Sitting of 7 November 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

AIRCRAFT CRASH, BLACKBUSHE
Sir E. Errington (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the accident to the Hermes aircraft at Black-bushe Airport on 5th November, 1956.
The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): A Hermes of the Britavia Company, bringing civilians from Idris, crashed during the final approach to Blackbushe Airport shortly before midnight on 5th November. The aircraft was carrying 74 passengers and a crew of six. Of the passengers 50 were Army family members, 23 Royal Air Force family members and one was a civilian Government employee. The families included children and six infants in arms.
Visibility was poor. The aircraft undershot the runway and caught fire. The casualties are three members of the crew and four passengers killed and one passenger seriously injured. Other passengers suffered shock and bruises.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has decided that a public inquiry shall be held.
The House will wish to join with me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives, and with the injured.
Mr. Stokes: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, join the Minister in his expression of regret to the relatives of the persons who have lost their lives in this disaster? May we express the hope that the inquiry will start as soon as possible? We are very glad to hear that it is to be a public one.
Mr. Birch: My right hon. Friend assures me that he will get an inquiry set up as soon as possible.

MIDDLE EAST (SITUATION)
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would desire to make a statement at four o'clock today. At the moment certain interchanges are taking place on an international level and it would be more convenient if the statement were made at four o'clock than now. Therefore, my right hon. Friend, with the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, will make a statement at that hour. I think it was the wish of the House that he should make a statement and I think it better that he should make it at that hour.
Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement will deal simply with the position in the Middle East, or also cover Hungary and possibly other parts of Europe?
Mr. Butler: The statement on Hungary-will be made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs immediately, either next or after the statement which is to be made on oil supplies. It is a matter for Mr. Speaker, but I think that the statement on oil will be made first. A statement on the Middle East and the general foreign situation will be made by the Prime Minister himself, at four o'clock.

OIL SUPPLIES
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Aubrey Jones): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on oil supplies.
In view of the situation in the Middle East, and its effect on oil supplies, the Government have decided, as a precautionary measure, to make an immediate reduction of 10 per cent. in oil consumption. Given the co-operation of all oil consumers it should be possible to achieve a saving of this order without any elaborate rationing machinery and without seriously affecting our economy. The oil companies are, therefore, being required to reduce deliveries to their customers forthwith to 90 per cent. of what they would normally have supplied.

