Doctrine for Asia. That is his policy. He has stated that the proper system of peace in Asia is the Pan-American model and that the Asian peoples must look after their own affairs. He offers them mutual guarantees. I do not say that this is good or bad at the moment. I say that that is what his claim is: a mutual security pact for the whole of Asia with the expulsion of all foreign elements. Not only did he announce that policy at Geneva but he took time off and paid a flying visit to countries that have hitherto been in our orbit, or at any rate, harken sympathetically towards us in the matter of stemming the advance of Communism. He went to India and he

263
went to Burma to advocate this policy. He had some success. India is also pursuing the policy of expelling foreign settlements. This is what is happening to both the Portuguese and the French, whose settlements in India have been recognised and not interfered with for 300 years. Burma has stated that she wants a mutual security pact for Asia on similar lines to those proposed by Chou En-lai.
All this is a challenge to us. We have to decide in the face of it what our policy should be. Mr. Eden had a policy at Geneva of uniting the Colombo Powers with the West. It was a most enlightened policy. I believe it would have resulted in a greater security for the world, and nobody has worked harder than Mr. Eden to establish a satisfactory peace system. His policy has been undermined by Chou En-lai. Mr. Dulles still thinks that a South-East Asian security pact on the lines which he originally advocated is a practical proposition. He has said that, so far as he can see, there is no reason why Cambodia, and possibly Laos, should not be included within the defence line. But the Agreements at Geneva forbid it. For two years these States are restricted in their liberties to make foreign alliances and in their right to import foreign war material or to have foreign troops on their soil. Therefore, for two years it seems clear that Cambodia, Laos and Viet-nam cannot be included in the pact.
Now there is no particular advantage in reciting these terms, which I think on the whole are adverse to our prospects, unless we ask ourselves how they came about. Why is it that the two great Western democracies, this most powerful combination of Powers, have suffered this reverse? It is not a British reverse, it is a reverse for the Western Powers. It is because we were disunited. Here I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I think he went to the heart of the whole matter in saying it. There was dissension in our own ranks, not only private dissension but public dissension, and I think that must be eradicated if we are to make a successful job of creating an orderly system in the world. I think this began with the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact. America made this Pact with Australia and New Zealand,
264
two members of our Commonwealth, and Great Britain was excluded from it. It was a very great error. To-day you find powerful voices in Australia complaining of her defencelessness, of the exposed character of the Northern Coast of Australia, and pleading for the base for South-East Asia to be put at Darwin instead of at Singapore. The omission of Britain from the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact should be repaired.
We then had Mr. Dulles's "massive retaliation" policy, announced without any consultation with other members of N.A.T.O. That was the policy of blowing up small wars into big ones. In the result it has terrified the people it was supposed to protect. The announcement of that policy infringed the principle of consultation upon which N.A.T.O. was founded. Then there was the announcement of the plan for a South East Asian Defence Pact. There were threats and conflicting proposals. None of this detracts in any way from our appreciation of the services of the United States. What the United States means to the free world has been stated with great eloquence, power and knowledge by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, in his outstanding maiden speech. There have also been suggestions that there was no solidarity in the defence of the French position in Indo-China. I do not know what the facts in that matter may be, but we did not go to Geneva united. If there are chinks in our armour, we must expect the Communists to find them.
Another Conference is now proposed. I plead with the Government—though I do not think it will be necessary to plead—not to accept entry into conferences until the Western Powers, the free world, are united in their policy. It is all very well to speak about co-existence with the Communists, but what we want is coincidence in our own aims. Conferences are the strongest propaganda weapon that the Communists use, and I think that it behoves us to agree among ourselves on a common tactic and strategy so that there will not be a recurrence of the circumstances which led to the Geneva Treaty. After all, the United States and ourselves are highly reasonable people and if it is made the object of our joint diplomacy to get an agreement in advance of a Conference, whatever the difficulties may be, I think that would be of primary importance to the West.

265
I do not speak of Europe, because I entirely endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and the Government will have my complete support in that policy. I also support their policy in Egypt. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has spoken of "scuttling." There has been no "scuttle." It is a matter of deliberate policy. The strategic conditions of the world have altered. In my maiden speech in a defence debate, I ventured to make exactly this point: that the danger has moved from the North-West of Africa and from South of Egypt to the North-East of Asia Minor. It moves upwards towards Russia. Therefore it would be a policy of stupidity to have a large body of our limited Army tied down in static positions in an age when flexibility and mobility are required. I think the policy is a realistic one. We have believed for seventy-five years that our position in Egypt was vital, but conditions have altered and we must accept that fact.
Secondly, whatever the value of Egypt may be, there can be no advantage in a base among a hostile population. The utility of the base is entirely negatived by that. So I think that the Government have taken the right decision, in the circumstances. But I hope that we are not going to move out of one "frying pan" into another. I personally think that the age in which individual countries can have bases in other countries, by a bilateral arrangement is passing. The positions in the Middle East are the right flank of N.A.T.O. Any base which we occupy should be occupied on behalf of N.A.T.O. That would soften any acerbity or suspicions which might be aroused among the local populations, wherever the base may be, whether in Cyrenaica, Jordan or even Cyprus, it does not matter. If we are acting on behalf of a community of free nations, we remove doubts, suspicions and unfriendliness. I hope that means will be taken to secure this. The advantage of acting on behalf of a community of nations is that the expense is shared and much more can be done for the local populations. What is required in the Middle East is an infrastructure of pipelines before we can be in a state to meet danger. That policy has been pursued in France, and in Western Europe £100 million or more has been spent on infrastructure largely
266
consisting of pipelines. I think it would be advantageous if all of us, in co-operation, were to spend money for this purpose, because it would give economic advantages to the local populations, raise their standard of life and improve their countries.
Therefore, I hope that this Treaty with Egypt, the heads of which have now been signed, will be merged, in the end, into N.A.T.O. I think the moral of both these events which we are considering is that the free world can defend itself provided it be united. It must be a policy of "Each for all and all for each." The day of the single nation has passed; we are moving towards larger structures. If we follow that policy, but not otherwise, it seems to me that we shall maintain some semblance of peace and order in a harassed world.
6.48 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, the first thing I should like to do, as an old colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, is to associate myself warmly with all the compliments that have been paid him for his remarkable maiden speech. It makes one feel proud of the Service of which I was once a member.
Egypt is the only subject upon which I propose to touch to-day. In that regard since last night all sorts of things have happened—at least, when I say "all sorts of things," I mean that one thing has happened. We are faced with what is practically a fait accompli. As a result of the exchange of views which we had at one moment earlier in the debate, I hope it will be confirmed that, when the full text is available and we can consider it, there is eventually to be in the Treaty, which is, I suppose, at the state of signature, a ratification clause. I believe there is on record a promise to this House, or to Parliament, that there will be a debate before actual ratification.
I should like to open with the question, whether the Agreement, when it is concluded, will contain a ratification clause entailing discussion by Parliament. That, I repeat, is a definite question that I now put. Whatever there may or may not be in this Agreement, of which we have had only the headings so far, there is no doubt whatever that it is a remarkable achievement. When I say it is a

267
"remarkable achievement," I mean a remarkable achievement by Egypt. That which, over a period of years, "all the King's horses and all the King's men" have completely failed to achieve, has been obtained by a handful of military officers after a very few months in office. I repeat, that is most remarkable; it is a great achievement—for Egypt. I certainly should not describe it as a British achievement; it is an Egyptian achievement. Moreover, it is an achievement by a Government which, so far as I know, has no form of constitutional background—I am not sure, but I think they still call themselves "revolutionary"—and whose good faith, so far as we have been able to put it to the test over the Sudan Agreement, has proved to be non-existent. For Her Majesty's Government on more than one occasion, both in this House and in another place, have denounced the bad faith of this particular Egyptian Government with whom we are now so easily, so keenly, and so willingly signing this Agreement.
Well, we must face the facts as they come. No doubt, Her Majesty's Government are doing this with their eyes fully open, and of course it is for them to do so if they so decide—it is their responsibility. We can, therefore, hope that their trust will prove to be justified. Those of us who have some local experience are perhaps a little doubtful. We wonder. I remember that the last time we discussed Egypt here in this House I told your Lordships of my personal experience on the eve of the last war. I will not burden the House with repetition, but I hold that nobody would say that, when the Treaty of 1936 was signed, there was any other intention in the minds of the signatories on both sides than that if there was a war we should fight it side by side as co-belligerents. I am quite sure of that. What happened in the event was that the Egyptians ran out. They made a case; they made a lawyer's case, and they ran out. It is true that later on, it suited us very much better that they should have run out. But the point I am making (and I made it before) is that in 1936 a Treaty was negotiated with acclamation on the part of the Egyptians. The other political Parties which were not in the Egyptian Government, were so keen on being in on the Agreement that they insisted on signing too. It was thus signed by the heads
268
of thirteen political Parties. Yet in its implementation see what happened. That is not a very promising example.
Apparently, among the Heads of Agreement there is one concerning reactivation. It so happens that in 1946 in another place there was a debate in which the present Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, made a great speech. I recommend that your Lordships should look at that speech because, although it was made some time ago, it contains so many points that apply with immense force, as I think, to the present situation. I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place for 1945–46—Volume 423. The debate took place on May 24, 1946. The present Prime Minister began by describing what he called the timetable of the recent Egyptian story. I need not say that it was beautifully narrated, with the clarity and tellingness of which he is such a master. Then he went on to explain why Egypt should be grateful to us for having saved her. Yet she apparently was not. Then, in column 770 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he comes to this point about reactivation. First of all, however, there is a point about the value of the advice of Chiefs of Staff, which is so apposite that I feel I should quote it to you. It is as follows:
"If I am to be told that the Chiefs of Staff say that the Canal can be left open without any permanent garrison and air forces in the Canal zone, treat their opinions with the utmost respect, but put on record that I am utterly unconvinced."
I mention that because we have heard a good deal of discussion about the necessity of our maintaining the 80,000 troops and the advice of the General Staff to that effect. It is interesting that in 1946 the view of Mr. Churchill was as recorded textually above.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is important is the view of Sir Winston Churchill now.
LORD KILLEARN: Yes, I quite agree. That is what we are in fact in process of discovering practically, and it is very different now from what it was then.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): He has stated it quite conclusively in another place to-day.
LORD KILLEARN: He did? I am interested in that.

