Sitting of 25 January 1955

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 22nd December, 1954, for the Christmas Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Robert Richards, esquire, Member for Wrexham, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

WRITS ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, Warrants for new Writs, viz.,
For Orpington, in the room of Sir Waldron Smithers, deceased;
For Twickenham, in the room of Sir Edward Herbert Keeling, M.C., deceased;
For Edinburgh, North, in the room of the Right Honourable James Latham McDiarmid Clyde, Q.C., appointed to the Office of Lord Justice General and President of the Court of Session in Scotland;
For Stockport, South, in the room of Sir Arnold Babb Gridley, K.B.E., called up to the House of Peers.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Labour to make a statement about the work of the Committee on the Disabled set up under the chairmanship of Lord Piercy in March, 1953; and when this Committee will publish a report.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The Committee of Inquiry on the Disabled is still engaged in hearing evidence from interested bodies, but I understand it hopes to furnish its report later in the year.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the need for a special approach to the matter of the training and subsequent placement in employment of spastics, whose need is habilitation rather than rehabilitation; and if he will set up, or co-operate with the voluntary organisations in setting up, an experimental unit for this purpose under the provisions of the Disabled Persons Employment Act, 1944.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am aware that some spastics at school-leaving age or later may be able to profit from a special course of preliminary training designed to enable them to use their limbs more effectively, and I understand that the voluntary organisations concerned have in mind the establishment of centres where this kind of training could be given. One of the

    3
    voluntary organisations has discussed this approach with my officers and is aware of the extent of the assistance which could be given at a later stage of training under the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the existing centres cater chiefly for the very lightly handicapped spastics, and, as a result of this, the hard core of the problem of the employment and training of spastics is not really touched?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is hoped that, as a result of the initiative of the bodies interested, there will be further centres, and, if so, we shall do what we can to help.

    Retirement Age
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Labour what response he has had to date from employers to the recommendations affecting the retirement age in paragraphs 50–52 and 65–67 of the First Report of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women.
    Mr. Watkinson: The British Employers' Confederation and the Boards of the nationalised industries are in agreement with the principles of the Report and have said that they will give effect to them as far as is practicable. I have seen many examples of modification of age restrictions, of special efforts to provide opportunities for older persons and of the relaxation in compulsory retirement rules.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress made so far, and is his Department vigorously pushing forward with this important job?
    Mr. Watkinson: No, I am not satisfied, and I do not think that I or my Committee will be satisfied until we have made a good deal more progress, but, equally, I think that it is fair to say that we have made some slight change in the situation.
    Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Government Departments are setting a good example in this matter? Is it not a fact that in some cases they are retiring men and at the same time are asking private employers to do better than they themselves are doing?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that the Government have set a good example. The
    4
    only cases where Government Departments have to retire men at an earlier age than they would wish are those which unfortunately arise out of the necessity of reducing the size of Departments.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Labour whether persons employed in his Department are allowed to continue after the normal retirement age if they are able and willing to do so.
    Mr. Watkinson: I assume that, by "normal retiring age," the hon. and gallant Member means the age of 60 at which a civil servant is free to retire and draw his pension. The answer is, "Yes, Sir."
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the manager of an employment exchange who was compelled to retire on account of age signed on at the same exchange the day afterwards in the hope of finding other work? Does he call that making the best use of manpower?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am quite well aware of the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentions. I have said in this House before that it is unfortunately unavoidable that my Ministry has to retire a number of exchange managers at about 62, an age at which they are entitled to their pension. The reason we are doing that is that the size of my Ministry has practically halved since the war and is still contracting. If we are to give a fair chance to the younger people in the Ministry, I am afraid we must get rid of a few people.
    Mr. Jay: Could not the Parliamentary Secretary partly solve this problem by not taking on younger men instead of retiring the older men?
    Mr. Watkinson: We have done that. Except for cadets, we have not been recruiting for some time.

    Railway Dispute (Report of Inquiry)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to implement the Report of the Court of Inquiry into the railway dispute.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the recent Court of Inquiry set up to examine the claims of the railwaymen;

    5
    and which of the recommendations and suggestions have been accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the terms of settlement of the recent dispute on railwaymen's wages, what consultations he has held; and what proposals Her Majesty's Government have in respect of means by which the extra financial burden to be borne by British Railways can be met.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Final Report of the Court of Inquiry will be available to Members in the Vote Office at 6.30 this evening. I propose to invite representatives of the British Transport Commission, the National Union of Railwaymen and the other unions concerned to discuss with me, within the next few days, matters arising out of the Report which affect my Department. I am not in a position to make any further statement until after these discussions have taken place.
    Mr. Davies: While I am sure the House welcomes the discussions which are proposed, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that, whatever amplification there is in the Final Report which we are now awaiting, the Government must take full responsibility for the deficit which is likely to be incurred by the British Transport Commission because of the fact that a reversal of transport policy is responsible for the present position?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is always bad to go into negotiations if one has made up one's mind beforehand. I would prefer to await the outcome of the negotiations I am going to have.
    Mr. Grimond: Is it not a fact that the findings of the Court of Inquiry in its Interim Report must affect the other nationalised industries, especially the suggestion that Parliament, having willed the end, must will the means? Will the Government make a statement on their general, wide policy on wages in the nationalised industries?
    Mr. Watkinson: It would be only fair to the Court of Inquiry—which, incidentally, did a lot of work al very short notice and literally worked night and day to bring out the Interim Report, which was in the interests of the country as a whole—to say that the Report was aimed solely at one thing, to provide a basis for
    6
    the settlement of the dispute on the railways. The Report which will be in the Vote Office this evening is a wider and much amplified document, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) ought to read it before he starts talking about ends and means.
    Mr. Sorensen: Am I right in assuming that the inference to be drawn from the Minister's statement is that the discussions which are about to take place will determine how the financial burden of the railways is to be borne by the Government? Could not the hon. Gentleman indicate the principle on which the Government intend to proceed?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am glad the hon. Member has asked that question, because it enables me to make plain my duty, which is to see the parties and ask them for their observations on the Final Report. The hon. Gentleman should put questions on financial implications to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Callaghan: On this rather important matter, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Minister of Transport is to be associated with him in these negotiations? The hon. Gentleman speaks of negotiations. Is he going to the unions and to the British Transport Commission to make plain to them what financial assistance the Government in-tend to give to the Commission? If not, what are the negotiations about?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am glad to have the opportunity of saying what I meant by "negotiation." I meant that there will be a free interchange of views, as I was careful to say in my answer, on matters which concern my Department, such as human relations and the proper use of manpower. As the hon. Gentleman has asked me the question, I should like to make it plain that this discussion will certainly not include the financial implications.
    Mr. Callaghan: The whole country is interested in this matter. When do the Government intend to make clear their policy about making up the deficit which the Commission will incur as the result of the Government's intervention in this matter?
    Mr. Watkinson: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend

    7
    the Leader of the House. It is possible that the right hon. Gentleman may make a business statement at the end of Questions.

    Industrial Health Services, Scotland
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to stimulate and further develop industrial health services in Scotland.
    Mr. Watkinson: The measures which my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House on 11th November last for the development of industrial health services under the Factories Acts are being planned for Great Britain in co-operation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers concerned.
    Mr. Bence: Would the hon. Gentleman advise the Secretary of State for Scotland to consult the Scottish T.U.C., and, in particular, the Glasgow District Committee of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, because they have given considerable attention to these matters, and because it would be as well in Scottish industrial matters to consult the Scottish organisation concerned?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I will gladly do that. While I cannot announce the composition of the committee at the moment, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed.

    British Immigrants (Armed Forces Recruitment)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour to what extent his Department, in seeking employment for British subjects entering this country from the Dominions and Colonies, suggests enlistment in the Armed Forces on Regular engagements.
    Mr. Watkinson: Local offices have standing instructions to bring the opportunities for enlistment in the Regular Forces to the notice of suitable British subjects, including those who have come from overseas.
    Mr. Collins: Recalling the outstanding part which the Colonial Service played in the last war, may I ask the Minister to give particular attention to their enlistment? Will he also make it clear that
    8
    recruits will be welcomed in all three Services?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly do what I can to that end. We do not place any sort of bar on—in fact, we encourage—that kind of recruitment; but I will see whether we can do anything else.

    Bus Crews, Alperton (Shortage)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the shortage of bus crews at the Alperton garage of London Transport in North-West London; and what steps he is taking to assist in finding the additional staff required.
    Mr. Watkinson: The shortage of bus crews at Alperton garage is part of the general shortage of staff for London Transport. My Department is in close touch with the London Transport Executive on their staff requirements, details of which have been circulated to all local offices in the London and South-Eastern Region. Special inquiries have also been made in other areas of the country, where there seemed some likelihood of suitable labour being available, and arrangements have been made to recruit workers from Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Russell: Is the Minister aware that this shortage is causing very erratic and irregular bus services in Wembley and in North-West London generally? Can he take steps to improve the situation?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am aware of that situation. We have hopes of recruiting further workers from Northern Ireland.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (PERSONAL CASE)
  Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for a further medical examination of a person of whom he has been informed to see if he is now fit for National Service.
  Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I have seen the report of the medical examination of the person to whom the hon. Member refers and, having taken advice, I am satisfied that the grading assigned by the board was correct.

  SCOTLAND

    Tenement Houses (Sale)
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends taking to stop the sale of single houses in tenement property.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I do not consider that I would be justified in taking any steps to control the sale of privately-owned houses.
    Mrs. Cullen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the problem in Glasgow, where hundreds of families are homeless, is becoming very serious? Is he aware that there are hundreds of small houses which these people cannot purchase, which are deteriorating from being unoccupied for as long as 12 months?
    Mr. Stuart: I understand that a number of these houses are now offered to be relet. Because of a fall in the price and because of the increased number of new houses being completed, I believe that the problem is becoming less acute.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he is in any difficulty over this matter there is a perfectly good Bill which was prepared on this subject by the previous Government that is ready to be introduced?
    Mr. Stuart: I am aware of that fact.

    Sewerage Schemes
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number and cost of local authority schemes for which he refuses to make a grant.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I understand that the hon. Member has in mind sewerage and sewage disposal schemes under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. Since the Government's decision in 1952 to discontinue the award of grant for such schemes, 15 applications for schemes estimated to cost £1,600,000 have been refused.
    Mr. Bence: Is the Minister aware that the burgh of Kirkintilloch submitted a scheme which was accepted by the Scottish Office, that nearly £1,000 has been spent in preparing plans, but that a grant is not to be made? Is he aware that there is considerable indignation in
    10
    the burgh because a grant cannot be obtained for a scheme planned so many years ago?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. Member that the burgh has benefited considerably from the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act, 1954, under which it has received an Exchequer equalisation grant of 33 per cent. of its relevant local expenditure. This should materially assist the burgh.

    Industrial Development, East Dunbartonshire (Land)
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what acreage of land scheduled for factory building remains unutilised in East Dunbartonshire.
    Mr. J. Stuart: In the Parliamentary constituency of East Dunbartonshire, about 320 acres of land are reserved, or are proposed to be reserved, for new industrial development in the development plans of the local authorities concerned. Of this total area, about 240 acres are available for early development.
    Mr. Bence: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are many coal mines in the eastern part of Dunbartonshire which will be worked out in ten years? Will he tell the House what he is doing to introduce new industries into the area in order to save some of the small towns going into absolute decay?
    Mr. Stuart: This is a Development Area, and, as the hon. Member knows, I have been in touch with the Glasgow Corporation about the development of the new town which, for example, will provide employment in the Cumbernauld area. Without such development, of course, sufficient industry is not likely to be attracted thereto.

    Livestock
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the numbers of livestock of all kinds in Scotland as disclosed by the December returns; and how these figures compare with previous years.
    Mr. J. Stuart: As the reply contains a number of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Captain Duncan: Does the reply show a large reduction in the number of sheep? If it does, can my right hon. Friend explain the reason?
    Mr. Stuart: It does show a decrease, compared with 1953, of about 300,000 in the number of sheep, but these figures are liable to error as they are not yet complete. They are based on a sample.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the reply indicate the very grave losses which were sustained as a result of the recent heavy snowstorms?
    Mr. Stuart: The Question deals with last year.
    Captain Duncan: May I ask my right hon Friend whether the large decrease in the number of sheep may be due to the earlier killing off of lambs, and that there is not a big reduction in the number of breeding sheep?
    Mr. Stuart: It may be so, but I am glad to say that there has been a considerable increase in the number of cattle, pigs and fowls, so we are getting something.
    Following is the reply:
    The following are the numbers of cattle, sheep, pigs and fowls in Scotland, as disclosed by the provisional results of the December census, with comparable final figures as at December, 1953, and December, 1939:

    (000)

    —

    December, 1954*

    December, 1953

    December, 1939

    Cattle

    1,625

    1,598

    1,307

    Sheep

    5,313

    5,619

    5,904

    Pigs

    577

    522

    287

    Fowls

    6,372

    6,585

    5,315

    * The December, 1954, figures are based on a 50 per cent, sample of returns and are, therefore, subject to a margin of error.

    Winter Feedingstuffs
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the farmers have adequate winter feedingstuffs for their livestock this winter.
    Mr. J. Stuart: While local difficulties, particularly of distribution, may arise, supplies of winter feed over the country as a whole appear to be adequate. Much, of course, will depend on weather conditions over the next month or two.

    Rural Schools, Midlothian
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the Government's policy in regard to rural schools in Midlothian.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The policy, both in Midlothian and elsewhere, is to encourage education authorities to keep existing rural schools open wherever practicable and to agree to their being closed only if there are very strong reasons for closure.
    Mr. Pryde: Is the Secretary of State aware of the primitive conditions of sanitation which exist in most of these schools in Midlothian? Is he also aware of the sad lack of amenities in and around these rural schools? Was it an act of God that set fire to, and destroyed, that tin contraption at Woodmuir, Breich, last week, to the evident satisfaction of everybody concerned?
    Mr. Stuart: As far as I know, it was an act of God, because I have no evidence to prove how it was done.

    War Memorial Hospital, Peebles
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to replace the War Memorial Hospital at Peebles.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I regret that it may be some years before this work can be undertaken, since the regional hospital board has other priority schemes to complete first.
    Mr. Pryde: Does that reply indicate that those brave girls on the nursing staff are to be condemned for some years to carry patients, who, in many cases, are in an advanced stage of pregnancy, whenever the River Tweed rises above normal?
    Mr. Stuart: I agree that the hospital is badly sited and is inadequate. There are, however, very many other cases to be dealt with. Meanwhile, the board of management is reducing the risk of flooding by heightening the wall.

    School, Lanark (Sanitary Conditions)
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of insanitary conditions at the infant department lavatories in the playground of Lanark Grammar Secondary School, which have been the subject of a parents' petition and of public complaint for five years, and which are the cause of an epidemic of dysentery; and what steps he proposes to take.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware that these infant lavatories are not satisfactory, but there is no evidence to suggest that their state has been the cause of any of the cases of dysentery which have occurred recently. I am considering as a matter of urgency proposals for the improvement of the lavatories which the education authority wish to carry out.
    Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department has been considering this as a matter of urgency for five years, that the standard of sanitation is inferior to that of Lanark market, and that these lavatories are truly oriental in their squalor? Can we have an assurance that his Department will now treat this urgent matter as truly urgent?
    Mr. Stuart: I do mean that it should be improved, but there are a great many things which should be done. I do not, however, agree with my hon. Friend that 24 notifications, not all of which have been confirmed, represent an epidemic.

    Glen Feschie Road Project
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the most recent survey of the Glen Feschie road project, to connect upper Speyside with upper Deeside; and what recent estimate of the costs of carrying out such a project has been made.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I understand that a detailed survey has not been carried out by the local highway authorities concerned and a close estimate of costs is not, therefore, possible. It would be unlikely, however, to be less than £750,000.
    Mr. Spence: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether a survey could be made, taking into account the performance of the modern touring car which can go over gradients not hitherto used, and whether reduced costs could be investigated for a road' scheme of this kind, which would do so much good?
    Mr. Stuart: I am afraid that it would be very largely for the benefit of tourism. I am not against tourism, but in winter, as the hon. Member knows, this road would be liable to closure at frequent intervals. The matter has been considered by the county councils of Inverness and Aberdeen, but they are not proposing to take action in present circumstances.

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now report any conclusions as a result of the investigation, initiated in 1949–50, into the causes of the exceptional figures for tuberculosis in Scotland.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The expert committee which went into the question at the request of the right hon. Gentleman was unable to identify reasons for the exceptionally high incidence and death rates for respiratory tuberculosis in Scotland in the years immediately after the war. The further lines of inquiry suggested by the committee have not yet yielded results, and meanwhile the Scottish position has come more into line with experience in England and elsewhere.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while progress has been made, the figures in Scotland are still distressing? Is he not prepared to ask the Advisory Committee on Medical Research to institute a thorough-going investigation into this problem to find the real causes of this incidence in Scotland?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee is fully aware of this matter and is making every effort to produce a solution. As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a drop in notifications. I admit that it is not good enough, and I hope that we shall find ways of making better progress.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, scientifically, it is just not enough to accept such a drop as an act of God, when we know that the trouble is due to causes which may be prevented? Can the right hon. Gentleman not institute a really scientific investigation into the causes of this disease in Scotland?
    Mr. Stuart: The Advisory Committee on Medical Research is indeed investigating this problem.
    Mr. Rankin: Are we to infer from that reply that this Committee is not accepting, as has been generally accepted, that evil housing conditions are a very serious contributory cause to the prevalence of tuberculosis?
    Mr. Stuart: In that case the hon. Member should be very grateful to the present Government.

    Disabled Ex-Service Man (Motor Car)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why a car of the type supplied for seriously war disabled 100 per cent. pensioners is denied to John Kennedy McLeod of Strathnavar, late Seaforth Highlanders, who lost his right arm, right leg and use of his left shoulder in 1917, on the grounds of a shortage of cars and that he can still move his hip and knee joints to walk short distances while his artificial leg is satisfactory.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Motor cars are issued only to ex-Service men who have lost both legs, one or both above the knee, or otherwise have a total or almost loss of the use of both legs. While Mr. McLeod is very severely disabled, he does not come within any of these categories, and I am sorry that I cannot regard him as qualifying for a car.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the case that a very distinguished independent surgeon who examined this man says emphatically that he does come within this category? Is it not a fact that he has been denied a car because these cars are in short supply, and is that creditable to this country which can turn out a car every 10 seconds?
    Mr. Stuart: My difficulty is that it would be very awkward if one made exceptions to the rule.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Can my right hon. Friend say how many men are waiting for cars of this kind owing to shortage of them?
    Mr. Stuart: If my hon. Friend will kindly put down a Question, I will certainly answer it.
    Mr. Logan: How much of his body must a Scotsman lose before the Minister can take notice?
    Mr. Stuart: I may say that the conditions to which I have referred relate to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    Sir D. Robertson: In view of the urgent need of this seriously disabled man and the unsatisfactory answer, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise the matter at the first opportunity.

    Adult Education (Grants)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority grants were made to students at Newbattle Abbey College and at other adult education colleges during each academic year since 1951–52.
    Mr. J. Stuart: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government still make a grant to this institution, and will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to encourage this important field of education?
    Mr. Stuart: I will certainly do anything I can to encourage it.
    Following are the figures:

    Academic year

    Number of awards tenable at

    Newbattle Abbey College

    Other adult education colleges

    1951–52

    14

    9

    1952–53

    6

    6

    1953–54

    8

    10

    1954–55

    8

    10

    University Students (Grants)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many grants from local authorities were made to Scottish students at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge during each academic year since 1946–47.
    Mr. J. Stuart: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three-quarters of the higher Government posts today go to students from Oxford and Cambridge, and is he satisfied that the figures that he has show that Scottish students of ability are enabled to gain a proper share of these positions?
    Mr. Stuart: I would rather have notice of that question.
    Following are the figures:

    Academic year

    Number of awards tenable at

    Oxford University

    Cambridge University

    1946–47

    —

    —

    1947–48

    1

    1

    1948–49

    4

    1

    1949–50

    2

    2

    1950–51

    3

    2

    1951–52

    6

    2

    1952–53

    6

    6

    1953–54

    7

    7

    1954–55

    3

    5

    Prison Staffs (Accommodation)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are proposed to secure the release of the official quarters now occupied by persons other than members of the staff at Perth, Barlinnie, and Peterhead prisons, respectively.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Of the 43 houses at these prisons occupied by persons other than members of the prison staff, five are occupied by mental nurses employed in the Criminal Lunatic Department at Perth, nine are condemned, and 12 require substantial reconditioning.
    The rent-paying tenants at Barlinnie and Peterhead were offered the quarters when they were surplus to prison requirements, and I do not feel justified in seeking a court order for their eviction until other accommodation is available for them.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say how long it is likely to be before accommodation will be available for these people?
    Mr. Stuart: That will depend upon the rate at which the housing demands are being overtaken in the three cities referred to.

    Cumbernauld
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made so far towards the development of a new town at Cumbernauld.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Glasgow Corporation are at present considering certain further
    18
    suggestions I put to them at a meeting I had with them on 25th November last, and I have no doubt that they will be submitting their reply at an early date.
    Mr. Rankin: While thanking the Secretary of State for that reply, may I ask whether he would consider this further suggestion, that he should ascertain from Glasgow Corporation what contribution it would be willing to pay in respect of every house in the proposed new town allotted to persons on Glasgow's waiting list; and secondly, would he consider dropping altogether the question of Glasgow sharing in the over-all deficit with the consequent right of nomination to the Development Corporation?
    Mr. Stuart: As I have informed the Corporation, I shall be very glad to consider any counter-proposals which it may choose to put forward. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first suggestion, and I can assure him that that is one of the points which I have already put before the Corporation. As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I think it would be fair if the Corporation, the Treasury and the receiving authority—Dunbarton County Council in this case—were to share the deficit, but, as I have said, I am willing to consider any counter-proposals.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State aware that the suggestion I have put forward is not my own but was made by the Secretary of the Glasgow branch of the Town and Country Planning Association? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the second of the two points that I have put forward?
    Mr. Stuart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I will certainly consider it.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal which he has submitted to the Glasgow Corporation is an infringement and an evasion of the New Towns Act, and that it is quite unprecedented in the case of any of the new towns which have already been built, especially down here in the South?
    Mr. Stuart: It may be a new proposal, but I was not aware that it was outwith the terms of the Act.

    Snowstorm, Highlands and Islands
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish snowstorm and the action taken by his Department to assist the civil population.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about supplies of fodder and other assistance to the areas affected by the late snow blizzard.
    Mr. J. Stuart: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement in reply to these Questions at the end of Questions.

    Wick Fishing Boat (Engine)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the interest of the State as well as the owners of the Wick fishing boat "Resonance," purchased under grant and loan, his Department will pay for or supply a Gardener engine which will enable the skipper and crew to earn a living and pay off their indebtedness to the State.
    Mr. J. Stuart: This case has been carefully reviewed on several occasions. I have no power to provide a new engine or to make a grant for the purchase of one; and I regret that I do not think a further loan would be justified.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not a fact that the skipper of this craft, who fought in two world wars and was decorated, had to take what he could get at the end of the war and was unfortunate in getting a boat with a defective engine? He has put up a gallant struggle trying to make ends meet; the State has £10,000 invested in this boat, and surely there is some Minister who is capable of looking after the State's investments?
    Mr. Stuart: The owners received a considerable grant and loan and, on the expert advice tendered to me, I do not think I should be justified in increasing them.
    Mr. Grimond: Is it not a fact that there have been other boats in which engines of certain makes have proved unsatisfactory? Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this whole question again and see whether it would be in the
    20
    interests of the Government to make some further grant or take the responsibility off the owners of these boats whose engines are not up to the job?
    Mr. Stuart: The matter has been considered very carefully, and there is at present outstanding a considerable sum of money.

    Building Land, Fernhill
    Mr. Brooman-Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the provisional order for the transfer of building land at Fernhill from the County of Lanarkshire to the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen came into operation on 16th May, 1954, but that this land has not yet been acquired and, as a result, the building programme for the burgh has been seriously delayed; what is the reason for the delay in acquisition; and if he will take steps to hasten action.
    Mr. J. Stuart: This is a matter for the town council, and it would not be proper for me to intervene. I understand, however, that negotiations are going on between the town council, the owner of the land, and the county council. I have no reason to suppose that the town council will permit unnecessary delay to take place.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that delay has already taken place? Is it not deplorable that in a badly housed area such as this, local wrangling should hold up progress? Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter again and see whether there is any advice or help that he can give so that a more effective line may be taken for meeting the people's needs?
    Mr. Stuart: I will certainly assist in any way I can, but I am afraid this is a matter in which it would not be appropriate for me to intervene in case the council should desire to take compulsory powers.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Royal Parks (Litter)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Works if he will now make a statement on the results of the work of the Committee on Litter in the Royal Parks.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): The Report of the Committee on Litter in the Royal Parks is now available in the Vote Office. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Seven-oaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) and to all the members of the Committee for their very full study of the problem and for their recommendations. I am in general agreement with the recommendations.
    Mr. Dodds: While wishing to be associated with the congratulations to this Committee, which we all know has done a good job of work, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that there is deep feeling about the nuisance of litter, and that if he means business against the litter louts he will have the overwhelming support of the people generally?

    Snow Clearance (Government Departments)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Works what arrangements are made for snow to be cleared away from pavements outside buildings occupied by Government Departments.
    Mr. Birch: If the local authority does not clear snow from the pavements, it is for the Department occupying the building to arrange to do so.
    Mr. Russell: Could my right hon. Friend prod some of the Departments, as they were deplorably lax during the last snowstorm?
    Mr. Birch: Snow gets us all down sometimes.

  RESEARCH

    Common Cold (Vaccines)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what is the present position with regard to the experiments to produce a vaccine to cure the common cold.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I regret that it is not possible to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 22nd October last year. Research is continuing, but the hon. Member must not expect immediate results.
    Mr. Dodds: As every person in the land has a vested interest in this question, will the Minister do everything possible to press on with the experiments? Is he not aware that if these experiments are successful during his term of office he will go down as one of the most successful politicians of all time?
    Mr. Bevins: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes," and the answer to the second part of the question is that it would be my noble Friend the Lord President.
    Mr. Hastings: Am I not right in assuming that experiments are also being carried out to prevent the common cold? Could the Minister make a statement as to the success of such experiments?
    Mr. Bevins: I am afraid that is another question.

    Nuclear Physics Research (University Expenditure)
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what steps have been taken to remove from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research the present financial responsibilities in relation to nuclear physics research in universities, mentioned in the Report of that Department for 1952–53.
    Mr. Bevins: Discussions are in progress with the object of finding an acceptable alternative method of meeting the heavy expenditure on nuclear physics research at universities when the present university quinquennium ends on 31st July, 1957.
    Mr. Skeffington: Will not the Minister agree that it is rather unfair that a good deal of the cost of this research, which is for defence purposes, is borne by his Department rather than, say, by the Ministry of Supply? Will he make representations to that end?
    Mr. Bevins: As I have said, discussions are going on, but the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has undertaken responsibility until 1957.

    Animal Feedingstuffs (Fish)
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President

    23
    of the Council, how much fish is converted into animal feedingstuff at Department of Scientific and Industrial Research establishments; and what is its value.
    Mr. Bevins: None, Sir.
    Mr. Skeffington: Can the Minister say whether or not the work which is proceeding at the station at Torres in Aberdeen is now entirely concerned with the preservation and storage of fish?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir, very largely.

    Micro-biology Research
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what staff and finance is being employed on micro-biology research by the Directorate of Scientific and Industrial Research for the year 1954; and how these figures compare with the years 1952 and 1953.
    Mr. Bevins: The number of people engaged on micro-biology research in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research was 43 in 1952 and 1953, and rose to 50 in 1954. The cost of the research borne on the Department's Vote was £41,000 in 1952. £49,000 in 1953, and £56,000 in 1954.
    Mr. Skeffington: Is the Minister aware that this is a totally inadequate sum for the vitally important scientific work for industrial development? Is he also aware that there are probably only two or three industrial units outside the Department working on these problems and that the whole future of our industrial development will be menaced if there is not sufficient information and research going on all the time in this field?
    Mr. Bevins: Of course this is important work, but the claims on the finances of D.S.I.R. have to be balanced between one form of research and another.

  BRITISH ARMY (REGULAR ARMY RECRUITMENT)
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War what proposals he has to improve the present reduction in Regular Army recruiting.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War why there has been a
  24
  decline in recruitment to the Regular Army in 1954 compared with 1953 and 1952; and what action he will take.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): The decline in recruiting figures is due to a number of factors. For one thing the 1952 figure was unusually high; in that year we introduced our new 22-year engagement and this got off to a good start. Secondly, there was in the financial year 1952–53 an exceptionally large intake of National Service men from whom, of course, a good proportion of our Regular recruits are drawn. This large intake also had a good effect on the 1953 recruiting figures. Neither of these factors recurred in 1954, though the proportion of Regular recruits to the National Service intake remained more or less constant.
  The position at the present time is not critical, and at the existing rate of recruiting we can meet our commitments. We are, however, continuing to do everything in our power to attract more recruits to the Regular Army. Better barracks, more married quarters and fewer moves will, we hope, substantially reduce separation of families, and the formation of a strategic reserve in this country should improve stability.
  Mr. Bellenger: Even if the situation is not critical, is it not very serious? Have the Government nothing more definite in mind than that which the hon. Gentleman has just stated in order to bring the Regular Army up to its proper establishment? Will the Secretary of State at some time in the immediate future give the House a statement of what the requirements of the Army are and what the Government are doing to meet them?
  Mr. Maclean: I cannot accept that the steps which we are taking to attract more recruits are not serious. I have no doubt at all that better accommodation, and especially better married quarters, and fewer moves and greater stability, should be a great help to recruiting.
  Mr. Strachey: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that unless far more definite steps than those are taken to improve Regular recruiting, we shall be saddled with a two-year National Service for years?

  ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
  Mr. Doddsasked the Prime Minister what progress he has made in arranging a meeting with Mr. Malenkov.
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister what further steps he has taken since 1st November, 1954, towards inviting or arranging an interview between himself and Mr. Malenkov.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I have nothing to add to my earlier expressions of willingness to meet Mr. Malenkov at some agreed place if the right time and occasion are found.
  Mr. Dodds: As the Soviet declaration of 15th January has created a new situation, does not the Prime Minister think that it is about time that he employed full personal attention in easing international tension? Will he not, before it is too late, do what he said he wanted to do years ago—and that is to have high-level talks as soon as possible?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot add to what I have just said.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in the present state of international tension, which is not lessening but rather seems to be increasing, particularly in the Far East, he ought to give his very best attention to the possibility of having a meeting of this kind? Is it sufficient to say that he has nothing to add to previous answers? Has the situation not changed?
  The Prime Minister: The Far East was not one of the topics which we were likely to have opened had we met.
  Mr. Hughes: As the Prime Minister has more than once indicated, very properly if I may say so, that such conversations should be preceded by adequate preparation, will he tell the House what preparation he has made with a view to having such high-level conversations?
  The Prime Minister: It has riot yet got out of the stage of careful consideration.
  Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the present situation in the Far East is not grave enough to warrant his consideration of this matter? Is he conscious, as indeed he must be, of the fact that the United
  26
  States seems to be proceeding on its own without regard to the opinions of people in other countries?
  The Prime Minister: There are a lot of grave situations, but I do not conceive that a meeting of this character on the Far East between me and Mr. Malenkov would be likely to yield favourable results at the present time.

  NUCLEAR AND ATOMIC WEAPONS
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister what further steps he has taken since 1st November last to secure international agreement for the control of nuclear and atomic weapons.
  The Prime Minister: It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that action to this end should be taken through the United Nations. The United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee, which it is hoped will meet in February, will be considering amongst other suggestions the Anglo-French proposals for a disarmament programme including the elimination of nuclear weapons.
  Mr. Hughes: As this is a matter of such enormous and world-wide importance, will the Prime Minister consider issuing a White Paper so that the nation might be informed of what is being done in this very great matter?
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure that a White Paper is called for or would be helpful.

  AIRCRAFT (DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT)
  Mr. de Freitasasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the arrangements which will in future operate between the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Supply and the private aircraft industry in connection with the development and production of aircraft.
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet able to make a statement on the creation of a new Ministry to deal with the supply of military aircraft.
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement

  27
  on the Government's proposals for the improvement of the co-ordinating machinery for the production of military aircraft; and what changes in Departmental responsibility are proposed.
  The Prime Minister: On 21st December I informed the House, in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) of the present arrangements for the development and procurement of aircraft, and I circulated a note in the OFFICIAL REPORT setting out the system in detail. These relationships between the Ministries concerned and between the Ministry of Supply and the aircraft industry are only one part of a much wider and more complex problem. I have already stated that in my view these matters are very suitable for further discussion in the debates on defence and on the Estimates which will take place during the coming weeks.
  Mr. de Freitas: Will the Prime Minister see that we are provided soon with a statement from the Minister of Supply on which we can base our discussion and debate?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps if the hon. Member would explain privately what is the kind of statement he has in mind, I would ask my right hon. Friend to advise me on the matter.
  Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is great anxiety in the country at the terrible failure of the Government to provide modern operational aircraft after 3½ years? Is it not the case that we have been trying to make far too many types at once, probably because the Minister of Supply has been somewhat inefficient over the matter? Is it not an urgent case for the Government doing something either about creating a new Ministry, as the Prime Minister has already suggested, or of re-forming the Ministry of Supply? Will the right hon. Gentleman stop trying to conceal the facts from the public and make a clean breast of this appalling failure?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly have not endeavoured to conceal any fact from the public. I think that when the debates come on this subject, that will be a very suitable occasion to discuss the whole matter.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not a fact that on two occasions before the Christmas
  28
  Recess the Prime Minister, in reply to Questions I put to him, agreed that it might be very desirable to have a full statement on the aircraft production position before the Estimates debates come on later in the spring? Did not the Prime Minister promise a full statement?
  The Prime Minister: The usual process will be followed this year as in other years.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does the reply of the right hon. Gentleman mean that he has come to the conclusion that the serious delays in obtaining modern aircraft required by the Royal Air Force are not due to any fault in the machinery of government, or any organisational lack?
  The Prime Minister: If we are to apportion blame in the matter, of course this story goes a long way back. I have no doubt that that aspect of the topic will be done justice to when we reach the debates.
  Mr. Shinwell: If that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman and he wants to proceed much further back than the last few years of Conservative Government, will he not proceed to prepare a White Paper giving all the facts in relation to this subject?
  The Prime Minister: It really would not be treating the right hon. Member with sufficient respect if I were to answer on the spur of the moment a request for a White Paper coming from an ex-Minister in his position. I should like to consider the whole matter. There is to be a White Paper on Defence in any case, but I do not really think we should improve our methods of business if we multiplied the habit of spreading White Papers on every subject.
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to conceal the fact that a "white paper" on defence has been issued by the "Daily Mirror"? Has he no reply to make to that?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Does not the Prime Minister think that, in view of the overriding national importance of this matter, a separate Ministry of Aircraft Production should be created? If he does not think so, would the Prime Minister see that the

  29
  House has the fullest possible information before it to enable it to press that case when the debate on the Estimates takes place?
  The Prime Minister: The fullest information which it is customary to give on these occasions will, of course, be given in the regular way when the Estimates are considered this present year.
  Mr. Strachey: If the Prime Minister tells us that this and other equally important matters are to be debated on the Defence Estimates, will he this year grant at least two days for the Defence Estimates debate?
  The Prime Minister: That is not a matter which I settle personally, but I certainly think there is very little doubt that a very strong case can be made for a two-day debate.