269
In that debate the Prime Minister also talked about the importance of the overland route. He said:
"Let me make it perfectly clear that our position is that His Majesty's Government have no right to claim the approval of the Chiefs or the Staff for any policy without informing the House of the precise questions upon which their advice was obtained."—
I do not know how that has been done on this present occasion. He went on:
"I am astonished that people should talk continuously about the Isthmus of Suez. Until my right honourable friend mentioned the matter this morning, and reminded us that this extraordinary region is the junction between three continents, I have not heard the Isthmus mentioned, or read of it in any of the newspapers. Even if the Canal were blocked by aerial bombardment, as it might be if our fighter air force were overcome, or if a lucky shot or several lucky shots fell home, there always the means of transhipment across the Isthmus of Suez."
So far as I am aware this is the first time that the Isthmus has been mentioned, and of course what the Prime Minister said is quite true. Now let me get on to the point of reactivation. This is what the Prime Minister said in 1946; it has often been quoted before—I quote now from Column 774:
"Let us try to foresee what will happen if tension grows at any time in future and an emergency arises. … We shall then be in dispute with some other Great Power. That makes the emergency, and the moment will come when the military advisers will say: 'We ought to reoccupy the military installations, camps and airfields in the Canal Zone. We ought immediately to move in from our bases to the east or to the west of Egypt.' What might be the behaviour of the Egyptian Government at such a juncture? We all know of the great sympathy there is when a small country is in so terrible a situation as that. No doubt we shall be told that there would be a treaty of alliance, but I cannot feel that, under such dire pressures, it would be of any avail. The Great Power with whom we shall be in dispute would, of course, say to the Egyptian Government: 'We should regard any movement into the Canal Zone of British Forces as an unfriendly act.' Can anyone suppose that the Egyptian Government, confronted with this situation and not desiring anyhow to have British troops or Air Forces in the Canal Zone, will not refuse permission to us to reenter? And what then? They will say: 'We do not agree that a state of emergency has arisen. We do not agree that a state of international emergency'—to quote the words of the Treaty of Alliance—'has arisen, and we deny your right to decide upon the fact contrary to us.'
"Meanwhile, the days will be slipping very quickly by. If such an attitude were adopted and there were no British personnel in the Canal Zone, the Egyptians, or any ill-disposed
270
persons, would be able to put out of action all the installations, radar equipment, airfields and so on, long before we could get there; and the mere threat that they would do so, and had perhaps prepared the necessary measures to do so, would render our attempt to enter futile even before it was made. Can one imagine the British Government in such a situation, when the dread issue of peace or war in a renewed world-wide struggle may be hanging in the balance, forcing the issue, whether Egypt agreed or not?"
My Lords, surely those words of the Prime Minister, uttered in 1946, still carry some weight. It is true that that was in 1946 and this is 1954, but the situation is very much the same. And if, on top of it, you have the threat of the hydrogen bomb which the Great Power in question, whoever it may be, may usefully invoke, is it not almost a certainty that we should not get sanction to return? Seriously, I do not think we should attach too much importance to the right of re-entry.
There was another point in the same debate which was referred to by Mr. Bevin—it has been referred to also tonight: the question of a vacuum. In the same debate on May 24 Mr. Bevin, who had been answering Mr. Churchill, said (OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 423, col. 788):
"There is one thing on which I will give the Committee an assurance. I will be no party to having a vacuum. There must not be a vacuum. If the Egyptian Government try to force a situation in which there is a vacuum—meaning that we have gone and that there is nothing there for security instead, regional defence or other organisation—to that I can never agree."
That also was said some years ago, but it was an assurance; and there is, or now will be, a vacuum, I imagine. All that leads logically to the point I raised on July 15 in a Question which was not, I think, quite fully understood by the noble Marquess. He thought it was a tiresome question. It was a leading question, and he gave me the answer—which he was perfectly entitled to do, and of which the House approved—that the Question could not be answered at that time.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It was not a question of not understanding, it was just because I did understand it that I thought it was not a Question which should properly be answered at that moment.
LORD KILLEARN: The noble Marquess is quite right, it could not be answered at that time, but it led up to a supplementary question which was, and still is, my present point. Some noble Lords may remember it: it was a very thin House that day. I said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188, col. 1088):
"in thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, which the House will fully understand, may I put to him the following supplementary question: Whether the possibility has been studied of adapting our direct and inherited obligations under the Suez Canal Convention of Constantinople of 1888 into some form of effective—and I emphasise the word 'effective'—international guarantee of the free navigation of the Canal in time of peace and war?"
That—some international system—was in my mind at the time of my question, and I rather fancy that it was in the noble Marquess's mind, too. If it is proper I should like to put this question again to-day, and perhaps something might be said as to whether some such form of effective international system to ensure the continued free navigation of the Canal, as prescribed in 1888, is in contemplation. I submit that it is very important. I have always felt it would have the advantage, apart from anything else, of saving the face of Egypt and, equally important, of saving our face if that could be done. I still think so.
It is not worth troubling noble Lords at length as to how we inherited these obligations. We have direct obligations as signatories of the Convention of Constantinople of 1888, which prescribed the complete freedom of navigation of the Canal in time of peace and war. In addition we inherited, as second guardian, the obligations entailed by that Convention upon Turkey—then called the Sovereign, though I think it was rather the Suzerain of Egypt. After our war with Turkey in 1919, her obligations were transferred to us by the International Treaties of Versailles, Trianon and others, and finally, the Treaty with Turkey of Lausanne. It can be fairly contended that these are obligations of an international character which we should not ignore. There has been talk to-day of a "scrap of paper." There was the celebrated one of 1914. These are all scraps of paper, and all have our names upon them, or we have inherited them. We should not treat lightly obligations, either direct or inherited, that
272
have come to us under the Convention of Constantinople, obligations which might easily contain the key to a very fine solution, rather on the lines of those to which the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, referred. I do not know what form it would take. Obviously, users of the Canal, presumably the signatories of the original Constantinople Agreement (which did not include America, although they would have to come in) would be directly involved. Perhaps the noble Marquess may feel that the time is now opportune for a reply to-day to my Question of June 15.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: When the noble Lord spoke of the signatories to the Agreement, was he aware that the chief signatory was the Russian Government?
LORD KILLEARN: I am well aware of that, and consider it an advantage. We all look at these things from our particular angle and there is a good old expression that we no longer quote: "Quot homines, tot sententiae"—"There are as many opinions as there are people." I sit here with grim faces looking at me across the Table, all thoroughly disapproving, or even with contempt directed at me from one quarter; but we are all entitled to our opinions and to me this is a sorry story. One moment of speculative personal retrospect before I sit down. During the war I was Ambassador in Cairo. We had won the war and in a perfectly normal way one naturally began thinking about Treaty revision. Here I am speaking of something which I did myself, so I know what I am talking about. Initial soundings were made and were not too badly received. The usual course was taken, the usual things were done. One sounded the Prime Minister and so on, and that process was going through encouragingly. But suddenly there was a damper. Presently, a rumour began passing round that it was no good the Embassy talking of such things for the matter was going to be dealt with at a far higher level (I need not say that Egypt had it long before we at the Embassy did); that a Cabinet Commission was coming, which would settle the whole question. So everything in the garden was lovely; it was roses, roses all the way, and there were no thorns anywhere. But so far as

273
the initial moves to attempt revision of the Treaty were concerned, they were a failure.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but I happened to be the head of this Cabinet Commission on behalf of Mr. Bevin. It is not quite right to call it a failure.
LORD KILLEARN: But I am talking about things from my end—the Embassy end. It was a failure so far as the Embassy were concerned. I, and many others, believe that had things been allowed to proceed along a perfectly normal course, they might have worked out very differently. Great Britain wanted revision as much as Egypt; it was bilateral. Egypt had cone through the war and was fairly receptive and grateful at that time, and there was certainly at least a chance of revision going through amicably and normally. But other counsels prevailed; other less normal methods were adopted, and things got on the wrong rails. From that day onwards the situation has gone worse and worse, sliding with increasing speed: Abadan, the Sudan and now Suez—and that at a time when, if we read the signs aright (the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, referred to them); whatever we think of Geneva, and however admirably our Foreign Secretary may have emerged (though he must have had a terrible ordeal), however adroit he has been, no one can say that we got a triumph out of Geneva. We prevented the worst happening, and that is certainly a great deal. But as the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, indicated, we have stabilised a certain Parallel and we have the Communists there. In Korea it is the same, So the situation in Asia—it is no good pretending—is grim. I am one of those possibly misguided people who think that what we are now doing in Egypt will make the situation in Africa deteriorate. It will deteriorate not only in Egypt but in the while of Africa. Do not be under any misapprehension on that, What we are doing in Africa may be a wonderful gesture, but we are going to have a cascade of claims from all over the world, and how are we going to stand up to that? I do not know. Where will it end?
I have spoken perhaps crudely and not well: I have not the gift of public speak-
274
ing, and I do not pretend to have it. But I feel that we are at a very serious turn of events. And I would end by repeating to the noble Marquess my double inquiry; Are we going to have a ratification clause when this Agreement is signed? Secondly, is it any good now putting afresh to the noble Marquess the supplementary question that I put to him on July 15 about some form of effective international system of protection for safeguarding the freedom of the navigation of the Canal in peace time as in war, as it conies to us as a direct and inherited obligation under the Constantinople Convention of 1888?
7.11 p.m.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, said that we all look at this matter from different angles, and I think the House is well aware of the angle from which the noble Lord considers this problem. My first contact with Egypt was with the old Arab Bureau, a great many years ago. I think we should consider what is best for the future, as regards policy for our country, and not to look at the past. I have always felt that we should cultivate friendship with the Arab countries who served us so well in times of stress. The Arab countries lately have been looking to us and wondering what our rôle is going to be. I am confident that the time is now ripe to make a move forward and re-establish the friendship and leadership we used to have with the Arabs, which was cultivated so well by men like General Clayton and others, under whom it was an honour to serve.
It seems to me that a settlement in Egypt will not be found by quoting speeches which I happened to hear in another place in 1946, when the situation was totally different from what it is to-day. The fact that N.A.T.O. is in existence has completely changed the situation. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, that it would strengthen the whole position if action for re-establishing the position of the free nations in the Mediterranean and the Middle East were put more emphatically on the shoulders of N.A.T.O. On the other hand—though perhaps this is boasting on behalf of our own country—I think we understand the Arab people far better than some other members of N.A.T.O., and it is to us that the Arabs

275
are looking. It is not without significance that to-day the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, was able to announce the end of a long contention with Saudi Arabia, from which I trust that good results will follow. If we start in that way, carry out our obligations and help the Arab people, we can completely change the whole situation in the Middle East. At the present moment some of the Arab countries are rich from their oilfields, yet with territories so small that they do not know how to use the money that is coming to them. What an opportunity there is for the British to help all the Arab countries by some financial arrangement, so that they could spread that wealth more evenly and solve, once and for all, the dreadful problem of the Arab refugees, which is a standing disgrace to the nations who pledged themselves to look after the people driven from their homes!
There is no question of "scuttling" out of Egypt: it is a question of doing what is best at this time. I am convinced that British prestige has not been improved by the conditions that have prevailed in Egypt for the last eighteen months. It is a scandal that we have been unable to rebuild the quarters for our troops. We have had troops living there under conditions so appalling that they have had more than anything else to do with preventing men from re-engaging in the Army. We have lost a great many officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers because of the experiences they have had in the Canal Zone. I cannot believe that noble Lords who have been out there and seen those conditions could believe that it would be any blemish on British prestige if we re-established ourselves under realistic conditions in Cyprus, where we can be in closest contact with the alliance between Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey, which is of the utmost importance to N.A.T.O., and have our strategic reserve here. I should have thought it obvious to anybody that it is no use trying to maintain a base where there is a hostile population. But what is most important is to show the people in Egypt that under the new arrangement Egyptians will be employed, as they are not at present, and that we can give them steady employment, under contractors, to see that the Base is properly maintained.
276
I do not know whether noble Lords are aware of the time it will take to evacuate the Base physically of even the stores worth keeping. It will occupy many months. Indeed, it is going to be difficult physically to move these stores within the period of time laid down. However, I believe that we should look forward and not back. I believe that today we can show by our action that we are willing to go forward with the Arab countries, and maintain the Suez Canal as a great channel of communication. But I have yet to learn that by sitting on the Canal under modern conditions we shall defend it from hostile missiles. According to all the information I can get from those who know far more about it than I, and perhaps other noble Lords do, it is impossible to defend that line of communication by concentrating troops right on the banks. I remember that in World War I, after Gallipoli, some of us were sent to the Canal Zone, and the Royal Engineers put water pipes along the banks of the canal. The water pipes brought up the bottom of the canal so that no traffic could pass through. That was rectified by the removal of the pipes. I think there is something to be said for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, that much might be done to help the economic prosperity of the Middle East and of the oil-bearing territories by working out a system of pipelines which could be defended.
We must also recognise that the Suez Canal is not so important for communication as it used to be, if we take the direct route from the United Kingdom to the Pacific by the Cape. The losses we suffered in trying to pass convoys through the Mediterranean and the Canal during the war hardly justified the expenditure involved in maintaining the so-called army of occupation in the Canal Zone. It is far better to recognise that the time has gone for regular movement through the Canal, and to take advantage of our position in Cyprus, which is ideally suited to co-operate with Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia. I have yet to hear that the Greeks have lost their affectionate regard for this country, and I am sure that with them and ourselves working together, free from this incubus of trouble and difficulty in Egypt, looking forward and not back, showing our faith in what I am convinced is still our rôle, we can prove ourselves true friends to the Arab people

277
and have them as our true aids and assistants in any emergency that may arise.
7.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to say a word or two about the important and impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strang. He is protected, because it was a maiden speech. It impressed us deeply; but if it had not been a maiden speech, for all its power and knowledge, it would have been the most dreadful expression of opinion that I have ever heard. He simply cut the world into two halves; there was no end to it at all. There was a perpetual conflict of strength, in which we are outclassed already, and when the hydrogen bomb comes we shall be entirely outclassed. But I cannot make those remarks, because the proper thing to do is to offer a bouquet, as I do indeed from my heart, to a distinguished civil servant whose contributions to these debates must be of great importance, and certainly of immense interest.
I was afraid that what I was going to say would be said by somebody else, but it has not been up to now. I was going to say that I think it was wrong to occupy another people's country without their permission. I think it was a breach of the Treaty to send 80,000 men, when we promised not to send more than 10,000; and I think the moral case is the strongest basis for the breach. If I had said this a few years ago, everybody would have laughed at me and called me an extremist. They would have said that a man who bases himself on moral principles must be an extremist. But now all is right. The very thing that we have been urging for years has now been accepted as the policy by this distinguished Government, some of whose representatives we see here, with their great Leader in another place. Everyone ought to be happy to-day. The Egyptians ought to be happy, and the Liberals ought to be happy. What Gladstone said in 1882 has turned out to be true.
I do not think this is the time to discuss the Agreement, because we must first know exactly what it is. However, there are some points which I should like the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to answer when he comes to speak to-morrow. One of them is this. The scheme of bringing
278
in Turkey is interesting, historically. It is a rash thing to speak historically of international relations in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and other experts, but it is a fact that the great achievement of Ismail Pasha was to liberate Egypt from the Turkish yoke, and now Mr. Dulles is going to recreate the Turkish Empire in order to protect us, as of old, against the Russian menace. If the Egyptians undertake to fight if Turkey is attacked, what about the obligations of the Balkan Alliance? I should like that to be answered. Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia have entered into a new alliance. Does that mean that if there is another incident in Yugoslavia, Cairo is likely to be bombed? I do not know the answer to that, and perhaps the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, will be able to provide it to-morrow.
Then there is our sudden passion for self-government in Cyprus. Is that at all connected with the possibility of bringing these unwanted troops into that unhappy Island? It is really rather pathetic. Here we have a fine army of 80,000 men, and nobody wants them. Such an authority as the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, says that they are no good at all because they are surrounded by a hostile population. We might reduce our period of National Service, and we might even save some money. What shall we do with these unwanted men? I must not lower the tone of the debate, but I dare say your Lordships will remember the pathetic ballad of Gracie Fields, who sang:
"I took my harp to the party, but nobody asked me to play."
That is the position of our troops in the Canal Zone. The third point is this. There is something in The Times this morning about the ending of the Treaty, and I should like the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to give us some information as to that. It is there said:
"During the last twelve months of that period the two Governments will consult on arrangements necessary when the Agreement expires."
There may be a difficult question here. There has been an interpretation of Article 16 of the Treaty of 1936, which was held to mean that the Treaty was a perpetual thing which could never be escaped from. Then we have had the

279
resurrection of the document of 1888 by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn.
LORD KILLEARN: It is not a resurrection by me, but by the British Government's Official Representative in U.N.O., as I can show the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am greatly honoured that I should be waited on personally by a most distinguished diplomat bearing so important a public document. I was not going into it if I had not had the document offered to me. But as to the time limit, I should like to hear what is the position. Are we going to assume that the twelve months that is mentioned means that the Treaty is a seven-year Treaty, or is not a seven-year Treaty? If it is a seven-year Treaty, clean cut, that is one thing, and it is very satisfactory to Egypt. But if the text means that we have got in reserve some form of words that we make an agreement to agree—which I understand is legally impossible—then I think it presents a difficulty. However, this is not a time for that; we shall see the Treaty, and we shall have our discussion in due course. I was rather alarmed at the constitutional innovation suggested by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, when he proposed to submit to the House whether or not it approved of the Treaty. I understood that the making of a Treaty was a Royal prerogative. I do not know that I can recollect any plain Motion being put before either House to approve a Treaty.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should not like the House to be led astray. What I said was that I understood there was to be a discussion in this House before the Treaty was finally signed. That is not a matter of submitting the Treaty to Parliament, but it allows for a discussion. I agree that the signature to the Treaty is an Executive act, and Parliament's remedy, if it does not like it, is to turn out the Government.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Marquess was much more conceding than that to those whom I hesitate to call the rebels, because I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, that the noble Marquess himself is not in complete accord with his own Cabinet—but that, possibly, is only in the newspapers
280
He offered them a Government Motion saying, "We approve the Treaty." Their duty was to put down a Motion saying that they do not approve the Treaty.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said that we should put down a Motion asking for the approval of the House to the Treaty. I merely said that there might be a discussion on the subject before it was finally signed.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am reassured, because I was not wrong. I misunderstood what was said, but, in substance, I think we are agreed. I am glad of that, because it is a point of constitutional importance. That is not really what I was intending to deal with. What I was going to say were a few homely words. First, I think that the Egyptian Government is heartily to be congratulated on its achievement. I should like to congratulate President Neguib, Prime Minister Nasser, and the whole range of Egyptian patriots from the time of Arabi Pasha the first through Zaghlul, Nokrashi, Sidki, Nahas and many others whom I have known. If we are to win—as I hope we shall win—the friendship of Egypt, it will be by recognising the patriotic services that these men have rendered to their country. So far as the Egyptian Government are concerned it will clear the way, I hope, for the programme of social reform. They ought not to have had to spend their time arguing about the occupation by foreign forces when the time was all required for increasing the cultivable area of their country and increasing the food supply of their growing population. I want to add this—and I can claim to have been the friend of the Egyptian claims. This victory has been won because of the belief of the world in freedom. The world has not approved the British occupation by force of Egypt. If Colonel Nasser has won his way it is because the cause of freedom has won.
I would venture to say this. There are several States in the Middle East, including Israel. My noble friend Lord Henderson has already referred to this. I do appeal to the Egyptian Government who have won, I hope, their independence and freedom, also to remember that the freedom of Israel is essential in that part of the world. Israel is not at all an alien member of the community. I know the Israel State and Israeli statesman

281
very well, and ever since the time of Dr. Weitzmann and Prince Feisal they have tried to work together in one community. I hope that Egypt, now assuming, I suppose, the leadership of the Arab world, will extend the right hand of fellowship to this little State which is struggling far existence and which is so important and so potentially useful in the Middle Eastern community.
The noble Lord, Lord Glyn, spoke about the refugees. It is very hard on the Arabs. The Arabs have never persecuted the Jews; it is the Christians who have persecuted the Jews. It was the Germans who created the Jewish refugee problem. I agree that they have done their best to make amends, but the open door in Israel has been the answer to the German persecution of the Jews. The refugee problem is a European and world problem, and not a problem which should be put at the door of the Egyptians. At the same time, I devoutly trust that the President, General Neguib, who has shown so much toleration, will take the lead in this important and, indeed, vital reconciliation.
As regards our own country, I can say only this. I regard this Treaty as a great triumph for our Government and our country. I look back a little wistfully on the events to which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, referred in 1946. We got a Treaty then—a better Treaty, if you like to look at it in the form of the chandlers shop advantages. It was a twenty-year Treaty with an advisory military board. It was a first-rate Treaty, and it was initialled in Claridge's Hotel. It would have saved us about £100 million at least, between now and then. It was rejected because of a terrible mistake of judgment by the Labour Party of the day, when they totally misconceived the position of the Sudan. The result is that we have had to wait seven years for this Treaty, in which we now rejoice. I rejoice in this Treaty because it puts us back in the same position that we occupied when we liberated India. We have a position in the non-European world which is a very powerful position, because we have put "Righting wrong" first in our policy; and the advantages of the liberation of India to this Commonwealth cannot be over-estimated. But the black spot has been the 80,000 troops on the Canal holding down the
282
Arab world. Think of the improvement this will mean in our relations with Pakistan and with the Moslems of India and the world over. It means that we are now, without any reservations, in a position to say that we stand for freedom in the world.
Finally, it is a remarkable thing to think that all this has been done by Mr. Eden and the Prime Minister. It is a good many years ago now when the Prime Minister went as a subaltern to fight at the Battle of Omdurman. Your Lordships probably remember that Colonel Kitchener insisted that if he went there he would have to go at his own expense, which he did. He wrote an appreciation of the situation in the book The River War, which first of all contained a wonderful tribute to the grit of the Sudanese fighters—that was the first time we heard of the Fuzzy-wuzzies—and, secondly, it had the conception of a united Nile Valley which was the true conception. That that subaltern should have beet the liberator of Egypt and restored our good name in the Arab world should be a subject of pride to every one of us.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House if your Lordships now adjourn during pleasure, and meet again at a quarter to nine.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock, and resumed at a quarter before nine.]
LORD BAILLIEU: My Lords, whilst Lord Strang is not here, I would wish to associate myself with those who congratulated him on his maiden speech. It is such a short distance in time since I made my own that I feel it is rather apposite to do so. I must say, however, that I do not share the view of the noble Viscount who spoke just before the adjournment, when I understood Lord Stansgate to say that he did not agree with the way in which Lord Strang had divided the world into two conflicting blocs. I do not think Lord Strang did that. I am afraid we are divided into two conflicting blocs, and that unless we recognise these brutal facts it is unlikely that we shall achieve the peace and those wider harmonies that we all so much desire.
The task of Governments and statesmen charged with responsibility for