  GERMANY (SOVIET PROPOSALS)
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to recommend four-Power talks on the basis of the Soviet Note of 16th January, 1955, offering general elections in East and West Germany with international inspection; and in what respects these latest Soviet proposals differ from those of the Western Powers at the 1954 Berlin Conference.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of official proposals recently made by the Soviet Government in respect of steps that could be taken towards German unification and free elections, he will propose discussions on the matter with the Soviet Government.
  The Prime Minister: I presume that the hon. Members are referring to a statement broadcast by Moscow Radio on 15th January. I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 16th December, which I will now for convenience repeat:
  "The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to seek a four-Power Conference at a time when it seems likely to yield genuine results. We do not believe that this end would be served by holding such a Conference before the ratification of the London and Paris Agreements. The basic conditions were set out in Her Majesty's Government's Note to the Soviet
  30
  Government of 29th November. I have nothing to add at the present to what is the declared policy of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 178.]
  Mr. Davies: I have listened with some regret to that answer. May I ask the Prime Minister if he does not realise that a stubborn insistence on the Paris Agreements at the moment when there has been an offer for elections—[Interruption.] The second part of my Question has not been answered. This House and the nation want to know in what way the Prime Minister considers that the offer of these elections differs from what we requested at the Berlin Conference in 1954.
  The Prime Minister: I am sure I should not be well advised to embark upon a detailed discussion of that character here at Question Time, not even if I incur the disapproval of hon. Members.
  Mr. Bevan: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the answer he has given this afternoon will produce a most unfortunate impression in Germany itself? It will convey the impression to large numbers of Germans that this country is entirely indifferent to the peaceful unification of Germany. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that very large elements of public opinion in Germany, of great importance, have already expressed a desire to meet the Russians on these proposals before the Paris Agreements are ratified?
  The Prime Minister: The view that has been expressed by the West German Government is that ratification should take place first.
  Mr. Sorensen: Will the Prime Minister agree that it seems as if the Soviet authorities have shifted their ground somewhat? Under those circumstances, is there any reason why discussion should not take place on what appears to be a more fruitful offer without precluding the conclusion of the Paris Agreements?
  The Prime Minister: We have considered this matter almost ceaselessly and in conjunction with our Allies, and we have come to the conclusion that it is better to proceed to the ratification of the London and Paris Agreements. Then the road will be clear for any further discussion which may be considered to be of advantage.
  At the end of Questions—

CIVIL SERVICE (EQUAL PAY)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Miss WARD: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can yet make a report on the introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service.
Mr. FREDERICK LEE: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now state the intentions of Her Majesty's Government towards implementing the policy outlined on 16th May, 1952, in respect of equal pay for equal work for women employed, in both industrial and non-industrial grades in Government employ.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I informed the House on 25th May last that I had received a deputation from the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council to discuss the question of introducing equal pay into the non-industrial Civil Service. I told the deputation that I thought it essential that the change from unequal pay should be made over a period of time. I therefore suggested that negotiations should take place through the Whitley machinery with the object of producing a scheme by which equal pay might be gradually introduced on an agreed basis. I added that, if such an agreement were reached, I hoped it would be possible to make a start within the present financial year.
The negotiating committee of the National Whitley Council have now produced a joint report and presented it to the Council. The Official Side have agreed to the scheme proposed in it and the Staff Side have recommended it to the executive committees of the several staff associations for their concurrence.
The report proposes a scheme under which the existing women's scales would be increased by seven equal annual instalments so that, on the payment of the seventh instalment, women's scales would become identical with men's scales. For certain special grades, such as typists, a compromise is proposed, by which the new scales eventually to be applied to both sexes would be higher than the present women's scales but somewhat lower than the scales at present in force
32
for the relatively small number of men serving in these grades.
There are certain other grades in which women have different conditions of service from men, and here the treatment is reserved for further consideration. Grades in which no men are employed were outside the scope of the negotiations. Subject to the final acceptance of the proposals by the Staff Side, the Government propose to put them into operation as from 1st January, 1955. The process would then be completed on 1st January, 1961.
A Supplementary Estimate will be necessary in order to obtain Parliamentary authority for the scheme, and it will be presented very shortly.
These proposals apply to the non-industrial Civil Service only. For the industrial Civil Service, the Government consider it essential to follow the fair-wage principle, and to continue as at present to pay their women employees in accordance with the general practice in the trade concerned.
Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept the very grateful appreciation of a great many people who, for many years, have been asking for the introduction of equal pay? Will he also accept our grateful thanks that this progressive step forward has been made in implementation of a Tory pledge?
Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the differentiation which he has made between industrial and non industrial civil servants certainly does not comply with what was expected by many powerful trade organisations which cater for women in the employ of the Government? Why will the Chancellor not at least say that in the negotiations covering industrial women civil servants, the Official Side will be guided by his declaration so far as non-industrial women civil servants are concerned?
Mr. Butler: I fear that I cannot alter the latter part of my statement, which I purposely included for the sake of absolute clarity. As far as I know, the Government are following the practice, adopted by previous Governments, of adhering to the fair-wage principle in the manner that I have described, and I do not see that the Government could do

33
anything else in this sphere. I understand the anxieties, but I do net see that the Government could follow any other line.
Miss Herbison: While I welcome the improvement that has been announced, may I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that there will be great dismay indeed among those women who have been singled out for what I can only term scurvy treatment by the Chancellor? Is he aware that the statement which he has made is only an excuse that, for many of the other women who will benefit, there are national agreements which apply also to women outside the Civil Service? Since these agreements could be overcome in the previous negotiations, is it not also possible that, although there are national agreements for industrial workers, they could have been overcome, and the lowest-paid women in the Civil Service have a rise?
Mr. Butler: I have on two occasions discussed all these matters, including every aspect of the national agreements involved, with the unions concerned. While I am certainly ready to go on discussing, I cannot alter the decision of the Government, which is not a scurvy one but is an adherence to a definite principle which has been hallowed in our negotiating machinery.
Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to apply this scheme to teachers?
Mr. Butler: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.
Mr. Pannell: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not realise that the principle of equal pay does not rest on whether a woman works in an office or in a factory? It is a certain ethical principle. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that equal pay in industrial establishments means that no woman should get less than an unskilled labourer? Cannot he appreciate as elementary a principle as that, even in view of his complete lack of knowledge of industrial conditions?
Mr. Butler: I try to understand things as best I can and on the whole I get on fairly well, but I should certainly be glad to have a word with the hon. Member about the complexities of this subject. What we have been able to do in the
34
Civil Service as an employer is to give a lead which no other Government have done.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I press the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the matter of local government employees? Are we to understand that the principle announced by the Government applies to them? If so, have the Treasury nothing to say on this? Are they not involved? Has no Government decision been taken about teachers and other local government employees?
Mr. Butler: The teachers and other people have their own negotiating machinery and I can only give an answer in so far as the Government are an employer in the Civil Service. No doubt we shall see further waves of interest and repercussions in this matter but I can go no further than this at present.
Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend—and I am very interested in the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members opposite—whether he can say anything about the older women in the Civil Service and how they will fare under this new proposal?
Mr. Butler: While not wishing to class my hon. Friend in such a category I think that according to the rules of this statement they will do the same as anybody else.

SNOWSTORM, HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS
Mr. J. Stuart: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall now make the statement in reply to Questions Nos. 30 and 34.
I should like, in the first place, to express the sincere sympathy of Her Majesty's Government to all those in the Highlands and Islands who have suffered hardship in the severe conditions of the past fortnight. I should like, also, to express to the local authorities and their staffs, to the police, to the doctors and nurses and the many others who have maintained essential services and, in particular, to the officers and men of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Fishery Protection Service, our grateful thanks for the arduous and dangerous work they have done in maintaining life in the wide areas which were snowbound.

35
Many individuals have given their services cheerfully to help in meeting the crisis, and to these also our thanks are due. I should like also to acknowledge the generosity of those, both in this country and overseas, who have sent gifts or offered help.
I have kept in continuous touch with the situation in these areas and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has been visiting them to obtain a first-hand impression of the work which has been going on and the lessons to be drawn from it. I know, therefore, how considerable is the effort which has been expended during the emergency. For example, from bases at Wick and Kinloss and from the aircraft carrier "Glory," in Loch Eriboll, 231 sorties were flown by helicopters and aircraft of the two Services; and 35½ tons of essential supplies, about half of which consisted of fodder, were dropped at 130 different points. Fishery cruisers of the Scottish Home Department's Fishery Protection Service operated in Orkney and Shetland and stood by elsewhere; they undertook five trips, calling at 12 places, in the course of which they delivered 22 tons of food and other supplies. These arrangements have only been possible because of the admirable co-operation between the various Services and the local authorities and central Departments concerned.
I am glad to say that the position is now returning to normal. All main roads are open, and conditions on others are improving rapidly. It cannot, however, be assumed that a similar storm will not recur, and I would strongly urge that all those who live in isolated areas where they are liable to be cut off from their normal sources of supply should consider what steps they can take to ensure that in a similar emergency they have adequate stocks in hand to maintain themselves and their livestock for a reasonable period. Outside help may, of course, again be necessary, and steps are, therefore, being taken to review the experience of the recent emergency and see what lessons it offers for the future.
Until the deep drifts of snow have disappeared it is impossible to estimate losses of livestock with any accuracy.
Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that the whole House recognises the splendid work
36
done by the various Services that took part in this snowdrift rescue operation. There are one or two points that, I think, are not quite clear. First, could the Secretary of State tell us why fodder had to be dropped to farms? We had understood that those were the places where fodder originated. Certainly, this was not the first snowstorm in the North of Scotland, and it struck people as rather curious that aircraft should have been required to deliver fodder to farms. We should be interested to know how that could have occurred.
Secondly, I think we all recognise, and we especially hope the Secretary of State does, that this operation has proved the value of helicopters in the Highlands, and their use for purposes other than those for which they were used on this occasion. Without detracting from our gratitude for the promptness of the help given, perhaps the Secretary of State will explain why so much help was necessary for people accustomed to this sort of thing for so many years.
Mr. Stuart: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity of answering the points he has made. It is, of course, the case that hill farms and, in particular, crofts do not grow enough fodder for their own consumption always, and, moreover, where, owing to the snow, stock cannot move about, it is necessary to import additional fodder for winter feed. I fear that it may indeed be the case that in the recent mild winters the habit of laying in sufficient against an emergency has rather been lost sight of. Then, as regards the food situation generally, there is the effect of the recent war and food rationing, and of the fact that we became criminals if we hoarded anything—if we kept, say, more than half a pound of sugar in the house.
The points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised are important. In the past, shepherds, stalkers, and so on, always laid in enough in their houses to see them through a longish period of snow and storm, and now that rationing has been abolished by the present Unionist Government—
Mr. Callaghan: And imposed by them.
Mr. Stuart: —I hope they will learn from the lessons of these experiences, will re-read the story of the wise and foolish virgins and follow the example of the former rather than that of the latter.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is not the Secretary of State aware of the difficulty of hoarding essential foodstuffs, in view of the prices of them under the present Government? Will he tell us whether the Government will give any help in the matter of the livestock losses, and whether they intend to do anything about providing greater mechanical means of clearing the roads? Would it not have been better if he himself had gone to the North of Scotland?
Mr. Stuart: I took the view that it was better to drop some fodder and some bread rather than to drop me. In reply to certain criticisms which have appeared in the Press, I would say that I was in Scotland until Thursday of last week. I hope that some Sunday newspapers do not fool all the people all the time.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we appreciate immensely—all thinking people, that is—the work that he has done, and vehemently dissociate ourselves from the attacks on him by certain sections of the Press who ought to know better?
Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while we regret that we were denied the spectacle of seeing him descend by parachute, nevertheless we are very grateful for what was done to help those in need? Would he, in his thanks to those who helped, express our thanks also to the lifeboatmen and to the Commissioners of Northern Lights?
Will there be any further statement from the Joint Under-Secretary of State reviewing the whole situation in Scotland? If so, will that statement include a review of the serious implications for Civil Defence, for if stocks can be so short that will be a very serious matter in the event of a national emergency? I would add only this, that most people in the North did their utmost to help themselves and, in a great many cases, succeeded.
Mr. Stuart: I will consider the point about a further statement when my hon. Friend returns. I do not yet know, as I said, about the livestock losses. That is another important point that is, of course, to be considered. I associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman has said about expressing thanks, as I did, to all, including the lifeboat service, who helped in overcoming the very great difficulties.
Sir D. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was not the slightest need for intervention by the Scottish Office, and that the local authorities alerted the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, who did such a magnificent job to help people to carry on? Nevertheless, the local authorities appreciated the visit that the Joint Under-Secretary of State made after the crisis was over, because there are many lessons to be learned from these hard experiences. My right hon. Friend generously gave thanks to those who helped, but I had difficulty in hearing him because of the noise that was going on, so I would ask him if it is not the case that the railwaymen and the road men did a magnificent job of work, when the blizzard was at its height, in getting the rails clear and the trains running again and the road vehicles moving?
Mr. Stuart: I did endeavour to express sincere thanks to all who assisted in this work, and I do not think that I need now add to them.

AIR POLLUTION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
MR. NABARRO: To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now make a statement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in connection with the legislative and other recommendations embodied in the Report of the Beaver Committee on Air Pollution, Command Paper No. 9322.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I will, with permission, answer Question No. 87, which was not reached at Question Time.
Her Majesty's Government have given most careful consideration to the Report of the Committee on Air Pollution, under the chairmanship of Sir Hugh Beaver.
The Committee estimate that the smoke, grit, dust and noxious gases, emitted into the air from domestic dwellings and industrial plant, cause damage to property and other harmful effects to the tune of about £250 million a year. To this must be added the value of the heat wasted through excessive smoke, which is assessed by the Committee at between £25 million and £50 million a

39
year. These figures take no account of injury to health and loss of life, as for example, the 4,000 deaths caused by smoke-laden fog in London two years ago.
The Committee make a number of important proposals, the adoption of which would, in their opinion, reduce the density of smoke in the atmosphere to an extent amounting perhaps to as much as 80 per cent. over the next 10 or 15 years. Their main recommendations are as follows:

(1) That, subject to certain exceptions, the emission of dark smoke should be prohibited by law.

(2) That industries, when installing new plant, should be required to take all practical steps to prevent the emission of grit and dust.

(3) That, subject to confirmation by the Government, local authorities should be empowered to designate "Smokeless Zones" and "Smoke Control Areas."

(4) That the duty of inspection and enforcement should be placed upon local authorities, except in the case of certain industrial processes, which should be supervised by Government Inspectors.

(5) That householders in smoke restricted districts should be required to burn only smokeless fuel, and that the cost of converting domestic fireplaces for this purpose should be met, to a large extent, by grants from the Exchequer and the local authorities.

These are far-reaching proposals. They involve a number of quite complex technical problems and entail the expenditure of considerable sums of money. In addition, they raise important issues of policy, which directly affect local authorities, industry and private individuals.
All these various questions are at present being examined by the Government in ca-operation with outside interests concerned. I have already had preliminary discussions with representatives of local authorities and the Federation of British Industries. These first meetings indicate that industry would be ready to play its part in implementing this policy, and that the local authorities would be prepared to accept the additional responsibilities involved.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is having similar consultations north of the Border. At the
40
same time, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power is examining the question of increasing the availability of the smokeless fuels that will be needed.
These studies and consultations have not yet reached the stage at which I can make a detailed statement on the various aspects of this question. Nevertheless, I can already inform the House that, while reserving their position in regard to individual proposals, Her Majesty's Government have decided in principle to adopt the policy recommended by the Beaver Committee.
Mr. Nabarro: May I ask my right hon. Friend—
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. At 3.30 p.m., Mr. Speaker, you, in your discretion, interrupted a number of supplementary questions on a matter which properly arose at Question Time on the ground that it was 3.30 p.m. and that Question Time was over. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Local Government has occupied very nearly 10 minutes—
Mr. Ellis Smith: On a good subject.
Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman has occupied that time in telling the House the contents of a Report, which has already been issued and of which nearly everybody was already aware, in reciting the details and in adding that the Government were considering the matter, accepted the principle and had no detailed statement to make. On what principle was this regarded as so urgent a matter as to take up 10 minutes at this time of day?
Mr. Speaker: It has always been customary for the House to allow a Minister to answer a Question which is on the Order Paper after the hour for Questions has elapsed, and it is a matter of opinion whether the contents of the answer which is then delivered are of sufficient importance to justify that course. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) evidently thinks that in this case they were not, but others might have a contrary opinion.
Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government aware that the statement which he has made accepting in principle, and I repeat in principle, a policy for clean air will be received with acclamation by

41
all sections of the British people? In the course of his further consultations with the outside interests to which he referred, will my right hon. Friend seriously bear in mind the position of agriculture and the urgent need for increasing home food production? Will he consult the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers on the serious effect of atmospheric pollution upon the growth of crops?
Mr. Paget: In view of the highly complicated nature of this matter, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the "Economist" that we could not conceivably have a less appropriate subject than this to be dealt with by Private Bill legislation?
Mr. Sandys: First, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) for his remarks and, secondly, to assure him that the organisations to which he referred will be included in the series of consultations which are to take place. As to the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I am sure that he will not expect me to comment on a Bill which has not yet been introduced to the House.
Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the immense sum of £300 million which the nation is losing every year as a result of smoke and grit, and the fact that the Government have had this Report now for more than two months, cannot the right hon. Gentleman go further in assuring us that the Government will give large-scale help in the capital expenditure that is required, particularly for the production of more smokeless fuels? Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government accept the Report in principle mean that they will also make large grants from the Exchequer for this purpose?
Mr. Sandys: I said that we were looking into all the issues which are raised by these proposals. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would wish me to make piecemeal announcements upon this matter, but I hope to be in a position to make a fuller statement before very long.
Mr. Popplewell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House and the country realise the tremendous amount of capital expenditure involved before these
42
conversions can be made fully but that the empowering of local authorities to make smokeless zones, to which he referred, is not likely to be very expensive from the Government's point of view? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is prepared to frame a regulation which will allow permissive powers to local authorities to adopt it and establish smokeless zones without their having to resort to the cumbersome and costly Private Bill procedure?
Mr. Sandys: That, in general terms, is one of the proposals in the Report.
Mr. Popplewell: But will the Minister take action quickly upon it?
Mr. Dodds: These proposals of the Beaver Committee are far-reaching and very necessary; but does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that much progress will be made quickly without further legislation by this House? What does he propose to do about that? Is he going to leave it to voluntary support?
Mr. Sandys: One of the main proposals of the Report is that there should be legislation. I have said that I hope to be in a position before very long to make a further statement on the subject.
Mr. T. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman enumerated most of the proposals of the Beaver Committee, which we all welcome. He did not, however, refer to the action which the Government propose to take to deal with burning pit heaps, which are a menace in many mining areas. Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and the National Coal Board on the control of these obnoxious pit heaps, which are causing so much disturbance?

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, SUTTON COLDFIELD
Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement concerning the rail accident at Sutton Coldfield last Sunday.
The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Yes, Sir. On Sunday, 23rd January, the 12.15 p.m. express passenger train from York to Bristol, which normally runs via

43
Tamworth, was diverted via Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield on account of permanent way work on the main Tamworth route. In consequence, a conductor driver who knew the altered route joined the engine at Burton.
At about 4.15 p.m. as the train entered Sutton Coldfield station under clear signnals, the engine and nine of the 10 coaches became derailed on a sharp curve. The engine capsized, and five of the coaches were demolished or heavily damaged. I regret to say that 14 passengers and three railway servants, including the conductor driver and the fireman, lost their lives. In addition, 45 people were injured of whom 25 are still in hospital; I am informed that none is regarded as dangerously ill.
An express passenger train travelling in the opposite direction was stopped well clear by the prompt action of two railway servants who were travelling in the derailed train and ran to the closed signal box and put the signals to danger.
A formal inquiry will be opened by my Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways in Birmingham, on Tuesday, 1st February, and the House will understand that I cannot make any further statement at present.
The House, I am sure, will wish to express its deep sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives in this accident, and with those who were injured. The rescue operations were organised with great promptness and efficiency, and I should like to pay a tribute to every one of the various local and railway services who took part in this prolonged and distressing work.
Mr. Callaghan: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, associate ourselves with what the Minister has said, and pay our tribute to the presence of mind of those railwaymen who so quickly took action?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. D. Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to prevent the newspapers from anticipating the results of both the private and public inquiries before they are officially made known?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is not a matter over which I have any control.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make on business?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. We have considered it to be generally convenient to the House not to move the Second Reading of the Transport (Borrowing Powers) Bill today because, as the House is aware, the modernisation proposals of the British Transport Commission which have a direct bearing upon the Bill have not been made public until this morning.
The remainder of today's business and tomorrow's business is as announced.
On Thursday, we shall take the Second Reading of the Crofters (Scotland) Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution as already announced, and the Motions to set up the Estimates Committee and the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure.
In view of representations made from both sides of the House, it is not proposed to take the debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs until a later occasion.
Perhaps I should say at once that it will be necessary to make arrangements for an early debate, perhaps next week, to discuss the railway situation.
Mr. Woodburn: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not made up his mind when the Scottish debate will take place? I have no doubt we shall get notice in due course.
Mr. Bevan: May I ask, in view of the fact that Ministers do not seem to find it difficult to make a series of statements after Questions on matters of no very great urgency, whether the Government intend to volunteer a statement on the Formosa situation and President Eisenhower's statement to Congress?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Bevan: Surely this is a subject of the utmost gravity and one which is engaging the interest of the whole country. The House of Commons meets today, and, presumably, the Government are not unaware of the contents of the President's message and must have been ready to prepare their own statement. Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing at all to say at the moment on this matter?
Mr. Crookshank: I do not know whether this question is addressed to me on business, but, assuming that it is, I would say that my right hon. Friend did not think it appropriate to make any statement today.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN
Neil Loudon Desmond McLean, esquire, for Inverness.
John Edward Bernard Hill, esquire, for South Norfolk.
William Donald Massey Sumner, esquire, for Orpington.

BILL PRESENTED
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Bill to make further provision as to the salary and expenses of the Governor of Northern Ireland; to transfer to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland jurisdiction in respect of certain appeals by way of case stated; to enlarge the legislative power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in respect of the administration and distribution of estates of deceased persons, the printing and publication of statutory rules, and the appointment, removal, remuneration, jurisdiction and functions of coroners; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Major Gwilym Lloyd-George; supported by Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth and Mr. Henry Brooke; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ARMY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.12 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I rise to move this Motion in somewhat unusual circumstances. Those hon. Members who were here will agree with me when I say that we had what might be called a dress rehearsal for this Second Reading debate on Friday, 12th November, when we had a full and useful discussion on this self-same subject. I do not want to weary the House by a repetition of that debate or by attempting to deal fully with a number of matters which have already been ably and lucidly covered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). I think, however, that for the benefit of those hon. Members who were not here on that occasion, and because this is the Second Reading of the Bill, I should touch briefly on the main points in the Bill.
  Before dealing with the Bill itself, I should like to repeat what has been said on so many occasions, namely, to express our gratitude and admiration to the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South, for the work which it did. I should like also to express on behalf of us all and of the Members of the Committee, our indebtedness to the Departmental Committee set up to assist the Select Committee for the work it did, and, in particular, two members of that Departmental Committee who have now left the Service, Sir Thomas Cash and Lieut.-General Sir Kenneth McLean.
  This Bill follows very closely indeed the recommendations of the Committee, and apart from drafting changes and other minor matters the general policy proposals of the Bill are the same. I would say for the benefit of those hon. Members present who were not with us on the previous occasion, that the main features of the Bill are, first, changes made in regard to the death penalty. In this instance, there were a number of offences which previously attracted the death penalty and a number of them are

  47
  specified in Clauses 24 and 25. The offences which attract this penalty are now considerably restricted, as it must now be proved that they were done with intent to assist the enemy. In the past, the offence of mutiny could attract the death penalty, but it is now limited to certain specific forms of mutiny and for other kinds the death penalty does not now apply.
  The Bill assimilates the maximum penalties for officers and other ranks where, in the past, they were at variance. It also provides for civilians employed by or following the Forces to be tried by court-martial for offences for which otherwise they would be tried by the civil courts in the countries abroad where they may be. This change is a logical and sensible one in view of the fact that British troops are on overseas service in many countries. We welcome this step and it has behind it the agreement of the Whitley Council.
  There is an alteration about the forfeiture of service. Many hon. Members will recall that in the past conviction for desertion carried with it the automatic forfeiture of all previous service, although it could be restored by good conduct or on other grounds. In the new Bill the only automatic forfeiture of service is for the period of absence. Although the court may impose a larger forfeiture, the only automatic forfeiture is limited to the actual period of absence.
  Lastly, the Bill makes provision for its renewal by Order in Council after the passing of a Resolution by each House of Parliament instead of the procedure, hitherto followed, of passing an annual Army Act through the House. That system could continue but as the Bill is at present drafted the Act would be renewable annually without fresh legislation, but for not more than five years, unless Parliament otherwise decides.
  As I said in the previous discussion on this subject, both sides of the House are united in the principle of preventing this annual Bill becoming either the means of fillibustering and holding up Government business or becoming an unnecessary bone of contention.
  What I said before and what I say again now is that this actual method, as it were, puts a safety catch on the House for five years. I should add that at this stage there is no absolute certainty
  48
  about the workability of the ingenious device originally suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). It is not that we wish to go against the principle, but in Committee, we shall have to look carefully into the mechanics because, as he agrees, this is not a simple thing to effect by legislation.
  I have given a very brief outline of the main features of the Bill and I do not believe that hon. Members will wish me to do more in view of our previous debates and the fact that a large number of hon. Members were on the Committee and know more of the details than I do myself. I would only say, in conclusion, that many times hon. Members from both sides of the House have been asked by constituents what was the object of the House of Commons staying up all night, with Members making one another sleepless and cross, and all to no avail. I feel now that, if that question is put to me, I can point to this Bill as one positive result of a series of late, stormy all-night Sittings. Finally, there was a settlement which resulted in the setting up of the Select Committee, and as a result of its work the Government are now in a position to put before the House this Bill, which, I am sure, will be of great value to the Army in the future. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the effect of Clause 70 (2) upon the law of Scotland?
  Mr. Head: The hon. Member has raised a point which will be a very good one for consideration during the Committee stage, but I do not think it is a Second Reading matter.
  Mr. Ross: It is a very important principle.
  4.19 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: There are a number of matters on which I am in agreement with the Secretary of State for War, the first in expressing our gratitude to those who served on the Select Committee and also to the Departmental Committee which assisted us in our work. When we first began our activities we were somewhat in the dark and the idea of having a Select Committee of Members of the House working side by side almost simultaneously with a

  49
  Departmental Committee was, I think, a new one. It proved to work extremely well, and it is one which the House may well note for future reference when it wishes to make further large-scale inquiries into other topics.
  I agree also with the right hon. Gentleman that there is little point in worrying the House now by any extensive description of the contents of the Bill, with which hon. Members, from earlier debates and from the Report of the Committee, will already be familiar. I must confess that the right hon. Gentleman has already referred to some of the points I had particularly intended to mention, though I trust that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State, who will wind up this debate, will be able to satisfy my hon. Friend and his compatriots on the point on Clause 70 (2), raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
  In general, I think that this Bill reflects a complete change in the temper of our national life and of the attitude of the nation towards its Army. At the beginning of this century the attitude of the general public towards the Army, and particularly towards the Regular private soldier, was curiously contradictory. In those days the Regular private soldier was ipso facto a hero by the fact that he was a private soldier, but the public, having once conceded that point, was firmly of the opinion, first, that probably he was not a very respectable person or he would not have taken up that career, and, secondly, that almost anything in the way of pay, quarters, discipline, and conditions of life was good enough for him. And he responded by heroism on the one hand and by a patient endurance of undesirable conditions on the other which, while it may have reflected credit on him, was not perhaps of the best service to the nation in the long run.
  The nation has now decided that it will not put up with that kind of thing any longer. Indeed, it has been reaching that conclusion stage by stage over the last 50 years or so, and inevitably the introduction of National Service has had the effect of requiring the public to consider much more closely and much more reasonably than ever before the conditions under which a soldier's life is lived.
  50
  It is, therefore, no coincidence that all the major changes involved in Army law in this Bill are in the direction of making Army life a more civilised and reasonable occupation, an occupation that it is more reasonable to ask a self-respecting man to take up. Opinion in the House will differ as to whether in those directions we may at some point have gone far enough. I do not think any will consider that we have gone too far.
  I would draw the attention of the House particularly to the limitation of the death penalty to the graver and more aggravated forms of mutiny, and to certain offences which have, in effect, the taint of treason about them; and the removal of the death penalty in respect of offences which are caused solely by cowardice or from those forms of mutiny which do not directly aid the enemy and are not accompanied with violence. The provisions with regard to punishments take up the same story—an attempt to apply considerations of reason, justice, and humanity to discipline in the Services.
  The same is true also with regard to certain changes that are made in the law in regard to enlistment. When we debated the Report, some disagreement was expressed about the position of persons who are enlisted as boys and who, on reaching 18 years of age, may wish to express a conscientious objection to military service. I am glad that in this matter, as in others, the Bill follows the recommendations of the Committee. The House is indebted to the Secretary of State for introducing a Bill which in all respects so faithfully follows the Committee's recommendations. However, on the point I was mentioning, the Committee was anxious that the House should be fully seized of all the arguments, and hon. Members interested in that point will be able to refer to the relevant appendix, and see there fully why the Committee reached the view it did, and what alternative courses of action are open.
  It is also gratifying to notice in the Bill, if one observes it rather more narrowly, a great many tightening-up provisions which will protect the soldier, the N.C.O. and the officer from a variety of petty annoyances. When we dealt with this matter in the Committee, those of us who were less well acquainted with the intricacies of military life were astounded to find the number of vexations to which

  51
  officers and soldiers could be subjected from time to time, particularly with regard to financial matters.
  I remember one long discussion with regard to attempts to reclaim sums which, on this, that or the other ground, might be owing after a man had left the Service. Hon. Members who examine the Bill in detail will see that in such matters we have made a consistent attempt to remove unnecessary vexations and to produce legislation which is more humane and more sensible.
  I say "more sensible" because one has to remember that parts of an Army Act, sometimes very important parts affecting the lives and liberties of men, have to be administered by officers in the Army who are not lawyers, possibly when overseas and when having to act speedily and in an emergency. In the course of our deliberations we frequently had to bear that in mind, namely, not only what was the right substance of such an Act but how could we so express it as to be readily intelligible, and what administrative provisions could be made so that the exact meaning of the law was made clear to those who would have to administer it.
  This is, then, a Bill which, with regard to enlistment, discipline, and all the details of a soldier's life, and with regard to those matters in which the military machine comes into contact particularly with civilian property rights—as in such questions as billeting—seeks to be modern, sensible, and humane. This Bill, resulting from our Report, is now submitted to the House for detailed consideration.
  At a later stage no doubt there will be points of disagreement—indeed, there were some points on which the members of the Committee themselves disagreed—and on which my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself will no doubt wish to have further discussion later. Yet I cannot feel that there will be any hesitation in giving this Bill a Second Reading, and there is only one other remark I need make.
  I have referred to those parts of the Bill which are aimed at removing from the soldier's life a number of petty vexations from which he has suffered from time to time. All who were on the Committee will agree that in this part of our work we were greatly helped by the life-
  52
  long experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). If this is not too uncontroversial an occasion to refer to it, I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, before indulging in wisecracks at the expense of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley on another occasion, might have acquainted himself with the full details of the military career of my hon. Friend—
  Mr. George Wigg: Not all.
  Mr. Stewart: It seemed to me that the remarks of the Prime Minister on that occasion were—if I may borrow one of his own phrases—as ignorant as they were ill-natured.
  I was saying that we were indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for the detailed knowledge to which I have referred. There is another matter in regard to which we were indebted to him. That was in helping us to frame a formula on which is based the last and most important Clause of this Bill. It is, indeed, a most remarkable Clause. It makes an alteration in a procedure which has now been established in this country for a considerable time and the original reasons for which are embodied in so important a document as the Bill of Rights. I believe nonetheless that this is the right procedure.
  The House ought to be aware of the importance of what it is doing, and that if it passes the Clause it will have got rid of the annual Army Act debate and will have substituted for it an annual debate on an Order in Council. In a sense it is making the continuation of the Army Act itself a matter not of primary but of delegated legislation.
  The change is important, and I believe it is the right one to make, but, as the Bill now stands, that procedure can be continued for only five years. We have still to consider in what form, after the five years is up, a fresh Army Act ought to be introduced. It is on that matter, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that we have to enter into very serious discussions during the Committee stage.
  In view of the constitutional importance of the Clause, the Opposition are very glad that the Government have seen fit—I understand that this is their intention—to take the Committee stage of the Bill in Committee of the whole House. I