283
developing and applying a policy in foreign affairs for this country is both heavy and unenviable. They know that the peace of the world, the happiness and prosperity of their people, the future of our Commonwealth and Empire, will be definitely affected, if not determined, by their wisdom, resolution and leadership. They know that any foreign policy to be effective must command a broad measure of assent and support from members of all Parties and of none. Those responsibilities lie heavily upon those who are to-day charged with great affairs, and they enjoin on us all a measure of restraint, of understanding and support, which I think it has ever been a characteristic of your Lordships' House to afford to the Government of the day in matters of national importance and at critical moments in our history.
I do not propose to traverse the Geneva settlement or to examine whether it is good or bad. We must wait on events. I do not know what effect it will have on Government policies, say, in India, in Burma and in Siam. We shall see. Its effect upon the emergency in Malaya must at this stage be a matter of speculation, but if Communist professions mean anything there should be a complete cessation of terrorist activity there. I do not know whether the last-minute concessions of the Communist negotiators at Geneva were prompted by a genuine desire for peace or by a wholesome respect for the realities of American power and the resolution of American leadership. The event will show. I share the views of those who see in the Agreement just concluded with Egypt fresh hope—fresh hope of removing the bedevilment of our relations in that vital area to which Lord Stansgate and others have referred, and of restoring a broader-based measure of peace in a vital strategic area of the world.
At this time of anxiety and doubt, I should like, if I may, to turn aside for a brief moment to seek the historical justification for the present policies, and to try and determine whether or not, in the unfolding pattern of the past, these policies seem to be wisely conceived in the interest of world peace and our own national welfare; for it is my profound conviction that history teaches nothing only if we fail to heed her teachings. Those of you who may know Washington will recall
284
the Archives Building. The entrances to that stately building are guarded by four classic figures. Under each of these figures there is an inscription. On the one side you read:
"The past is Prologue."
On the other side:
"Study the past."
On another side:
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
And, finally,
"The heritage of the past is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future."
I feel that in those four inscriptions, carved in stone, you find at once the distilled wisdom of the ages, a plea for perspective, and a principle of action to which, if we give due heed, I believe we may gradually bring a wider measure of peace and order to a sorely troubled world. Let us then apply these precepts to our history, to see what are the main facts which emerge and what conclusions we can, or should, draw to help us in meeting the problems of to-day and of to-morrow.
The greatest historical event of the eighteenth century was the long-drawn-out struggle with France. But let us recall that for three-quarters of that century the English-speaking peoples of North America were full partners with us. They shared with us the glories of Marlborough's campaigns and later the Elder Pitt's epic leadership in the Seven Years' War which settled the question whether North America should be English-speaking. The long-drawn-out struggle with Napoleon ended in his overthrow. The Euorpean system which he had contrived and which was to have been used by France to dictate the development of the modern world was laid in ruins. From 1815 to 1914, there were local wars but no world war. Since 1914, the American and British peoples have fought side by side in the two greatest world wars which have engulfed the human race: a hundred years of peace and then two world wars in twenty-five years.
Here, I should like to ask two questions. The first is: Why did we enjoy from 1815 to 1914 such freedom from world war, unequalled since the decline of the Roman Empire? The second is: What is the basic reason for the recurrence since 1914 of two world wars within

285
the short space of one generation? I suggest that the answer to the first question is simple and clear. This freedom from world war did not happen just by chance. It rested upon policies and actions decided by the United States and by ourselves. In the case of the United States, it was the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by President Monroe in 1823 and designed to prevent European intervention in North or South America. For the overseas territories in which we were Laying the foundation of self-government and free nationhood—Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, and others—we had a similar policy. We bade aggressors "Keep out," so that, within the shelter of the rule of law, backed by our Navy, free peoples could take root. The basis of both these similar and interlocking policies was the same. The sanction in both cases, the power behind the moral and political principles on which they both rested, was the British and American Navies.
The answer to my second question, "Why two world wars in one generation?" lies in the failure of the American and British peoples to concert in peace the measures necessary for the concentration and use of their power. This failure encouraged imperial Germany, and later imperial Japan, to challenge the world position of the English-speaking peoples as an essential step to the hegemony of the modern world. Thus, for some two hundred years the United States of America and the British Commonwealth grew and prospered, spreading their influence wide over the whole habitable globe. They established firmly the democratic basis of their rule at home and abroad, upheld the liberties of the free peoples and inspired and directed the great industrial and commercial expansion of the nineteenth century which raised the standard of living of the world. In the space of one generation, we have seen this great and beneficent process twice brought to the verge of destruction and ruin because we failed to remember that history is prologue and that eternal vigilance is ever the price of liberty. We failed to act together and in time, to foresee and plan, in terms of the modern world, the measures necessary to restrain aggressive action by Japan, Germany and their satellites. We failed, after a hundred years of relative peace, to apply our inter-
286
locking, mutual security policies continuously, directly and in time to the changing conditions of the twentieth century.
At the end of a hundred years our thinking became faulty. We confounded means with ends. We both thought that if we remained isolated and aloof from the witch's cauldron of Europe, we should continue to be wealthy, peaceful and strong. Two world wars have shown us that if we are to remain at peace and enjoy the fruits of our labours, we must first have a clear vision of our rôle in the van of the United Nations in building a rule of law in die world; and second, that we must be strong, that our policy must rest upon an adequate basis of power, both physical and moral. We have both learnt that isolation is a great illusion and that those who try to live in isolation are unwittingly planning their own destruction. If in the years preceding World War I and World War II, the American and British peoples had spent on prudent preparations a little of the vast sums which turned their two nations into the great arsenals of time; if we had known ourselves, and made sure that the world knew clearly, just where our policies converged and where we should jointly take our stand, the history of the first half of the twentieth century would not have been written in blood. We failed to nourish the seedbed of our common heritage, and so we could not reap for ourselves and mankind the harvest of the Four Freedoms.
It was, I suggest, the unique concentration and use of American and British strength which led to the shattering defeat of Germany and finally to V.E. day. Since V.E. day we have had convincing proof again that the Past is very often Prologue. Russia, seeing the rapid dispersal of the armed strength of the United States and the British Commonwealth, rightly assessing our war weariness and a growing lack of moral and political unity, proceeded to turn her back on her solemn promises. She attempted, by force, to bring the whole of Berlin within the Soviet sector. She overthrew Czechoslovakia, she bent to her will the ancient States of Eastern and South Eastern Europe, and created the Iron Curtain behind which she proceeded to build up the greatest military machine in the history of the modern world. Only gradually did we realise the power

287
vacuum created by our flagrant neglect of the lesson of history. All too slowly we commenced again to rebuild and concentrate the use of our armed strength in support of our diplomacy.
Once again, however, we have given proof of our determination to set a limit to the pretensions of a Power seeking the hegemony of Europe and the modern world. Our combined and progressive rearmament, and especially the restoration of massive United States air power, the European recovery programme, the organisation of N.A.T.O., our firm support of the United Nations in upholding the liberties of Korea, the concentration of powerful United States air elements on British soil and of United States fleets in European and Mediterranean waters, gave unmistakable warning to Russia of our resolution and intent. The result, despite all anxieties of recent years, is that she has stayed behind the Iron Curtain. For this achievement we owe a lasting debt of gratitude to American and British Governments. History will say that in America, Democratic and Republican, in Britain, Socialist and Conservative Governments, supported by those Governments of the Commonwealth and of Western Europe, have all made definite contributions to rebuilding the strength of the free world.
To-day, hard in the wake of their military and diplomatic successes in the field and at Geneva, we see the Communists making fresh efforts to kill E.D.C. before it is born, to destroy N.A.T.O., to confuse counsel, and to throw the fundamental unity of the British Commonwealth and the United States into complete disarray. Let us then ponder well the teachings of history down the centuries and in the immediate post-war phase. Let us recall that policy and national safety rest upon power, physical and moral. Let us remember it was the Anglo-American working partnership which was the foundation of victory in two world wars and has been the basis upon which Europe's safety has been built since the war; that it must be the vital cornerstone of any enduring peace system. If we do this, if we remember the lessons of the past, history may well record that the resolution and unity of this generation prevented the outbreak of a third world war.
288
By all means let us seek, by peaceful negotiation with the Communist world, to widen the area of agreement and buttress the prospect of world peace. But do not let us delude ourselves that the lesson of Geneva is that by negotiation alone we can resolve any and all of the issues with the Communist world. In Indo-China there was a clear-cut Communist victory in the field. The final settlement was perhaps rather better than we had dared to hope, but it was so because behind and sustaining the diplomacy was the armed might of the United States. And this, I believe, continues to provide the best assurance that the cease-fire in Indo-China will be carried out and peace will not be wantonly broken elsewhere. We do not detract from the devoted efforts of Mr. Eden, nor do we minimise the courage of the French Premier, if we acknowledge that it is American power which provides the real check to Communist ambitions.
There are two further considerations to which I would direct your Lordships' attention. One of the most challenging tasks of British diplomacy to-day is to build a bridge of understanding based upon the facts of life between free Asia and the West. This is what Mr. Eden has been doing at Geneva. Britain, by reason of her long-standing association with, and her intimate knowledge of, Eastern peoples, bears a special responsibility in the task of reconciling their nascent nationalism with the traditional friendship of the Commonwealth with the United States. Close co-operation with Asian Members of the Commonwealth and with the United States cannot, and should not, be mutually exclusive. Any serious divergence of purpose between this country and the United States would certainly prejudice the prospects of world peace and could create grave stresses and strains for the British Commonwealth. We must bear this in mind as we realise the impact on public opinion in Canada, Australia and New Zealand of the rising tempo of events in Asia. Their local policies and politics will inevitably be affected by international policies, for the shaping of which this country and the United States will bear a prime responsibility.
We must anticipate that the march of events and the inevitable pressure of these policies is likely to strengthen the purely political ties of these States of the