  53
  know that it is a somewhat long and cumbrous Bill for that purpose, but I am sure that it would not be right to make such an important constitutional change in any other way than in Committee of the whole House.
  With an expression of thanks again to the Departmental Committee, with an expression of appreciation of the Government's action in embodying practically the whole of the Select Committee's recommendations in the Bill, and with the indication that there will be certain points of dispute at later stages of the Bill, I am very happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in commending the Bill to the House for Second Reading.
  4.32 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: There are one or two points upon which 'we require a little more information from the Government now that we have reached the stage when the Bill is soon to become law. As I understand it, when the Bill is passed it will then be for the Government to decide upon an appointed day when the new Act will come into force. I should like some indication from the Under-Secretary as to when the appointed day will be.
  I had hoped that it would be about a year from now, but it is clear that a great deal of work has to be done in making the provisions of the new Army and Air Force Bills known throughout the Army and Air Force, entailing the rewriting of the existing Manual of Military Law. I have no doubt whatever that these footnotes will be prepared by the very competent and scholarly branch of the War Office which deals with legal matters.
  That is a very important task, for the new Act will have to be administered and interpreted by officers who are not lawyers; and, therefore, the care and scholarly approach of those who write the footnotes is very important indeed. I should like the Minister to tell us what is being done about that side of the work.
  I should also like the hon. Gentleman to put to his right hon. Friend the point that it would be as well to enlist the enthusiastic services of a historian of established reputation to write some of the chapters of the new Manual of Military Law. Many officers will have to tackle those chapters for examination purposes, and they might as well tackle the
  54
  job as being one of pleasure instead of one of grinding boredom. Moreover, I should have thought that it would have added something to the Army's reputation if the historical chapters were written by a professional historian with a high reputation.
  I hope that the Minister will consider this suggestion, for the Departmental Committee has done its job and it is now up to the Army and the Air Force to do their job, which is to make the new provisions intelligently known, and known in such a way as to establish the new system of law in a manner which will permit it to grow up easily and wisely, which has not always happened in the past.
  I am one of those people who disagree fundamentally with the right hon. Gentleman. Now that we are back to where we were when the Bill was born, in the hurly-burly of the debate on the Army and Air Force Bill almost three years ago, there is no harm in explaining why. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but he has, I think, nailed his colours to the mast of increased pay for the Army. He felt that increased pay would not only provide all the recruits for the Army, but that nothing much else needed to be done to make the Army happy and contented.
  I have never held that view. I have always held the view that the conditions must be such as to enable a man to bear discipline with the full knowledge that he was a civilian when he started and will' become a civilian again. I have argued that the Army should be welded into the life of the nation. I was extremely interested to read a report of a lecture given in October by Field Marshal Montgomery, who, I am happy to say, came down on my side against the right hon. Gentleman. Field Marshal Montgomery said that what matters in the Army is conditions and that pay rises are not of first importance.
  Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman is most insidious and clever in putting things into other people's mouths, saying them so often that they almost appear to be true. As to nailing my colours to the mast, before there was a realistic pay increase I always maintained that pay and conditions should be improved but I never said that that was the be-all and end-all of it.
  Mr. Wigg: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman call me clever. He has called me many things before, but never that.
  There is no cleverness about it at all. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman when he was in opposition, and he had only two constructive approaches. One was to make the maximum use of leaks, to the extent that he has now the trade qualification of a plumber. The other was "More pay and spend more money on the Army." That was what the right hon. Gentleman said. Now he has had the great advantage of having for three years been the Secretary of State for War and we now have the Army that we have got.
  We have had another example today. I am sorry to strike this controversial note, but it must be done. Today my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), rather an innocent, had a Question on the Order Paper about recruiting. He at once got the reply from the Under-Secretary "There is no crisis about this. It is all right." My right hon. Friend did not ask the right question. He asked only about external recruiting, and that is only 10 per cent. down. He ought to ask about internal recruiting. What has happened there is a very different story.
  Three years ago—I played my humble part, and I am not ashamed of it; I would do it again if I got the chance—we set about forcing the Government to eat their words. We were playing a party game, but the Conservatives also play party games; we are in the House of Commons to play party games—
  Mr. Head: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should be delighted to engage in a debate on recruiting, but, as we are dealing with the Army Bill and I cannot see that there will be an opportunity to reply to what appears to be a recruiting or manpower debate, I question whether the hon. Gentleman is in order.
  Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. I have assumed that, as the right hon. Gentleman has moved the Second Reading of the Bill, he has read the Report. Of course that was a bold assumption on my part. But the Report and the Bill deal with conditions of service and with terms of enlistment, and I should have thought I was in order in dealing with what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I should have thought that it would be an encouragement to join the Army if the Bill were satisfactory.
  Mr. Wigg: I am extremely obliged to you, Sir Charles, and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if anything I have said is inconvenient, but I intend to say it again. I have said it many times before, and before our consideration of the Army Estimates is concluded I think that the right hon. Gentleman will hear it again. I know that it is inconvenient and that his convenience is important, but the good of the Army is even more important.
  The Army is faced with an increasing recruiting crisis, an increasing disinclination of young men now in the Army to stay in the Army. I want the steps we took three years ago in the direction of improving discipline and reorganising the Army step by step so that Army life will be satisfactory enough not only to encourage men to join the Regular Army but to stay in when they are there.
  I have said many times before, and I now say it again, that one of the chief obstacles is the right hon. Gentleman, because his mind is closed. He believes the Army is all right now that pay has been increased. He can see, as it were, only just beyond the end of his nose. It may not be too late for him to reform. I hope not. I hope that this Bill has been a lesson to him, because we all remember that memorable day when we asked him to extend the Bill for 15 months. He would not have it, but ultimately he moved the very Amendment against which he had advised his hon. Friends to vote, and they were wise enough to take his advice.
  He has got the Bill, and I want him to learn from his experience. Here is a Bill born of party controversy. A row broke out and certainly caused a certain amount of political inconvenience, but as soon as the problem was taken upstairs it was tackled on non-party lines. We have produced a Bill under the wise guidance and leadership of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) and I think it will serve the Army very well for a considerable time. It has come about because both sides of the House, faced with the problem, have found a solution to meet the facts.

  57
  This is not the only problem which faces the Armed Forces. It is not the only problem which faces the Army or the Air Force. I should be out of order if I attempted to make a list of what those problems are. I am pleading with the Government, not for the first time, to use the technique worked out for the first time in launching the Bill to deal with the problems of the working of the National Service Acts and of Regular recruitment.
  I say again, and here I cannot be charged with making any political point, that it is beyond the capacity of any one party in this House to solve those problems. I hold the view that the appointed day for the Bill will come in 1956, and by that time there may well be a Labour Government in office. If that happens, some of my hon. Friends will have to tackle the problems which face hon. Gentlemen now sitting opposite. The problems will not in the meantime have decreased in size or gravity. They cannot be solved by my hon. Friends alone any more than by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  In saying that, I cannot put the problem more fairly, and I cannot possibly be charged with making a party point. I am pleading with the Government, then, without pressure, or loss of face, or loss of self-respect, to face these great national problems on a national basis. The House of Commons is generous and the British are generous people, so if Ministers come here and ask for the cooperation of all sides of the House, we shall at once be on the road to finding a solution. Certainly that would be much better than doing what the right hon. Gentleman does in taking advantage of a silly Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and giving the kind of answer that fits the Question.
  That is not the way to do it. Let us have party battles, but remember that we are an impoverished country and we cannot possibly afford to spend the amount that perhaps ought to be spent on defence if we are to get the kind of military security which we need in the modern world. We cannot get that far, for we can afford to spend only a certain part of our national income on defence. Surely, then, it is wisdom and common sense to try to spend what we can afford to the best possible advantage. Of
  58
  course, the way in which the money is spent is decided at the time of the defence debates when the Service Estimates are debated, and year by year that gives us the opportunity to check and to thrash out these questions.
  But there are problems like the one which we are now considering of bringing up to date a Service which is landed with a code of conditions almost 100 years out of date. That can best be tackled in the way in which this problem has been tackled. The experience of the Select Committee and the results of that experience which the House is considering today point an arrow in the direction which the House of Commons and the country would be well advised to follow in the future.
  4.46 p.m.
  Brigadier O. L. Prior - Palmer: I have a very short observation to make. As the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) said, an attempt has been made to raise the status of the soldier and the officer in the eyes of the nation and to make his lot more easy. There are many things of great importance which we found we could incorporate in our Report and which have been incorporated in the Bill. There are other equally, if not more, important things incorporated in the Report which could not be incorporated in the Bill.
  I make an urgent plea to my right hon. Friend to look more closely at these things and see whether he cannot implement them, particularly those about the education of the children of people in the Forces and their housing, and so on, when they leave the Army.
  4.48 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to make some comments on the Bill with a view to improving it. I agree with those who have already said that it is an important Bill for many reasons. First, unlike the Army Acts which are passed annually for one year only, this is to be of longer duration. Secondly, it purports to codify the law relating to British soldiers. Thirdly, it is the work of a Select Committee of Parliament which made recommendations of which this Bill is one of the results. Fourthly, it makes grave inroads on the jurisdiction of the civil power.

  59
  The Committee has done its work well, but in my submission not perfectly. Therefore, I venture in no party spirit to suggest, purely on their ethical and juridical merits, some improvements which I wish to embody in Amendments, if I get the opportunity, when the Bill comes to the Committee stage. In this Second Reading debate I shall merely indicate the principles and my line of constructive criticism and arguments. I hope they will commend themselves to the Government and to the House and will predispose the Secretary of State for War to accept the Amendments which I shall put on the Notice Paper.
  In general terms, my criticisms are that there are grave omissions from the Bill and gaps in the purported codification; the system of law to be applied lacks breadth; the Bill is not completely British in structure; the Bill fails to implement advances in juridical thought; the Bill retains the outmoded doctrine of implied malice, and the Bill leaves unfulfilled a major promise which was made in Committee.
  I make these criticisms in no invidious or party spirit. The Amendments which I shall suggest will, I hope, be accepted on their ethical and juridical merits. In putting them forward I am supported by distinguished lawyers, university men, business and professional men, leading newspapers and by the opinions and desires of the volunteers and conscripts who will be affected by this legislation.
  I deal, first, with the point that the law to be codified should be the best that Britain can produce. For this purpose the whole realm of British law should have been surveyed by learned and experienced jurists, but it is no disrespect to the Select Committee to say that it is apparent from the Bill that this was not done. It has been well said by a distinguished lawyer and soldier, Professor T. B. Smith, M.A., who occupies the Chair of Law in Aberdeen University, that:
  "… in completing a military code for the British Army it would be appropriate … to take into consideration at each stage the solutions not only of the English legal system but of the Scottish legal system as well. The better of the two should be adopted or indeed it might be possible in some respects to improve on both."
  60
  I respectfully agree with Professor Smith, but that has not been done, as I shall show. The fact that it has not been done leaves the Bill incomplete and far from perfect. This is intended to be a British Bill to make provision for the British Army amenable to British law, but it is drafted as an English Bill to make provision for the British Army amenable to English law only.
  I say this for the purpose not of advancing any narrow nationalism. Juridical science is too broad and legislation is too important for that. On the contrary, I say it as a British student of law who seeks to make the Bill as useful as possible. I am willing to agree that the Measure is a beneficent departure in some ways from outmoded and old-fashioned Army Acts. It seeks to provide a military code for serving soldiers, but my criticism is that it does so too narrowly and incompletely.
  I have said that I am not alone in putting forward these views. I have already quoted that distinguished jurist and soldier, Professor T. B. Smith. I think it right to quote what one of the two leading Scottish newspapers has said upon the topic. Both of the leading Scottish newspapers, the "Glasgow Herald" and the "Scotsman" support the point of view which I am putting forward. Those two great organs represent a considerable and important phase of Scottish educated opinion. In its first leading article, on 26th November last, the "Scotsman" said:
  "The Americans have seen to it that their forces in this country are not subject to English law. Yet Scottish people have unwelcome principles of English law thrust upon them when they serve in the armed forces. What is the remedy? It is unlikely that the predominant partner would permit the evolution of an eclectic system of military law, which would combine the best features of English and Scots law. There are matters of procedure in which Scotland is fairer. Probably there would be an uproar in England if an Englishman received better terms from an eclectic military law than he would get under the law applicable to civilians. But that is no reason why a Scot should have to be worse treated by the law of the Army than he would be under Scots law. The remedy which Professor Smith suggests is that a soldier while in Scotland should be enabled to claim trial before a Scottish Civil Court instead of by military law when he is charged with 'an act or omission punishable by the law of England'."
  I ask the House to note that the point that I am making is not a new one; it

  61
  was made before the Select Committee. It is significant that when the Committee was considering the two systems of law it was decided to deal with Scottish law later and separately, but that has not been done up to now. The relevant passage in the evidence is on page 38 of the Report, at question 253. The Chairman said:
  "… it is very difficult this interlocking of military and civil jurisdiction. Mr. Scott reminds me that something has to be done about the Scottish courts. You will bear that in mind?"
  The witness said:
  "Yes, indeed. It is Section 167."
  The learned Parliamentary counsel—and this is the important part—said:
  "I do not know if I might mention this now, but I thought probably the most sensible course would be to wait until we have all the clauses, and then ask the Scottish draftsman to look at it. I think it would be putting undue labour on him to ask him now"
  Again, I draw attention to the fact that this sensible suggestion there agreed to in the Select Committee was never implemented, and it is not implemented in the Bill. The nearest to it is that part of the Bill which under the heading "Application to different countries" applies the legislation to Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, "certain overseas territories" the Federation of Malaya and the Republic of Ireland. It would be ironical to suggest that the Bill applies to Scottish law or touches any major point of principle or difference between English and Scottish law.
  I now turn to my second point. This is that the Measure is incomplete in its codification. The House will observe that the Bill purports to codify, but in my submission it is incomplete in its codification. To prove this one need only look at the principle applied to Clauses 24 to 69 where we find codification of military law. There each military offence is dealt with separately—46 offences in 46 separate Clauses.
  The details are as follows, and I mention them for the purpose of the record. The seven Clauses, 24 to 30, deal with seven different offences, from aiding the enemy to looting. The six Clauses, 31 to 36, deal with six different offences, from mutiny to disobedience. The five Clauses, 37 to 41, deal with five different offences, from desertion to failure to perform military duties. The five Clauses, 42 to 46,
  62
  deal with five different offences, from malingering to offences relating to property. The two Clauses, 47 and 48, deal with two different offences arising from billeting and the requisitioning of vehicles.
  The four Clauses, 49 to 52, deal with four different offences relating to flying. The four Clauses, 53 to 56, deal with four different offences relating to arrest, imprisonment and escape. The three Clauses, 57 to 59, deal with three different offences, relating to courts-martial, false evidence and obstruction. The 10 Clauses, 60 to 69, deal with a variety of 10 different offences, ranging from injurious disclosures to prejudice of military discipline.
  This is a fairly complete codification of offences that are military offences in 46 separate Clauses. Contrast it with the treatment meted out to offences called civil offences which are dealt with in one Clause only, namely, Clause 70, where there is no attempt at codification at all. Instead, we find only these general words. Subsection (1):
  "Any person subject to military law who commits a civil offence, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, shall be guilty of an offence against this section."
  Subsection (2) gives an explanation of what "civil offence" means in these words:
  "… the expression 'civil offence' means any act or omission punishable by the law of England or which, if committed in England, would be punishable by that law …"
  What happens if the offence be an act or omission punishable by the law of Scotland? What happens if it be an offence which, if committed in Scotland, would be punishable by that law? There is no provision at all. In the Bill there is a great gap.
  There are several grave objections to this Clause, but at the moment I am concerned only with one, namely, the contrast between the manner in which this Bill deals with military offences on the one hand and with civil offences on the other. I say it is unjust and unfair to soldiers, because either both kinds of offences should be codified, or neither. If they are not codified, civil offences should be left out of the Bill altogether and left to the civil authorities. I favour that course. I say that it is wrong to oust the jurisdiction of the civil power when a civil offence has been committed, whether by a soldier or by a civilian.

  63
  For example, take the case of a soldier who is charged with stabbing, or robbing, or some other civil offence. The civil jurisdiction should operate fully and freely throughout Britain, unless the offence be a military offence committed by a military man within the military code. This Clause 70 is an infringement of the civil jurisdiction and, in effect, opens the door to the operation of the military State, and to the possibility of grave abuse. It is inconsistent with the democratic civil State in which we live, and it should be left out of the Bill. Alternatively, if it be included in the Bill for the purpose of taking out of the hands of the civil authorities soldiers who commit civil offences, then I say that the civil offences should be codified as the military offences are codified in this Bill.
  I suppose that people who object to such codification will base their objection on the ground that to do so would fill a large volume. But this Bill is not an ordinary Army Bill. It is not a Bill intended to last for only a year. This is a Bill of much longer duration, and if the codification of military offences is to be included, then in my submission the codification of civil offences should also be included in it. What is right for one should be right for the other. As it stands, it is invidious.
  My rejoinder to those who oppose the argument I am venturing to advance is this: do not codify civil offences; do not take the offenders against the civil law away from the civil jurisdiction of the place where they have offended. This would be just to all soldiers, and particularly to National Service men who are removed only temporarily—and involuntarily—from the civil jurisdiction for the limited period of their National Service.
  This brings me, naturally, to the other objections to Clause 70; they are all of an equally grave character. First, the soldier who commits a civil offence is made subject to English law, whether he be English or Scottish, and regardless of the place where the offence is committed. This is a hardship to both English and Scots—
  Dr. H. Morgan: And Welsh.
  Mr. Hughes: —because in many respects the system of law in the two
  64
  countries is different. Secondly, the Bill performs this unfair operation not by substantive enactment, which would be the straightforward way, but by reference, which all good lawyers anathematise as an indirect and improper manner of legislation. Both of these are objections of substance.
  The most illuminating way of showing how a Scottish person would be prejudiced if tried by English law is by way of example, and the example I give is this. The doctrine of "implied malice" is English, and does not apply in Scotland. This doctrine may cost a man his life in England, but not in Scotland—it is as grave as that. This doctrine means that in a case where no malice is expressed or openly indicated, the law will imply it from circumstances such as, for instance, a deliberate, cruel act; the commission of a felony by an offender, or the killing of an officer of justice in the legal execution of his duty.
  A recent Royal Commission recommended the abolition of this doctrine of "implied malice" which, as I have said, sometimes means a sentence of death in England, but not in Scotland. I ask most emphatically that the House shall bear in mind this very grave disparity, this grave difference between the law in England and the law in Scotland, and apply the observations I am making to the defects in the Bill.
  I think the House will agree that I have shown that there are grave omissions in the Bill. There are gaps in the purported codification; the system of law which is applied lacks breadth, and is not completely British—Scotland is still part of Britain but the Bill is solely English; the Bill fails to implement the advances in juridical thought recommended by the very recent Royal Commission and retains the outmoded doctrine of implied malice. Above all, it fails to implement the suggestion made to and accepted by the Select Committee in the quotation that I have given to the House.
  I apologise to the House for keeping it so long, but this is a very important matter and I think it is right that I should indicate some other grave omissions. Clause 103 sets out elaborate rules of procedure in five subsections and 13 paragraphs, but it omits some essentials. I submit that it should include provisions

  65
  for the following important matters: First, an accused man should be required to give notice—prior to trial—of his intention to use any special defence, such as insanity, alibi, or self-defence. This already applies in the courts of justice in Scotland, but not in England.
  Secondly—and I am skipping over a number of serious objections and omissions—the opening speeches by counsel for the prosecution and defence should be dispensed with; the case should be decided upon the evidence and not upon opening speeches. This would give a more accurate statement of the case. This, again, is law in Scotland, but not in England. Thirdly, the closing speech by counsel for the prosecution should always precede that of counsel for the defence, whether or not witnesses other than the accused are called for the defence. It should never be forgotten that in both systems of law the accused is deemed to be not guilty until he is actually proved guilty.
  A fourth objection arises from the finding of the verdict of "guilty, but insane." This should be altered to a finding that "the accused committed the act but was insane at the time." This is a matter of common sense, because a person who is insane when he commits an offence cannot be guilty of the offence, inasmuch as his insanity precluded him from forming the guilty intention which is necessary to constitute that offence. There are other objections with which I shall not trouble the House at the moment, and I shall not stress my second objection to Clause 70, namely, that it involves legislation by reference, because the legal objections to that form of legislation are well known.
  The Government's outlook with regard to Amendments to the Bill is far from satisfactory, fluid or healthy. This is shown by the answer which the Under-Secretary of State for War gave to three reasonable Questions—designed to improve the Bill—which I put as far back as 21st December last. I invite the attention of the House to the constructive nature of the Questions, as contrasted with the far from constructive character of the evasive replies which were given. I asked, first, whether he would
  "alter the Army Act so as to ensure that a British soldier who is charged with a civil offence not specified in the Army Act while serving in Scotland shall be entitled to claim
  66
  trial before a Scottish civil court instead of before a military court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 256.]
  Secondly, I asked
  "if, in considering a new military legal code for the British Army, he will take into account at each stage on their merits the solutions not only of the English legal system, but also of the Scottish legal system"
  and, thirdly,
  "if, in considering any future changes in the Army Act, he will take steps to define the various military offences which may be charged and the defences available to persons who may be charged with such offences; and, in doing so, if he will incorporate, on their merits, the provisions of the relevant Scottish law as well as those of the relevant English law."
  The House may find it incredible that the Minister's only answer to those three constructive Questions was based on a false political philosophy. He did not address his mind to any of the specific points which were made. On the contrary, he said that the Army Bill was
  "drafted on the lines of the Report by the Select Committee on the Army Act and Air Force Act, without any alteration of policy or principle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 253.]
  This seems to mean that the principle and policy of that Report must be accepted blindly and slavishly by the House. That is a tribute to a Select Committee which is more than I can bear. If the House is to do that, we might as well abandon this debate, declaring that we have delegated our rights and duties to that Select Committee. This would be a shocking confession of defeatism, and I object to any such dereliction from our duties, sacrifice of our constituents' rights, or departure from Parliamentary debate.
  I hope that the Minister will reconsider the unbecoming frustration which possessed him at the time, and which prompted his negative answer. I am sure that the House expects him to consider suggested improvements on their merits, with a view to making the Bill as useful as possible to soldiers and citizens alike, in the best interests of Britain—including Scotland—and the Commonwealth of Nations.
  5.18 p.m.
  Sir Patrick Spens: I should like to reply, quite shortly, to the obviously carefully prepared speech of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). He has made some very trenchant criticisms

  67
  of the draft Bill which the Select Committee recommended to the House and which is now represented, with only a very few alterations, by the Bill to which we are asked to give a Second Reading today. I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman may not have read all the evidence which was placed before the Select Committee. Every matter which he raised in his speech was considered in great detail by that Committee, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will really get down to reading the memoranda and evidence he will find that his points are answered by that evidence.
  I want to deal, first, with the point that we have codified the military but not the civil offences. This is to be an Army Act, and if that Act deals with military offences which are not civil offences they must be codified. I submit that it is not for an Army Act or an Air Force Act to proceed to codify the civil laws of the land. That is done in the ordinary criminal and other law of the land. Therefore, I would suggest that there is nothing in the least surprising that we have codified with very great care the military offences, but have left the civil offences to stand as they are codified by the criminal law of the various lands where they would operate.
  The second point is this. Why should any civil offence be made a military offence at all? Why should it be triable by court-martial in any circumstances? The answer is—and we went into this at very great length—that there is an extremely interesting memorandum that was prepared for us by the Departmental Committee, which is Annex 13 to our Fourth Report and is found on page 346, which gives the detailed history of how it came about.
  It will interest the hon. and learned Gentleman to know that it was not until 1879 that any civil offence was ever a military offence, but thereafter it was found that, because the Army is not always stationed at home, offences are committed by members of the Armed Forces or by their followers which are not among the 40 or more military offences but are ordinary civil offences under the code of the country in which the person concerned is living.
  If a person commits a civil offence while stationed, let us say, in Egypt, or China
  68
  or Germany, is he or is he not to be liable to any sort of punishment by the military authorities? Are we to make him punishable by the military authorities or leave him to be dealt with by the law of the land in which he happens to be, which will mean that he will be picked up by the local police, will appear before a local court and be punished by that court, if his offence happens to be a civil offence in that country?
  We went into this matter in very great detail, and we came to the conclusion that there was every reason why we should, if we could, preserve jurisdiction over our own people when they are serving overseas, and it is for that reason that we accepted what has been part of the military law of this country since 1879 and agreed that civil offences should also be military offences.
  On the point of troops serving at home who, in fact, commit civil offences, this Memorandum explains what happens quite fully. If, in the first place, a civil offence is committed by any member of the Armed Forces serving at home, it is to be reported to the police, and it is for the police and for the police alone to decide whether or not that person shall be tried by the civil court or by court-martial. In ordinary practice, if the civil offence is an offence committed by one member of the Services against another, or if it concerns regimental property, and so forth, as a rule the police suggest that it should be dealt with by court-martial, but if the offence in any way concerns a civilian or civilian property, the police almost always naturally insist that the case should be tried by the civil courts.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman will, therefore, see that if a soldier serving in Scotland, whether he be English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh, does, in fact, while serving in Scotland commit a civil offence for which he may be liable in the civil courts, only if the police decide that it is an offence committed inside the Armed Forces, so to speak, will he be liable to be charged and brought before a court-martial.
  I am not going to take up the time of the House in dealing with the other points mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am not by any means certain that I have fully appreciated some of his other comments, and I shall read his speech with very great care. I only

  69
  ventured to intervene at this stage to express the hope that, before the hon. and learned Gentleman puts down Amendments to this Bill for the Committee stage, he will at any rate endeavour to see whether the points with which he is concerned were not those considered by the Select Committee, and to which we devoted a very great deal of our time.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: After listening to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), I am reminded of an old Scottish ballad of the same name as the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because it seems to me that in the matter of this inquiry he has proved to be "a skeely skipper." I am very doubtful whether he has convinced many Scotsmen that there has not been a considerable change affecting Scottish law and the offending Scottish public.
  From what he has just said in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), I begin to doubt whether it was necessary even to offer that offence by including Scotland as subject to Clause 70. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be surprised that Scottish Members are raising their voices in protest at this particular method of Scottish law, especially today—25th January—when, if we were meeting in Scotland, we might be making speeches of a different kind.
  My first point is that in Part II of this Bill there are provisions which have attracted considerable opposition in Scotland. It has been suggested by some people that Scotsmen in the Services and Scottish units should carry the jurisdiction of Scottish law with them wherever they go. I do not think that any right-thinking man who sees the practical problems which would be created would take up that point of view. I think that we should have a properly codified military law that would apply to the whole British Army. That is the desirable solution, and, naturally, that is the position which I myself take up.
  When we come to the problem, mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, of Scotsmen overseas and the desirability of seeing that civil offences are properly dealt with under the law to
  70
  which they have become accustomed, we come to an entirely different point. Englishmen are not accustomed to the same kind of law as Scotsmen, and the fact is that there are civil offences in England which are not offences in Scotland. For instance, if I try to commit suicide in England, I am guilty of an offence and can be tried for it under English law, but it is not an offence in Scotland.
  That is one of the particular points of difference. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the police will decide, but the Bill does not say anything at all about the police deciding the matter. Actually, what it says in subsection (1) of Clause 70 is:
  "Any person subject to military law who commits a civil offence, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, shall be guilty of an offence against this Section."
  The Clause goes on to say:
  "(2) In this Act the expression 'civil offence' means any act or omission punishable by the law of England—"
  Thereafter, in that Clause, there is no reference whatever to the police, and the actual position is that, for the first time, we have the civil law of England being imported into Scotland so that it can be applied to Service men, whether Scotsmen, English or Welsh, where, at the present time, they would not be—
  Sir P. Spens: Not for the first time, but since 1879, when the ordinary soldier serving in the Forces of the Crown was made liable for civil offences according to the law of England, wherever he happened to be serving.
  Mr. Ross: I stand corrected.
  Sir P. Spens: They may have the right to protest against it now, but it is not for the first time.
  Mr. Ross: I do not think it right to make that change now, and I hope that during the Committee stage we shall be able to get over this point in such a way as will meet the objections of many Scottish people to it.
  As has been said, this Clause was not introduced because of anything connected with Service men stationed in Scotland. It relates to overseas happenings, and until such time as we have a body of law which will deal with such cases—which

  71
  would mean the codifying of offences to be tried by court-martial—I can see no reason why civil offences in Scotland should not be left to be dealt with by the civil courts in Scotland.
  When this Bill becomes an Act, we shall have the anomalous position that the law in Scotland will differentiate between civilians and Service men. It will be an offence for a Service man to do a certain thing, but it will not be an offence for a civilian to do it. I could give numerous examples, even though I am not a Scottish lawyer. It is interesting, if not disappointing, that there is no Scottish Law Officer present to guide us in the matter.
  Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: We shall have one on Friday.
  Mr. Ross: It is doubtful whether we shall have one on Friday. Even if we do, if he is no better than the last one, we might as well not have him at all. There are many hon. Members of this House who could not even pick out the last Lord Advocate.
  Mr. Paget: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as far as the position in Scotland is concerned, it is for the civil authority to decide whether it wishes to prosecute, and the military prosecute only if the civil authority decides not to?
  Mr. Ross: It does not say so in the Bill.
  Mr. Paget: But that is so.
  Mr. Ross: I have read the whole of Clause 70, and, as far as I can see, the position can change quite radically. We should have a Law Officer present to enlighten us on the point. We normally have two Scottish Law Officers, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General, but the present position is that the man who was the Solicitor-General, and who has been made the Lord Advocate, is still looking for a seat. We may or may not see him by the end of the week.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that the candidate in Edinburgh, North, seems to question whether the Lord Advocate ought to be in the House at all?
  Mr. Ross: That is a point of view, I agree. We seemed to manage fairly well without the last one. In view of what happened in connection with the Scottish Town and Country Planning Bill, we should have been far better off without the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  One absurd example of the present position comes to my mind. Under the English Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1935, a licence to fish is necessary, but no licence is required, or, indeed, can be granted, in Scotland. In England, it is an offence to fish without such a licence or with tackle not authorised by the licence. The position might well arise that if the G.O.C., Scottish Command, went fishing with an English civilian companion he might be tried for fishing in Scotland without a licence whereas his companion, not being a Service man, could not.
  Mr. Paget rose—
  Mr. Ross: I am not going to argue with my hon. and learned Friend. He may be learned in the law of England, but he is very ignorant of the law of Scotland.
  I feel that in peace time it is wrong to make provision for trial by court-martial in Scotland. The Scottish courts could quite well deal with these matters until such time as we reach the happy position when we can codify civil offences to be dealt with by court-martial. I hope that the Government will look into the position.
  Another point—the transfer of trials between civil courts—arises out of Clause 220. It means that if an offence is committed in Scotland and a prosecution is brought under Section 70 of the Army Act the offender may be tried in any court in the United Kingdom. That means that if a civil offence is committed in Scotland the person charged can be brought to England and tried in an English court.
  In introducing this Clause for dealing with conditions overseas, we have created more difficulties concerning the rights of Scottish courts and the rights, not merely of Scotsmen, but of other people who commit offences in Scotland. It is a serious matter from that point of view, and I repeat, once again, that I regret we have not available to us the guidance of any Law Officer.
  On the whole, we commend the Bill, but I trust that in Committee we shall

  73
  have a chance to look at Clause 70 with a view to finding a solution to the difficulty which has arisen about the law of Scotland. One thing that stands out from the Act of Union is the fact that we in Scotland were guaranteed our own law. We are very jealous of that right, and are extremely anxious to avoid any seeming undermining of it.
  I sincerely hope that by the. Committee stage the Government will have found a Scottish Member with a large Conservative majority willing to retire and make way for the Lord Advocate, who is frantically looking for a seat. I am convinced that what the Government are doing in this Bill will make it impossible for them to win Edinburgh, North. It is the heart of legal Scotland. There are more lawyers there than in any other part of Scotland, and owing to this Bill, and particularly owing to Clause 70, I cannot see the Government getting a single vote in that constituency.
  5.39 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: In the absence of a Scottish Law Officer and as a Member of the Committee which approved this Bill, I wish to deal with the difficulties raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
  People who go into the Army become liable for offences which would not be offences if committed by civilians. Those various offences are set out in the Bill. The criminal law of England is included by reference. If a man is in Scotland, or otherwise anywhere overseas where the law of England does not normally apply, and if he does something which is forbidden by the law of England, he is committing an offence not against the law of England, but against the Army Act. Therefore, offences committed by a soldier in Scotland, which are offences against the law of England, are punishable as breaches of the Army Act, which is a United Kingdom Act, and not as breaches of the law of England.
  Mr. Ross: That is to say, breaches under the law of England would not be breaches if approved by the law of Scotland?
  Mr. Paget: That is precisely the point I am making. According to the law of Scotland, a man does not commit an offence if he does something which is not permitted by the law of England. He
  74
  does not commit an offence if he does something which is forbidden by the Army Act, unless he is a soldier. If he is a soldier, and he does something which is forbidden by the Army Act or which is forbidden by the law of England, he commits a breach of the Army Act. It is for a breach of the Army Act, which is a United Kingdom Act applicable to both England and Scotland, that he will be prosecuted.
  Mr. Ross: Not which is, but which will be, a breach of the Army Act.
  Mr. Paget: No which has certainly been a breach for nearly a century. Clause 70 simply reproduces a Section which has existed since, I think, 1879. This is not a new Clause, other than being a redrafted Clause. It has the same effect as the Section which has been in operation since about 1879.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: In that case we shall make English soldiers liable under Scottish law.
  Mr. Paget: If we chose to incorporate Scottish law into the Army Act, any Englishman who did something which was forbidden by Scottish law but which was permitted by the Army Act would not commit an offence. English law is also incorporated into the Army Act. Nobody in Scotland will be prosecuted under English law but under United Kingdom law, which is the Army Act, and which incorporates English law. That is the situation. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am sorry, but that is how it stands. That is why we on the Committee thought that this was all right.
  Mr. Ross: Does my hon. and learned Friend—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is a Second Reading debate, but hon. Members are rather getting on to Committee points.
  Mr. Ross: My hon. and learned Friend was a member of the Committee. I wanted to ask if the Committee had the services, or called in the services at any time, of the Lord Advocate.
  Mr. Paget: No. We called in the services of the Judge Advocate-General of the Forces, which is a United Kingdom appointment. He deals with military law both for England and Scotland. Scotland was not slighted in that respect.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Who were the Scottish members of this Committee?
  Mr. Paget: The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme - Duncan)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison).
  Mr. Hughes: Was there no Labour man on it?
  Mr. Paget: We did not have a Labour Member for a Scottish constituency, but we had two of my hon. Friends, at least one of whom has a very honourable Scottish name.
  The second point is that, by the Constitution both of England and of Scotland, the right of the civil authority always takes precedence over the right of the military authority. If, therefore, an offence be committed which is an offence both against the Army Act and against the civil law either of Scotland or of England, the Army can prosecute only if the civil authority decides not to do so. If the civil authority prosecutes, the decision of the civil court is binding upon the military court, so that the primacy of the civil law and of the civil authority is in all circumstances maintained.
  I intervened only to cover these rather technical, legal points. I did not wish anybody to think that this new Army Act, which is a very great improvement and will benefit the soldier, impinged in any way upon the civil authority or reduced the position of the soldier as a citizen. As a citizen, the soldier retains his full civil rights and remains subject to his civil liabilities. The Army Act merely provides additions to them which are special liabilities and which he undertakes by becoming a soldier.
  5.46 p.m.
  Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Strongly as I feel on Scottish matters, I think that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has put his finger on the most important point in this discussion. I am not a lawyer in any sense of the word, either Scots or English, but when we were discussing these matters in the Select Committee and knowing there would be further discussion here on this and other points as well, I thought that the case was made out for the retention of the status quo, as it stands now in the Bill.
  76
  I am not happy about the definition of "Scotsman" or "Englishman." That is very difficult, because matters of place of birth, etc., come into it. This matter should be examined very carefully by the Secretary of State because there is great feeling about it in Scotland. All the feeling is genuine, but some of it is misinformed or is under misapprehension. If reasonable Amendments are put down for the Committee stage I hope we shall get the fullest possible consideration of them. I will not say more than that at the moment.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: A point that was missed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was very important. It was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) when he spoke of men going into the Army and having to accept the Army Act. This law will apply not to men going into the Army as Regular soldiers but to those who are being conscripted into the Army, and will serve away from home not because of their own choice but because the law of the land lays it down that they have to serve this period of conscription. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will see at once that we are depriving the people of Scotland for three years of rights under Scottish law which they have enjoyed. That point is extremely important.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) stated, there are great differences between the law of Scotland and the law of England. For example, we have retained in the Scottish law a verdict which cannot be obtained under English law, that of "not proven." By being compelled to enter the Armed Forces Scottish people are deprived of the right of this verdict which they have enjoyed in civil life.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: If a Scotsman crosses the Border into England he immediately becomes subject to English law.
  Mr. Hoy: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not quite get my point. My first argument was that the man does not do his service voluntarily. He is a conscript.
  Mr. Willis: Surely this also applies to a Scotsman in the Army in Scotland.
  Mr. Hoy: I do not want to deal with that point now, because I understand that if a soldier is charged with a civilian offence, it will be for the police to decide in the first instance. I am talking about the purely compulsory side. One would have thought that, in these circumstances—and I am prepared to admit that it has been an oversight on the part of the Government or those concerned—we would have had these two distinct and separate laws with regard to Scotland and to England.
  I tried to understand the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), who presided over the Select Committee. He said that this law has been in operation since 1879, but the Committee was set up because the House felt—and the Secretary of State agreed—that the whole thing needed complete revision. This was the first opportunity that had been taken for many years and is probably the last to be taken for many more years to come. That being so, one would have thought that the law of Scotland would have been taken into consideration.
  It is true that, for a period, we have had only one Law Officer for Scotland in the House—the Lord Advocate. He has now gone. and another has been appointed who has been Solicitor-General for three and a half years. As he has not been in the House at all, one could not say that his time was so occupied that at least his advice could not have been sought in such a matter as this. All I ask of the Secretary of State tonight is that, in view of the seriousness of the position, he might, before the debate finishes, give a pledge that, between now and the Committee stage, he will have consultations with the Scottish Law Officers to see whether anything can be done to rectify a matter which people in Scotland feel is very unjust.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is quite obvious that the new Lord Advocate—if he is elected for Edinburgh, North—will have a very difficult time. Not only will he have to be consulted on how this Bill is to be tidied up from the point of view of Scotland, but he may be in the unfortunate position of having to make a maiden speech in defence of an Act which, in spite of all the legal technicalities and subtleties, will be regarded as another national grievance.
  78
  I cannot conceive the argument that this national grievance has existed since 1879 and that the Scottish Nationalist Party has not yet discovered it. I do not think that this Bill will make the prospective maiden speech of the potential Lord Advocate—if he comes here—any more popular. I can only devoutly hope that we shall not send the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to speak on behalf of the Labour candidate in Edinburgh, North, and so make the election of the new Lord Advocate an absolute certainty.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out that some legislation exists in Scotland which does not exist in England. He mentioned the English Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act. I do not think that any soldier has yet been court-martialled for salmon poaching. During Question Time today the Deer Poaching (Scotland) Bill was mentioned. So far as I know, serving soldiers are not supplied with fishing rods, but they are supplied with guns and ammunition. There is thus the possibility of soldiers choosing to practise shooting illegally—according to the law of Scotland—and of someone having to decide whether or not such soldiers will be more justly tried under that law of Scotland or that of England.
  My objections to the Bill are rather more fundamental—I do not really think that the sort of technicality which has been mentioned will disturb the average soldier so much as others. Why is this new Bill of 138 pages, with all these ramifications, and penalties, and procedures necessary at all? Oliver Cromwell, Julius Caesar—even Napoleon—could have drawn up a code of military law in about one-twentieth of the space taken here. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not now."] They would have to adapt themselves to conditions. Perhaps they might find themselves in the same difficulty, but I cannot think of such great leaders making this elementary mistake of ignoring Scotland. That is what Her Majesty's Government are doing.
  The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has made a very serious point. Probably for the next 50 years we are to have a very large Army of conscripts, and many of these elaborate provisions are there for that reason. These men will not be in the Army—as were Cromwell's Ironsides, or

  79
  Bruce's soldiers at the time of Bannockburn—because they believe in national independence or anything like that. They will be in the Army only because they have been forced to join and will serve, as I have often said before, under conditions of forced labour.
  That is why it is necessary to have this elaborate code of discipline and penalties, some of which are very severe. It is to keep the unwilling soldier in the Army in order to keep the Army together. Without this code of repression the Army would disappear within six months. It is such a stupid institution that, after six months' experience of it, the overwhelming majority of soldiers would either resign or run away. It is for that reason that there are all these precautions to hold those men as prisoners inside the Army itself.
  I can understand the position in which the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) and the members of his Committee found themselves. The Committee has been very conscientious and deserves the thanks of the House for trying to humanise the code. To humanise the work of the soldier is, indeed, a very difficult thing; humanity and military law by no means coincide. The psychology of fear inevitably plays its part in the Forces, and we have all these provisions for the punishment of soldiers for cowardice, and so on. I understand that the Bill's best defence is that the Committee has endeavoured to make the Army more human than it was, say, 50 years ago. That is to give the ordinary soldier the idea that he is being treated more as a citizen.
  Careful study of the Bill discloses that it cannot by any means be described as democratising the Army, making it a civilian Army, and injecting it with the real spirit of democracy. That simply cannot be done. In this revised, improved, and humanised Bill there are six different crimes for which a soldier is liable to be sentenced to death. It is because so many of our young fellow-citizens will, during the next generation or two, become subject to the provisions of this Measure—unless we have a more sensible outlook—that we must very carefully scrutinise every Clause to make sure that we get a fair deal for the ordinary soldier.
  80
  If I have any criticism to make of the Select Committee, it is that the ordinary soldier seems not to have had much of a say in the deliberations of the Committee, and that it was largely left to ex-officers, ex-non-commissioned officers, decent-minded lawyers and such people. The point of view of the ordinary soldier, who is likely to be the victim of the court-martial procedure, was not heard at all because the ordinary soldier was not represented on this Committee.
  I am not making any retrospective claim on my own behalf, because I realise that I was an extraordinary soldier—some might say an extraordinarily bad soldier. I will not horrify the Secretary of State for War by recalling details of my military career.
  Mr. Head: I know them.
  Mr. Hughes: Nor do I want to go into details about my five courts-martial, but I do say that there should have been on this Committee somebody who considered the matter entirely from the point of view of the ordinary soldier who is likely to find himself in trouble as a result of having been tried under the code of military discipline.
  I, too, have looked at some of these references to mutiny. Mutiny is a very serious thing from the point of view of the ordinary, unimaginative general who cannot see two or three years in advance. When mutiny is successful, it ceases to become mutiny. In civil law mutiny becomes treason. Some hon. Members may remember the old couplet:
  "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
  For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
  There are certain mutinies which have prospered. We owe the existence of the United States of America to the fact that there was a successful mutiny by George Washington.
  Dr. Morgan: And Cromwell.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, Cromwell mutinied, too. From the point of view of the King, Cromwell could have been shot for mutiny, and it was fortunate for the Constitution that Cromwell managed to become the law and to inflict the death penalty on the other person. There are in the world still potential George Washingtons who may be liable if tried under this Act.

  81
  There is a very suspicious phrase in this Bill which runs like a theme song through the different Clauses—"subject to military law." In certain conditions the whole of the population can become subject to military law. It is possible that, in the event of another war, the whole of this country will become subject to military law, and in what seem rather harmless and ambiguous phrases we find in the Bill certain provisions which may affect the whole of the civilian population. Therefore, it is the duty of this House to subject this well-meaning and apparently innocuous little Bill to the most careful and microscopic survey in its progress through the House.
  The death penalty seems to be necessary for no fewer than half a dozen different offences. It is much worse than the civil law in that respect. In addition, there is provision for two years' imprisonment with detention. I should have liked to see a Bill which completely abolished detention barracks. Detention barracks, in spite of the attempt to make them seem respectable, are very dreadful places indeed. If we cannot abolish these barracks, if we need them to maintain the morale of this magnificent institution called the Army, there should be a provision to limit the term that an ordinary conscript soldier or a voluntary soldier can spend in the "glasshouse" to six or three months; indeed, I would like it to be much less, 14 days.
  I would like to see in this Bill a provision whereby the soldier who is tired of the Army may retire from it, exactly as a man may retire from Parliament, by applying for an Army Chiltern Hundreds, handing in his resignation and escaping from the democratic rule of the sergeant major. I know what the answer will be to my suggestions. The answer is that if they were adopted there would be no Army at all.
  I hold that, in view of the conditions that war has developed into, that might not altogether be a bad thing. When I read in "The Times" today one of our most eminent military critics, Mr. Liddell Hart, saying that five or 10 atom bombs at the most could end the war so far as we are concerned, I wonder whether we are not living in the realm of the obsolete by discussing these antique provisions of an age that has gone. In this spirit of objectivity, I hope I shall be able to do
  82
  something to improve the Bill in Committee.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. James Hudson: Since the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) I have had the impression that this has become a Scottish night. If it were possible for the arguments on Scotland and on Scottish law to be continued, and if the effect of this Bill were what my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) supposed it would be in Edinburgh, I should be very pleased for those arguments to continue all night, but I am doubtful whether the result would he so fortunate from his point of view and mine as he suggested.
  In any case, we have to deal tonight with a Bill which follows a Report by a Committee that has certainly done its work very well and whose recommendations for the most part form the provisions of the new Army Bill. Looking at the names of the members of the Committee, I do not know whether I would go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who said that the common soldier was not represented on the Committee.
  I think that the Committee took into account a great many cruelties and indignities which in the past were imposed on the common soldier, and that, as a result of the Committee's work, these cruelties and indignities will be less in the future. I know that hon. Members were experienced enough in the ways of the Army to remember some of these things.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to know that at least two of us on the Committee served as private soldiers at one time.
  Mr. Hudson: I should not be in the least surprised. I am saying that I think the common soldier has been remembered. I should be very glad of any changes that could be made to improve his lot.
  Dr. Morgan: Give him a little alcohol.
  Mr. Hudson: No, that would not improve his lot.

  83
  I wish to return to the matter that I raised when we previously discussed the Committee's Report in this House—namely, that certain important provisions which ought to have been considered and included in the Bill have not been so included, for reasons which, in my judgment, are quite unsatisfactory. The Committee said that it had
  "considered the question of providing machinery by which a soldier who had enlisted as a boy could, on reaching the age of eighteen, have a right to apply for a discharge on the ground of conscientious objection."
  Because the Committee could not finally recommend the provision of such machinery, the Bill has not provided it.
  What the Report has done is to show what the Committee hoped and thought might be done—that by administrative means, by work behind the scenes, so to speak, in the War Office, by the Minister, the commanding officer, and in the regiment, the matter might be smoothed out, with no difficulty being raised about conscience in the way in which it has been raised in connection with claims which conscientious objectors have made. I do not accept that conclusion, and I am sorry that the Committee have adopted the view that it is possible to deal with this matter administratively.
  The question of conscientious objection in the Army is, of course, a nuisance to the Army. A man who is a conscientious objector is a source of indiscipline in the Army. He is disobeying something, whatever his reason may be, good or bad; and in the minds of those who organise the life and the work of the soldier, indiscipline and disobedience are the offences that cannot be accepted from the military point of view.
  But Parliament has decided that the claims of conscience should be considered in this matter of soldiering and of becoming a member of the Army, and arrangements must be made so that the claims of conscience shall be considered. It is my view, a view which, I submit, is becoming stage by stage the accepted principle—indeed I am not sure whether it has not already become the law—that conscience cannot be judged in any sense at all by soldiers.
  Indeed, in the Military Service Act, 1939, one of the last important Acts
  84
  under which the claims of conscience were developed, it was laid down that there should be no military representative on the tribunal, which is a vastly different state of affairs from that which existed in the days when I was called up as a soldier and when, on the grounds of conscience, I had to make my plea before a tribunal.
  The military representative was present on the tribunal in those days. Parliament cleared him out. By definite decision of the House, the military representative disappeared, and yet it is now being laid down, as a result of the timidity of the Committee which has been dealing with this matter, that when the question of conscience arises in the case of a boy who joined the Army during his boyhood and who has reached the age of 18, it should be left not to a tribunal but to be settled administratively by the War Office, or the commanding officer, or whosoever it may be.
  An excuse was offered by the Committee which dealt with this matter—an excuse that there had not been many cases. Indeed, the Committee said that there had been no cases in which a boy had joined the Army and had afterwards become aware of his conscientious objections. I dare say there were cases which the Committee naturally would not hear about, because the unpopularity of having a conscientious conviction is such as to make it not altogether easy for a boy who has once tried it to persist in his way against all the objections and the unpopularity which he has to meet. I submit to the War Office that there are many cases of conscientious objection which, because of the general difficulties which a boy, in particular, has to meet on such a subject, do not reach the point of a demand to appear before a tribunal.
  But, even conceding the argument that there had been no cases when the Committee considered this matter, I am able to say that, since the Committee reported, two cases have come to light. I have referred to them in an earlier debate and I will not develop them further today. They were both in the Navy, and might, therefore, be ruled out of order as not germane to our discussions, but the Navy is involved in the Report, for it was agreed that the Admiralty would follow in the matter of conscientious objection the same procedure as that followed in other

  85
  Departments. In the case of those two boys whom I have mentioned, that procedure was not followed.
  Since then a further case has occurred—last month—of a boy who has developed a conscientious objection to military service. It is the case of a boy named James Ellis, 78, Bedford Street, Leicester, who joined the Army at the age of 15 years and is now 16½. He has been attending Friends' meetings. I can say that without stirring a note of disrespect in the House about Friends' meetings because I think it is agreed on all sides that a doctrine is taught by the Society of Friends which, if believed by those who follow it, may lead, and probably will lead, to such service against war as will require the man who accepts it to take his stand before a tribunal, and claim exemption from military service on the ground of conscience.
  Apparently that happened in the case of this boy, and he indicated that he would claim exemption on the ground of conscience; but there is nothing in existing legislation to enable him to do so, and, if this Bill is passed, there will again be nothing in legislation which will enable him to do so.
  Sir P. Spens: The Clauses which would give that right are all drafted in Appendix II to our Second Report. They have run into seven or eight long Clauses. Because we had this direct evidence that no bona fide case had been known in the Army or the Air Force, and because they promised that if any such case arose it would be dealt with by a member of the Army Council or the Air Force Council, we decided to leave matters as they were.
  Mr. Hudson: That is a very helpful intervention on a point to which I should have come in a short time. I do not object, because it is quoted with much greater authority by the right hon. and learned Member, on account of his position in the Committee, than it could have been quoted by me.
  I agree that the Committee examined this matter carefully and was so impressed by its importance that a considerable part of the Report is occupied with the terms of the Amendment to which the right hon. and learned Member has referred. I am grateful to the Committee for that, and I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham,
  86
  East (Mr. M. Stewart), who drew attention to the same point, and said that we who regarded ourselves as friends of the conscientious objectors were beholden to the Committee for this Amendment. Indeed we are.
  I hope that when we reach the Committee stage, I shall be able to borrow an Amendment instead of drafting one. It will be a frightening experience to go to the Clerks at the Table with an Amendment which will be the equivalent of eight or nine pages of the Order Paper in length—it will be something like that if it is to take the form which the Committee was good enough to recommend—but, after their careful work, I cannot see that I would be wise in attempting anything less and in avoiding so long an exercise of the printer's art.
  The job has been done but the Committee boggled at accepting it. It said quite frankly that the only thing to do was to leave it to administrative action. It is that against which I am protesting. I say that this issue has been fought and settled against the soldier. The issue of conscience must be examined in some other form. I would be quite frank with the House. As one who has gone through all these experiences of lodging a claim on the ground of conscientious objection, I say I do not think any committee in the world will ever be adequate for judging the sincerity of a man's conscience.
  The only thing to be done in a case like that, where a judgment cannot be arrived at, is for the man to take the line of his Master and hold to it. There is no other way of proving the validity of his conscience. But we have tried, as a Parliament, to meet the situation. We admit the right of men of 18 years of age to lodge a claim. I am complaining that we do not admit the right of the boy of 14 years of age in the Army who as he approaches 18 probably learns there, by the things he understands which he has to do—even if he never attends a Friends' meeting—some of the reasons why it will be difficult—nay, even impossible—for him to carry out the acts which the training of the soldier finally requires that he shall carry out. It is that issue of conscience which I ask shall be faced again in this Measure.
  I hope that when we get to the Committee stage we shall not leave this matter

  87
  to the War Office. I dare say, now that it knows that the attention of the House of Commons is upon it, the War Office will behave itself in the next week or two, and if anyone persists in these claims of conscience we shall get a very careful assessment of the matter. But I do not want the matter to be left, as indeed the House of Commons does not want it to be left, to military influence. The civil tribunal—dissatisfied as I am finally with that—is a much better way of facing the problem than the method of leaving it to a military decision.
  A voice has recently been raised in support of this view from a very surprising quarter—very surprising to me. During a debate in the West German Parliament at Bonn, one of Hitler's Generals, General Manteuffel, who has become a supporter of Adenauer and sits in the Adenauer party in the Chamber, was speaking about the Paris Agreements. He was a great fellow from the Nazi point of view and received direct from Hitler his Knight's Cross. The wonderful speech of gratitude he made on that occasion is on record, but things are different now. This is what he said when speaking in December:
  "I would not for one moment consider asking the young men whether they want to be soldiers or not. I refuse even to discuss the matter with the young people."
  He was a Nazi general, but under the new constitutional regime a new lesson has been suggested to him, and he goes on:
  "What has to be done in the Federal Republic is decided by me and my colleagues here in Parliament."
  So the question of what shall be done with young men in relation to war is a matter for discussion by a Member of Parliament and his colleagues in Parliament.
  Although this may be a Nazi general speaking, I agree with him. I say that if a Nazi general can learn the necessity for taking into the hands of Parliament responsibility for what shall be done where the claims of conscience are involved, it is equally necessary for us, now we are discussing this Measure, to lay down that, not by administrative action in the War Office but by our own legal interpretation definitely embodied in the terms of the Act, and only by that means, shall we
  88
  leave the claims of these young men to be considered.
  This question of conscience has not bulked so large in the last few years as it did in the First World War, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who has referred tonight to his experiences, and I knew it so personally. Nor has it bulked so large as it did in the Second World War. But men are becoming aware that the ordinary processes of defence which we try to provide for ourselves and for them are becoming increasingly hopeless from the point of view of effecting any good in the world.
  Mankind will be swung back again to the point where each individual will consider for himself what, by his own life, he can contribute to the stand and protest that has now got to be made against war, which can bring to mankind no good at all. I am quite certain that we are on the threshold of a great re-emergence of the claims of conscience. I want to see defended the right of a young man to say, as he must say—it has to be done by law before a tribunal—what are his views, his rights, and his duty in a matter of this sort.
  Because I want that to be done, I am unwilling to leave anything to be decided against him behind the scenes, and I am most of all unwilling that a decision shall be made—as has been made in connection with the two young men in the Navy to whom I referred—by means of purchase out of the Services. It appears that £50 was paid for one of the young men about whom I complained and for the £50 he regained his freedom. It is not that sort of freedom I want.
  If a man has a conscientious conviction, let it stand as a conviction and be decided as such. Do not let it stand according to the power of his purse to buy him out. I shall get the consent and support of all sides of the House when I say that there ought to be complete equality as between man and man in the claim made before a tribunal on an issue of this sort, and that no issue of purchase should be brought into it. I hope that the administrative rules that have been referred to as the sort of thing to which we could leave this question of conscience to be considered, will once and for all be wiped out so far as the right of purchase in the matter of conscience is involved.

  89
  Now that we are engaged in the Second Reading debate, I ask the House to consider whether it will not be able to prepare its mind to give unanimous support for the excellent and very helpful Clause that the Committee prepared but finally failed to recommend to the House for inclusion in the Bill.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. James Simmons: When taking part in the debate on the Second Reading of this new Bill, we have to remember the reason it is before us tonight. We on this side especially have a right to remember 1st April, 1952, when the foolishness of the Government led to three debates lasting w.11 into the small hours of the morning, when the big guns on both sides thundered—I was only a minor cannon in that engagement; some say that I was a repeating rifle—and when the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary bullied, blustered and blundered with their half hundred who still rolled on into the night and when eventually the Government guns were spiked.
  Closure after Closure was moved by the Patronage Secretary, but on the third day the debate came to an end, the Government capitulated and they agreed to appoint the Select Committee, whose Report we have now had in our hands for some time and on which the new Army Bill is based.
  Today, all has been reasonableness and light. Compliments and bouquets have been exchanged between the two Front Benches. The lion and the lamb have embraced. This is a bit too much for me; it is more than flesh and blood can stand. After all, what we are discussing has not been given to us by the Government. It has been forced out of the Government by the action of lion. Members on this side of the House in good, honest Parliamentary fight, and it is time that somebody on this side claimed the credit for what was done mainly by the backbenchers on this side of the House on 1st, 2nd and 3rd April, 1952, when we forced the Government to capitulate.
  The Bill is an improvement on the one that it supersedes, and we must congratulate the Select Committee on the attention which it has paid to the problems with which it was confronted, the industry it has bestowed upon the task given to it and upon the production of the Bill;
  90
  but although the Bill is an improvement it is by no means perfect.
  During this debate, one or two hon. Members have referred to the position of the ordinary soldier. We were told by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) that two members of the Committee had been private soldiers. We do not want the "has beens" to put the point of view of the private soldier. We want those who have always been private soldiers to put the point of view of the private soldier, because one's environment has a great deal to do with one's outlook.
  When a person reaches the upper circles, he sometimes forgets those on whose shoulders he climbed, but the man who has never been more than a private soldier has not been heard as far as the Committee and this Bill were concerned. As a result, many ambiguities will have to be cleared up before we finish dealing with the Bill in Committee.
  In my opinion, the question of the ordinary soldier arises especially with regard to courts-martial. Courts-martial are composed entirely of commissioned officers. Why should that be? Why should there not be a representative of the other ranks on the court-martial? Why should it not be possible, instead of an officer being the soldier's friend when he goes before a court-martial, for one of his own colleagues of his own rank to go before it as the soldier's friend? The officer certainly would not be able to interpret before a court-martial the psychology, the feeling, the thoughts and the innermost desires of the ordinary soldier, because he has been too far removed from that position himself.
  I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) said about the question of conscientious objection. I am in a rather remarkable position on this question. We have four sons. Two of them served in His Majesty's Forces and two of them declared their conscientious objection to military service, and so I can look from the point of view of the parent and the personal point of view fairly impartially on the question of conscientious objection.
  I believe that it is the right of every man to express his conscientious objection to war or to any other thing. I remember the First World War. I remember

  91
  the brutal, callous and inhuman treatment of many men who declared themselves as conscientious objectors. The late general secretary of my own trade union, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers—Charles Dukes—went through the most inhuman and degrading treatment by the military authorities because he had dared to stand for the right of conscientious objection.
  Now we are faced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has said, with recruitment of boys from the age of 15 for boy service. At that age, a boy's mind is unformed and his outlook on life is immature. He goes into the Army at the end of three years. What can happen in three years to the mind of any of us, wherever we are, much less to the mind of a young boy between the ages of 15 and 18?
  A boy between 15 and 18 years of age is just beginning to develop his intellectual powers and his thinking capacity. If at the end of three years he comes to an absolutely conscientious objection to war, to violence and to military service, it is said that he should be handed to the lions of the War Office, that he should not be allowed to go before civilised human beings, before people who have been called together because of impartial minds and outlook and for their civilian background—that is the important thing—but should be thrown to the military lions, the people who want him and who have already started to devour him.
  I think it is monstrous that the military people should decide the future of the lad. The military people want the boy, so the military people are to decide whether they shall have him or not. That is to make them judge and jury in the case. The poor young lad of 18 who has developed a genuine conscientious objection has no chance at all under the method which the Select Committee has suggested. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that the Select Committee, which knew what it wanted, knew what it believed, had not the courage of its convictions and threw the matter back to the military people, in whom I have no confidence at all as judges of matters of conscience and things of that kind.
  Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend charges us who were on the Select Committee with
  92
  lack of courage. Is he not aware that there has not been discovered one single case of this kind? What we have obtained is something much more valuable than what we should have got had we tackled the impossible task of trying to have this matter dealt with by legislative action. We have an assurance, which, I think, is binding on the present and on any future Government, that should a case ever arise, one never having arisen, it will be dealt with by administrative action.
  Mr. J. Hudson: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was not here when I spoke. I gave an actual case that arose in this last week.
  Mr. Wigg: I have spoken once already, and I do not want to debate this matter by making another speech. I dealt with this point in the debate on 12th November. My hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) is the last man to be unfair, but I think that he has been led away by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), and I am just fetching him back to the facts.
  Mr. Simmons: If I have been unfair to anyone, I apologise. I did not mean to be unfair to anyone. I object to military authorities by administrative action dealing with the case of a man with a conscientious objection to military service. It is the object of the military authorities to get him into military service. How can they be fair, impartial judges of that man's conscientious objection? That is my objection to this proposal, and by that I stand.
  Now I come to first field punishment. Towards the end of the First World War, when I had left the Army, I conducted a campaign against first field punishment. I had seen first field punishment on active service. I have seen men tied to the gun wheel. I have seen men pegged out on the sand in the burning sun. Because I publicly exposed first field punishment I was sent away for three months' rest and recuperation in one of Her Majesty's temperance hotels, at Armley, in Leeds, so I speak on this question of first field punishment with some feeling.
  I notice that the Select Committee's Report of October, 1953, is fairly explicit on this matter. It says:
  "A special clause to deal with Field Punishment is recommended in Clause 49 (at present

  93
  proviso (5) of Section 44). It does not apply to women. The reference to 'flogging' and 'attachment to a fixed object' and 'injury to life or limb' are omitted as now obsolete and of only historical interest. The clause as drafted would give no authority for any punishments of such a nature."
  I wonder.
  The Clause as drafted, which is now Clause 73, says:
  "Field punishment shall consist of such duties or drills, in addition to those which the offender might be required to perform if he were not undergoing punishment, and such loss of privileges, as may be provided by or under rules to be made by the Secretary of State, and may include confinement in such place and manner as may be so provided and such personal restraint as may be necessary to prevent the escape of the offender and as may be so provided."
  I can see nothing in that to prevent a man from being tied to a gun wheel, because of the argument of personal restraint. I hope that some clarification will be given in Committee of the scope of the Clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) referred to the Bill as an elaborate code of discipline, and I think he is about right. Part I consists of 23 Clauses and Part II of 120 Clauses all of them dealing with discipline, trial and punishment. Part III contains 10 Clauses all concerned with deductions and enforcement. In Part V there are 19 Clauses on arrests and punishments. In Part VI there are 22 Clauses all dealing with some point of military law and its applications to various parts of the country.
  The whole of the Bill, with the exception of one or two Clauses here and there, deals with restraint and discipline and punishments. I wonder whether we need such an elaborate Bill as this to maintain the discipline of Her Majesty's Forces in this enlightened age. Surely it is not very much encouragement to young men to go into the Armed Forces to tell them that there is a special Bill designed by Parliament, going through Parliament, shortly to become law, consisting of more than 220 Clauses of which about 200 deal with discipline and enforcement.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire said, this Bill does not democratise the Army. It does not come anywhere near democratising the Army. The Bill, so to speak, pads the chains which bind the soldiers, makes them a
  94
  little less irksome than they used to be in the more savage days of flogging and things like that. It is not a great Measure of social reform. It is a Measure of restriction and restraint upon a section of the community set apart to do a certain task.
  An important point that has emerged during the debate—the most important point, in my opinion—is that made by an hon. Friend of mine who reminded the House that the majority of the men who will be affected by the Bill are men who will be in the Services not of their own free will and choice but who are there as conscripts. I prefer to say "conscripts." That is a good, honest way of describing them. "National Service" sounds a little more civilised, but, after all, they are conscripts. I am longing for the day when we can do away with conscription altogether. The Government have much responsibility for it. If they had done their recruiting job properly, if they had built up the Regular Forces properly, we should not have to be bothered about conscripts.
  However, we have to bother about conscripts, for the major portion of the Armed Forces—at least half of them, if not the most of them—will be of conscripts. They are civilians who are giving two years of their lives to the service of their country. I will not say "not willingly." Many of them go willingly, but they do not go voluntarily. They go because of an obligation placed upon them by Parliament and the State. Some of the regulations which are laid down in the Bill are not the kind of regulations we should impose upon men who are civilians, men who were civilians before they entered the Army and will be civilians again two years afterwards when they leave the Army.
  There is the important point of recruiting. If we want young men who join the Army as National Service men to remain in the Forces we must make their two years in the Armed Forces as attractive as possible to them. We shall not make them attractive by means of the elaborate code of discipline and punishment which is embodied in the Bill.
  Mr. Wigg: There is nobody in the House whom I want to convert more than my hon. Friend. If he will be good enough between now and the Committee stage to go through the code which he

  95
  condemns and compare it with the codes of any other Army in the world and he finds elsewhere something better, I will join with him in putting forward an Amendment.
  Mr. Simmons: I said that it was a vast improvement on the code which has been imposed in the past.
  Mr. Wigg: The best in the world.
  Mr. Simmons: No doubt it is the best in the world, but there is no getting away from the fact that the Bill aims at discipline and punishment. I want to see the day when places like "glasshouses" and military prisons are abolished. We are not getting nearer that day by means of the Bill.
  The question of cowardice is raised in the provisions of the Bill. As one who served in the First World War, I should not like to judge any man who endured what was endured at Passchendaele and in other parts of the Western Front in the First World War, which really was a war. I should not like to judge as a coward any man whose nerve broke. To punish a man for cowardice is out of date. It is antediluvian. The man whose nerve gives way under the stress and strain of war is not a coward and is not to be cured by physical treatment. He can be cured only by mental treatment. Men who are on active service and who are charged with cowardice should not be dealt with by court-martial but by doctors and those who have specialised in the care of the mind and the cure of emotional diseases.
  I know that the Minister is very anxious to reply, as he always is in these debates, but there is one other point which I should like to make and on which I know I shall again receive reproof from my own side of the House. What reproofs I have had today have come from my hon. Friends. I am accustomed to being in a minority of one and I sometimes enjoy it. I am concerned about the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. It has been explained to me that the new procedure will be better than the old, but I think that any Measure which involves the care and training and treatment of such a large proportion of our population as does the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill should have plenty of Parliamentary time devoted to its discussion.
  96
  It is possible that this point will be further elucidated in Committee, but I should like to know what is the true effect of Clause 226. I know that the Government were obliged to get the old Measure through the House before a certain date each year. If they failed to do so we would have no Armed Forces and, therefore, no Government could refuse time for discussion.
  I wonder whether the Clause which we now have in the Bill weakens that position, because now
  "Her Majesty may from time to time by Order in Council provide that this Act shall continue in force for a period of twelve months beyond the date on which it would otherwise expire:…"
  I have always heard it argued that the House has a far more restrictive discussion when we are discussing an Order in Council than when we are discussing a Bill, and it is certainly true that there is no power to amend an Order in Council. Therefore, in spite of arguments put to me by my colleagues, I hope that Clause 226 will be very carefully examined and that no Parliamentary opportunity will be taken away from the House to debate at length, if necessary, the welfare and the care of the men who wear the Queen's uniform.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. John Strachey: The Secretary of State for War, in introducing the Bill, said that there was not very much more to say about it. I believe that he slightly under-estimated the views and feelings of some of my hon. Friends, especially perhaps my hon. and learned and Scottish Friends who had a good deal to say on an issue of Scottish law. I am certainly not competent to speak on that issue, but I think that it needs an answer from the Government, perhaps during the Committee stage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) made some important points, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill, as he always does. He wanted the provisions for what I would call the modernisation and humanisation of the Army code, which is undoubtedly represented by the Bill, to go further still. He pressed very hard, as often before, in that direction. He has, of course, every right to do so.