289
Commonwealth with the United States. These need not—and should not—weaken those traditional ties which link them with Britain, which have been made manifest in the two wars of this century and in the deep and affectionate loyalty which the people of all these States of the Commonwealth bear to the person of our Sovereign Queen arid Lady, Upon the statesmen in Whitehall, in Ottawa, in Canberra and in Auckland, falls a direct responsibility to cherish unimpaired their historical association at the same time as they provide for the welfare and security of their peoples. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to the importance of bringing China into the United Nations. That hope I think we all share, but that is not a matter for this country alone. We know the opposition there is in the United States and I must remind your Lordships that there are also many Commonwealth countries who have grave doubts that have to be considered. It seems to me that until we have restored an effective measure of peace in Korea it is rather premature to talk of bringing the Communists into the United Nations.
Finally I should like to remind your Lordships of the words spoken by Sir Winston Churchill in the spring of 1941. He said:
"It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the whole world and the hopes of a broadening civilisation founded upon Christian ethics depend on the relations between the British Empire and the U.S.A. The identity of purpose and persistence of resolve prevailing throughout the English-speaking world will, more than any other single fact, determine the way of life which will be open to the generations, and perhaps to the centuries which follow our own."
With his rare historical sense the Prime Minister here foresaw the future. He knew that the well-being of our peoples, the hopes of a stable and peaceful world, the mighty structure of the United Nations, could be built only upon the corner stone of close collaboration of the English-speaking peoples. But this collaboration will not come of itself, nor can it be secured by Government action alone. It will not flourish unless millions of men and women in all our lands make it their own urgent personal responsibility. It must rest upon an informed—perhaps I should say, a transformed—public opinion in all our countries, grasping firmly and together the fundamentals of national well-being arid security.
290
If time permitted, I should have liked to tell your Lordships what the English Speaking Union in their sphere are doing to carry this message far and wide, with what I believe to be constructive and gratifying results. The times provide the leadership of our two countries and those who believe in the Anglo-American working partnership as a foundation of world peace and security with a challenge and an immense opportunity—a challenge to undertake throughout both our lands the constant dissemination of truth and an opportunity to lay better the foundations of the modern world. Only if we succeed in this mission will we satisfy the age-long craving of mankind for freedom and security. Only thus can we hope to give form and substance to the great conception of the United Nations.
9.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Baillieu, will forgive me if I do not attempt to follow him into the fields of history and policies which he trod with so much assurance. At the same time, in common with other noble Lords, I would endorse every word he said about the cardinal importance of the relations between this country and the United States of America. My contribution, I fear, is far more limited in scope. The reason why I am speaking in this debate this evening is to report to your Lordships' House (it may seem late, but this is the first opportunity that has offered since the Jubilee celebrations of the Entente Cordiale), on a short visit that I paid to Paris as one of the, representatives of the House, and to return thanks to those responsible for our welcome and for the treatment we received. I am sure that I speak for all four noble Lords—Lord Teynham, Lord Rea, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst and myself—when I say that nothing French hospitality and kindness could do was left undone during our stay. Perhaps I ought to mention that among the many interesting arrangements made for us, one was that of laying wreaths at the Arc de Triomphe. The good will we found expressed everywhere, where-ever we went, towards this country showed the very warm feeling that exists generally in France.
A more recent illustration of this good feeling, which some of your Lordships may have observed, was the spontaneous applause in the French National Assembly

291
when M. Mendès-France, in reporting on the Geneva Conference, referred to the important part played by Mr. Eden and the United Kingdom in the negotiations which led to this highly successful agreement. I believe that we owe this exceptionally happy relationship with France at the present time largely to the work of our late Ambassador in Paris, Lord Harvey, and to his predecessor, the late Lord Norwich, to both of whom, in the course of conversation, I heard many appreciative references. I should like to express my own thanks, and those of my colleagues, and I feel sure that I may express the thanks of the House, too, to the French Government for their hospitality, and to members of both Houses of the French National Assembly, as well as to the President of the French Republic, who was kind enough to receive us at the Elysée Palace, for their great kindness and courtesy during our visit.
Perhaps I may be allowed—although here I feel that I must tread with extreme delicacy— to make one or two brief comments about Anglo-French relations. I hope that I am not presumptuous in saying this, but I rather think that we in this country have an even better understanding of the French point of view than our American friends; and I hope that we shall use our friendship with both France and the United States to prevent divergencies in policy which would ultimately weaken the Western Allies. We are, I believe, uniquely qualified to interpret both countries to each other, and in this way to prevent serious misunderstandings which might otherwise arise. But I think that one condition for this important responsibility is that we should make quite certain that the French Government are informed and consulted whenever discussions are taking place about matters of common concern to our country, the United States of America and France. I feel that it is also no less essential that we should make a real effort to obtain agreement with France before final decisions are taken. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said in the course of his remarks that the French Government were informed before agreement was reached at Washington.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I think that, in fact, that is the opposite of what I said. I said that the French
292
Government were informed as soon as agreement had been reached.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Marquess. I wanted to know whether the French Government had been informed before or after the agreement. I cannot help feeling that this was an occasion, when the future of German sovereignty was being discussed, when it might not have been disadvantageous to inform the French Government, which was not represented at Washington, of the course of the negotiations. I should feel a slight regret if this was not, in fact, done. I was even going to proceed, with great temerity, to suggest that the French Government might have been consulted before the final decision was reached. However that may be, my plea is a General one—I do not want to elaborate any particular point—for keeping France, as it were, in step with us in all these diplomatic developments.
There is one other matter that I should like to mention. I was at special pains, when I was in Paris, to ascertain French opinion about the European Defence Community. The impression I got—which, of course, was based on limited contacts, but which has been corroborated by others who know France much better than I do—was that opinion in the French National Assembly is profoundly divided. If I were asked to make a forecast of the result of a vote, I would say that it is exceedingly uncertain which way the vote would go, whether it was taken to-morrow or after a lapse of some months. The only certain thing, it seems to me, is that the margin would be small either way. Much, of course, will depend on whether or not M. MendèsFrance decides to support the ratification of this Agreement. Quite obviously, he himself will carry immense weight, as he will be speaking under the shadow of the Agreement at Geneva about Indo-China. I personally am one of those who believe that the European Army to be set up under the European Defence Community, if there is no prolonged delay in setting it up, still offers the most effective safeguard against the resurgence of German militarism. There, I think I command general agreement. But I would go one step further—and I do not know whether other noble Lords will agree with me about this. I may be

293
optimistic, but my feeling is that this Agreement with our Allies and Germany offers the only alternative, either in the short or the long run (I am looking at the thing from a long-term point of view), to a German National Army. That is why I think reflective people attach tremendous importance to the European Defence Community.
We must not assume that the French National Assembly will ratify this Agreement. We do not know whether M.Mendès-France himself will back it. We do not know whether, if he does so, he will succeed in getting it accepted by a majority vote. But I hope that even if, for one reason or another, France does not accept this Agreement, we shall not be too impatient. I think we must look at this matter from the French point of view and understand the French point of view as far as we can. In the first place, it is difficult for us to find fault with others for not doing something that we are rot prepared to do ourselves. We are asking the French to make a considerable sacrifice of their sovereignty—to sacrifice a large measure of control over their Army. We are not prepared to do that ourselves, and I think we should at any rate understand the French point of view if they are not prepared to do it either.
The second thing, of course, is that these big differences between the political Parties and political leaders in France reflect a cleavage in the country; and the political leaders and Parties are obviously bound to follow public: opinion. What the noble Marquess says is perfectly true: that there must be an alternative policy, if E.D.C. fails, for control of German rearmament. I hope very much that whatever policy is adopted it will be a policy that is acceptable to France. E.D.C., of course, is not the only way of linking Germany with the West. Many people in France would prefer to do this by bringing Germany into N.A.T.O., because this would leave France with complete control over her own Armed Forces. That is a view that I heard widely expressed. Whatever the value—and I am not in a position to assess it—of this alternative policy, it is one of the alternatives which will fall to be considered. I am quite sure that it is essential, if we are to keep some measure of control over German defence, that we go forward with restoring sovereignty to
294
Germany. Only so shall we prevent the wrong sort of German nationalists from coming into responsible positions in the German Government.
However hard we may try to avoid disagreement, with the French Government over these important issues—important from the point of view of Europe and European security—we may fail to agree. But in that case, surely we must take a broader view. However important these issues may be in themselves, they are only means towards the ends of policy. About the main objectives of national policy we shall, whatever our differences about particular issues may be, remain in complete harmony with France. In the attainment of those objectives we shall continue to need France, and France will continue to need us. What each of our countries can give and receive will depend on its own strength and resources, and on the strength and resources of its Allies. Now that the war in Indo-China is over, France has the greatest opportunity for national recovery since the end of the world war, and I believe that the French Government are fully aware of the opportunity that is now presenting itself. M. Mendès-France is submitting, or intends to submit, a programme of fiscal reform and economic development at home and in French North Africa. He stands for a new policy of conciliating the Arab population by measures of self-government. Here, after all, is the promise of a New Deal for France. I am sure that whatever happens, whether these programmes are carried out or not, we all hope that our fifty-year-old Ally who has been our comrade in arms in two world wars will use this fresh opportunity to increase her strength and greatness.
9.22 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, this is the first lime that I have intervened in a debate in your Lordships' House on foreign affairs, although I have, of course, during the years I have been privileged to be a member, listened to or read the debates with the closest attention. Naturally I speak with some diffidence in the presence of so many experts, but foreign policy determines the issue of peace or war, and peace or war is a matter concerning every citizen, not just the experts. It is for that reason that I have felt emboldened to intervene. I decided to speak only after long and serious con-

295
sideration, and I hope that noble Lords will accept that I have no wish to be provocative and certainly no wish to be offensive, although I recognise that what I have to say this evening will not be generally acceptable to the noble Lords who are present. I can make some amend for that only by saying that I shall be very brief. I was fortunate, at least, in one respect: that, coming so late on the list of speakers in to-day's debate, I knew I was running little risk of having my speech made for me in advance. My main purpose is to make a plea which has not yet been made in your Lordships' House, either in this or in earlier debates, for the postponement of German rearmament and of any decision or any action leading up to it until a further effort has been made to reach agreement with the U.S.S.R.
I make no claim as to the number of people in this country who share my views on German rearmament, but I believe it to be very considerable. There is widespread disquiet, unease, even fear, among the people of this country about rearming Germany. With our memories of 1914 and 1939, that is hardly surprising. My own Party is known to be divided on this issue, but no one knows, nor, I think, is there any means of knowing, how far there is opposition to the rearming of Germany among the people of the country generally, whether they be Tory, Liberal or Labour supporters. It would be unwise, I suggest, to assume that the position is negligible. It might even be a majority of our own people, and I suggest seriously that it is the essence of democracy that the views of the people should be considered.
Looking across the Channel, we know that the German Social Democratic Party, which constitutes a massive opposition to Dr. Adenauer's Government and is the only alternative Government in that country, is against German rearmament. If I am challenged on that, I suggest that from its vote on that issue at its recent conference it is perfectly clear that that Party, despite the attempts of its leaders, has put itself on record as against German rearmament. To what extent their view is shared by the West German people generally is something upon which we can know no more than we know of the opinion of the general mass of our own people.
296
There has been much discussion this afternoon as to the possibility of ratification by France of the E.D.C. I think that out of the various opinions which have been expressed it would be fair to say that the consensus of opinion in this House, as probably outside, is that it is unlikely that France will ratify E.D.C. As has been said, that is probably a reflection of French public opinion on the issue of the rearmament of Germany. If France is unlikely to ratify E.D.C., may I suggest that that may be a very good reason for stopping to re-examine the whole situation, rather than immediately to rush in to find a means of rearming Germany, possibly within N.A.T.O. and without E.D.C.? I must confess that I was somewhat surprised, if not alarmed, by the references of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, which seemed to me to say, implicitly if not explicitly—and he will, I am sure, correct me if I have misunderstood him—that if France does not ratify before her Parliament goes into recess, steps are to be taken to put into effect the decision of the Anglo-American Working Party, about which the French Government was not informed until a decision had been reached.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Lord has appealed to me to intervene if I think it necessary, and I am afraid I do. The position is not that on August 15 or on any date of that kind these new proposals will come into operation. The position is that if the French Government has not taken action by that time, then discussions will be instituted, to which the French Government will be a party, as to the means of restoring German sovereignty on the lines which I have already described.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am grateful to the noble Marquess for his correction. Possibly when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he may also be glad that I elicited this correction, which I think has clarified what he said earlier.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I said exactly the same then.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Then the noble Marquess said that steps would be taken to bring this decision into effect. I am glad that we have now established that these steps will be taken in consultation and discussion with the French Government; otherwise I should have felt bound