  97
  I would emphasise to him what I feel I can say more easily than some of my hon. and right hon. Friends because I was not a member of the Select Committee. The Committee's work unquestionably represents the biggest step forward in that direction that we have seen in our time. My hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill may press the Government to go further, but I have no doubt that the Report represents a very great advance and extraordinarily careful and laborious work on the part of members of the Select Committee. I would only draw my hon. Friend's attention to the restriction of the death penalty, which seems to me of great importance.
  My hon. Friend made the point that the Bill is concerned in page after page and Clause after Clause with a code of restriction and punishment, but, after all, there has to be an Army Code. The fact that it is long and elaborate may mean, and does mean in this case, that it is carefully drawn for the protection of the soldier himself. A great deal of its elaboration arises from that fact.
  My hon. Friend also made the point that a very important provision of the Bill altered our basic constitutional procedure in respect of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. He was very right in saying that it was a big step which we should not take without mature consideration. Nevertheless, I think that the Committee's recommendations, embodied in the Bill, are correct in this respect. They would replace by an affirmative Resolution of Parliament the need to pass a special Bill each year for the purpose of obtaining our annual permission to place some hundreds of thousands of British citizens in the position of being subject to Army law.
  Though the Secretary of State had certain reservations about it, at present the recommendations provide for a quin-quennial expert review of the Act on the lines of the review which has just been made. That seems to be a very valuable provision, because what the Committee has done is that it has brought the Army and Air Force Acts into line with twentieth century practice after a lapse of a hundred years, and all those arrears of work had to be made up. The Acts are now brought up to date.
  But not only have they been brought up to date; they have to be kept
  98
  up to date. I think it is very good that we have here, as it were, built in a provision by which an expert committee and a Committee of this House, every five years, will examine these Acts and see whether or not they are becoming out of date again. We are not engaged now on a once-for-all job. This is a job which needs doing periodically so that never again does the law under which the Armed Forces have to operate get totally out-of-date and out of tune with all our contemporary ideas.
  I should like to close by saying that the House should not underestimate the importance of seeing that conditions in the Armed Forces under which serving men have to live are in tune with our contemporary ideas of life, including the educational and general cultural standards which the nation has reached. I have said not only have they to be brought into line with modern ideas but they have to be kept in line with those ideas. That reminds me of a point made by several hon. Members, their effect on recruiting. It is not only a question of people joining the Army, but of people staying in the Army when they have joined it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said he wished to see an Army from which men could resign in the same way as officers resign or as hon. Members resign from this House. Does he realise that under the provisions which the Government have introduced concerning the three-year term of service we are approaching that position, and I think, on the whole, rightly? But it means that the Government must make every effort to maintain the Regular content of the Army by the most urgent and anxious attention to the conditions under which a soldier lives and under which he will continue to live if he stays in the Army, for, otherwise, at the end of his three years, he will simply go away.
  Therefore, if we are to maintain the Regular content of the Army, which we have all agreed is absolutely indispensable, we must bring the law as well as other conditions of Army life under constant review in this House. I agree with what has been said so often and so forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that today the situation in

  99
  regard to the Regular content in the Army is one of gravity, and I hope the passage of this Bill will do something to improve what my hon. Friend called the internal recruiting; in simple language, the option of the National Service man to become a member of the Regular Armed Forces.
  I cannot share the complacency with which the Under-Secretary answered Questions today on this topic. I think he missed the point. The position may not be critical in respect of men joining, but is it not critical in respect of men staying in the Army? We shall be in a parlous position if the Government have to come to the House and say that, in spite of the fact that our commitments throughout the world have been substantially reduced, there is no prospect of reducing the period of National Service because of their failure to get and to retain men in the Regular Forces.
  We must not be faced with a situation in which the Government make their own failure in that sphere an excuse for doing nothing about the period of National Service. I am very much afraid that this argument will be deployed to us and I cannot contemplate a period of two years' National Service in perpetuity. Therefore, we regard this Measure for the improvement of the condition of men who are serving in the Regular Army as being something of the very highest importance.
  7.7 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): Today's debate on the principle of the Bill has shown a general measure of agreement on both sides of the House, and that makes it possible to look forward to the same spirit governing the remainder of our discussion. Certainly, if there has been any cleavage of opinion it has not strictly followed party lines. In fact, it is rather difficult to see what lines it has followed. In any case, I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) expressing the hope that the House would have no hesitation in giving the Bill a Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) said much the same thing.
  A number of points of substance have been raised and perhaps I might say a word about some of them. First, the hon. Member for Fulham, East mentioned the
  100
  last Clause of the Bill and the constitutional change which it involves. That is something which, I think, must be dealt with during the Committee stage, and there will be every opportunity for dealing with it then.
  The same applies to the important point raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the application of Clause 70, and, in particular, subsection (2) to Scotland and to Scottish soldiers. Though I myself represent an English constituency I would be the last person to attempt to ride rough-shod over the susceptibilities of my fellow Scots. I can assure the House that the considerations that have been advanced will be given full and sympathetic consideration. I would add that my right hon. Friend already had the advantage of consulting the Lord Advocate on this and other points and will consult him further in the future.
  While I do not want to anticipate the discussions in Committee, it must be borne in mind that this is not an entirely simple problem. It would undoubtedly complicate matters if there were two legal codes involved. The question has also got to be decided as to who can claim the right and the honour, if I may say so, of being Scottish. Further, I do not know how far the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has taken into consideration subsection (4) of Clause 70 as providing the answer to much of what he said.
  The hon. and learned Member listed at considerable length the shortcomings and omissions from the Bill, emphasising the need for a legal mind to be turned on to it. He will have that opportunity at length when we come to the Committee stage—indeed, we have already had a foretaste of it. At the same time, I would point out that the Select Committee was presided over by a very great lawyer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), who made such a pertinent intervention just now. It also included the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who also intervened so helpfully in this debate.
  The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) asked when the new Acts would come into operation. Clearly, that depends on when the Bills pass into law,

  101
  but, supposing they are passed in the first half of the present year, it should be possible to bring the Acts into operation by 1st January, 1957; in other words, 17 or 18 months from the date when the new Bills become law. At first sight, this may seem to be a considerable delay, but it must be remembered that the revision of the law will involve a fundamental recasting of the Manuals of Military and Air Force Law and of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the drafting of many new regulations.
  There will also be consequential Amendments to various forms and books of regulations, and considerable time will then be required for printing and circulating the revised Manuals, Rules, regulations, and so on, as well as for enabling a large number of people to familiarise themselves with the new Rules. Probably the largest of the tasks is the production of a new Manual of Military Law. Here, we welcome the suggestion that part of this Manual might be written by a distinguished historian. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dudley has any other suggestions to make? While he is about it, would he like to consider changing the colour of that book? For instance, the present bright red might perhaps be changed to blue.
  Mr. Wigg: Unless I am colour blind, the present colour is green.
  Mr. Maclean: I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that it is red and, as he has had considerably more experience of it than I have, I have taken his word for it.
  However, green is a neutral colour and I seem to remember that it is also the colour of the Army Education Corps. But, whatever colour the new book may be, it appears that the printers will require a minimum of six months between the receipt of the galley proofs two months after the Royal Assent, and the delivery of the Manual, whilst the checking of book proofs, indexing and cross-referencing will take a further two months.
  Its distribution to units and sub-units all over the world will also take two months more, which makes a total of 12 months in all from the Royal Assent. Another three to six months is needed to give the Army time to study the Manual before the Act becomes operative. In the circumstances I think that
  102
  hon. Members will agree that the suggested period of 17 or 18 months is not unreasonable. In any case, I can give an assurance that if it is found possible to reduce that period it will be done.
  The hon. Member for Dudley also mentioned conditions of service, saying that these were what mattered. We fully realise that, and we are trying to do everything we can to improve those conditions. On the question of prolongations, he said that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) had asked a silly question and he suggested, if not that my answer was as silly as the question, at any rate that it was evasive. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West said much the same, which, again, is evidence of lines of cleavage different from those to which we are accustomed. My answer is that if the right hon. Gentleman asks a less silly question, we will give him the appropriate answer. Meanwhile, I suggest that it is too early to judge the way in which the three-year engagement is working out, and that he should give the chickens a chance to hatch before counting them.
  Mr. Wigg: I am not counting chickens before they are hatched, I am counting chickens that have come home to roost. What I want the hon. Gentleman to persuade his right hon. Friend to do is to let the public judge. He could either give the answers to the Questions I have twice put on the Order Paper by stating the prolongations three-monthly, if not month by month, or indicate now when it will be convenient to give the figures. The hon. Gentleman is giving an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw because it is convenient, but he is denying me the information because it is inconvenient.
  Mr. Maclean: As I have told the hon. Gentleman, a considerable amount of time and effort is involved in getting those figures. That is why they have not been produced so far, but we are now considering whether there would be sufficient justification and it is possible that the figures will be made available. If the hon. Gentleman will keep in touch with me, I will let him know about it.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) raised the question of the recommendations of the Select Committee

  103
  which were not included in the Bill. I assure him that close attention is being paid to those recommendations and that every effort will be made to give effect to them.
  We had, as we always have in any debate connected with defence, a spirited intervention from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I am sorry that the hon. Member is not in the Chamber to hear my answer to his points; perhaps he thought they were not worth answering. He said—I thought it rather a sweeping statement even for him—that soldiers are not, and will not be, in the Army "because they believe in national independence or anything like that." His views, although one may respect him for the sincerity with which he holds them, are, fortunately, not very widely held, and my own feeling is that many soldiers are in the Army just because they do believe in national independence or, as the hon. Member puts it, "anything like that." I was glad that he called the Bill well-meaning, which, coming from him, is a high compliment.
  The hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) raised the question of conscientious objectors and mentioned, in particular, boys who enlist in the Army as boys and at 18, when the time comes for them to do their Regular service, develop conscientious objections. The question of how best to deal with the problem which such boys present was considered very carefully and at great length by the Select Committee, but in view of the complexity of the Clauses which would have been needed in the Bill it was decided that the matter could best be dealt with administratively. I can assure both hon. Gentlemen that if there should be a bona fide case the boy will be discharged or at any rate restricted to non-combatant duties.
  Both hon. Members took the line that it was grossly unfair that the fate of such boys should be entrusted to the military and that the Army did not like conscientious objectors. The hon. Member for Brierley Hill called them "ravening lions" or something of that kind. I really do not think that does justice to the Army. The fact remains that most soldiers have at some stage or other been involved in a war in some capacity or another and I should have thought that
  104
  anybody who had been involved in a war was bound to have some sympathy with the point of view of the conscientious objector, the human being who feels that he does not like any of it and does not wish to have any part in it. My own feeling is that whenever soldiers develop conscientious scruples they will receive fair and sympathetic treatment provided that their scruples are genuine and bona fide.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North mentioned a specific case. Hitherto, there have been no cases of boys developing conscientious objections at the end of their period of boys' service, but if the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the case which he mentioned I will certainly look into it and do anything I can to help.
  Mr. Simmons: Will the hon. Member tell me whether when the matters are dealt with administratively they will be dealt with by civilians or by officers in the War Office, bearing in mind that the military representatives, as in the First World War tribunals, were abolished by Parliament when the Second World War tribunals were set up?
  Mr. Maclean: The cases will be dealt with by the ordinary administrative machinery, which contains both soldiers and civilians, and, in the ultimate resort, by the Army Council, where there are also both soldiers and civilians. Again, this is a point which could better be dealt with during the Committee stage, and both hon. Members will have every opportunity of raising the matter then. Once again, I would point out that the idea of incorporating such a provision in the Bill was not turned down flat by the Committee; it was simply that technical difficulties were encountered. In Committee there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to explore whether it is possible to circumvent the difficulties without making the Bill unduly long and complicated.
  I have done my best to deal with most of the points of substance that have been raised during the debate, and I hope that such difficulties as have come to light will not in the long run prove insuperable. I also hope that the relative harmony that has been reflected in our discussions today may continue throughout the later stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Wigg: So that the same mistake is not made again, might I point out that the current copy of the Manual of Military Law is green and not red, and that the Secretary of State is 20 years out of date?
  Mr. Head: I apologise for letting the Under-Secretary down. When I was in the Army, which is some time ago, the Manual was red. It has changed colour since I left.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman also remember that the colour of the Royal Army Education Corps is not green, but blue?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  AIR FORCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  May I start by adding my warmest tribute and that of my noble Friend the Secretary of State to those tributes which have already been paid by the House to the valuable work of the Select Committee?
  The best thing I can do in moving the Second Reading of the Air Force Bill is briefly to outline the main, differences between it and the Army Bill which has just received a Second Reading. The Select Committee has gone on the principle that the Army and Air Force Acts should correspond except where particularly marked differences in the functions and conditions of the two Services exist. We accept that principle, and the differences which I shall describe conform to that principle and to the recommendations of the Select Committee.
  Parts I of the two Bills, dealing with enlistment and terms of service, are not exactly alike, because the Royal Air Force has not adopted the 22 years' initial engagement. Part I of the Air Force Bill, however, embodies the improvements recommended by the Select Committee in so far as they are applicable to the Air Force Bill. For example, the
  106
  paragraphs dealing with enlistment have been redrafted, and those dealing with the enlistment of aliens have been amended.
  Part II of the Air Force Bill, which deals with discipline and the trial and punishment of offences, corresponds closely with Part II of the Army Bill. Clauses 24 and 26, however, which deal with offences committed with intent to aid the enemy, or through cowardice, have been extended to cover certain offences peculiar to an air force. Examples of this are giving false air signals, failure to use the utmost exertions to carry out warlike operations in the air, and causing the capture of Her Majesty's aircraft.
  A further difference is to be found in Clauses 44 and 46. Clause 44 contains subsections (2) and (3), which do not appear in the Army Bill, and which deal with damage to, or loss of, Her Majesty's aircraft, or aircraft material, where the offence is wilful. There are two additional paragraphs in Clause 46 dealing with aircraft and aircraft material where the offences due to negligence.
  Part III of the Bill, apart from nomenclature, is identical with the Army Bill. Part IV, which deals with billeting and requisitioning of vehicles, also very closely corresponds to the Army Bill, but in Clause 172 provision has been made for the requisitioning of aircraft and the stores for them. Incidentally, the provision in the Army Bill about horses, mules, food and forage has been left out. We shall, therefore, no longer be open to the charge that the Air Force Act makes more references to horses than it does to aircraft.
  The general provisions in Part V of the Bill are similar to those provisions in the Army Bill, but there are minor differences in Part VI. The main difference is in Clause 205, which deals with the classes of persons subject to military, or Air Force law, as the case may be. Officers of the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force are subject at all times when they are on the active list to military or Air Force law. Army Reserve officers are generally so subject only when they are performing military duties.
  Under the existing Air Forces Act air force reserve officers are subject to the Act at all times, but in the Bill this has been modified to exclude the many reserve officers whose only liability is to

  107
  be recalled in emergency. Therefore, in the Bill only those reserve officers with a training liability and officers of the training branch of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve will be subject at all times to the new Air Force Act.
  The Air Force Bill is two Clauses and one Schedule shorter than the Army Bill, because it is unnecessary in an Air Force Bill to make special provisions for the Royal Marines or the Home Guard. There is, however, a provision for Royal Marines who are attached to the Royal Air Force to become subject to Air Force law with modifications. Apart from these differences, the Air Force Bill is almost exactly the same as the Army Bill which has just been given a Second Reading after a longish debate. It closely conforms with the recommendations of the Select Committee, and I therefore now commend it to the House.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: I do not dissent from the view expressed by the Under-Secretary that the Air Force Bill is almost exactly similar to the contents of the Army Bill and that, therefore, he was justified in merely drawing attention to the differences between the two Bills. At the same time, I should have been much more critical if, as he himself pointed out, we had not had a fairly full debate this evening on the contents of the Army Bill as well as a fairly full debate on 12th November last year.
  I am quite sure that he will agree with me that the juxtaposition of these two Bills should not in any way suggest that the Royal Air Force has to play a secondary role to that of the Army. There are 270,000 officers and other ranks in the Royal Air Force whose Service careers and Service lives are to them just as important as the careers and lives of those who are serving in the Army are to Army officers and other ranks. Indeed, today the Royal Air Force has a primary role in the defence of our country, very largely through the modern developments in the science of war.
  I suggest, therefore, that we should not be too anxious merely to follow at the tail of the Army. After all, when the Army Act was first introduced the Air Force did not exist. The Royal Air Force has been in existence for less than
  108
  40 years. When, in 1917, there had to be a constitution for the Royal Air Force, regard was had to the existing Army Act. The Royal Air Force Act, 1917, was very largely a repetition of the existing Army Act. Apparently, what was good enough for the Army was quite good enough for the new Air Force.
  It may have been, but there was one great difference. Times had changed and the men who were wanted for the Royal Air Force belonged to a generation with new ideas and with standards different from those of the men who, for a variety of reasons, had found themselves in the Regular Army of 1882, or thereabouts. That situation applies with greater force to the youth of today, whether destined for the Army, the Air Force, or the Royal Navy.
  Undoubtedly there was much in the Army Act and in the Air Force Act which was out of date for both Services. The great merit of the Air Force Bill and the Army Bill—and the great value of the work of the Select Committee—is that, while they are in no sense revolutionary in their nature, they are solid, workmanlike, and sensible, and bring our military and Air Force law up to date.
  As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) pointed out, neither Bill touches the problem of how to secure a sufficient number of Regulars. The Under-Secretary of State for War, who spoke in the previous debate, said that the Army Council was very much concerned with improving conditions, not only to attract recruits into the Army, but to encourage those on short-service engagements to re-engage. The same applies to the Royal Air Force.
  The Under-Secretary knows as well as I do that it has been the policy of the Air Council for some years—by increased pay, better housing, and better married quarters and through seeking to bring pressure to bear on the Ministry of Education to secure better educational facilities—to bring about greater recruitment in the Royal Air Force. The Under-Secretary will agree that one of the matters which must give him and the Minister great concern is the comparatively small numbers—although the percentages may be satisfactory—of the three or four-year-term men who are re-engaging for a period of 22 years, or up to 55 years of age.

  109
  He would agree there is every encouragement to make Royal Air Force life a career because of the new code for promotion, in spite of criticism from one or two quarters, I agree that the Air Force Bill guarantees the fundamental rights of the individual Service men without in any way impairing the basis of discipline without which an Army or an Air Force would quickly degenerate into a rabble.
  It seems somewhat incongruous that two separate but almost identical Bills with more than 220 Clauses and six lengthy Schedules should be necessary. Presumably if the naval discipline code is brought up to date, which I imagine is a likely development, we shall have a third Bill framed on similar lines. One day we may achieve greater uniformity between the three Services. If we do then, instead of three disciplinary codes which are broadly similar though contained in three separate Acts, we may have one defence Act with special provisions to cover the essential differences between the Services.
  The whole pattern of defence is changing in modern conditions. Inevitably the lines of demarcation between the Services will tend to disappear. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) said when we considered the Army Bill, we on this side of the House welcome the Measure. I should like to enter the same caveat that, so far as we may move Amendments in Committee, our object will be to improve and certainly not to weaken the Bill. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I welcome the Measure.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  REVISION OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE ACTS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.43 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Measure is an inevitable consequence of the two Bills which we have already discussed today. Again, I find myself in the position of being the sponsor of a Bill the terms of which follow from the Select Committee's work. The Committee was agreed on its necessity and I think that the House will agree that it is an inevitable result of the other two Measures.
  For the benefit of those hon. Members who were not on the Committee I will state briefly what the Bill does. First, it continues the existing Acts until the day when the new Bills become law. That is obviously essential to cover the interim period. Secondly, it provides the necessary transitional provisions and savings to ensure that actions started under the existing Acts can continue over the period until the new legislation comes into effect. Anything like courts-martial or any legal procedures of that kind started just before the introduction of the new Bill will be able to continue over the period so that they shall not become invalid. This is a normal legal method of ensuring that various matters of law and courts-martial shall not be invalidated.
  Thirdly, the Bill contains the consequential Amendments which spring from the Army Bill and the Air Force Bill and which will require the amendment of other Acts such as the Reserve Acts the Auxiliary Forces Act, and so on.
  Lastly, at the time when the new Bills become law this Measure will repeal the various Acts introduced to amend the existing Army and Air Force Acts. If they were left alone we should have a legal nonsense whereby there were Acts in existence to repeal certain aspects of Acts which have been abolished. That sounds rather complicated, but it is obvious that it would be hopeless to have in existence an Act repealing an Act which no longer existed.

  111
  This is, in effect, a tidying-up Bill which takes precautionary measures to ensure that what I might call no legal nonsense occurs at a time of transition from the existing law to the new law. Its necessity is agreed and I think its terms speak for themselves. I commend the Measure to the House.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is very grateful that we have not asked him to explain some of the provisions of the Bill. Although I used to belong to the legal profession and am accustomed to dealing with Bills I found some of the provisions rather difficult to comprehend. Certainly, they require reference to other Acts of Parliament and I do not think that either the Secretary of State or myself would be glad to have to get down to that kind of detail now.
  As the right hon. Gentleman indicated, there would be a chaotic situation if we sought to repeal the existing Army Act and to replace it by the new Army Bill without introducing a third Bill to cover the interregnum. There is provision for the repeal of other legislation such as the Royal Marines Act of 1847, and it is obvious that from a procedural point of view we should accept the Bill. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill according read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  NEW TOWNS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of the advances which may be made to development corporations under section twelve of the New Towns Act, 1946, it is expedient to authorise any increase, attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session raising to two hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred and fifty million pounds imposed in respect of such advances by subsection (1) of the said section twelve (as amended by the New Towns Act, 1952, and the New Towns Act, 1953), in the sums which, under or by virtue of the said Act of 1946,
  112
  section two of the Licensed Premises in New Towns Act, 1952, or section sixty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1953, are to be or may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, raised by borrowing, remitted, or paid into the Exchequer.
  Resolution agreed to.

  NEW TOWNS BILL
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  7.50 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): As we found on Second Reading, there is no disagreement in principle on this Bill. In detail, we have already had a number of constructive points put by hon. Members from both sides of the House. I should like to acknowledge that, and also the co-operation which we have had in getting this Bill—which involves a large sum of money—through so expeditiously.
  I should stress that the provision of this large sum, which is to meet requirements for at least two years, will not necessarily have the effect of precluding any further discussion until 1957. We found during the Second Reading debate that these new towns have now reached an interesting stage of maturity. It is natural and profitable for the House to ask from time to time for the opportunity to discuss matters arising from their rapid development. As I said at the time, problems have arisen and have been met. New problems are arising and undoubtedly will arise in the next stages in the development of these new towns. I can only say that so long as my right hon. Friend is responsible for this field of development, he will welcome constructive criticism on these problems such as we heard during the Second Reading debate.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: Hon. Members on this side of the House made most of the points which could usefully be made during the Second Reading debate, and we do not wish to repeat them. We are only too pleased to facilitate the Third Reading of this Measure.

  113
  Anything that we can do to further the development of the new towns we shall do wholeheartedly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  EDINBURGH-GLASGOW UNION CANAL
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. John Taylor: I promise the House that I do not propose to take advantage of the extra time which accident has placed at my disposal. The subject of this Adjournment debate is the future of the Union Canal. It appears that there is more than one canal called the Union Canal in this country and so I hasten to explain that I am referring to the Edinburgh-Glasgow Union Canal, a very short one—30 miles in length—authorised 138 years ago in 1817. It serves the purpose of connecting Edinburgh with the Forth and Clyde Canal near Grangemouth.
  The canal is all on one level, except for a flight of locks at its western end bringing it down 110 feet to the level of the Forth and Clyde Canal. My purpose in initiating this debate is mainly exploratory. I wish to discover, not only for my own satisfaction, but for that of many of my constituents and for the local authorities in my constituency, what plans, if any, the Government, the Ministry or the Canal Commissioners have for the future of this canal. For the greater part of its length it flows through, or rather stagnates, in my constituency of West Lothian and it creates a number of problems for the local authorities in my constituency.
  The canal has long ceased to be used for transport. I have not been able to discover that any part of it is used regularly as a canal or even spasmodically or occasionally for transportation. In my constituency its presence makes necessary a large number of bridges so that the roads may cross the canal, or in order to carry the canal over the roads; because, as it is all on one level, it will be appreciated that the canal does not always cross under the roads but on occasions it
  114
  crosses over them. I believe that the exact number of bridges involved in my constituency alone is 19. I meant to check that figure during the Christmas Recess, but the weather prevented me from doing so.
  With the existence of these bridges, therefore, it is a source of continuous expense mainly to the county council and on occasions to the Ministry. Where it crosses over main roads the canal is also a source of continual difficulty, and, indeed, danger, for the bridges are low in clearance and make narrow bottlenecks in the roads. The most notorius example is on the trunk road A9 at the eastern end of the Royal Burgh of Linlithgow. The canal is carried over the main road by a narrow, low bridge at a difficult angle on a fairly steep hill. It is one of the blackest of several black spots on that important main road.
  Because the canal bridge at this point is so narrow, it causes danger and delay to traffic. As the Minister knows, no double-decker buses can use the road although this is the main road from Edinburgh and the south to Stirling and the north. It is the main trunk road from London to John o'Groats. It carries a very heavy volume of traffic. There is a large amount of passenger traffic and the Scottish omnibuses and other buses using that road have a continual problem, because only single-decker vehicles can be used where double-decker vehicles should be employed. No doubt the Minister will have glanced at the recent traffic census to see what a heavy volume of traffic is carried on this road which is one of the heaviest in Scotland.
  Also because of the low clearance of the bridge, industrial traffic of any height must be detoured over a fairly long distance. On this one bridge alone, therefore, there is created delay, irritation and expense and some amount of danger; all because of the presence of a disused canal which serves no useful purpose at this point. There have been various plans to deal with the problem. Suggestions and schemes have been considered—
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask your indulgence in seeking your advice on a situation which has arisen as a result of which Members of Parliament are unable to interview their

  115
  constituents in St. Stephen's Hall because of what is now being done outside this House, thus preventing free access to Members of Parliament? At present a number of my constituents, who have come here to see me by appointment, are being ridden down by mounted police, driven off the pavement outside the House and pushed away from this building. I fully appreciate that it is a very difficult situation, but St. Stephen's Hall is empty, the pavements outside it are being emptied, and, with your assistance, it seems that it would be possible to make access more readily available to people.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): There may be a difficulty, but that is not a point of order. It is not a position with which I can deal.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I was wondering whether you could give some guidance in the matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am in the same position as my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There may be difficulties, but the hon. Member's point is not a point of order and I cannot give any guidance about it.
  Mr. Taylor: To continue, among the suggestions which have been made has been one that the canal might be cut and sealed off at either side of the bridge to enable the road to be widened. Another is that the canal might be cut off but culverted under the road or siphoned over the road in pipes at a sufficient height to avoid interference with traffic. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any of these plans are practicable; whether they have been considered objectively by the Ministry, and whether there is any prospect that one or other of them, or a wider plan to deal with the canal as a whole, will be carried through.
  I think it is appropriate to put these points to the Ministry of Transport because it is responsible for the maintenance and proper state of trunk roads, and this is a very important one. There are many other points at which the canal creates road problems, and also other problems, not connected with road transport. A deserted and disused canal is always a greater danger to children than one which is in frequent use. The very
  116
  fact that its banks are deserted means that any child who falls in is less likely to be rescued by passers-by or by traffic upon the canal.
  A stagnant stretch of water is probably a danger to health, especially in certain seasons. There are also flood dangers. For instance, there is a current dispute between the Canal Commission and the town council of the Royal Burgh of Linlithgow about flooding at the Mains Malting Housing Scheme. There is an overflow from the canal there, and canal water goes into the burn when the level of water in the canal exceeds a certain height. The town council contends that too much water is allowed over the spillway, with the result that the council's houses, and houses belonging to the Scottish Special Housing Association which are in the vicinity, have been flooded on too many occasions recently.
  Not unexpectedly, the Canal Commission denies that the existence of a spillway upon the canal is responsible for this. The Commission says that it is due to the inadequacy of the drains. The local authority and the Scottish Special Housing Association, however, feel that the drains which they have put in would be adequate were it not for this unwelcome water which floods into them as a result of the existence of the canal.
  The Burgh of Linlithgow has a special reason to hope that, sooner or later, it may see the end of this canal. It is confined by the loch on the south side and by the canal and the railway on the north side, so that it cannot expand. The canal creates difficulties all along its length. I would make a forthright plea that the canal should be drained altogether, but I am restrained from doing so by the possibility that its uses for industrial water may be considerable. It may be that the removal or draining of the canal would create insurmountable problems for industries using its water. Perhaps the Minister will say whether this is so, or if the canal could be cut in places so that its worst features could be removed while its use for essential industries was retained.
  I believe that it is still used by the North British Rubber Company. I know that it used to be, because in my youth I once pulled a boy out of the canal and swallowed what seemed to me to be a considerable portion of its contents, and

  117
  I can still taste the rubber. I think that it is also used by Scottish Oils Limited in my constituency, and possibly by one or two paper mills in both my constituency and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). It would be useful to know to what extent the canal is used for essential industrial purposes and whether that use could be retained if the worst features of the canal were removed.
  It is rather an odd thing to say in this season, but West Lothian County is often short of water. Its existing water supplies are inadequate in a dry season. Although one would think that that is not an immediate disadvantage, it is as well to remind ourselves that the summer before last was a dry one and the county then experienced water difficulties. The Union Canal is mainly supplied from the Cobbinshaw Reservoir. It may be—I am feeling for information here—that this reservoir, if relieved of that drain, would provide an additional source of water for the county, at little or no expense either to the county council or the Government.
  Thus, the Minister has two main points to answer. First, has his Department any plans to deal with the canal where it creates road problems of a serious nature? Secondly, is the continued existence of the canal essential for industrial purposes, or could these continue to be served by sealing off the canal at certain points whilst retaining the necessary water supply? The answers to these questions would greatly assist the county in shaping its future policy. If we could be told that there is a possibility that the canal, or its worst features, may be removed there would be a great deal of rejoicing in the county of West Lothian.
  8.8 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I am not wholly unfamiliar with the problems created in the constituency of the hon. Member by this canal because he, with two of his colleagues, came to discuss this matter with me in—I believe—June of last year. At that time we were discussing the very serious traffic congestion in and around Linlithgow on the A.9 road. As the hon. Member has said, this is an extremely important trunk road. It is the main London-Edinburgh-Thurso road.
  118
  There is not the slightest doubt—and I made it quite plain to the hon. Gentlemen when they came to see me—that in the Ministry of Transport we are much concerned about the congestion, and indeed also the danger, in that section nearest to Linlithgow on this road. As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, one of the serious dangers is that, as the road passes under the canal bridge at right angles to its general alignment, there is a reverse bend with bad visibility.
  We are, therefore, concerned about this canal because of its effect upon road transport. I cannot confirm the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave of 19 bridges, but I agree that this canal, built in order to deal with problems of the transport of heavy goods a very long time ago, and carried at a single level over a very long distance, passes over and under many modern systems of transportation and has proved itself to be a very serious problem.
  The Union Canal at present carries no commercial traffic, having been closed to it in 1933, when the locks connecting it with the Forth and the Clyde were filled in. I think it would not be true to describe it as being semi-derelict, because although it is not used for the purpose for which it was originally constructed, the canal is being adequately maintained to prevent its becoming either a danger or a nuisance.
  Although the canal is not used now for commercial purposes, it is used for pleasure boating. In 1954, it was used by 36 boats, mainly skiffs, and indeed, when the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) rose a few moments ago, I was reminded of a previous debate on canals when he was adopting a very definite line in order to try to insist upon the maintenance of a canal, which was no longer used for commercial purposes, in order that it might be preserved as an amenity for the enjoyment of his constituents. The reason why he rose tonight was something quite unconnected with canals, and I thought that perhaps you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were as much taken by surprise by the point which the hon. Gentleman raised as I was myself.
  When considering these canals and the question of closing or draining them, it is important that we should bear in mind the other uses to which a canal can be put even though it has ceased to be used

  119
  for the purpose for which it was constructed 100 or even 180 years ago. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) referred to the fact that in the days of his youth—and I am sure we were all interested to hear about the episode in which he rescued a boy from drowning in that canal—
  Mr. J. Taylor: I think I ought to make it clear that I do not think the boy would have drowned. He was more frightened than anything. Indeed, if he had stood up at the place where he fell in, his neck would have been above water.
  Mr. Molson: I feel inclined to say about the hon. Gentleman that his modesty does him as much credit as his gallantry.
  It is quite true that this canal is now being used for supplying water to industrial concerns. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to indicate to me the general lines which he was going to follow in his speech tonight, and, therefore, I was at pains to find out exactly what industrial concerns in his constituency are using the water from this canal. First, there is the Scottish Malt Distillers Co. Ltd., at Linlithgow.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: That is where the flavour comes from.
  Mr. Molson: I have always considered that there is no substitute for Scotch whisky. It is a view which I have frequently maintained when I have been in the United States and Canada, and this confirmation of it is naturally very gratifying to me.
  Next, there are J. Nimmo and Co. Ltd., and the Oak Bank Oil Co. Ltd., the Broxburn Oil Co. Ltd., Alex. Dougall & Sons, Ltd., and various other concerns, like the North British Rubber Company, which I think has its works outside the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There are approximately 12 or 14 concerns of considerable industrial importance which are at the present time drawing supplies from what remains of this canal. It is quite certain that, when considering whether to do away with a canal which, even though it is no longer used for the commercial traffic for which it was constructed, is nevertheless supplying water to important industrial concerns, we must be very careful what we are doing.
  120
  Moreover, the British Transport Commission has taken over the responsibilities of the railway companies to which it is the successor, and I understand that to many of these industrial concerns the London and North-Eastern Railway Company had contracted to supply a fixed amount of water. Therefore, the British Transport Commission would find itself obliged to pay substantial sums of compensation if it took any measures which prevented it from supplying the industrial water which its predecessors had contracted to supply.
  Confronted with these problems, we have to consider what would be the best course to take. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that his speech tonight was intended to be exploratory, and I am giving him, with complete frankness, the reply that, in the case of this canal, as in the case of many other canals, we recognise that it is no longer used for its original purpose, and, particularly, that it is a considerable obstruction to the improvement of communications on A.9 and various other roads. We are anxious to arrive at the best conclusion as to what should be done, and we are attracted by the idea of doing away with the bridge over the A.9 road and perhaps maintaining the flow of water by culverting or syphoning, in order that the value of the canal as a reservoir should not be lost.
  We have not arrived at a final conclusion on the matter, however, for two reasons. The hon. Gentleman will remember that, as a result of strong representations made in the House—which came, I think, equally from both sides—the British Transport Commission last year set up a committee to consider what would be the best and most economical use that could be made of all the canals with which it has been entrusted. Lord Rusholme is the Chairman of that Committee, and I understand that it has agreed upon a Report. It would obviously be wrong for either the British Transport Commission or for ourselves to come to any final conclusion about this matter until we are in possession of this Report.
  In addition, we are making these technical investigations as to the best way to preserve the water reservoirs, which are of value to industry, while at the same time doing away with the obstruction to traffic which the canal is causing at the present time. Therefore, my answer to the hon. Gentleman's very friendly and