297
to say that I thought my noble friend Lord Pakenham's example of the triangle was already being rather severely shaken. When the noble Marquess replies to-morrow, perhaps he will tell us, should France not ratify E.D.C., what will be the position with regard to the undertaking which I believe was given by our Government to maintain two British divisions on the Continent—that undertaking having been given in order to induce France to ratify E.D.C. Does the position remain the same?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Lord must, if I may respectfully say so, really clear his mind a little on this. What two divisions is the noble Lord talking about? We have three-and-a-half divisions in Germany which we keep there under N.A.T.O. arrangements. It was decided recently to put one of those divisions under command of the E.D.C. That is the arrangement. At the moment I do not recognise the two divisions to which the noble Lord is referring, nor the rôle which he attributes to them.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I will return to the point on another occasion. But I think the noble Marquess will agree teat there has been an undertaking to maintain certain British strength on the Continent in order to reassure the French.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: As part of N.A.T.O.
LORD ARCHIBALD: As part of N.A.T.O, and partly to assure the French.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I fully accept the noble Marquess's correction, and naturally the question to which it is addressed is withdrawn. I want to come back to my main point—namely, the plea for the postponement of a decision on German rearmament. To my mind, the strongest argument for postponement, and possibly abandonment, of the operation of rearming Western Germany, springs from the success of the Geneva Conference, to which tribute has been paid to-day. The Geneva Conference has shown that although there are great and serious difficulties, negotiations with the Communist Powers can be brought to a successful conclusion. It is not a question of whether one trusts them
298
or does not trust them; it is on record that a successful Conference with the Communist Powers has been held. If that is accepted—I cannot see how it can be denied—then it seems to me to be a powerful, perhaps conclusive, argument for holding a further Conference—in effect, for reconvening the Berlin Conference.
I do not propose to discuss to-night the new Soviet Note, but I must confess that I was a little alarmed by the tone of the noble Marquess's reference to it as a "voluminous Note." I want to say only that, whatever the nature of the reply in detail, I cannot see how the suggestion of a further Conference can be flatly and absolutely refused. To-day we have been told that these Conferences are the best propaganda weapons of the Soviets. I suggest that to refuse to meet them in conference would be to present them with a more effective propaganda weapon. Surely, we are at least at one in believing that co-existence with Communist States is possible. If we do not accept that, then we are, in effect, accepting that the only course before us is the course of world war, which is the course of no existence. I am sorry that it should have been left to the U.S.S.R. to take the initiative in proposing this new Conference. I had hoped we might have done so. But the important thing is not which country takes the initiative but that, when the Conference is held, we should enter it in the right frame of mind and with the right proposals.
I have heard it said—not in your Lordships' House—that the spirit of Geneva alone would have saved the Berlin Conference. I do not believe that is true. The spirit of Geneva would not have been enough. But if we are to negotiate successfully with Russia—or, for that matter, with any other Power—we cannot enter into the Conference with conditions and proposals that we know in advance are bound to be unacceptable. We cannot, in particular, expect Russia to agree to a unified Germany if Western Germany, by far the greater part of the whole, is already committed as a component part of the Western military alliance. How can anyone expect Russia to accept that? To propose it, knowing it to be unacceptable, is a strange form of negotiation. Could we not propose at a new Berlin Conference that the conditions for the unification of Germany should include

299
her remaining unarmed for a minimum period of ten years, a menace then neither to East nor West, and that no country should have either air or military bases on German soil; and further, that during that time neither the Eastern nor the Western powers would make or seek to make treaties with Germany which would bring her into their military orbit? Only some such proposal would make further negotiation worth while.
We have been told to-day that it would be a wicked action if we were to break any promises or to be in breach of any agreement with Dr. Adenauer. It would be a more wicked action if we were to leave undone anything which might lead to a peaceful course for the world. Further, if France does not ratify the E.D.C., then we have a completely new situation in which we are entitled to approach Dr. Adenauer, or the other Governments concerned, and ask for completely fresh negotiations. It has also been said that any attempt to keep Germany disarmed for a long period would be to repeat the policy of the post-1918 years and to re-create the feelings, if not the conditions, which led to the rise of Hitler. I do not believe that. We have this time avoided the worst follies of the Versailles Treaty. There are no reparations; there is no attempt to prevent Germany from finding her feet economically—in fact there has been much outside aid. There is at least a substantial minority, if not a majority, of the German people who do not want rearmament, with the possible recrudescence of German militarism. We are commited in honour by the terms of the Atlantic Charter to work towards "the abandonment of the use of force" and to
"aid and encourage all practicable … measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments."
How can we lighten the burden of armaments for any people by laying this burden also on the German people?
It may well be asked: "If a new Conference is held, and if reasonable proposals are made to Russia and every endeavour made to meet her, but still the Conference fails, owing to the intransigence of Russia, would you then agree to the rearmament of Germany?" Obviously that is not a question permitting of a simple answer. Much
300
would depend on how the breakdown took place and whether it was felt that, with patience and with no precipitate step on German rearmament, a further Conference might yet succeed. But assuming the breakdown to be final and wholly due to Russia, then it is a question to which, in honesty, I must give an answer. If I cannot say, "Yes," then my argument for delay has been false and misleading. If I say, "No," it means that I am opposed to German rearmament in any circumstances, and I suppose that I should, in the definition we have to-day, be a neutralist. It would mean that my plea for postponements and a Conference had only concealed my real views. I frankly admit that I hate the idea of German rearmament, in any circumstances. I doubt whether German rearmament could for very long be limited to a certain number of divisions in a European Army. I believe that it would grow until Germany was again a formidable military Power, and I think he would be a very rash man who would prophesy with certainty at this time on which side and in what way that military power would be used.
This afternoon my noble friend Lord Pakenham spent some time refuting the alleged quotation from a speech by Dr. Adenauer. I was disappointed that, with his great knowledge of Germany, he did not go on to make an assessment of how widely that view, falsely attributed to Dr. Adenauer, is held in powerful German circles. Nevertheless, accepting and facing the risks which I believe to be inherent in any German rearmament, if every endeavour had been made to reach agreement with Russia, if reasonable proposals had been made, if agreement had been sought in the spirit of Geneva and if, at the end, it was clear that failure had been due entirely to the fact that the U.S.S.R. was resolutely unreasonable, then, and only then, I would accept that German rearmament was inevitable. But until that position has been reached—and I do not think it has yet been reached—I believe that German rearmament is a profound mistake; a danger, not a help, to the cause of peace. I have tried only to state briefly the position of those who are opposed to German rearmament, and I believe them

301
to be numerous. In the interests of brevity I have not sought to develop all the arguments in favour of it. I believe these arguments to be weighty, although your Lordships have not heard them, and I believe the position to be worthy of serious consideration.
9.45 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, replying to some comments of mine in the debate last week, the noble Earl who spoke for the Government said I had not given enough credit to Her Majesty's Government for what has been achieved during the past three years. I should not like to be thought ungracious by the noble Marquess who is to reply to-morrow for Her Majesty's Government, who are to be congratulated on several important recent achievements of which we have heard to-day. Therefore, in referring to Europe, may I start by saying that I think Her Majesty's Government have gone a long way in offering co-operation with the countries of Europe, particularly in the matter of common defence. Nevertheless, I must say that I feel there is still no effective European outlook and no real European-mindedness. In these days of military threats, we are apt to think almost entirely in terms of defence. But the concept of Europe as it has been handed down to us from the Middle Ages, and preached by great Europeans like the late M. Briand, is a much wider matter than a question of common defence. In matters of defence all the emphasis is upon obligations. A greater unity in Europe would bring both intellectual and economic advantages to all its peoples.
I will content myself by giving just one example of what I mean by a failure to develop a European mind and a European outlook. The Italian Government are faced with particular problems. Italy has always had a population problem, and this problem has been intensified by the loss of territories in Africa in which Italy was interested. The number of unemployed in Italy at the present time is not less than 1½ million, with a further large number of under-employed persons. Even assuming that the present rate of emigration is maintained—that is, something aver 100,000 a year—it will be necessary for the Italian Government over the next ten years to find something like 4 million jobs. This will be quite impossible without an extensive capital invest-
302
ment programme. This means that Italy will be a strong competitor in the capital market. I have mentioned this example because I think it shows what I mean when I say that we have to develop a European mind with a European outlook.
In a European setting, this problem of Italy becomes a European problem, and its alleviation depends upon the removal of restrictions to permit freer movement. I feel that this is a problem in which we have a special responsibility. We have premised closer association with Europe, with the full approval of the other nations of the Commonwealth, and in associating ourselves with the affairs of Europe we are associating not only ourselves but also those British Colonial territories for which we are responsible. I think it would be most helpful if a matter such as I have mentioned could be brought up by Her Majesty's Government at Commonwealth Conferences, and if a better example could be set in territories administered by us to improve the quota open to European nationals. I understand, for instance, that in the Central Rhodesian Federation only 8 per cent. of the white quota is open to non-British entrants. I do not think that other European countries are any more generous, in their dealings with foreign nationals, even in the family of Europe. Perhaps that is all the more reason for us to set a better example. If a little more could be done in a matter such as this, I believe the prospects for the ratification of E.D.C. by Italy would be greatly improved.
When it comes to Germany, I do not think any of us would wish to throw doubt upon the sincere efforts of many Germans to develop a good-neighbourly attitude. The recent speech of the German Chancellor indicating that national armies are out of date, and pleading for a European Defence Force, was welcome: but it cannot be denied that there are other elements in Germany. Although I would not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has emphasised, I think we must recognise those other elements which are waiting for an opportunity, should it arise, to gain power and, as we have seen happen before, to push out at a convenient moment any who stand in the way of what they desire, which is to play a, dominant rôle in Europe. We know from bitter experience how ready the German people have