  121
  inquiring speech is that we fully recognise the importance of dealing with this matter.
  I think that I have already given the hon. Gentleman an assurance that in due course the A.9 in his constituency is going to be dealt with, whether by a great bypass or in another way, and that the problem of this canal is one which has to be considered at the same time. As soon as we are in possession of the Report of the Rusholme Committee, we expect that the British Transport Commission will propose to us what it thinks should be done about this matter. We shall certainly try to arrive at the best and wisest solution in order to preserve the advantages which we have inherited from an earlier age in having this water, and, at the same time, to ensure that the canal, which is now derelict for commercial purposes, causes no obstruction to modern traffic.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: May I, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, thank the Minister for his reply? This problem is probably as important to me as to any other person, because I travel along the A.9 road from my home to my constituency. I am very familiar with the bridges mentioned by my hon. Friend, both in good weather and bad.
  Without professing to be an expert on engineering, it seems to me that, as a temporary first step, it would be possible to lower the level of the road where it runs under that very low bridge without causing any very serious inconvenience. I agree that it would make the hill a little steeper on the south side of the bridge, but that disadvantage would, I think, be outweighed by the advantage of making the road sufficiently low to let transport through.
  A story is told, for the truth of which I cannot vouch, of a lorry which was about an inch too high to get under the bridge. The lorry got stuck in front and the driver could not move it either backwards or forwards. A little boy from the Falkirk High School came along and suggested to the driver that he should let some air out of his tyres. He did so, and was able to drive the lorry under the bridge. Whether that story is true or not, it is still a good one, and illustrates the difficulties of some transport drivers.
  122
  Quite a number of my colleagues are very familiar with this canal. At some time or other,
  "We twa ha' paddled in the burn."
  I am quite sure that some of my colleagues paddled in this particular burn when they were much younger and saw many children lose their lives in it. I agree that there are many agreeable purposes for which it is being used, and I again thank the Minister for his very generous and helpful reply.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Oswald: I wonder whether if, in this exploratory discussion which we are having, the Minister could be of some assistance regarding that section of the Union Canal which flows into and ends in my constituency of Edinburgh, Central. In recent weeks, we have had a very extensive "Drain the Canal" campaign because of the condition of the canal in Edinburgh, Central.
  I was interested to hear the Minister speak of the water supplies being taken into the various industrial concerns, but I wish to point out to him that in some instances the normal intake is so silted up at the moment that mobile pumps have to be used to get the water in. Indeed, in my section of the canal, if I may use that term, there have been many complaints about the amount of rubbish and bottles being dumped in the canal, and because of the number of near-drowning accidents. Only last week, the chairman of the "Drain the Canal" committee appealed to the Edinburgh City Police to place that section completely out of bounds because of the danger caused by snow and ice on the canal banks.
  In the summer months, owing to the low level of the water, that section of the canal becomes a direct menace to health. It is being suggested that at least that portion of the canal which flows between the tenements and the industrial concerns should be fenced off just before it reaches the section which the Minister has mentioned, the section where boating takes place. The Edinburgh University Rowing Club uses that section of the canal, and I agree that, once it is outside the city, it has some sylvan beauty.
  It is important to realise that new houses are being built in the vicinity of

  123
  the canal which is still within the perimeter of the city. Complaints have been received from mothers in this area about children tumbling into the canal, and they are asking for that section to be roped off to prevent the younger children toddling from their homes because of the wonderful attraction of water. My constituents have been extending this campaign for several months.
  I ask the Minister to look very closely at these complaints. We have already had an assurance from the British Transport Commission that it will, from time to time, see that some weed is lifted out of the canal. Indeed, the Edinburgh newspapers—and I give them credit for this—have published photographs of the weed being left to rot for a considerable number of weeks on the canal banks.
  My constituents are complaining bitterly, first because of the mud, silt and rubbish which is continually being found. In fact, the stage is being reached when the canal will fail to flow into that part of central Edinburgh because of the continued silt and the failure to remove it as and when required. I ask the Minister to look closely at this section, bearing in mind the complaints that have been made over quite a number of months and the health of the citizens of Edinburgh in close proximity to the canal.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: I should like to respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald). I shall myself draw the attention of the British Transport Commission to the points that the hon. Member has made on behalf of his constituents.
  The Edinburgh Development Plan provided for filling in the canal and constructing a roadway over it, but certain industrial interests who were dependent upon the canal for their water made objections at the public inquiry which was ordered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was also quite clear that the Commission is at present under a statutory obligation to provide certain quantities of water, and before the canal, or even the part to which the hon. Member has referred, could be filled in, it would be necessary for the Commission to be relieved of its statutory obligation.
  I have, however, listened to what the hon. Member has said and I will certainly pass on that information to the Transport Commission with the request that the Commission should carefully consider it.
  Mr. Oswald: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (PERSONAL CASES)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (PERSONAL CASES)
SCOTLAND
  Deer Poaching
  Deer Poaching
  Clyde Valley Pollution Board
  Clyde Valley Pollution Board
  Air Ambulance, Orkney and Shetland
  Air Ambulance, Orkney and Shetland
BRITISH ARMY
  Pay Increases
  Pay Increases
  National Service Men (Corps Preferences)
  National Service Men (Corps Preferences)
  Parade Ground, Wellington Barracks (Clearance)
  Parade Ground, Wellington Barracks (Clearance)
  Apprentices School, Chepstow (Expenditure)
  Apprentices School, Chepstow (Expenditure)
  Regular Engagements (Prolongation)
  Regular Engagements (Prolongation)
  Infantry Regiment Boys' Battalion
  Infantry Regiment Boys' Battalion
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  China
  China
  British Lion Films Ltd.
  British Lion Films Ltd.
  Monopolies Commission
  Monopolies Commission
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Weather (Losses)
  Weather (Losses)
  Income Tax (Inquiry Facilities, Dagenham)
  Income Tax (Inquiry Facilities, Dagenham)
  Sterling (Convertibility)
  Sterling (Convertibility)
  Hospitals and Colonies
  Hospitals and Colonies
  Mutual Security Aid (Purchases)
  Mutual Security Aid (Purchases)
  Entertainments Duty (Revenue)
  Entertainments Duty (Revenue)
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  Fixed Capital Formation
  Fixed Capital Formation
HOUSING
  Allocation, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Allocation, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Completions
  Completions
  Requisitioned Property
  Requisitioned Property
  Empty Premises, Southend
  Empty Premises, Southend
  Ex-Service Men
  Ex-Service Men
  Prefabricated Houses, Cardiff
  Prefabricated Houses, Cardiff
  Programme, Leeds
  Programme, Leeds
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  ENGLAND AND WALES
  ENGLAND AND WALES
  Reorganisation
  Reorganisation
  Smokeless Areas (Expense Reimbursement)
  Smokeless Areas (Expense Reimbursement)
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON MARRIAGE LAWS (REPORT)
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON MARRIAGE LAWS (REPORT)
  HARPER AND OTHERS v. HOME SECRETARY (JUDGMENT)
  HARPER AND OTHERS v. HOME SECRETARY (JUDGMENT)
EDUCATION
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (United Kingdom Contribution)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Teachers' Superannuation Discussions (Invited Bodies)
  Teachers' Superannuation Discussions (Invited Bodies)
  UNITED KINGDOM TROOPS, KOREA AND JAPAN
  UNITED KINGDOM TROOPS, KOREA AND JAPAN
TRANSPORT
  Snow Clearing
  Snow Clearing
  Railway Dispute (Report of Inquiry)
  Railway Dispute (Report of Inquiry)
  Road Improvements and Construction (Expenditure)
  Road Improvements and Construction (Expenditure)
  LUBRICATING OIL (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS)
  LUBRICATING OIL (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS)
  HOSPITALS, DARTFORD (DIET ALLOWANCE)
  HOSPITALS, DARTFORD (DIET ALLOWANCE)
  INVALID CARRIAGE (PERSONAL CASE)
  INVALID CARRIAGE (PERSONAL CASE)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, MORLEY
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, MORLEY
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Buildwas Abbey, Salop
  Buildwas Abbey, Salop
  Building Labour (Employment)
  Building Labour (Employment)
Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House sat at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  KENT WATER BILL
  2.37 p.m.
  LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, I have been asked by the Kent County Council to move the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House. As I understand that there is likely to be a short debate on it, I feel that I must go through a little of the history of the Bill and of what it purports to do. It seeks to secure a substantial reorganisation of the water supply areas in that part of Kent which is outside the Metropolitan Water Board's area. It affects one million of the residents in Kent, and it proposes amalgamations which will reduce the number of water undertakings from thirty-five to fourteen. As your Lordships know, the Bill has been passed in another place. The hearing before the Select Committee of that House occupied no less than twenty-three days, the longest period for a private Bill in the last twenty years.
  I was a member of the Kent County Council for many years, and was for four years Vice-Chairman and Chairman of that body. I am no longer a member and have no interest to declare in this matter; but I am still somewhat mixed up in the life of the county, and therefore I know the feeling of concern amongst many responsible people about the future general water supply situation. It cannot be said in this case that the County Council has acted in any spirit of haste; on the contrary, I think it could more properly be said that it ought to have acted sooner. But, as always in matters that affect a variety of conflicting interests, it is proper to deal with the question without undue haste, and that is exactly what the County Council has done.
  This Bill is the outcome of prolonged and exhaustive examination of what is the estimated present and future supply of water in Kent. I think that, without
  660
  exception, all those who have investigated this particular matter in an objective and constructive manner and on a countywide basis have reached the same conclusion—namely, that unless there is reorganisation of the water supplies in the county there may well be an acute shortage in several districts in the future. That conclusion—and it is a serious conclusion—was reached after a most detailed consideration of the facts contained in such Reports as the Hydro-Geological Survey of Kent which was made in 1948; it was supported by a report to the County Council by independent consulting engineers, and, quite importantly, by the views and proposals of the Advisory Committee on Water Supplies for Kent. The views of that Advisory Committee are of considerable significance, because it is a voluntary body set up in 1935, and when it made these proposals the Committee was representative of all but three of the thirty-five water authorities, company and local authorities, serving the area covered by the Bill—that is, as I have said before, in the county outside the Metropolitan Water Board's area.
  This Bill is to a considerable extent based on the proposals which the Advisory Committee made to the County Council. The County Council has consulted all the water interests concerned at every stage during the five years which have elapsed since it took the first step towards preparing a Bill. There have been numerous conferences, and the water authorities were invited to consult among themselves and to submit alternative proposals. No alternative proposals were made until after the County Council finally decided to promote the Bill. Most of the opponents of the Bill have over and over again asserted to the County Council that nothing was required to be done by way of reorganisation. Yet when in 1953 the County Council took the final decision to go forward with the Bill, several of the authorities were imbued with the need to do two things: one was to put their houses in order, or at least show willingness to make good deficiencies which, up to that point, they had professed did not exist; and the other was to band together to defeat the County Council.
  I would quote just one case. In one of the areas covered by the Bill there are

  661
  four water undertakers serving a population of 250,000. In that area are large Government installations and several industrial undertakings of considerable national importance. These four water undertakers asserted that no reorganisation by way of amalgamation was necessary; that other means were available, and that a proper supply could be maintained by those other means. In October, 1953, the largest of those four undertakings suddenly decided that something should be done. All that had happened in the meantime was that the County Council had, in the previous July, passed a statutory resolution to deposit the Bill in November.
  Briefly, the County Council's objective is, first of all, to safeguard the future of the limited water supplies for the people of Kent in face of what is, and is likely to be, an increasing demand, not only on the part of an increasing population but also of industry, including the agricultural industry. I would point out that in Kent the agricultural use of water is not confined to the usual farm uses; and the industry makes great demands on the water supplies for the intensive spraying of fruit trees, hop washing and other highly specialised products in the county. The second object is to make sure that the limited sources that are available are developed to the best public advantage, and to secure for a considerable period a cheap and abundant supply of water equitably distributed to all consumers.
  To achieve those objects, it will be necessary, first, to secure an administrative reorganisation so that those water undertakers will have the financial strength and technical resources to undertake the developments that are necessary and be able to employ the necessary highly-skilled technical engineering staff. The point I wish to make quite cleat to your Lordships is that the County Council does not seek to obtain any powers whatever for itself. It is content that the powers to obtain, develop and distribute water shall be in the hands of the water undertakers provided for in the Bill, and that such bodies shall be answerable direct to the Minister.
  It is, I feel, to the point to refer to ministerial statements on the subject of this Kent Water Bill and also on the reorganisation of water supplies gener-
  662
  ally, because they show that the Council is trying to follow a policy that is not just its own. This is what has been said in one case.
  "The Minister, having considered the proposals made in the Bill, finds himself in substantial agreement with them. As will be seen from comments made later in this Report, he dissents from some particular provisions. As a whole, however, the Bill, by proposing to reduce the total number of undertakings and by strengthening the resources of most of those which will remain, can be expected in the long run to lead to greater overall efficiency in the organisation of water supplies in the part of the county affected and to the provision of improved supplies to consumers."
  That was the Minister's report to Parliament on the Bill. Also, in a statement to the British Waterworks Association, made by the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Minister, he used these words:
  " The Minister wishes to say an especial word of encouragement and thanks to those who have worked and are working for the formation of joint water boards. He would like to see a speeding up in the pace of co- ordination in the water industry. He believes that, before can pride ourselves on having a fully efficient water industry, there must be a substantial re-grouping so as to form undertakings which are large enough to secure the highly-skilled advice and supervision which are now necessary to ensure ample and reliable supplies of water."
  That was a statement of policy made to the conference of the British Waterworks Association at Bournemouth on June 30 last year, twelve months after the Kent County Council had decided to promote its Bill.
  Replying to a Motion with respect to national water supplies on the adjournment of Parliament on December 22, 1954, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said that the introduction of the Kent Water Bill was the most ambitious move in the category of reorganisations yet attempted, adding that it was well known that the Kent Water Bill did not reach its present stage without a tremendous amount of preparatory work and negotiations. After all that tremendous amount of preparatory work, negotiations and consultations, the Kent County Council asks no more than that its Bill should be sent to a Select Committee of this House where it can produce evidence by witnesses in support of its proposals, and where those who have petitioned against the Bill—and there are

  663
  seventeen Petitioners, but not all of them opposed to the principle of the Bill—can also produce evidence, it is hoped by witnesses, who up to the present have been noticeable by their absence, and where the whole matter can be gone into in detail and quite impartially. The Kent County Council hopes that the two opposing Bills which have been promoted since the Kent Bill was heard in another place will also be sent to the same Select Committee. It will welcome the prospect of hearing witnesses who were not put forward before. Without encroaching on another Motion which is to come before the House, the County Council hopes that all three Bills will be given a Second Reading and sent to the Select Committee without giving any instructions or orders to that Committee as to how it shall carry out its important task.
  If I may be personal for one minute, may I say that I should not have consented to move the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House if I had not consulted many of those who have the interests of the whole county at heart, and those leaders in the county who have given years of voluntary service impartially and free from Party politics. They have convinced me that this Bill is a wise measure, not just for five years but for twenty, thirty or more years, and will be of benefit to the county and to those whose lives and work are carried on within its boundaries. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Cornwallis.)
  2.51 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of your Lordships that some weeks ago there was some mention in your Lordships' House of the Kent Water Bill. It will also be within your recollection that the question we discussed on those two occasions was whether there should be a Joint Select Committee of both Houses or two separate Committees. I feel that the very powerful, though not entirely convincing, speech of the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading is alone an ample justification for the course which your Lordships took on those two occasions of insisting on the Bill going before a Committee of this House, because it is a most controversial Bill. If I had to make any criticism of the speech of the noble Lord
  664
  who moved the Second Reading, it would be that it was made on an assumption that all the wisdom lay with the Kent County Council and that all the foolishness lay with those who still oppose by Petition. As there are no fewer than seventeen Petitioners, I cannot believe that your Lordships will accept that all those petitioners are unwise in their actions or unable to be convinced as to what is, or what is not, right for the county of Kent.
  My regret is that there has to be opposition by Petition to provisions in this Bill which are what I would term Second Reading provisions: the elimination of local water undertakings by means of amalgamation. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading was careful to use the word "amalgamation" and to omit the supplementary adjective "compulsory" which really goes to the heart of the resistance to this Bill. I regret, and I believe noble Lords on all sides of the House will share with me the regret, the passing of a local service well performed by local authorities. On all sides of the House we want to support so far as we can the authority and the functions of local government. I feel that this Bill, which is going to be sent to a Committee and examined carefully by members of your Lordships' House, takes away unnecessarily from local undertakings the functions and duties which they have performed so admirably.
  The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading told us that he was an ex-Chairman of the County Council and that he is no longer on the County Council. I too can claim some sort of "ex" position as my justification in addressing your Lordships for a few moments; I am an ex-M.P. for a particular part of East Kent, in those days the Isle of Thanet Division, including the borough of Sandwich. It is those authorities who have appealed to me to put before your Lordships this afternoon the peculiar position of Thanet and Sandwich, with their fluctuating populations in summer and winter. The local authorities have to satisfy the holiday requirements in summer, while in winter there is a big drop in population, particularly in Sandwich. For 600 years the little, historic, ancient borough of Sandwich has supplied satisfactorily to its inhabitants water at an economic cost, and with every

  665
  satisfaction as regards health and the quality of the water supplied.
  The question which occurs to me is whether the ministerial responsibility under Section 1 of the Water Act, 1945, which placed upon the Minister the duty to promote a national policy, could not have been achieved in nearly every case, including the case of Sandwich and the Thanet towns, by voluntary amalgamations assisted by a co-ordinating body to advise the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is going to speak on the mid-Kent question, of which he has far greater knowledge than I have, but I understand that 94 per cent. of mid-Kent is company administered. Surely upon that foundation one could build voluntarily in mid-Kent, as one could build voluntarily particularly in the Royal Borough of Sandwich, rather than have regional boards with compulsory amalgamations.
  If I am told that the Members of Parliament for Kent did not object when the Second Reading was taken in another place, I would paint out that it is not for me to question their actions. But let me remind your Lordships of a description given to this Bill by the present Member of Parliament for Thanet, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 535 (No. 17). Col. 2840]:
  "…an unnecessary Bill, causing unnecessary friction, has been put forward to create an unnecessary board in order to add unnecessary expense to the ratepayers."
  That in itself—I am not saying whether it is entirely justified or not—is an answer as to whether or not the Kent Members of Parliament are unanimous in their support of this measure. If I am told that the Bill is considered necessary by the Minister, I feel that the procedure followed by the Government Department concerned scarcely fulfills the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health when he said that full regard must be paid to local feelings and to the long traditions of many of the water undertakings. There are seventeen petitions against this Bill.
  I conclude by saying that I—and I believe that many other noble Lords feel the same—view with sadness the calling into question of 600 years of tradition. I do not oppose the Second Reading, because my comfort is that this is one of the issues which will be impartially and fully considered by your Lordships' Com-
  666
  mittee when they come to examine the Bill. It is for that reason that, though I dislike the Bill's provisions, I would not in any way oppose the Second Reading; but I am glad that the course decided upon some months ago is going to be followed.
  2.59 p.m.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I should imagine that it could hardly be presented to your Lordships under more weighty sponsorship. Not only is the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, the Lord Lieutenant of the County at present, but, as he has told us in his speech, he has been Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Kent County Council. I understand that he has yet another qualification (if that is the right word), in that he has also been Captain of the Kent County Cricket Club—a combination of offices which cannot be common, if it is not indeed unique. In any case, I think my point is a good one, namely, that the Bill comes before your Lordships' House with the weightiest sponsorship. The second point I wish to bring out which has indeed already been made by the noble Lord himself, is that nobody can accuse the County Council of bringing the Bill forward without adequate preparation. I understand it goes back to 1935, when the County Council set up an Advisory Committee which went into the matter very thoroughly and made recommendations, backed by the highest technical experts. I am advised that the provisions of this present Bill are based largely on the recommendations of that Advisory Committee and of those experts. As the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has already told your Lordships, this Bill also has the blessing of the late Minister of Housing, Mr. Macmillan.
  I do not want to be long, but there are one or two facts and figures which may have some interest. In regard to statistics, the population in the area affected by the Bill is just over one million. The area is at present served by thirteen companies and twenty-two local authorities. The companies serve about 65 per cent. of the people—which the Ministry state is possibly three times as great as the proportion for the remainder of England and Wales—and the local authorities serve about 35 per cent. Under the Bill there will be six companies, serving about half the

  667
  population; five joint boards, composed of elected representatives appointed by sixteen local authorities; and five local authorities who, between them, will serve the remainder of the population. That is the substantial reduction in the number of water undertakings from thirty-five to fourteen.
  The area covered by the Bill is 1,425 square miles, and as I have already said, the population is just over one million. Many places are thickly populated; others are sparsely populated. There is a large variety of industries—paper-makers, two naval dockyards, a large oil refinery, breweries and agriculture. There are well-known and popular seaside resorts. The county is bounded on three sides by the sea and must, therefore, look entirely to its own resources for water. Experts have reported that the number of new sources of water in the area are limited and not evenly distributed. They also report that, if properly and fully developed, the supply will be adequate for the next twenty or thirty years. In 1935, the daily consumption of water was 27 gallons per head; in 1947, 12 years later, it was 40 gallons per head—a rise of 50 per cent. The present average daily consumption of water is about 42 million gallons. The reliable yield of existing sources has now developed to 52 million gallons per day. If those sources were fully developed the yield would be 62 million gallons a day. The estimated future demand is 71 million gallons a day. Surely this shows the need for reorganisation now, the better to be able to organise the sources of supply for the future. Even the Government's successful housing programme adds to the obligations of the water undertakers by increasing demand for water. That is a factor which we should not forget—that an increasing building programme naturally leads to further demands for water.
  I have intervened in this matter only because I happen to reside in Kent and therefore have an indirect interest. I hope that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, will have convinced your Lordships of the desirability of giving the Bill a Second Reading. In regard to the last passage of his speech, in which he added a rider, if I may so describe it, that he hoped that, if the Bill does secure a Second Reading, all these matters will be considered by one Select Committee,
  668
  I hope that that Select Committee will not be, if I may say so without offence, hampered by any "instruction," one way or the other. I have some small experience of serving on Select Committees of your Lordships' House—I have served on one or two—and it has always seemed to me that there is no need for such Committees to be given any instruction to deal with a Bill in the fullest and most careful manner which they naturally do. I have no doubt that that is what they will do in regard to this matter. I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis.
  On Question, Bill read 2a.
  3.5 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to move that it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill may be referred not to pass Part VII and Clause 68 (b) in Part VIII of the Bill without special attention. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion that appears in my name, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the proposal in this Bill to create in the Medway area a water board, rather than company administration. I think that I should also take this opportunity of declaring that I am personally interested in the Medway area, as I own property there. I would point out that if these clauses were left out of the Bill it would in no way prevent its passage, nor would it affect the object of the promoters, which is to effect amalgamation of a number of small water units into larger water undertakings. I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and I cannot help feeling that he has not yet produced any valid reason for the institution of a water board, rather than a company administration, in the Medway area. It is this point with which I wish to deal, and to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention. Certainly I have no objection at all to the Bill as a whole.
  If your Lordships will examine the evidence given before the Select Committee in another place, I think it will be found to be perfectly clear that the promoters of the Bill did not object to Part VII of the Bill being struck out, provided that an undertaking was given that a company amalgamation would be promoted in the Medway area. At page 37 of the Minutes of Evidence in another

  669
  place, learned counsel for the promoters of the Bill used these words:
  "If all the Petitioners agree that there should be amalgamation and are content that it should be under a company administration, without doubt as a result of an undertaking to your Committee, the County Council (I repeat, the Kent County Council) would have no objection on that understanding to this part of the Bill being struck out by your Committee. We do not want to take part ourselves in the administration of the resulting amalgamated area."
  We have there a perfectly clear undertaking given by the promoters of the Bill. The undertaking given by the Petitioners against the Bill has already been fully complied with in the promotion of a Bill to amalgamate various water units around the principal company, the Chatham and District Water Company. I cannot help feeling that the proposal to form a water board will very likely lead to increased charges for consumers, whereas the Chatham Bill, which is also before your Lordships' House, proposes not only to take over existing staffs but to maintain the existing charges for water for a definite period of five years.
  I think it is only right that I should draw your Lordships' attention to certain other matters in this Bill. There is the report on the Bill by the late Minister of Housing and Local Government, which has already been referred to this afternoon. This report suggests that the usual procedure for amalgamation of water companies has, in fact, been departed from. In paragraph 10 of the report these words are used:
  "The method adopted by the promoters, except in the Medway area, seems to have been to build the proposed new units round the principal undertaking in each area."
  What is the principal undertaking in the Medway area? It is the Chatham and District Water Company, which alone supplies 60 per cent. of the total population of the Medway area and is 94 per cent. company administered. Yet this Bill proposes to set up an entirely new form of administration by means of a Water Board.
  I understand that the history of this Kent Water Bill which is now before your Lordships is in some ways rather peculiar. In the first place, I believe, it was originally drafted in 1951, but did not then obtain the necessary majority in the Kent County Council to enable it to be
  670
  promoted in Parliament. It is interesting to note that the original draft, before it came to Parliament, maintained the existing company administration in the Medway area. In 1953, however, the redraft of the Bill which was eventually promoted in Parliament, and which is now before your Lordships, substituted a Water Board administration for company administration. The reason for the proposed change of administration in the Medway area has never been explained, but I know that between the original drafting of the Bill in 1951 and the introduction of the present Bill, the Kent County Council, unknown to the water companies in the Medway area, consulted all the local authorities and obtained their support for taking over the water companies. As soon as the Kent County Council Bill was published, the Chatham company, the largest undertaking in the Medway area, immediately, and I submit quite rightly, took the initiative in bringing about agreements to amalgamate the water companies and to obtain the support of the local authorities. All then changed their views and supported the continued existence of the companies as amalgamated into one company.
  Only recently the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government spoke to the Waterworks Association, and he made a point which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and which I will repeat. The Minister said:
  "You can be sure that in carrying out this work we shall pay full regard to local feeling and to the long tradition of the water undertakings."
  I feel sure that the Select Committee to whom this Bill may be referred will take careful note of these matters, and will bear in mind particularly the feelings of local people and the long traditions of local water undertakings. My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears in my name.
  Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill may be referred not to pass Part VII and Clause 68 (b) in Part VIII of the Bill without special attention.—(Lord Teynham.)
  3.14 p.m.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, you may wish me to say a few words as to the practice of your Lordships' House in dealing with instructions to Select

  671
  Committees appointed to consider Private Bills. There are many precedents for Motions such as that moved by my noble friend, but they have all been in relation to unopposed clauses in Bills. There is, however, every indication that the particular clauses covered by my noble friend's Motion, and indeed all the other clauses of this Kent Water Bill, will be contested in this House as they were in another place. So far as I can ascertain, your Lordships have never given an instruction to a Select Committee in regard to an opposed clause of a Bill. The reason must be that your Lordships' House might find great difficulty in giving instructions to a Committee to do that which they will inevitably have to do, because their attention will be called by counsel engaged before the Committee to every matter covered by these clauses; therefore it seems that an instruction could only give the impression that these particular clauses were either more important than the other clauses of the Bill or more objectionable. It may be that they are; I do not know; but it appears very difficult for the House to come to a decision on that question by a discussion here, when all the matters will be discussed before the Select Committee. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press his Motion.
  3.16 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I entirely agree with the observations of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. In my sojourning in and out of Parliament, I at one time developed—and in this respect I am rather unique in your Lordships' House—a considerable practice before Committees of this House. This House has a right to be proud of the work which its Committees have done, and a right to be very proud of the respect which is felt for them. I have never yet sat as a member of a Committee, but I can say that our Committees manage, notwithstanding political differences, to hear a case fairly and judicially. I have heard all the observations that have been made to-day on both sides, and this Motion seems to be rather like whispering in the ear of a judge before he hears a case. We have agreed that we are to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Why on earth should we discuss it ourselves? Surely the right procedure is to send it to the Select Committee, let them hear and decide upon
  672
  it, as they always do in our House, and then let the matter come back to us. If the Bill passes Committee, it comes back to us again; and then, on Third Reading, in the full knowledge of everything which will be in the Report of the Committee, we can take exactly what line we may think proper.
  I do not know what line I shall take—I am neither for nor against this Bill—but I most devoutly hope (and I feel I am speaking for many noble Lords in saying this) that we shall not, on these occasions, resort to the practice of making ex parte statements, with necessarily and inevitably imperfect knowledge, in order that we may in some way or other influence the Committee in the conclusion to which they are to come. I consider the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, most deplorable. In one sense it is almost insulting to the Committee, in that it instructs the Committee to whom the Bill may be referred not to pass Part VII and Clause 68 (b) of Part VIII without special attention. Of course they will not pass it without special attention. There were twenty-three days spent in Committee in another place and there was an array of the most distinguished counsel at the Parliamentary Bar. The Committee are bound to give it special attention. The only effect, and I suppose intention, of such a Motion is to suggest that Parliament is giving a hint to the Committee as to what it should do. I hope this House, with its very imperfect knowledge of the matter and knowing really nothing one way or another about it, will give no hint to the Committee as to what should be done.
  I am glad to have my recollection confirmed by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. Resolutions of this sort have been passed in relation to unopposed Bills, because if one has an unopposed Bill there is a danger of some big national interest being passed over sub silentio without consideration. On such occasions the House gives an instruction to the Committee. I have known an instruction given to a Committee in regard to an opposed Bill where the subject matter was some great national interest and where the two parties, although they were fighting on some small party points, might have disregarded that interest altogether. Where one is dealing with some historic case it is also right that the national point should

  673
  be brought before the Committee, since it might not be brought before the Committee by either of the contestants. But I maintain that this sort of Motion in a contested Bill is the worst procedure one can imagine. I hope that your Lordships will never adopt it; I certainly hope that you will not adopt it in this case. I do not argue for this Bill; I do not argue against the Bill; I know nothing about the Bill. Let us send it to a Committee whom we have appointed and in whom we have trust; let them elucidate and bring out the facts, and then, if the Bill passes the Committee, at a later stage let us take what course we like. But let us not have this sort of suggestion made in the hope of influencing the Committee before they have got down to dealing with the Bill.
  3.20 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, as we have just been told by the noble and learned Earl and other speakers, this Bill is going to a Select Committee. Certainly the last thing I want to do is to prejudice what will happen when it reaches that Committee. But I feel that, as the Leader of your Lordships' House, I must in a very few sentences—and they will be only two or three—give a little guidance from these Benches. In justice to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who has had rather severe treatment from the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken, I think we ought to recognise—at least I understand this to be the position—that it never was the noble Lord's intention either to destroy this Bill or indeed to prejudice further discussions upon it by the Committee. His object was to secure that a particular aspect which he believed to be important—and which is to be incorporated, as I understand, in some later measure which is to come before the Committee—should be in the minds of the Select Committee in discussing this Bill. I really do not think that that was an improper thing for the noble Lord to do. It seems to me we are all members of this House and it is legitimate for any of us to put before the House a view which he believes to be soundly based. I should have thought that the noble Lord was entirely within his rights in tabling this Motion.
  674
  On the other hand, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Earl in thinking that it would be extremely unfortunate if he pressed it to a Division, because, however far it might be from his intention, we who were asked to express some view upon it might give the impression—and it would be an unfortunate one—that this House, without adequate knowledge (and we cannot have adequate knowledge of these intricate questions), was trying to influence a Bill which is going to a Select Committee. I entirely agree with the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees that that would be most undesirable, for, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said, the whole essence of the work of a Select Committee is that it should be fair and judicial; and it is remarkable how that tradition has been maintained throughout the years.
  Actually, I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has achieved his object—the object which I understood he had in view—and I have no doubt that the Committee will take account of all that has been said here, just as they will take account of all other aspects which will come before them in the consideration of the Bill. Now he has achieved that, I feel certain that the noble Lord will be ready to withdraw his Motion. I am sure, with the noble and learned Earl, that that would be a counsel of wisdom and in accordance with all the traditions of this House. I do not take quite such a black view of what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has done as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, appears to take. I think Lord Teynham has done what he intended should be done. No one in the world, I am sure, and he less than anyone, would wish in any way to influence or to give instructions to anyone in a matter such as this.
  EARL JOWITT: May I be allowed to say that I do not suggest that Lord Teynham did anything improper or anything except what he thought he should have done. I suggest that he did something which is unwise and which would set a precedent which should not be followed.
  LORD TEYNHAM: In spite of what the noble and learned Earl has just said, he did in fact say that there were precedents for such a Motion as this on an opposed Private Bill dealing with a very important matter. There has been a precedent for this form of Motion. I

  675
  consider that my point is a very important one too but in view of what has been said by the Lord Chairman of Committees and by my noble Leader, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Bill committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  CHATHAM AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
  SEVENOAKS AND TONBRIDGE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
  CHINESE ENGINEERING AND MINING COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
  CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

  MONO-SODIUM GLUTAMATE IN FOOD
  3.27 p.m.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: 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 for what purposes mono-sodium glutamate is added to foodstuffs; to what foodstuffs it is added; and what research has been conducted relating to the effects on health of the ingestion of this chemical in small quantities for prolonged periods.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, the purpose of the addition of mono-sodium glutamate to certain kinds of food is to enhance their flavour. In fact it functions as a condiment. It is used at present principally in canned soups and dry soup mixes. Glutamic acid, of which this substance is a salt, is a normal constituent of food proteins and has not been found to have any adverse effect on health; I am advised that there is no reason to believe that
  676
  the continued use of mono-sodium glutamate will have any such effect.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Do I understand from the noble Viscount's answer that in fact no research has been conducted on this matter?
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I do not know what the noble Lord understands from it. I made no observations on the subject at all.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Then may I ask the noble Viscount whether it is a fact that he has no information about that part of my question?
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: That is true.