303
been in the past to follow such leadership. After all, this is not extraordinary—it is a common feature of the cult of nationalism everywhere. In our day, in Germany and in Russia this force of nationalism has appeared in its crudest and most revolutionary form. The reason why we are not disturbed about the vitality of the American people is that, for the most part, it takes a more commerical character, following much more closely the pattern of British expansionism in the last century.
If Germany can be accommodated within the European political community, which her present Government has recognised as an acceptable rôle, well and good. But I do not think we can regard as satisfactory the implications of what appear to be the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and of the Government of the United States of America, in the event of the failure of France and Italy to ratify the E.D.C. Treaty. I would suggest that the alternative to E.D.C. is not simply independent German sovereignty, unqualified. Nor do I believe that incorporation of an independent Germany in N.A.T.O. would provide a satisfactory safeguard. I think the only possible alternative to the operation of E.D.C. under a European Political Community is an Anglo-German association on the terms of a partnership, with an exchange of military and naval units, which would make separate action in Europe impossible. I should like to see the possibility of such an association explored. Perhaps something like this was in the mind of the noble Marquess when he hinted that it might be necessary to think further if the E.D.C. Treaty were not ratified. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham said, perhaps I should make it clear that this suggestion is not in any way directed against France, but as a safeguard.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government, after consultation with our Allies, will find it possible to accept the invitation extended by Mr. Molotov for a Conference upon European affairs, while maintaining the right of the European States who have inherited a common tradition, should they so wish, to enter into a federal union or to act together within the United Nations organisation. These European States
304
cover what is, in these days of rapid transportation, a very small area, and they have much more in common than the States federated in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
When we turn to the problems of the Far East, I think we must start from the United Nations Organisation. There are two different conceptions, as we all know, embodied in the constitution of the United Nations Organisation. In one, the Organisation is a centre for discussion, a forum for all nations to air their differences and their grievances, where international public opinion may be focused, and where a moral judgment may be passed. The other conception is that of an instrument of collective action against a disturber of the peace. There has always been reason to doubt the practical value, or even the wisdom, in a major crisis of the latter conception. But where the will to peace is absent, any organisation including Powers willing to contemplate war will degenerate into groups and alliances, and this is exactly what has happened in the United Nations.
By the accident of the absence of Russia at the time of the appeal of South Korea the resistance against the North Korean attack was undertaken in the name of the United Nations, although the task has fallen almost entirely upon the United States. No doubt the leadership undertaken by the United States in this case has made many Americans feel that they have a permanent mission of this character. Most of those with minds trained in the West no doubt feel grateful that the United States should feel so disposed to make sacrifices for other nations whose independence is threatened, but it has to be recognised that over a considerable area of the world there are nations who would not welcome such assistance, however savagely they may be attacked. I think this attitude springs from a different philosophy and from certain basic religious beliefs. Even if it is not shared in the West, it should at least be understood by Christian communities, who have not forgotten the power of non-resistance or abandoned belief in a life beyond this world.
Let us try, therefore, to get our American friends to concentrate more on the first conception of the United Nations as an international forum for the exchange

305
of ideas and the discussion of differences to secure peaceful adjustment. For this purpose there can be no possible objection to universal membership, which is the difficulty when it is regarded as an instrument for collective action. I think we should seek to achieve this aim, even if it means limiting the field of military collective action. The United Nations Organisation is handicapped when it becomes a direct party to a dispute and loses its value as an independent moral authority.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I shall have to attempt to-morrow to deal with the noble Lord's speech, and perhaps he will help me at this stage by clearing one doubt in my mind. Ifs he arguing that it was wrong of the sixteen countries who fought in Korea under the United Nations to accept the challenge, and to go into Korea at the time when they did and in the circumstances in which they did?
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I should prefer to see a matter like that referred to the United Nations for discussion and for action to be left to individual Powers, rather than a war to be fought in the name of the United Nations. That is my personal view on the subject. I think that the United Nations should content themselves by passing a moral judgment, and then its members, or such of them as wished, would be free to take military action, absolved from any moral blame for the action that they took. In fact they would receive the right to take action individually from the decision of the United Nations in a moral consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Does the noble Lord say "moral blame" for the action they took or "moral credit"?
LORD GRANTCHESTER: Moral justification then, not blame. There is blame only in taking military action without a decision of the United Nations that such action is justified.
I have already referred to the nations in the East who would not seek, or even welcome, military assistance from the West, even if they were attacked, and who feel that they would rather accept the consequences and work out their own salvation in their own way. This, as I understand it, is the attitude of India. We may agree with it, or we may disagree with it—and the Government of the United States may disagree with it
306
strongly—but it must be reckoned with. I would suggest that we not only reckon with it but welcome any initiative taken by the Government of India in discussions with the United States as well as with the Government of China. In this connection, I should like to ask: Is it impossible to conceive that, having regard to the origins of the régime which the United States Government still recognise, the elements of strife within China may be capable of being resolved in the new China which is emerging as a world Power?
If, however, the Government of India are to play a rôle and take a full part in discussions such as these, it is important that these matters upon which there might be differences between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of India should be brought out in discussions between them. There are two difficulties upon which I feel we are entitled to know the attitude of the Government of India. Mr. Nehru, as has already been said, expressed a view which may be interpreted as implying that the presence of Western troops in Asian territories is of itself an act of aggression on the part of the Western Powers. If this view applies, and is to be applied, by Mr. Nehru to the position in Malaya, without any qualification, there is a serious difference of opinion between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of India. But it should not be impossible, in consultation with the Government of India, in view of the expressed intentions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to Malaya, to reach an agreement on that matter.
The other matter on which I think some clarity is desirable is the subject of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong of today boars no resemblance whatever to the barren land and the lair of pirates which was ceded to us. But there is the complication of the new territories, and it is desirable, well before the lease of that part expires, to reach an agreement with the Government of China upon its future. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has said more than once that in foreign policy there is one overriding aim. In this, I am sure he has the wholehearted agreement of us all. Following the example of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, if I may borrow a popular current phrase, I am sure that it is the

307
desire of all in this House not to manufacture boots to set any feet a'marching, but rather, by the relief of tension, to make sure that there should be shoes to "set more feet a'dancing."
10.3 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, we seem to have covered a lot of country to-day, and I propose, just for a few minutes, to bring your Lordships back again to Africa. I think, from all we have heard to-day, that Africa is a bit safer than Asia. I want to refer to our relations with Ethiopia, especially having regard to the forthcoming visit of His Majesty, the Emperor Haile Selassie. Ethiopia is in the centre of a number of vital British interests—Kenya, Uganda, the Sudan, British Somaliland—and, since the federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea, is along the coast line of the Red Sea. For that, as well as for other reasons, I think we should cultivate the closest and most friendly relations with Ethiopia. I remember that during the life of the last Government a commencement was made with that policy. We raised the status of our respective Legations to Embassies. We assisted the Ethiopian Government in getting a direct port for access to the sea at Assab and also helped Ethiopia in her efforts to achieve federation with Eritrea. Surely the time is ripe for the Government to endeavour to negotiate a Treaty of trade and friendship with this rapidly progressing country. I noticed in my newspapers the other day, that during the recent visit of the Emperor to the United States a pact of a similar nature was negotiated, and I was rather disappointed that the Americans had stolen a march on us in that respect.
There are many reasons why we should be close friends and should collaborate to the maximum with Ethiopia, not only because of her geographical position, but because of the bonds of friendship formed in the last war. Ethiopia was an early victim of Fascist aggression of a particularly brutal character, and she was liberated by British and Commonwealth forces. It is interesting to remember that she was liberated not in the same way as some other countries believe in the use of that word to-day; it was British liberation—we gave her back her sovereignty and her
308
freedom intact. The world cannot be too often reminded of our action in that respect. Therefore, I think it is most fortunate that His Imperial Majesty the Emperor is paying a State visit to our shores in October. I believe he will receive a great welcome from the British people, who remember with pride his heroic defiance of the Fascist invader of his country. I hope this visit will be made the occasion for something more than a formal exchange of courtesies, and I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to take this opportunity to try and negotiate a treaty of trade and friendship between our two nations, so that the visit of the Emperor will mark in practical fashion the beginning of a closer and even more friendly association between us.
10.7 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, at this rather late hour in the evening I feel rather in the position of a batsman going in to bat with only a little light left, not very much time, and on rather a sticky wicket—because the wicket, so far as I am concerned in the matters which are being discussed to-day, is a little bit sticky. I should like to confine myself, however, very briefly, to two points, and to try to eliminate as far as possible all the generalisations of which we have heard a great many to-day, extremely well-intentioned and, in some cases, high-flown; but perhaps it is a little late in the evening to reiterate them again, however sincere one may be.
May I, therefore, mention first of all the question of the Cyprus base. On the subject of the Suez Canal area and of the arrangement which has been reached with Egypt I will say nothing except this: that as we are to move out and General Headquarters Middle East moves to Cyprus, with, I imagine, a substantial force of the R.A.F., of ground troops and the Navy, straight away an announcement is made to-day by the noble Earl, Lord Munster (perhaps one of the most interesting things that has happened in a long day) that Cypriots are to be encouraged and told that the time of self-government is drawing near, and that it will be given every encouragement and so on—very rightly and properly. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is a popular pastime in the world to-day to "twist the lion's tail" wherever it can be found. There are a

309
lot of people who do it, and, sure enough, it will be twisted again quite soon in Cyprus, as it has been in Egypt.
The people of Cyprus still include a certain Turkish element which must be considered. They are not very numerous. The Archbishop of Cyprus who at the moment is talking a great deal about union with Greece—Enosis—is probably doing so on purely religious grounds. One can see some comparison there with the state of affairs in Ireland, where the Roman Catholic Church is certainly very concerned with the removal of partition in Ireland, on religious grounds though not necessarily on political grounds. It may well be that this state of affairs exists also in Cyprus. This seems an occasion for the Greek Government, who have for some time past expressed their willingness and desire to co-operate with the Western democracies, to show their good will by doing nothing to encourage this Enosis movement. Marshal Papagos has always been extremely pro-British in his outlook, for reasons which are not very far to seek. He was very much taken up by our forces after the war in the Middle East and was very popular and highly regarded. Here is a good chance for the Greek Government to disregard this movement and thereby avoid embarrassing us.
I am a little nervous about islands. I was myself in Malta during the war, though not in the worst days; but even then it was most uncomfortable, and it is no secret that we were within eight days of exhausting our food supplies when the first of the Malta convoys eventually struggled into harbour. Admittedly Cyprus is a much bigger island, not nearly so densely populated as Malta; but islands have left me with a slight feeling of claustrophobia, and I believe that if we could strategically disperse our Middle East resources more it would be wise to do so. I am not filly informed in regard to our relations with Cyrenaica, but perhaps the great airfield of El Adhem could be increased by satellite airfields and the port of Tobruk could get the money now being spent at Limasol; and possibly something could be done at Benghazi. One of the principles of defence is dispersion, particularly in an atomic age. Dispersion cannot easily be effected on an island. We could have lost Malta and with it
310
very nearly lost the war. It is a mistake to put too many eggs in the Cyprus basket. Lord Glyn, in a very well-informed, and short, speech, to-day touched upon dispersion of our forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, and for that reason I make these points from my personal experience in that part of the world.
Turning to Germany, last March I addressed your Lordships and expressed my fears of what might be happening in Germany or what might be going to happen in the foreseeable future. I do not confine myself exclusively to questions of "in-E.D.C."; "out-of-E.D.C."; "failure to ratify"; "N.A.T.O.", et cetera. So many people talk in that way without fully understanding the position. I am sure it is only the Government of the day, with the enormous amount of information at their disposal, who can speak with knowledge and really make sense of it. Bat we can all have our feelings about whether or not we are pursuing perhaps a dangerous path and going a little too quickly. There are straws in the wind. If one keeps one's ears open and one's eyes upon a certain place, one can discern things happening which other people perhaps have not noticed. I have been surprised that nobody to-day has mentioned the strange incident of the disappearance of Dr. John. This may seem not directly connected with the debate, but noble Lords Who have read the leader in the Manchester Guardian to-day—a responsible newspaper, I would say—will be most interested in what appeared. Nobody knows where Dr. John is. The Press immediately said that he had disappeared behind the Iron Curtain. One gets to know that type of statement. For all we know, he may be dead. The fact is that he is not at his post. And why is he not there? It seems to me to be a matter of some importance.
One organ of the Press has suggested that Dr. John could not remain in his post any longer owing to the fact that he was quite certain that the Nazis were beginning to emerge again. Hitler's men were coming out of their holes. During the adjournment at 7.30, it came through on the tape that Dr. John had spoken from some unspecified place and stated that he had been advised to leave his post by ex-Chancellor Brüning, as it was

311
obvious that Hitlerism was raising its head again. That may be sensational journalism. I do not know any more than other noble Lords—but it is possible. Dr. John took part in the Putsch of June 20, 1944. His brother took part in it and was executed. There can be very little doubt that this man was a genuine anti-Nazi, whereas General Reinhardt Gaelen, whom I mentioned in my speech in March, was, in Hitler's day, the head of his Security Counter-Communist Bureau, and a very trusted man. He is still employed in Western Germany, if not exactly by the Bonn Government, then by the American High Commission with the agreement of the Bonn Government. There is no doubt that he was a Nazi, and a very highly placed one. I can hardly believe that he is now a peace-loving democratic citizen, serving under Dr. Adenauer's banner and only too pleased to act in the sort of way we should be glad to see. These are only straws in the wind, but nevertheless they seem to me to be important. When we make an agreement with people, when we reinstate them and start to arm them again, we want to know what sort of people they are; and we must watch them closely.
It would ill become me to criticise, or even comment on, a speech made by such a distinguished person as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who addressed your Lordships earlier this afternoon. You will remember that he said it was forty years ago to-day that Austria marched into Serbia and the 1914–18 War started. Then the noble Viscount made what I thought to be a curious remark. He said, "Germany either could not or would not restrain Austria." I thought that was rather a nice picture of the poor Germans, doing their best to restrain the powerful, hot-headed Austrians but unable to do so. I do not think the noble Viscount really meant that. He will remember that it was perhaps only a day or two later that Sir Edward Grey said:
"The lights are going out all over Europe."
They could be going out again, my Lords, switched off by the same hand. That is merely my own view, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is not in his place this evening, because I know that he holds views diametrically opposed to my own, although in a friendly manner.
312
I should like to assure your Lordships that there is nothing vindictive or personal in my attitude. I lost much less than most people in the late war; it is not that. But I believe that, in a matter of this importance, one must stand right back from the whole problem and look at it from every side, and not get involved in talk of divisions and so on—in any case a division means nothing nowadays; it is air power that will decide the next war. I believe it is of supreme importance that everything Her Majesty's Government can do to reassure the people of this country that nothing is being done that could put the danger back where it was before, among that warlike race—who are now, I suppose, or are about to be our Allies—will be done; and I am confident that the Government will do it. The noble Marquess who is to reply to this debate to-morrow was very kind to me on a previous occasion, and I am sure that he has this matter well in mind. I apologise to your Lordships for taking up your time at this late hour but I have tried to introduce one or two facts which might not be generally known to the majority of the members of your Lordships' House.
10.23 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Chorley indicated that if the debate were to run a certain time he would be unable to speak, I told him that I should be only too glad to take his place. I have heard every one of the speakers, although I have not heard every speech right through. Some of the speeches have been most disturbing to me; indeed, if I had not my faith firmly fixed they would almost lead me to despair. What we are dealing with to-day is the policy that surrounds us, and we are discussing it from the point of view of harnessing that policy so that we may overcome the monster of war. I remember when James Maxton, who was Member of Parliament for the Bridgeton Division for a number of years, came out of gaol after the 1914–18 war, I was at a Socialist gathering where he spoke; and he said that in prison he had had the opportunity of thinking about the eternal verities. He used words on that occasion that I have never forgotten. He said:
"War is not one of the eternal verities; war is one of the ephemeral lies."
I believe that.

313
I want to illustrate the way in which war is regarded by different people. I take for my first illustration what is usually looked upon as a humorous work, the writings of James Russell Lowell, who puts words into the mouth, or rather tells the story, of Hosea Biglow writing a letter to a recruiting sergeant who had tackled him in the street during the day. He spent the night in writing a letter in rhyme to the recruiting sergeant, who had been urging him to enlist in the forces that were being recruited to go to war with Mexico. I think the year was 1846. Hosea Biglow said many things to Him He told him how he would refer the recruiting sergeant to his wife, Nancy, and said that if she were to get hold of him she would pour cut such a torrent of words upon him that he would think the eternal bung was loose.
I remember words used by Biglow in respect of his wife:
"She wants me for home consumption.
Let alone the hay's to mow."
But the kernel of the poem that he wrote on that occasion was a condemnation of war:
"Ez fer war I call it murder,—
There you hev it plain an' fiat;
I don't want to go no furder
Than my Testyment fer that;
God hez sed so plump an' fairly,
It's ez long ez it is broad,
An' you've gut to get up airly
Ef you want to take in God.
'Taint your eppyletts an' feathers
Make the thing a grain more right;
'Taint affollerin' your bell-wethers
Will excuse ye in His sight;
Ef you take a sword and dror it,
An' go stick a feller thru,
Guv'ment aint to answer for it,
God'll send the bill to you.
Wut's the use o' meetin-goin'
Every Sabbath, wet or dry,
Ef it's right to go amowin'
Feller-men like oats an' rye?
I dunno but wut it's pooty
Trainin' round it bobtail coats;—
But it's curus Christian dooty
This ere cuttin' folks's throats. …
I'll return ye good fer evil
Much ez we frail mortils can,
But I wun't go help the Devil,
Makin' man the cus o' man;
Call me coward, call me traiter,
Jest ez, suits your mean idees,—
Here I stand a tyrant-hater,
An' the friend, o' God an' Peace!"
In these days, we should describe Hosea Biglow, writing like that, as a conscientious objector. He would not be very popular; but he voices an opinion against war that is a perfectly understandable
314
view because it is based upon conviction without any experience of war.
Then there is the man who is experienced with war; and after that experience he takes a similar view. And now I give another illustration in rhyme, from my friend James Welsh, a miner poet, who was Member of Parliament for Coat-bridge and Airdrie. This man who had experience of war—a constituent of Welsh's—came back from the 1914 war and told the poet the story of what he had gone through. This moved Welsh to write his poem, in which he put these words into the mouth of this constituent:
" I slaughtered a man, a brother,
In the wild, wild fight at Mons,
I see yet his eyes of horror,
I hear yet his cries and groans,
We met on the edge of the trenches,
Where Murder in crimson rode,
And swish went my blade to his stomach—
I'd slaughtered the image of God.
We'd never in anger quarrelled,
We never had met before,
But someone had dreamed of conquest,
And we had to buy it with gore.
Perhaps he'd a wife and children,
Through whose hopes and dreams he strode,
With the pride of a King in his Empire,
An heroic image of God.
And I asked myself the question,
I saw in his glazing eyes
'Am I my brother's Keeper?'
Till the sod I tread on cries:
You made his wife a widow,
Made desolate her abode,
Your thrust made his children orphans,
You slaughtered the image of God.
The cold, cold stars keep blinking,
The winds make moaning sighs,
Men worship me as hero
And laud me to the skies,
But I keep on thinking dully
Till my heart gets like a clod,
Of the thrust I made in the trenches,
That slaughtered the image of God."
That is the view of war of a man who has experienced it, and to me it is against that background that we are having this debate.
It seems to me that foreign affairs debates and foreign affairs conferences are inclined to emphasise the differences that exist between the nations. The nations parade their strength, the power of the bombs that they have manufactured and the speed of their war 'planes. We say that other countries do not recognise our good will and peaceful intentions; and we do not believe that they are sincere when they make professions of peaceful intent because we see them

315
arming and seeking to build up alliances for strength which we consider are a menace to us. That is a two-way traffic. That applies to all the nations. I ask: How can we overcome that fear and so help to lead to peace? We in this country pride ourselves, and justly so, in our loyalty to the United Nations Organisation, and instead of dealing so much with the differences that divide us, although I know that is necessary, it might be well for us to emphasise what we are doing to support the peaceful activities of the United Nations organisation. For example, they are dealing with refugees and trying to help those poor people in their difficulties. They are supporting O.E.E.C. and supporting U.N.I.C.E.F., the United Nations organisation for dealing with children, surely a very worthy object. They support the World Health Organisation in generally meeting the needs of the underprivileged and underfed in the world. I remind noble Lords that 1,500 million people in this world—that is, two-thirds of the population of the world—are underfed, and half of these, I believe, something like 750 millions, do not know from the cradle to the grave what it is ever to be entirely free from the pangs of hunger. Yet at present the world population is increasing more quickly than the means of producing food to feed the hungry mouths. There is also an immense amount of disease in the poor areas.
For those who want some fighting to do it seems to me that there are big enough things to fight without fighting in a warlike way. The Prophet Isaiah depicted to us a time when men would beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks and study war no more. We look forward to that day. We think of it as something afar off, but this increase in world population and the lack of food to feed the hungry mouths that are coming into existence may compel us to do this job of turning our swords into ploughshares and our spears into pruning hooks in order to keep alive. Shall we be compelled by circumstances of that kind or shall we use our intelligence and win peace? I agree entirely that it is not an easy task to which mankind is called. I agree also that no British Government dare take undue risks by suddenly disarming at the present time. But we can steadily pursue the
316
aims of peace. Let us practise, nationally and internationally, the pursuit of the aim to do what is right rather than what is merely expedient. We may have hope in this endeavour. I am convinced that peace and right will ultimately triumph, and I will use a homely illustration to show how I am helped in my conviction.
I remind this House that the Battle of Flodden was fought in 1513. Think of the relationship between Scotland and England at that time. Think of the hatred that existed and how I am sure at that time it was thought that there would never be a peaceful relationship between the two countries. And yet to-day, what is the position? The very countryside in which this battle was fought is the most peaceful in these islands, with beautiful, rounded, grassy hills folding into each other as do the petals of a flower. As I say, that battle was fought in 1513. Not so very long ago, although a number of years ago, it was decided to put a tablet on Flodden Field where the battle was fought. The tablet was put up, the date was inscribed, and what do you think was the inscription that was put upon that stone? All the enmities of the time had gone, there was no record of what the fighting was about. All that could be put as an inscription on that stone were these words:
"To the brave of both nations."
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to-day expressed the thought of prayer to aid us in our efforts for peace. I was glad to hear that and I endorse what he said with all my heart. To give some measure of hope at the end of a day of debate which has not had much of hope in it, I quote the words of Scotland's national bard, words that have been quoted very often:
"Then let us pray that come it may,
As come it will for a' that;
That sense and worth, o'er a' the earth,
May bear the gree, and a' that.
For a' that, and a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man to man, the warld o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that."
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned accordingly.

BAKING INDUSTRY (HOURS OF WORK) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
TELEVISION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT)) CONFIRMATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
HARTLEPOOL PORT AND HARBOUR BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS (VALIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before eleven o'clock.