  WEST INDIAN IMMIGRANTS
  3.29 p.m.
  LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Calverley, who I am sorry to say is indisposed, I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the immigrants who recently arrived from the West Indies in Italian ships had been medically examined before the ships sailed and whether they were provided with proper clothing and sufficient money; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give the name of the organisation responsible.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES(LORD LLOYD): My Lords, the parties of West Indian immigrants who recently arrived from the West Indies in Italian ships were not medically examined before embarkation. There is no requirement that private fare-paying passengers joining ships in the West Indies should submit themselves for medical examination. The immigrants do not undertake their journey under official auspices, and there is no question of an obligation on the authorities in the West Indies to provide them with money or clothing. The ships in question are owned by well-known shipowners with agents in London, and arrangements for passages are made in the ordinary course of business by travel agencies in the West Indies.
  LORD KERSHAW: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his Answer.

  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to remove, subject to certain safeguards, the restrictions on children taking part in riding or athletic events or in games or sports, and for that purpose to amend Section 22 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. I move that this Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Teynham.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  SHARES OF NO PAR VALUE
  3.30 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CROMER THE EARL OF CROMER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the recommendations of the Gedge Report on Shares of No Par Value (Cmd. 9112); and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it may be accepted as a fact that no country in the world is more dependent on its manufacturing industries and its merchants for its mere survival, let alone its prosperity, than the United Kingdom. Owing to the vast aggregations of capital required to-day to provide the machinery for production and the working capital for merchanting, the joint stock company has almost entirely supplanted the individual capitalist. Although the joint stock companies have made their mark on our history for many centuries, it was probably the great railway building boom of the last century which really put them on the map as a means of providing finance for large-scale industrial enterprise. As this is relevant to the situation which has continued to the present day, I should like to remind your Lordships that in those days it was common practice in many cases for shares to be issued in a partly paid form. There were various reasons for this, not the least of which was the fact that creditors in those days, when companies were still looked upon as a hazardous experiment, used to look on the uncalled liability oil shares as their enforceable security in the event of the failure of the company. It was customary, therefore, to describe a share as, for instance, "a £10 share, £3 paid." But to-day, of course, a partly-
  678
  paid share is a rarity except immediately after a new issue.
  In view of our dependence on the successful operation of joint stock companies, it is essential that the relationship between the three main constituents—labour, management and capital—should be harmonious. Probably this can best be achieved by each party being kept as closely and as fully as possible informed of the activities and difficulties of the other parties, as it is only by mutual confidence that the three constituents can work effectively as one. Communication is one of the problems to be solved, and in particular the avoidance of the use of words which are ambiguous in their meaning. From the layman's point of view, there are many such words in company law and practice. The 1948 Companies Act was a great improvement on its predecessors from many points of view, not the least of which was the fact that it called for the publication of considerably more information. Some progressive companies have even gone further than the Act requires and I should like to see other companies following suit. However, the 1948 Companies Act still contains the words found in its predecessors, the heritage of the Railway Age, to the effect that the memorandum of a company with shares must state the amount of share capital and the division thereof into shares of a fixed amount.
  In 1952 there was a debate in another place on a Private Member's Bill to introduce no par value shares. The aftermath of that debate was that a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Montagu Gedge was set up by the President of the Board of Trade to investigate the desirability of no par value shares. The Committee reported in January last year, having heard evidence from a large number of authoritative bodies and individuals, and the Majority Report of the Committee was strongly in favour of permissive legislation to allow the issue and use of no par value shares. There was one dissentient on the Committee—the representative of the T.U.C. The T.U.C. was the only responsible body which was definitely against the use of such shares.
  Although I do not think the House would wish me on this occasion to go in detail into the technicalities of no par value shares, I should like to attempt to explain in very general terms the implications

  679
  of the recommendations of the Gedge Committee. First of all, the nominal capital of a company—that is, the capital that appears in the company's balance sheet—may or may not represent the amount subscribed by the shareholders in cash in the first place or subsequently, together with such undistributed profits as have been formally transferred to capital account. What is perfectly certain is that at no time, except in the most unusual circumstances, does the nominal capital have any bearing on the capital employed in a business. In fact, the more forbearing shareholders are in not withdrawing the earnings to which they are entitled, the more unrealistic becomes the nominal capital.
  As to all intents and purposes this nominal capital figure is meaningless, it must follow that any division of this figure into shares of a fixed amount is equally meaningless. An equity share bestows no specific right to any specified number of pounds, but merely bestows a potential right to a proportionate amount of the assets and earnings of a company after all debts have been met and after all prior-ranking securities have received their entitlement. The no par value system at least removes the main cause of misunderstanding of the nature of an equity share, the notional monetary label attached to a par value share which is quite unreal. The other principal criticism of par value shares is the method of declaring dividends as a percentage of nominal capital. Any figure expressed as a percentage of another figure which is meaningless must be meaningless itself. It would make just as much sense for the dividend to be declared as a percentage of the number of employees.
  Another important criticism of par value shares is the misunderstanding which arises very generally when what otherwise would, in theory at any rate, be distributable profits are permanently frozen into the capital of a company by what is usually but misleadingly called a "bonus issue." Such issues are necessary from time to time under the present system in an attempt to bring the nominal capital more into line with the capital employed in the business, but unfortunately there seems to be a fairly widespread belief that in the circumstances the shareholders are getting some-
  680
  thing for nothing free of tax and in perhaps a somewhat nefarious manner, whereas in fact the individual shareholder has exactly the same proportionate interest in the same assets and the same earnings as before.
  What are the chief advantages claimed for no par value shares? First, the removal of the monetary label attached to a share would lead to simpler and more comprehensible balance sheets. As bonus issues will not be required, the inherent misconceptions which such issues evoke will not arise. The issue of further equity capital would be possible in circumstances which at present usually necessitate borrowing owing to the limitation on the issue of par value shares at a discount. The declaration of dividends as a percentage of nominal capital would be replaced by dividends of so many shillings and pence per share—and these would be real shillings and pounds and not notional ones.
  It is true that various criticisms exist of the recommendation of the Gedge Committee, and in the debate in another place various objections were made to the issue of no par value shares. I contend, however, that these criticisms and objections are based on facts which do not happen to be true. The principal objection put forward by the Trades Union Congress at the hearings before the Committee was that the main purpose of the issue of such shares was to conceal what is happening inside a public company and, in particular, to camouflage the payment of excessive dividends. Of course, this is far from the truth. No doubt there are better ways in which this particular purpose could be achieved. But in the evidence of the T.U.C. before the Committee, one representative of the T.U.C. is reported as having said that if a dividend, for instance, of 2s. 6d. a share is declared on a no par value share, he could not explain what it was on. I take it to mean that if this dividend were declared on a share with a nominal value of £1 it would represent 12½ per cent., or if it were declared on a share with a nominal value of 10s., it would represent 25 per cent. To follow up the argument put forward by the T.U.C., this is apparently easy to explain; but I should not like to try to do it, because it does not mean anything.
  The same point kept on coming up in the debate in another place, where there was stated to be a preference for a picture even though it was admitted that the picture might not be an accurate one. I believe this to be fallacious reasoning, because if one takes one of the leading companies in this country—which I have chosen not because it is an exaggerated case, but because the company is sufficiently far-sighted to publish its turnover figures—one finds that in 1953 they earned 46 per cent. on their nominal capital, and they paid a dividend of 18 per cent. on their nominal capital. If one takes the capital employed in a business from the balance sheet, and works out the earnings and dividends on this basis, one finds they come to 14½ per cent. and 5½ per cent.; and even these figures are probably still exaggeratedly high, because the balance sheet will almost certainly understate the value of the assets, owing to depreciation. As a matter of interest, if one works out the earnings on the gross turnover of this same company, one finds it is about 6½d. in every £1 of sales, which is a verb modest profit. If we read that a company has made 46 per cent, it may to some people sound high—that apparently is what some people would like to hear—but as a picture of what is actually happening in the company it is a travesty of the truth.
  The T.U.C. stated to the Committee that excessive dividends were those which would strike an average trade unionist as excessive in relation to the wages he was receiving and in relation to general remuneration of all kinds. For 1952 one particular company reported earnings of 437 per cent. on the nominal capital, and paid a dividend of 250 per cent. on the nominal capital. Again, if you work out the capital employed in the business from the balance sheet—which I have already pointed out is an inaccurate yardstick, because it still exaggerates the profits—you find that the figure of 437 per cent. comes down to 20·7 per cent., and the dividend of 250 per cent. comes down to 11·8 per cent. That the T.U.C. can say it is easy to explain this to workpeople surprises me greatly. I do not think that credence can be given to the argument that the task of the T.U.C. would be made more difficult by the removal of this most obnoxious red herring from the table of wage negotiations. My contention is
  682
  borne out by a number of those who gave evidence before the Committee. What really matters to shareholders and workers alike is the amount of profits made by a company in pounds, shillings and pence, and it is only against this comparison that dividends or profits can be adjudged to be too high or too low.
  The T.U.C. make a point with which I heartily agree, in complaining that some companies do not disclose enough information to allow for objective discussion. In particular, it is most helpful when companies publish their turnover figures. Discussion would be more objective if the main points at issue were not so often obscured by the present misleading connotation of the word "profits." On the question of bonus issues, the debate in another place and the Minority Report of the Committee both show such a misapprehension of the purpose served by such issues that it is highly desirable that the need for them be removed.
  The Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Montagu Gedge received more than adequate evidence that there is a desire for no par value shares. They were satisfied that there was substance in this desire, and also that the same protection as at present should be granted to the investing public against manipulation and other malpractices. They were also satisfied that such shares are a logical development of company law and practice, and that the objections put to them were either ill-founded or met by the recommendations of the Committee. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to see their way to introduce permissive legislation to allow the use of no par value shares and thereby remove this most troublesome source of misunderstanding between capital and labour. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.46 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I rise with considerable diffidence to take part in this debate because I am aware that on the Benches of your Lordships' House there are many men who have far more expert knowledge of this question than I should for a moment claim for myself. At the same time, I have a certain amount of knowledge derived from my own personal experience, which is a family tradition, because my forbears were actively engaged in the City of London. Moreover, as a multi-trustee

  683
  in many concerns, I have naturally had to deal in detail with investment in companies; and, in addition, I sat for many years in another place when the company laws were being amended.
  It seems to me that those who are advocating a change have to establish three facts. The first is that the change they propose is intrinsically and substantially beneficial; the second is that there is a demand among those qualified to express it in favour of the proposed reform; and the third is that there are no disadvantages attaching to the change which are great enough to outweigh the advantages claimed. I venture to submit that this proposal fails on all those three grounds. Prior to my speech we had an admirable speech by the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, in introducing the Motion. I listened with the greatest care to see whether he put forward any substantial claim of advantage which would be effected by this change, and if your Lordships read his speech tomorrow I think you will find that I am not exaggerating when I say that he did not put forward a single argument of power in favour of the scheme. He put forward a number of answers to alleged objections, but he did not make any real case of what was greatly going to be gained by the proposal.
  With regard to that, I should like to point out to your Lordships that the view put forward by the Incorporated Accountants, so far as I can understand it from the evidence which they gave, is that in order to make the scheme devoid of danger it would be necessary to safeguard it by a number of provisions. If those provisions were made, then the alleged advantages of the scheme would almost entirely disappear. That is the substance, as I read it, of the evidence tendered by the Society of Incorporated Accountants. I have come back, therefore, to try to discover what the advantages of this scheme really are supposed to be.
  So far as I can make out, they amount to this: that as the actual discrepancy between the subscribed capital and the capital in the business, as represented by its balance sheet, is so great, it will be a great advantage to sweep away the conception altogether. That is, however, a rather hypothetical advantage. I entirely agree that a great many things in
  684
  a company balance sheet tend to become notional: it is certainly true to a large extent in the case of subscribed capital—I do not think anybody would attempt to deny that. But whether there would be advantage in introducing in its place another notion, that of a share of no par value, I am exceedingly doubtful. In my view, it is an innovation which would not make a great deal of difference, and it would certainly tend to confuse a large number of ordinary people.
  Now let me turn to the second point: is there any substantial demand for this charge? I noticed that in their memorandum the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales said that, in their opinion, no par value shares should be introduced only if the Gedge Committee received evidence of a general demand for it, and that the Council of the Chartered Accountants is not itself aware of a general demand of that nature. It is true that certain demands were put forward by the evidence of other bodies laid before the Gedge Committee, but I remain doubtful whether that demand is of such an extensive character as in any way to justify this considerable innovation.
  Now I come to the third point of my criteria: whether there are disadvantages, and what they are. The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, quite good-temperedly, rather made fun of the T.U.C. and their objections to the scheme. I venture to suggest that we ought to pay considerable attention to the views of the T.U.C. in this matter, because they have a grave responsibility to perform. Your Lordships are aware, of course, as every ordinary citizen who thinks for himself must be—and your Lordships have a special knowledge of these things—that the whole social stability of this country depends upon the acceptance on all sides of the great British tradition of "fair do's." If you once threaten the acceptance of "fair do's" in any section of society you are in for trouble, because it is perfectly clear today that anything like a withholding of its services by any influential section of the population, or, on the other hand, any such reduction of incentives that those who have capital at their disposal are unwilling to invest in the enterprises of our own country, would produce a disequilibrium that would cause grave menace to the prosperity of this country in the days to come.

  685
  The T.U.C. take the view that it is their business to promote demands for reasonable accretions in wages. As your Lordships will be aware, in dealing not only with trade unionists and workers in industry but with large numbers of people, their ideas of what is reasonable are often far in excess of the views taken by other people. The Trades Union Congress today, with great difficulty, have to expound the position to many of their workers who want to press for claims which in the opinion of the T.U.C., as a whole are unreasonable. Let us take two illustrations. In the first case, suppose that a dividend is announced of 20, 30 or 40 per cent. The person who is not accustomed to understand company affairs says "Just fancy; this shareholder in this company has spent £1 and he is getting 5s. or 10s. on every pound he has put in." Of course, your Lordships know perfectly well that that is often far different from the fact. The shares, instead of being £1 at the time the investor bought them, might have been £7.
  That is not easily understood by the ordinary man in the street, and not always understood by investors themselves. The T.U.C. have learned the technique of explaining these facts to the workers, and, I think your Lordships will admit, with a reasonable amount of success. Now it is proposed to take the chess board, turn the pieces off and start an entirely new method of estimating the dividends compared with the investment that is made. It means starting all over again with a new technique which large numbers of workpeople will regard as fictitious—because there is a fictitious element about these shares of no par value, as I think noble Lords on all sides must agree.
  Take another example. The noble Earl quite rightly said that when bonus shares are issued, theoretically the equity shareholder owns no more than he did before. If there were 1,000 shares of £1 for every share he had, it means that there are now 2,000 shares. As the holders of these 2,000 shares own between them the whole business, and they cannot own any more, theoretically the shareholder gains nothing by the bonus distribution. But no noble Lord who has had experience of bones shares can be deluded into imagining that in all practical cases, or nearly all (I think there was one in the opposite direction
  686
  the other day), when there is a distribution of bonus shares the net result to an individual shareholder is other than that he finds himself with assets that have risen considerably. The Gedge Committee, in one paragraph of their Report, gave a perfectly valid reason for that, but the fact remains; so the workman is not so very misguided when he thinks that, by the distribution of bonus shares, the shareholders are becoming considerably more wealthy. It is quite commonly held to-day that a large number of people who get a tax-free bonus have more money to spend than another person who methodically has earned a wage of a certain amount. I quite recognise the reason for that, and it remains theoretically true that the shareholder does not have any more after the transaction than he did before. I quote that as another thing that has to be explained to the ordinary person. Until it is explained, he does not understand it at all, and when it has been explained to him he probably thinks there is a catch in it somewhere.
  The long and short of all this is that the Trades Union Congress fear, and I think with some justification, that if you make an entirely new arrangement and create shares of no par value it will place in their way the fresh difficulty of getting the ordinary trade unionist to understand that in this considerable change you are not taking some means to hide the facts from the workmen in the business. What it really comes down to is this—and here I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl who put forward this proposal: the great thing is to insist that more information is given than has been given in the days gone by. That is one of the results of the last Companies Act, and, in so far as that was so, I think it was thoroughly good.
  If I felt—and I should like not to be misunderstood in this matter—that the introduction of this change, the permission to create shares of no par value, was intrinsically of great benefit to the country (and, incidentally, to the companies themselves), I should not think that the difficulty put forward by the T.U.C. ought to override that consideration. If there were a very large demand on a general scale for the introduction of this proposal, even though the intrinsic good that it would do might not be

  687
  very great, I should not think that what the T.U.C. said ought necessarily to prevail. But as in my view, and in the view of the London Chamber of Commerce, the advantages of this new scheme are largely theoretical, I do not feel that there is sufficient ground for making the change, having regard to the Trades Union Congress objections to it.
  Perhaps I may quote to your Lordships what the London Chamber of Commerce representatives said in their evidence. One said this:
  "I think that in certain sets of circumstances the results might become gravely misleading in the course of time."
  In another place they said:
  "Individual members"—
  that is, of their body—
  "have shown no interest at all"
  in these proposals. I have already quoted to your Lordships the views of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and of the Society of Incorporated Accountants—bodies, I submit to your Lordships, of very considerable importance in this matter: the two leading bodies of accountants—and the London Chamber of Commerce, by no means an unimportant body in the City of London.
  Therefore, I suggest that we should not necessarily be motivated by the decision of the Gedge Committee, which, your Lordships will not forget, reverses the views and the decisions taken by two important Committees not so very long ago—the Committee of Lord Greene, formerly Master of the Rolls, published on May 8, 1926 (that is almost thirty years ago), and the Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Cohen (now Lord Cohen), which reported on June 11, 1945–that is only ten years ago. Moreover, although the Gedge Committee have reported in favour of this change, the evidence of intrinsic advantage to be gained from it has not been very strong, and there is no adequate public demand for it. I venture to say, therefore, that we should not rush into this innovation and I hope that the Government will say that they are not prepared to do so.
  4.5 p.m.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, we have had a somewhat varied menu before us this afternoon. We spent the first hour
  688
  arguing, as it were, about who was to provide the drinks, albeit non-alcoholic. I think that most of your Lordships will probably regard this debate as a somewhat indigestible hors d' œuvre to precede the succulent and substantial dish which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has in store for us shortly; but I would assure your Lordships that to those of us whose work is among financial matters it is real caviare. May I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, for rescuing this valuable Report from the pigeonhole in which it appears to have been lying since its publication some months ago? No less do I congratulate the Committee on the clarity with which they set out the arguments on a very complicated subject.
  The mover of the Motion has explained the nature of the subject in great detail and very clearly. I do not propose to enlarge upon the arguments in favour of the introduction of shares of no par value. I should like to try to counter some of these objections which have been raised to the proposal, and in particular to deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. First of all, he said that we must be convinced that there is a good reason for this change in the existing law. He himself is not convinced that there is a good reason. Surely, anything that clears away the mystery and uncertainty that surrounds any institution must be welcome. Surely, it is desirable that these things should be brought out into the open and that as many people as possible should understand them. On that ground alone there is every reason to permit the introduction of this type of share.
  From my own experience, though it is only a fraction of the length of that of the noble Lord opposite, I am convinced that it would be good from every point of view. For the private investor it would sweep away a great deal of uncertainty and misunderstanding about the nature of investments. For his advisers, and for those institutions whose job is mainly to invest the small man's savings for him, it would save a great deal of unnecessary and unproductive work. For those of us who are concerned with the production and audit of company accounts I believe that it would ensure that the true and fair view of the companies' affairs which we have to certify was, in fact, made also clear and obvious.

  689
  One of the arguments brought up in favour of the proposal before the Committee was the widespread use of this device in the United States and Canada. To that argument two objections were raised. The first was that recently in the United States there has been a trend away from shares of no par value. That is indeed the case, and I have taken the trouble to inquire into the reason. It appears that it is solely due to a quite arbitrary rate of tax on share transfers which weighs more heavily on shares of no par value than on certain others. I do not think there is any evidence that that taxation is for any reason designed to discourage the use of these shares, although it has had that effect.
  The second objection raised is that conditions across the Atlantic are different from those here and that we should not blindly follow in their steps. Of course I agree that we should not blindly follow in their steps, but I think there is no doubt that they have developed a system of public company finance more widely and to a more advanced stage than we have here. Then there is this point. Recently there has been a great increase in mutual investment between the two countries—that is, in British investors putting their money into American concerns, and, I am glad to say, in American investors putting their money into companies over here. I believe that that is wholly desirable, and I believe that practical ties of that sort are worth any amount of talk about mutual good will between the two countries. Surely, anything that is going to enable us to understand each other's systems of shares and investment is all to the good. There is no doubt that Americans have been greatly puzzled by some of the perhaps rather archaic terms and practices surrounding our company practice.
  To come to the question of the demand for this reform, the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said that he did not think the demand was very impressive; and he quoted in aid the evidence of certain august bodies—among them what he described as the two leading organisations of accountants in the country. With great respect, I would point out, with regard to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, that that august body's elder brother, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland, of
  690
  which I have the honour to be a member, reported wholeheartedly in favour of the proposal; and, if the noble Lord wishes I shall be glad to show him their evidence. I hardly think that your Lordships will be likely to consider the attitude of that body less cautious in regard to financial conduct and safeguards than its neighbour South of the Border.
  I do not set much store by this argument that there is not much demand. For one thing, the City is by nature a conservative institution, and it is, of course, largely due to that fact that it earns the respect that it does. But surely no reform will come about unless the facilities for it are provided. Provide the facilities, and I believe that the demand will come. There will be a first flight of progressive companies which will take advantage of this proposal, and I believe that once it has been put into action, it will be widely followed.
  As to the noble Lord's objection regarding the attitude of the worker and the general public, with great respect I do not think my noble friend Lord Cromer poured scorn on, or laughed at, the report of the T.U.C. I personally do not consider it a laughing matter; I think it is deadly serious, and a matter for considerable concern. Frankly, what their objection boils down to is that, because the workers (by which presumably they mean their members) cannot understand the present system of share capital with percentage dividends, they would be suspicious of any change. Surely that is merely saying that it is better to mislead the public than to remove the cause that is misleading them. Incidentally, that is in rather striking contrast to the attitude of the representatives of the T.U.C. when giving evidence before the Cohen Committee on Company Reform. It was quite clear at that time that those representatives themselves understood the nature of share capital and dividends, and they showed themselves anxious that their members should understand it, but they complained that they were unable to do so. Surely that is rather a strange argument. The deplorable part about it is that it shows a readiness to continue to perpetuate this rift in understanding between labour and capital, when of course they should regard themselves as partners in the enterprise, as indeed they are.

  691
  I apologise for again mentioning the United States, but I think it is a fact that over there the trade unions appreciate that what is good for the shareholders of a company is also good for them; they realise that a prosperous company which is making profits means higher earnings, as well as more security, for themselves. I only wish that that attitude could become more widespread over here. Indeed, I cannot believe that our own workers are all that much behind the workers in America in their intelligence. Of course, there are mysteries about this matter of company finance. For those who are not expert it is not easy to follow; and for this, as my noble friend said, managements must bear a good deal of the responsibility—they must make greater efforts to explain these things to their employees. But I must say that the trade unions also bear some responsibility for this situation. If they cannot explain to their workers the present system, surely it is much better to introduce a system which they can explain to them.
  As I have said, however, I do not think that the employees of this country are so ignorant. Some of your Lordships may have seen last week headlines about the success of an issue of shares to the public of a steel company which was formerly nationalised. Your Lordships may not have noticed that among the applicants for shares were 1,200 present employees of the company, who between them applied for an average of about £100 worth of shares. I do not think that those men entered into that undertaking without some sense of responsibility or some understanding of what they were doing; nor do I think that they would object if the company were to pay them a higher dividend than the one which is forecast. No doubt I should be ruled out of order if I were to attempt to draw from that any conclusion with regard to the employees' views on the nationalised ownership of industry.
  In conclusion, I hope that I have done something to show that there is a demand for these shares, that they can be hedged about by safeguards, and that the objections are not of sufficient weight to justify the Government's maintaining a barrier to prevent those companies who wish to do so from issuing shares of no par value. I realise that the subject is largely a tech-
  692
  nical one, and I agree with my colleagues who gave evidence for the Scottish Institute of Chartered Accountants—that it is not one that should be given a high degree of priority in Parliamentary time. At the same time, I feel that the Government should declare that they are not opposed to the principle of the introduction of such shares, and that if a further Private Member's Bill were introduced they would be willing to give it their support.
  4.18 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, after the informative speeches from both sides of the House to which your Lordships have listened, I am sure you do not want any more information about the nature of shares of no par value. I should like to sum up my point of view by saying that it seems to me an extremely logical form in which company capital should be arranged. If we cast our minds back to the days before companies became so common, and if we see what great complications of company finance there are, and the extraordinary disparities in the value of ordinary shares, I cannot help feeling that if anyone had been clever enough to think of no par shares in the early days it would have made things much easier, and would have been a much better arrangement.
  I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I understood him to bring three points against this proposal. What the noble Lord said was that those who favoured this proposal must show three things: first, that the effects of the change will be intrinsically beneficial; secondly, that there is a demand from qualified people; and thirdly, that there are in the present system disadvantages which outweigh the advantages to be had from that which is proposed.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The noble Lord has put it very well, but the last one is not quite correct. It is that the disadvantages in the change would not outweigh any alleged advantages. That is the third one.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think there is much between us: it comes to nearly, but not quite, the same thing—that the disadvantages in the change would not outweigh the advantages of the change. On the first point,

  693
  that the effect would not be intrinsically beneficial, the noble Lord opposite said that my noble friend who introduced the Motion had made no substantial claim for any advantage at all. That is not quite correct, for I understood my noble friend to claim the great advantage that it would make company accounts very much easier to understand. That is a very important point.
  Then the noble Lord quoted an accountant society on some technical points, and summed up that part of his argument by saying that he did not consider it would be advantageous to introduce another notion, the notion of shares of no par value. My answer to that objection is that it would be introducing not a notion but reality, because that is what these shares are. They have no fixed value, and it would be advantageous to get rid of what might be considered notional things and to introduce reality. The extent of the demand from qualified opinion is largely a matter of opinion. I feel that there is a strong demand among those persons best qualified. The noble Lord opposite is entitled to his opinion, but I believe that City opinion and accountancy and commercial opinion generally is in favour. The two Committees to which the noble Lord referred were Lord Greene's Committee which took evidence thirty years ago, and to which we cannot nowadays attach much importance, and the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Cohen (as he then was) which took evidence in 1943 and 1944, when many very important witnesses were not available. I believe that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, were to take evidence to-day he would ,get evidence to different effect; but that is a matter for speculation.
  Coming to the most important of the noble Lord's objections, he said the disadvantages would not outweigh the advantages; and in putting forward that view he rightly attaches great importance to the views of the T.U.C. The noble Lord said that the T.U.C. had grave responsibility in this matter, which is true. He also said that our social stability depends on the acceptance of "fair do's"—and I could not agree more. The noble Lord also said something which I am delighted to hear from that side of the House, that anything which discouraged the investor would cause
  694
  grave disability. I am not quite sure whether I heard the noble Lord rightly, but if so that is a very important admission, coming from that side of the House, because it is a view not commonly held among members of the Socialist Party.
  The noble Lord also said that it is the duty of the T.U.C. to demand reasonable accretion of wages. Once again I agree with the noble Lord, and I quite understand that the T.U.C. may have difficulty in explaining company finance to their members. It is not only the T.U.C. who have difficulty in explaining company finance to those whom they seek to enlighten. Where I differ so strongly from the noble Lord opposite is when he complains that there is a fictitious element in shares of no par value. I believe the precise contrary to be true: that if there is a fictitious element at all it is in a 10s. share nominal which is worth £4 on the Stock Exchange, or a £1 share which is worth nothing because the company is bankrupt. That is much more fictitious than a share of no par value, the price of which on the market will correspond exactly to what it is worth in money yield.
  The noble Lord makes the point that this innovation would create fresh difficulties for the T.U.C.—or that that is what they say. I am sorry if the T.U.C. think so, for if they really tackled this question they would find the converse to be true. Reluctantly I must touch on a rather unworthy argument in the T.U.C. evidence, that one of the purposes of the issue of shares of no par value is to conceal what is happening inside public companies and, in particular, to camouflage the payment of excessive dividends. I acquit the noble Lord of saying anything of the sort. I hope that I know him well enough to know that he would say no such thing. I am glad that the Majority Report did not make the obvious rejoinder, which would be fair. That would be to say that one of the objects of those who oppose shares of no par value is to permit large dividends to be misrepresented as excessive profits. I am not going to bandy arguments of that sort, but as it is there to be read in the Report we must be conscious of the other side. The noble Lord said that more information should be given. I agree, and that appears in

  695
  the Majority and Minority Reports. The noble Lord said he felt it would help, or that if there were a large demand he would favour it. I welcome his open-mindedness and hope that when he reads his speech and my own tomorrow he will find more in favour of the proposal than at first he thought.
  I will venture now to stray a little outside what would be the Rules of Order in another place and to refer to perhaps the most important thing which emerges from the T.U.C. evidence and the Minority Report—that is, that I believe both reflect regrettable ignorance. I am in no way impugning the sincerity of anybody concerned. I am perfectly certain that the signatory of the Minority Report only signed what he believed to be true and correct. Nevertheless sincerity, unfortunately, is very compatible with ignorance. One of Her Majesty's Judges once said: "Nothing is more conducive to false judgments than ignorance of the facts"; and, indeed, in arguing I have often found that to be the case.
  The Minority Report disregards a fact which I consider to be fundamental: that the interests of workers and shareholders are fundamentally identical. For support I appeal to the opening sentence of the informative speech of my noble friend behind me: that no country in the world is mote dependent on industry and commerce for its survival than ours. The fundamental identity of interest between the workers and shareholders is, in that respect, complete. There may be a difference of opinion about the division of such profit as may emerge, but it is the expectation of a profit that makes the wheels of industry turn, and I deplore the way in which noble Lords opposite, or their Party, so often represent profits as being something which is really immoral.
  If it is not too far outside the Motion I should like to stress the importance of the equity shareholder's function. He has to provide capital for new industry and capital to make industry expand and prosper. In doing so he runs risks. Just the other day Mr. Herbert Morrison said in another place:
  "As regards the bulk of the recipients of dividends, they have done little or nothing to earn them."
  It is a pity that opinions of that sort should be expressed by important people
  696
  on the other side of either House. To give an example of the risk which an equity shareholder runs I have turned up the Industrial Share Index in the Financial Times. There was a period of a few months in 1951–52 when they showed a global loss of 23 per cent. Textiles, in particular, showed a capital loss on the overall list of 40 per cent., and tea shares at one time of 41 per cent. Tea shares have all gone up again, but that fact does not help the man who had to sell them when they were down. It represents a loss of his capital. At the risk of labouring the point, may I stress that this conflict of interests between workers and shareholders is a mistaken idea? That industry should make profits is equally important to both. The whole Welfare State is dependent upon the profits of a healthy industry.
  At the risk of boring your Lordships, I will give just two more figures. In the five years from 1949 to 1953, companies paid more than £4,000 million in taxation. Including tax on their distributed dividends and interest, they provided £6,000 million. I cannot give the comparative figure for dividends, but that it is very much smaller is proved by the fact that a figure of £2,000 million represents over the same period not only dividends on ordinary shares but dividends on preference shares, interest on debentures and interest of all kinds including building society interest, both to shareholders and depositors, all, of course, net of tax. The whole structure of the Welfare State is dependent on the profits which derive from taxation. And the workers' interest in profits is even more direct. I understand that the Miners' Welfare Fund is a very large holder of equities. Then there are the great insurance companies, with millions of policy holders. The workers' interest is inextricably involved in their welfare.
  One word more. It may be argued that Socialist policy is hostile not to profits but to dividends—I think some Socialists realise that they are wiser to attack dividends. Though I do not think they are wise to attack either, they do attack dividends rather than profits. The point is, of course, that dividends are essential to secure the flow of risk capital for industry. Savings will not be attracted to industry unless there are proper dividends. Large profits, I maintain, are equally in the interest of the worker and of the

  697
  shareholder. They are equally important whether ploughed back into industry or distributed as dividends. It is an utterly false conception that the worker is the man who only works, while the shareholder is a man who only draws profits.
  I have already detained your Lordships too long and I will not deal with the question of what are excessive profits. But I suppose the extreme Socialist view is that anything that is left over after payment of wages, overheads and cost of material, if regarded as profit, is excessive. I should prefer, if I were asked to define excessive profits, to say that they are profits which result from the exploitation of the consumer, whether by pressure of monopoly or whatever it might be. I wish we could devise better means of making more obvious what I consider the obvious identity of interest of worker and shareholder. The best way to do that is to make the worker himself a shareholder. And that is happening.
  Lord Polwarth quoted the case of the recent steel issue. That is very valuable in the case of established companies. I have spoken about the risk attaching to equities, and therefore equities in single companies are not altogether so suitable, in my opinion, for the worker, because that means that his interest in the success of an industry is doubly engaged. If an industry fails he may lose his job, and, if he is a shareholder, he loses his capital as well. I would rather see an extension of small savings invested in, say, investment trust companies. I think that trust companies afford a very good example. I should like to see something in the nature of hire purchase shares in trust companies—always assuming, that such a scheme had the blessing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for, of course, hire purchase has risks. In this connection, something is being done in the United States, and I will conclude by saying that I hope more will be done in this country. I am sure the banks would be receptive to the idea—some of them at all events—and would be willing to help.
  I would emphasise the importance of more information being given by management to their men. I think they should keep the men fully informed on these matters. I could not be more enthusiastic about that—indeed, I am as enthusiastic about it as the noble Lord opposite. But I think, too, that if only the leaders of the Party opposite will try to remove
  698
  some of these misconceptions about profits they can do a great deal of good. It is they who have to do it. It is no use my making speeches about it. Not only am I a Member of your Lordships' House, on the wrong side, but I have been connected with the City. Altogether, my record is far too black in the eyes of the Party opposite for anything I say to carry any weight. If noble Lords opposite think there is anything in what I say, I beg them to try, to spread the truth about these matters, instead of allowing false impressions to be disseminated and supported by colleagues of theirs in high places.
  4.36 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, every man who reads a balance sheet with a view to ascertaining the value of a business does, in fact, disregard the nominal value of share capital and, whether he works it out with pencil and paper or by mental arithmetic, estimates the value of that business as if in shares of no par value. That is true of myself and of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. Therefore, if accounts are to show at any given time the true nature and state of a business this proposal which is now before your Lordships' House ought to receive universal assent.
  4.37 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, this subject, as we have heard, is a very technical one, and the issue should, I believe, be decided on its technical merits. Unfortunately it has become, in a sense, what I would call a matter of Party dispute. When I read the conclusions of the Minority Report, I note that a demand for a change exists among "some professional investors and speculators"; and there is an equally strong, or even stronger, opposition from the trade union movement. It is a little unfortunate that there should be that characterisation of "some professional investors and speculators" as being those who want the change.
  If your Lordships look at the list of those who have, in fact, shown themselves in favour of the change, as set out in Clause 22 of the Report, you will find a very impressive and responsible number of bodies, including such organisations as the Federation of British Industries, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the National Union of Manufacturers, the Issuing

  699
  Houses Association, the Association of Investment Trusts, and the British Insurance Association. It is true, as we have heard, that one or two are less certain about it. But it is just that sort of characterisation as is made in the Minority Report, or that sort of point, which I think is unfortunate. However, I do not wish to make a Party speech or a debating speech; nor do I want to go over technical points which have been so admirably developed and expressed by other speakers. Rather should I like to explore why the demand for no par value shares has developed, particularly over the last few years, and, if Her Majesty's Government decide not to introduce permissive legislation at the present time, what can be done under the present system to make things better.
  First, why has this demand for no par value shares arisen in the last few years, quite apart from any technical merits which may be inherent in these shares? As we all know, there are two main reasons. One is the rise in prices that has occurred since the beginning of the war. The second one is related to this: that when these rises took place, and when company directors and managements wanted to give effect to the change in the value of their companies, there was imposed, most unfortunately, a ban on so-called bonus share issues. What was the result? The result, very often, was that we found that apparently excessive dividends were being paid on shares because companies were not in a position to give the true value of the shares—the bonus ban forbade it. That naturally led to misunderstanding and suspicion on the part of the workers, and so was a bad thing. Then what happened? The ban on bonuses was, broadly, removed. The result was that many company directors properly performed their duty and issued these free shares; and many of them did it all at once. Again a flood of so-called bonus issues caused suspicion and created bad feeling among some of the workers in the trade union movement. If there had been no control, the whole process would have been a much more orderly one and would not have led to this apprehension and agitation against such happenings. So much for why the demand arose.
  If the Government decide not to introduce at this time legislation permitting no
  700
  par value shares—and when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, speaking about the attitude of the trade union movement and when I read the Minority Report of the Committee I am confirmed in thinking that they will not do so—none the less I think that there are some things which can be done which will remove some of the difficulties which we are facing at the present time. There are three main steps which can be taken. One is to find another name instead of "bonus" share, although this is a minor point. A bonus, as Webster says, is "something given beyond what is usual or strictly due." I think we all know that in this case the giving of a bonus share is, properly, giving nothing at all. We ought to try to find a different name, because the name it has to-day perpetuates the misconception which surely we want to avoid.
  Secondly—and this is more important—I ask the Government whether they will remove the need for companies to get the permission of the Capital Issues Committee before they make a free bonus share issue. I think that requirement is really an anachronism and a nonsense. If I may give an analogy, although I know analogies are often imperfect, I would point out that there may be a number of citizens who own valuable pictures which are covered with dirt, and which are badly framed and badly lit. Imagine the position if they had to get the permission of a committee appointed by the Government before they could remove the dirt from those pictures and place them in a proper light, so that their value might be appreciated by the public. That is not a very far-fetched analogy with the position of those who have to get permission from the Capital Issues Committee before they can make a bonus share issue. While on this point, I would appeal to noble Lords opposite, when, or if, they next come into power, not to reintroduce this ban on bonuses or to make it a penal matter to issue bonuses. It is a misconception and something which leads to misunderstanding, and it should not be.
  This brings me to my last point, which is much the most important and which has been touched on by everybody in the debate to-day—namely, that company directors and managements must go to much greater pains to try to explain to the workers the whys and wherefores of capital changes. They may say that they

  701
  have tried to do this very often, but when one reads the Report it is clear that they have failed. I only hope that what we have heard to-day will be studied by all concerned and interested, and that a determined attempt will be made to put this particular point right. If these three steps are taken, and above all if the unfounded suspicions about capital changes which to-day affect the workers can be removed, then I think the work of the Committee which did the study on no par value shares will not have been in vain.
  4.45 p.m.
  LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, of all those who have risen to address your Lordships this afternoon, I am the least qualified to do so. Neither by education nor by training nor by experience am I able to instruct your Lordships on these high matters. Any misgiving I have had has only been emphasised by the opening comments of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who said that this was a technical matter to be decided only by technicians. I do not agree with the noble Earl on that point. Though clearly it is a highly technical and complicated matter, it is one which is of the greatest concern to everybody in the community, and I think it might be fitting that I should give what I consider to be a layman's view of this question. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, made an extremely fair speech, as he always does. He said that this issue must be submitted to three tests: whether there were great advantages to be derived from the change, whether there was a demand for it, and whether there were any disadvantages which could be invoked which would outweigh such advantages as there might be. I do not think it is necessary to concern ourselves with one of these tests. So far as the existence or not of the demand is concerned, I should be prepared to accept the evidence of the Committee's Report. The other two tests seem to me much more important and I should like to address myself to them for a few moments.
  There is one overwhelming advantage in the substitution of no par value shares, not only from the point of view of the shareholder but also from the point of view of British industry as a whole. On either side of the House we have differing views about the effectiveness of a profit-making economy, but we are agreed on one thing, namely, that over by far the greater part of the field—some would
  702
  say 60 per cent., others 80 per cent., I myself should prefer it to be 100 per cent.—we have to rely on a profit-making economy. I do not think there is anybody who disputes that—not the Conservative Party nor the Liberal Party, nor the Socialist Party. It is of the essence of a profit-making economy that it should be enabled to earn profits freely. We are often told by noble Lords opposite of the far greater efficiency of the American industrial machine. We are told that it has three, four and five times as much horse-power per industrial worker as the industrial machine in this country. Surely one of the reasons for that, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, pointed out earlier, is that in the United States it is respectable to make profits. In this country over a wide field it is regarded as disreputable to make profits.
  EARL JOWITT: No.
  LORD COLERAINE: I am not suggesting that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, shares that view, but I am saying that over a wide field that view is held, and that is one of the reasons why the industrial machine works more effectively and provides a higher standard of living in the United States than it does here.
  There is no doubt whatever that the existing system of calculating dividends does mislead the man in the street. I do not think there is any Member of your Lordships' House who would be prepared seriously to deny that. It tends to make the man in the street, and particularly the worker, resist profits even when they are doing him good as well as the shareholder, the management and the consumer. Therefore, anything that can convey to him the real truth of the picture must surely be to the good, not only of the shareholder, but of British industry as a whole.
  That brings me to the other test of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence: that of the disadvantage. He told your Lordships that the evidence of the T.U.C. before the Committee established the fact that there was the overwhelming disadvantage that the introduction of no par value shares would tend to confuse and befog the ordinary member of a trade union, and, in consequence, the T.U.C. would have far more difficulty in restraining unreasonable wage demands—I think that, broadly speaking, was the argument

  703
  of the noble Lord. If that argument could be sustained, I would certainly support the noble Lord; but I do not believe that it can be sustained. Indeed, more than one of your Lordships who has already addressed the House has made it clear that all the confusion and the deception arises from the existing system of calculating dividend rates. I think there can be no doubt that if there is a case such as the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, cited, of a firm apparently making profits of over 400 per cent. and paying a dividend of 250 per cent., two things must happen: one is that the worker in that industry will feel that he is being treated unfairly; and the other is that I, and no doubt others of your Lordships, will feel that this is a field of industry in which we ought to be getting busy. But when those profits are really 20 per cent., and the dividend is really 10 per cent., surely that is something that can be easily explained to the trade union member.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said that one of the essential characteristics of the British people, as a whole, is their insistence on "fair do's." Surely, a working man who sees a dividend of 250 per cent. being paid cannot think it is fair. But a working man who is fair-minded—and, as the noble Lord said, by far the greater part of the British people are fair-minded—when he sees that it is not 250 per cent., but 10 per cent., will say: "After all, that is not so unfair. I have a good job and I am well paid. The business is doing well. Let us make it do better." I cannot speak for the T.U.C., but I have had some experience in dealing with the working man, both in industry and as a Member for a working-class constituency, and I should have thought that the apprehensions expressed by the T.U.C. were groundless and that we ought not to pay too much attention to them.
  4.55 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, when I was at school we used to be given a holiday task, which would usually take the form of a book to read during the school holidays. As a result, it was invariably read in the train going back from Waterloo to school at the end of the holidays. As an equally invariable fact, one desired never to read
  704
  a work by that author again, who became one's private literary "Enemy number one." My noble friend, Lord Cromer, set us a stiff holiday task to read when he gave us the Gedge Report on Shares of No Par Value as the first item on the Order Paper when we returned from the holidays. But I must say, in justice to my former colleague at the Chancery Bar, Mr. Montagu Gedge, that I have read his work, and I think your Lordships have, too, with much pleasure and profit; and I think we owe to him and his Committee our warm thanks for the skill, care and impartiality with which they tackled their task. We are grateful to them for a valuable, useful and authoritative Report.
  I am sure that we are also grateful to my noble friend Lord Cromer for having raised this matter, and particularly for having done it in such a lucid and fair speech. The debate which has followed has really been most remarkable—and I do not mean remarkable only by the fact that it has produced the astonishing co-incidence of four Scottish Representative Peers speaking one after the other, but of what has arisen out of the subject. The debate has extended far beyond the superficial issue of shares of no par value. We have discussed this afternoon some of the fundamental political issues that divide now but may one day, I hope, unite the two Parties on either side of the House. We have discussed them calmly and fairly in a debate which would have produced uproar at any public political meeting.
  I turn now to the Report—or, put more exactly, the two Reports, because there are two completely conflicting but equally lucid Reports. I think that comparing the two Reports one must admit straight away that the majority have had the better of the argument; and the debate today has supported strongly the majority view. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who as usual made a calm, fair and good-tempered speech, will not mind if I say that most of his points have already been answered by noble Lords who sit behind me. I should like first to echo the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he pointed out that this Report was supported by a striking consensus of professional and commercial advice, including, I believe, that of most of the bodies who really matter in our commercial and industrial

  705
  life. For the minority view, Mr. Beard of the T.U.C. gives a vigorous counter to this; but I submit that his arguments really fly in the face of the evidence. May I quote in support of this the Economist of April 3 of last year, which said:
  "The reason is with the majority but the vehemence is with the minority."
  I should like to add this. The majority Report had a most favourable reception in the national, the professional and the technical press. The almost universal comment in the press, so far as I have been able to follow it, was that the majority had amply proved their case and that the minority arguments did not really bear serious examination. The obvious dissentient minority was the Daily Herald, and their argument seemed to be based principally upon a fallacious point of view which has been disposed of by my noble friend Lord Polwarth in his excellent speech. It is the point concerning the incidence of Federal issue and stock transfer tax in America and is not relevant to the argument really at issue. I should like to add, in mentioning the American point of view, that it is interesting to note that, on the subject of shares of no par value in America, the American trade unions so far have expressed no opposition.
  It seems to me that the present position is this. From the standpoint of logic and common sense Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that a strong case has been made out for the alteration of our company law so as to allow companies to issue ordinary shares of no par value if they wish to do so. The present nominal value system seems to the Government to be fundamentally illogical and that, I think, is the gravamen of the point made by my noble friend, Lord Cromer, in his opening speech. Nominal value, I think the House must by now be convinced, is not a true indication of the value of the share. Even if the nominal capital did originally correspond with the real worth of the undertaking—and this, of course, is not always so—it quickly ceases to do so. This is because the value of the assets have changed, because profits have been ploughed back, and because of the revolutionary changes in the value of money. This leads inevitably to misconceptions about dividends.
  If I have correctly followed this debate, and if my elementary economics are right, profits are earned on the capital
  706
  employed in the company; but under the present system dividends are related to nominal value, which is usually quite out of date. The expression of the dividend as a percentage of this out-of-date capital is misleading as an indication of the shareholder's return on the money he has invested, and still more misleading as describing the proportion of the company's receipts which goes to shareholders. That, I think, was the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It the directors are to pursue a policy of dividend restraint over a long period, ploughing back a large proportion of the profits so that the capital employed in the company considerably exceeds the nominal capital, a dividend of, say, 40 or 50 per cent. may be quite moderate. That, as the debate has shown, is difficult for the man in the street to understand, and he often forgets, I think, that it is not only the millionaires or the speculators who are interested in these matters. It is the little man who invests his money in small sums, which, added together amount to a great deal of money, who is just as interested in this matter; and, of course, the Trades Union Congress themselves must be big investors.
  There is one point, however, where the minority and the majority are strongly in agreement—where Mr. Beard and the Majority Report are at one. That is the point which has been raised by every speaker this afternoon. That is not going to stop me from raising it, because it is a point upon which I am personally interested and have previously wearied your Lordships in many a speech. It is this question of industrial consultation—of management explaining to workers what is really going on. I had this point strongly borne home to me in the four or five years in which I had the honour to be the independent chairman of the joint advisory council of one of our bigger craft industries. I became more and more convinced of the importance of management explaining to their workers, in language which they could understand, what was really happening. The difficulty is that to understand what is really happening in a company you have to look at the balance sheet and be able to read it. I spent a year in a chartered accountant's office before I was called to the Bar, but I certainly would not guarantee to

  707
  make head or tail of nine-tenths of the balance sheets that I see in the newspapers.
  Mr. Beard emphasised the difficulty of educating the working people, and he is absolutely right. On the day I started to prepare the notes for the speech with which I am now wearying your Lordships, I happened to look at The Times, and in that edition there were the annual reports of nine different companies. Of those nine, four gave no indication whatever of the goods which they manufactured or the services they had to offer to the public. It was impossible to tell whether those four companies made ships, shoes or sealing wax. That cannot be right. I am certain that that gives rise to the doubts and misconceptions to which Mr. Beard draws attention.
  I am also certain that it is necessary that explanations should be in plain language. I think it was our late friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lyle of Westbourne, who first popularised the idea of putting forward his annual statement of affairs in very simple, almost childishly simple, pictorial form. One or two companies have followed suit by using diagrams representing wages, taxation, dividends, reserves, profits and so on, all in the form of a cake with segments. Until you do it in that way, you cannot expect work-people to understand who gets what share of the cake. I sometimes think that it would be simpler to explain such things if words like "rent," "dividends," "profits" and "landlords" were not so festooned around with the rags and tatters of Party politics. We should then be able to understand these things a great deal more clearly.
  Therefore, I hope very much that the plea which has been put forward by every noble Lord speaking to-day for a plainer exposition of the affairs of our industrial and commercial concerns to those who earn their daily bread therein will not fall on deaf ears. I hope that I shall not be considered unkind if I suggest that a little further commercial education, or education of the elementary ABC of economics, is possibly needed by Mr. Beard and those who share some of the views which he put forward in the Minority Report. His principal line of argument against no par value is that its main purpose is to camouflage the payment of excessive dividends. He did
  708
  not produce any evidence for that. I would submit, on the contrary, that the no par value system, by abolishing misleading percentages, must surely help to remove misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
  I call in aid the Manchester Guardian of the day on which the Report was published, March 31. This is what that newspaper said:
  "Clearly the business of explaining how capitalism works is going to be a long job. No wonder the President of the Board of Trade says the Report calls for careful study and that it will be some time before he can make a statement on it."
  The reason for its being a long job is hinted at by another newspaper on the same day, the Glasgow Herald, which said:
  "A patient reading of the statement of the dissentient member, Mr. W. B. Beard, General Secretary of the United Pattern Makers' Association and member of the T.U.C. Economic Committee, which occupies one-third of the Report, suggests that his real objection to the Majority Report is that, while it overstates the advantages to be expected from the introduction of N.P.V. shares, it takes insufficient account of the fact that objections to the change by such bodies as the T.U.C. would have effects so harmful to the public interest that the change ought not to be made. If this a fair reading of the objection it amounts to no more than a surrender to ignorance."
  That, I think, is putting that point of view very plainly indeed.
  The brand of ignorance to which the Glasgow Herald is suggesting that a surrender is contemplated is, I think, shown most clearly of all in the News Chronicle of the same day. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Layton, in his place—he is not unconnected with that newspaper. Whether he was personally responsible for this or whether it was Sir Oscar Hobson I do not know, but I should like your Lordships to listen to this point of view:
  "Essentially, there is no difference between nominal value and N.P.V. shares. Both represent 'a fraction or an aliquot part of the equity' of a business, but the nominal value share has a 'label of value' attached to it and confers 'a suggestion of value which is untrue and unreal.' In logic this argument is incontrovertible, but the T.U.C. representatives who gave evidence were not concerned with logic but with the suspicion that N.P.V. is a plot 'to conceal what is happening inside public companies and in particular to camouflage the payment of excessive dividends.'
  "'Excessive dividends' is, of course in the eyes of the T.U.C. the rub, though its representatives could only define an 'excessive'

  709
  dividend as one 'which would strike the average trade unionist as being excessive in relation to the wage he is receiving' 'Excessive' in this submission is what the average untutored worker thinks to be excessive and any step, however desirable otherwise, which made him less inclined to think dividends too high might take the edge off his hatred of capitalism—and that would never do."
  That is the view of the newspaper with which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, is associated, and I would ask your Lordships to bear that last remark in mind. Nobody has yet explained to us, of course, what this excessive dividend is, and I can only think of Humpty Dumpty, who said. "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
  On this vexed question of excessive dividends, whilst agreeing entirely with the argument put forward that excessive dividends, if they are really excessive, may have the unfortunate results that certain noble Lords have suggested. I should like to add this. Comparing 1953 with 1938–I have taken two years far apart because a year-to-year basis is not fair for this purpose—dividends have risen by only 50 per cent. while prices have risen by 100 per cent. and wages by 200 per cent. I believe that the editor of the Economist is right when he says:
  "So far from attempting to conceal the truth, the reform would in our opinion enable companies to appear before the public in their true guise with a true expression of what they are in fact doing. I think the Trades Union Congress have got the argument upside down."
  That really is what divides us, if anything divides us, this afternoon. We neither of us want to deceive, on either side of the House. We all, I hope, want to make the situation perfectly clear, and particularly to those who earn their daily bread in industry and who are entitled to have that industry's fortunes made clear to them. We who support the majority finding of this Report think that what is proposed will make for more clarity and helpfulness. We think the weight of opinion and evidence is predominantly on our side, and I must confess that I have heard nothing this afternoon to shake my own opinion on this.
  This is my last point. The procedure for putting these recommendations into law is going to be much more complicated than I first realised when I looked at the Report, and I even expect a bit more complicated than Mr. Gedge and his colleagues themselves thought. The
  710
  introduction of a no par value system would necessitate adaptations of our taxation law. The coming into force of the necessary Companies Amendment Act would have to be postponed to an appointed day to allow the taxation adaptations to be enacted in the Finance Bill. The companies capital duty, which is now charged on nominal capital, would probably have to be replaced (both for par value companies and for no par value companies) by a charge on the total issued price or consideration for shares, and on increases of capital.
  I ought in duty bound to draw your Lordships' attention to this point. Under the Acts dealing with income tax, surtax, profits tax and estate duties, various questions, none of which I myself understand, turn on the proportion of a company's share capital which is owned or could be acquired by particular individuals or other companies. These Acts would need to be amended to bring them into line with a no par value system. Your Lordships will see from this admittedly vague and unprofessional reference which I have made to the complications involved that it is not going to be quite so plain sailing as some people think. My noble friend, Lord Cromer, will no doubt have heard the note of regret that has crept into my voice, and I think the next remark I have to make will not surprise him. It is this. The Government are, in principle, favourably disposed to legislation on the lines recommended in the Majority Report of the Gedge Committee. However, as I have, I think, now indicated, the legislation would involve not only amendments of the Companies Act, some of which may have some degree of complexity, but also substantial and complicated amendments of existing taxation provisions in a subsequent Finance Bill, the discussion of which would inevitably take up a considerable amount of Parliamentary time—and we are not very flush with Parliamentary time at the moment.
  For these reasons, I am sorry to say that the Government cannot hold out any hope of legislation during the present Session. If I have not given the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, the satisfaction he wanted in that respect, I hope at least I have given him the satisfaction of a clear indication of what Her Majesty's Government's views are on this important and technical subject.
  THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I rise to give thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and at this stage in the debate all I wish to say is that I hope that his evident enthusiasm for no par value shares will act as a spur to overcome the many difficulties which apparently lie ahead. By leave of the House, I beg to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
  5.16 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government if they will state whether they propose to take any action on the question of the reform of the House of Lords. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at the last General Election in 1951, at which the present Parliament was elected, the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Winston Churchill, included a paragraph in his Election Address in which he said that a Conservative Government, if returned, would summon an all-Party conference to consider the question of the House of Lords. That conference has never been summoned, largely owing, no doubt, to the attitude taken by the Labour Party. At the opening of the Christmas Session last December, in my speech on the Address I raised this question afresh, and drew attention to the results that had been reached by the all-Party conference that was held in 1948 which, while not coming to any agreement on the question of the powers of Second Chamber, did arrive at a remarkable unanimity on a number of important points dealing with composition.
  I hope I shall not be thought unduly persistent if to-day I ask Her Majesty's Government what course, if any, they propose to take on the question of the reform of the House of Lords. It may be found that the matter of powers is not now regarded with the same strong feelings that used to prevail. Neither in the country nor in Parliament is there any powerful body of opinion which exercises itself over any change in the present powers of the House of Lords, and it may well be that we shall all be content to let that matter rest where it is under the law as it now stands, and perhaps try by some fresh effort to arrive
  712
  at a general agreement on the question of composition. For I am sure that all your Lordships will be of the opinion that great constitutional changes, such as we are concerned with here in this matter, can best be arrived at, not after bitter Party controversies and a struggle on purely Party lines, but that they will be most effective and most beneficial and conduce best to the stability of our institutions if they can be reached by a large measure of agreement and after deliberate and painstaking discussion. For that reason, I have to-day put down an Unstarred Question, not a Motion, because I do not hope, desire or attempt to evoke the general opinion of the House on this great matter, and still less to express my own views which I have done to your Lordships on many occasions. This is only an exploratory Question, but I am inclined to think, subject to anything that may be said by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House or by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition, that it may be found desirable before long to arrange for a full discussion in your Lordships' House in which the whole of the situation may be carefully reviewed. Meantime, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government if they will state whether they propose to take any action on the question of the reform of the House of Lords.
  5.20 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies to that Question, may I say a brief word or two? No one, I think, can complain that the noble Viscount should raise this matter again; yet, for my own part, I venture to think—because we have had a good many discussions about this subject, and we have been going rather round and round about it—we have reached the point now where, if anything is to be done, the best way to do it is for the Government to promulgate or put forward some suggestions which could form the subject of discussion before the House, in order that the sense and temper of the House may be obtained. I believe that would be a better way of getting the opinion of the House than just a discussion completely in vacuo, as we have been having for some time past.
  I feel sure that the noble Marquess who leads this House would, in a matter of this sort, concerning something which is of such importance to us, desire to get

  713
  the largest possible measure of agreement, or at any rate to reduce the area of disagreement so far as he possibly can. I believe he would rather have a plan which commended itself to wide sections than a more perfect plan which did not so commend itself. I have no intention of making a speech about this matter now, but I think it must be made plain that there is no question or intention of increasing the powers of the House of Lords; that we leave the position where it stands under the Act of 1948, and accept that as the basis on which we are to proceed. Secondly, it must be made plain that there is no suggestion of creating a House of Lords which is in any sense a co-ordinating authority with the other place, as it would be, for instance, if it were an elected Chamber, whatever form of election you have. I do not think that would do at all. If the noble Mar-guess, if he comes to formulate some proposals, would bear those two facts in mind, I believe he would go some way, at any rate, to avoid hostility, which I am quite certain would arise were those proposals at all in question. I do not believe—and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel seems to agree with me—that those matters are in issue at the present time in the proposals. That is something which we should very much like to see.
  All I can say is this—I cannot speak for my Party more than in this way—that if those principles are observed and proposals are brought forward in this House, we shall devote ourselves to them and try to bring to bear on them useful, not merely destructive but constructive, criticism as well, and examine them and make what contribution we can by way of debate. I am not authorised to say any more than that. Subject to those two points of principle which I have mentioned, I can at least say that we will take our part in the debate on the Floor of this House.
  5.24 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have had an extremely short but I think valuable exchange of views on the Question which has been asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I must confess that when I first read on the Order Paper the noble Viscount's Question I was a little bewildered. I wondered why he had chosen that particular form of words for the purpose of raising this question of the reform of your Lordships'
  714
  House, and I expect that some bewilderment may have been felt by some other noble Lords. One might naturally have expected him to ask when Her Majesty's Government proposed to take action, or what action they proposed to take on a subject in which, as we all know, the noble Viscount is keenly interested. But he studiously avoided doing that, even in his Question. He confined himself to the single bleak, bald proposition:
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will state whether they propose to take any action on the question of the reform of the House of Lords."
  Why did he do that? As we all know, the noble Viscount is an extremely wise and experienced Parliamentarian. He never does anything without a very good reason, and he must have considered the wording of that Question on a matter of this importance with the greatest care. Why did he put it in that way? I am going to try to answer him.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Simply as a result of past experience.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that the noble Viscount himself gave the answer in the few remarks he made to your Lordships. He said that it was an "exploratory" Question—that was the epithet he used. In fact, as I understand it, this is only the first preliminary move; it is not the "succulent dish" to which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred in an earlier debate this afternoon: it is just another hors d' æuvre to a later discussion. That is the first thing one must conclude. The second is that the noble Viscount wishes to retain the initiative for the second move; and it is only when he gets to the second stage that we shall learn fully what is in his mind. In the meantime, I imagine that the noble Viscount is not particularly anxious that the Government, or anyone else, should come out with fully-fledged proposals. That, I think, would embarrass him rather than please him today. As I say, he would hike to retain the initiative for the next move.
  I do not complain at all of the line which he has adopted with such careful thought. This gradually phased approach to the subject may indeed have special advantages for all of us. It enables us to get some information as to the attitude of Parties which I think may be of very real value in our further explorations of

  715
  this subject, which, as the noble Viscount has said, is of great importance to us all. Indeed, we have already got a certain amount of information from the speech of the noble Viscount himself, brief though it was. We know, first, that he—and also, presumably, the Liberal Party for whom he speaks—is convinced of the necessity for some reform of the composition of this House. My Lords, that is at any rate satisfactory to most of us. In passing, I would say that, as I understand it, the noble Viscount did not today concern himself with powers. The subject on which he threw the greatest emphasis was the question of composition, and I hope he will understand that it is to the question of composition alone that I shall direct any remarks that I have to make this afternoon.
  I do not know whether the noble Viscount has changed his views or modified them since he was younger, but at any rate his view now is that this country must have an effective Second Chamber—again I refer only to the composition of that Chamber. He suggests, too, as I understand it, that if nothing is done to bring any new life to this House it will gradually die, as an effective element in the Constitution. With that I personally, and I expect most of us, would agree. There are many reasons to account for the present position in this House. There is the further reduction in the importance of the House as a result of the Act of 1948, which has I think, to some extent, at any rate, led to a further reduction in the interest of some of its Members in its doings. Many of us pointed out at the time that that was likely to happen, and I think it has happened. I do not want to overstress it, but I think that is one of the reasons for a certain lack of life which perhaps exists in the House today, as compared with ten years ago.
  Then, if I may be bold enough to mention such a thing, there is the economic reason. A popular belief appears to persist in this country that all Peers are rich men: but noble Lords know that in these difficult days that is no longer true—if, indeed, it ever was, to the extent suggested by that popular belief. The vast majority of noble Lords in this House can no longer afford to give their whole time to a job for which they receive no remuneration, not even payment of the many expenses incidental to the job itself.
  716
  At the present time by far the greater part of the cost of attending to our constitutional duties has to be paid by noble Lords themselves, and that imposes an increasingly severe burden upon them. I am not complaining of the position; I am merely stating it as a fact. This is true of Peers of all Parties, and it imposes, I believe, special difficulties for the Party of noble Lords opposite. That is a problem which must, in my view, be faced at the earliest practicable date. It is just one of those respects in which some reform is becoming ever more necessary, although personally I do not feel that it is by those means alone that the House will regain the full life which it has unhappily to some extent lost.
  I do not propose to-day to enter into details of the complete scheme which I hope in due course to be able to recommend to your Lordships, for of course the answer to the noble Lord's Question is "Yes." In his Question the noble Viscount has studiously avoided asking for that, and I agree with him that it would be premature. I did intend going into a certain amount of detail but I now think that even that is unnecessary; in fact, much of the speech I had intended to make would be perhaps going too far ahead at this stage, in view of the very great restraint shown by the two noble Lords opposite. But I can say that any scheme that may finally be adopted must, of course, conform to certain broad principles, with which doubtless the noble Viscount and most of us would be in agreement.
  And now I should like to say a word on the attitude adopted by the Labour Party, as instanced by remarks of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, this afternoon. On the whole, it is rather better than I expected. It is not so entirely hostile as some of us might have feared. I understand the position taken up by the Party of the noble Lords opposite to be that there must be no change in the balance of the Constitution as between one House and another in any respect, and that there must in particular be no increase of powers. Short of that, the noble and learned Earl has indicated (perhaps he would say hinted), or at any rate given some indication, that the attitude of his Party to some measure of reform in the Constitution might not be entirely negative. I hope that I have

  717
  not overstated the noble Earl's case. We are not concerned to-day with powers, and I do not propose to go any further into that aspect; but as a result of the Question which the noble Viscount was good enough to put down, we do know now that there are circumstances in which the Labour Party might be willing, without prejudice, to enter into talks. That is something more than we have had
  EARL JOWITT: To enter into talks on the Floor of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the Floor of the House. I was very glad to hear that view because, frankly, unless noble Lords opposite believe in Single-Chamber Government—and I do not think most of them do—it is surely better to make the Second Chamber as efficient in its composition as it possibly can be made. I believe that no one in this House would dispute that—indeed it is really common sense.
  I was glad the noble Earl did not put forward the view that no other Parties could go ahead without his Party's co-operation. That would be a very strange doctrine in the mouth of a Party which brought in a Parliament Bill less than ten years ago without any agreement at all. But clearly it would be very much better, if there is to be a reform of this House, that it should be by agreement. We should all agree that any great constitutional change, or modified constitutional change, is better done with inter-Party agreement than without, and I still hope that that may prove possible. In the meantime, I can say to-night that we shall continue to labour at perfecting the details of a scheme of reform; and we shall, in that work, welcome the co-operation of the Liberal Party if they feel able to give it, and indeed if, after further consideration, the Labour Party, too, find it possible to co-operate with us when the time comes, that co-operation also will be welcomed. I recognise that the noble Earl has not offered that, but I repeat, if they find it possible, we shall be very happy that they should join in discussions. If not, then we shall have no hesitation in due course, when the time comes, in going ahead without them on a task on which, in our belief, the future safety and welfare of our country may well depend in the difficult years that lie ahead.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I ask the noble Marquess a question which will be in the mind of everyone after his useful speech—When?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I seem to remember a great Liberal dictum: "Wait and see,"
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: When that was said by Mr. Asquith in my hearing, and repeated three or four times, it was said in a menacing and combative tone, telling the Opposition who were then angry with him that if they would only wait a little while they would very soon see—and they did.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Liberal Party also will see in due course.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: This is a very important and serious point. When the noble Marquess says "in due course," how long is that course to be? Is there any prospect that this matter will be fully discussed in your Lordships' House during the present Parliament?
  THE MARQUESS Of SALISBURY: My Lords, we have all far exceeded the proper rules of order with regard to Unstarred Questions in the Rules of Order which we have ourselves lately revised. If the noble Viscount wishes for more information, I suggest that he should put a Question or a Resolution, as he is inclined, on the Paper of the House.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: On that note I would thank the noble Marquess most cordially for his helpful speech.
  5.39 p.m.
  LORD ELTON: My Lords, would it be in order for a Back-Bench independent Member to ask a Question of the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House? I know nothing of the inner councils of the Conservative Party, but I hope he will remember that there are independent Peers; and there is, I am sure, a large current of feeling in the country which entertains profound misgivings at seeing this ancient House embarking on paper-constitution making. Many of us believe that this is one of those ancient British institutions of which, thanks to its very ancientry and to the success with which over the centuries it has continually adapted itself to changing circumstances,

  719
  it can be said that while it is totally indefensible in theory, it works excellently in practice. We have heard a lot about the illogical features of the House, but that is the House of Lords of theory. Here around you you see the House of Lords in practice, a small body of impoverished and public-spirited individuals representing in the aggregate an immense accumulation of experience of administration, legislation, and practical affairs. I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether the next stage in this lamentable progress—for so many of us, inside and outside the House, regard it—is that we are to be presented with an official, ready-made, paper reform, on the model of the French Revolution, of this ancient House, or whether we are yet to have a discussion as to whether any such reform is necessary. It was not at all clear, from what the noble Marquess
  720
  said, what the next stage of the proceedings is to be. I hope I may be forgiven for inquiring.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the proper answer to the noble Lord is that it is open to him, or to any other noble Lord, at any moment, to put down a Motion on the Order Paper for discussion. I am sure that, if he wishes, he will be able to do so before the Government complete this immensely complicated inquiry in which they are now involved. I suggest that that is the proper course for the noble Lord to follow. It may be that if the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is himself proposing to take the matter further at a later date it would be well for the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to see him and to discuss the matter with him.
  House adjourned at eighteen minutes before six o'clock.