107
The 10 per cent. cut on motor fuels—petrol and diesel oil for road vehicles—will apply to all deliveries except to police, fire, hospital and ambulance services and public passenger transport, whose demands will be met, but who will be expected to make what economies they can. Supplies to garages will be cut by 10 per cent. and I am writing to all garages asking them to keep a small reserve at all times for doctors, home nurses and midwives. I ask all motorists to moderate their demands wherever possible. To prevent hoarding I have made an Order prohibiting the sale of motor fuel otherwise than into the tank of a vehicle or for immediate use for other purposes.
Deliveries of fuel oil, gas oil and diesel oil, are also being cut by 10 per cent. This will affect supplies to industry and also the use of these oils for heating. I ask all users of these fuels to consider immediately how they can reduce oil consumption. The only exceptions to this cut will be agriculture, fishing and essential coastal shipping, and buildings like hospitals, where special considerations arise; but I hope that these users also will make whatever economies they can. The gas and electricity industries are being asked to make bigger savings and reduce their requirements of oil to the maximum extent possible without affecting their production.
For the present the oil companies will continue normal deliveries of other petroleum products such as aviation fuels, vaporising oil, lubricants and paraffin, which make up only a small proportion of our total consumption of oil. But the Government ask all users of these oil products to exercise restraint.
Mr. Callaghan: We shall all desire to co-operate in ensuring that industry, at least, does not go short of the necessary fuel. May I ask the Minister whether he thinks that a saving of 10 per cent. is adequate in present circumstances? And if he finds that it is working out badly—or even if he does not—what measures is he proposing to take to try to increase the flow of oil? Is an approach being made, and if not, ought it not to be made at once, to the United States with a view to securing their help in stepping up the flow of oil from that part of the world?
Mr. Jones: If I may take the last point first, dollars have been made available for the purchase of oil in the United States and considerable purchases are now being made there.
I think it well to remind the House that fuel oil represents 10 per cent. of the total fuels made available to British industry, which really means that there is only a I per cent. cut of the total fuel made available to British industry. I think that this would be possible without any serious effect on production.
I would like to add that the situation is uncertain. We cannot tell how long it will take before the Suez Canal is open; certainly, it is not for me to prophesy and I am not disposed to accept various estimates. This action is, therefore, a precautionary step. Should it appear that the Canal may not open for a considerable time, then more stringent measures may well be necessary, and for those preparations are in hand; but I trust that they will not be necessary.
Mr. Callaghan: Can the Minister say how long this state of affairs is likely to last? [An Hon. Member: "Of course not."] Well, is industry and the domestic consumer to be left in a state of uncertainty for a considerable time? If so, should not the Government have counted this cost before they embarked on their adventures?
Mr. Rankin: Where is the Suez group?
Mr. Jones: Life itself is a very uncertain thing. Certainly, no being on this earth can give an estimate of the length of time which this may take.
Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend will be aware, of course, that large numbers of firms have switched over entirely to the use of oil fuel for industrial power purposes in response to the policy of Her Majesty's Government—[HON. MEMBERS "Resign."] While it may be true that the overall reduction for the whole of industry is about only I per cent., can my right hon. Friend give assurances that firms which are entirely reliant upon oil fuel for their sources of industrial power will receive some preferential treatment, so that their machinery and plant may be kept fully occupied?
An Hon. Member: Ask a policeman.
Mr. Jones: The essence of what I have described to the House is that it is rough and ready measure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very rough."] It does not amount to a formal rationing or a formal licensing scheme. If any hon. Members complain about its roughness and readiness, then the only alternative is a formal licensing and rationing scheme, but, granted its character, which I think all of us will accept in present circumstances, there can be no exceptions other than those which I have stated.
Mr. Lee: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), has any attempt been made to measure the effects on employment in certain industries? Is the Minister aware that a mere flat reduction of I per cent. will affect employment in some industries to a far greater degree than others? Will consideration be given to those industries which will be affected by this apparently small but vital reduction so far as they are concerned?
Mr. Jones: All averages are misleading but, even so, I am assured by the Federation of British Industries that this cut ought not to have any untoward effect on production, granted the level of stocks in the country.
Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that the Government's economic figures were only balanced a few weeks ago by the influx of the capital purchase of the Trinidad Oil Company, can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us to what extent dollar purchases of oil are likely to deprive us of that somewhat dubious benefit?
Mr. Jones: Any questions as to the effect of dollar purchases must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Hobson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has had consultations with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation about the cut in oil, particularly to the power station at Neasden, belonging to the London Passenger Transport Board, which provides the electrical energy for the greater part of London's transport? In view of the fact that at least eight of their boilers are run on oil fuel, will a special arrangement be made? Otherwise, there will be
110
serious repercussions on London Transport. The Minister referred to the cut in gas oils. Does that apply to paraffin for home consumption?
Mr. Jones: I have had general but not detailed consultations with my right hon. Friend. I must add once again that this is a voluntary restriction, dependent, therefore, to a great extent on cooperation. For that reason, only a very limited number of exceptions are being made and I cannot add to the exceptions which I have detailed. Paraffin is in the last category of products I mentioned for which, at the moment, supplies are being held at their normal level.
Sir C. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend consider addressing a general suggestion to industry that, at any rate for the duration of our troubles, it should consider sending as much freight as possible by rail instead of by road?
Mr. Jones: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has already anticipated my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Woodburn: Would the Government take steps to stop the shutting down of the shale oil industry in the meantime, because that will provide a little contribution to the solution of this difficulty?
Mr. Jones: I should like notice of that question; but let it not be forgotten that the contribution of the shale oil industry is infinitesimal compared with our total consumption.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: Is it not a fact that the question about Trinidad Leaseholds oil having an effect on the dollar position is incorrect and irrelevant considering that, under the arrangement, oil continues to be bought in sterling?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister said that such a question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Mikardo.
Mr. Mikardo: If this worthy attempt by the right hon. Gentleman should, in the uncertain situation, be insufficient, and he is finally driven to petrol rationing, will he ensure that each petrol coupon which is printed bears a portrait of the Prime Minister?
Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the pumping stations necessary for efficient land drainage, particularly in Fenland, will be included under the heading of agriculture?
Mr. Jones: I should require notice of that question.
Mr. Mellish: In view of the very difficult situation, for which the Government have only themselves to blame, is any action to be taken to control prices?
Mr. Jones: I have taken powers which would enable me to control prices if the occasion arose, but I hope that it will not be necessary to use those powers, because the oil companies have agreed to seek my permission before raising prices. I hope that the hon. Member realises, however, that there will be a certain increase in cost.
Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that underneath the picture of the Prime Minister on each coupon there will appear the words, "He stopped the war"?
Mr. Mikardo: You will get a free transfer, son; that is what will happen to you.
Mr. Callaghan: In this situation, will not there be a great temptation to firms and industries to build up stocks? What guidance is being given to those who have to deliver this oil to retail consumers as to the choices they must make between those industries which are regarded as essential—such as those which depend entirely upon oil—and those which are not? We all hope that the Minister will get through without rationing, but will he state whether he is, in fact, preparing a scheme, so that if he finds this voluntary 10 per cent. cut does not work we can have a proper allocation system at an early date?
Mr. Jones: I think that I have already answered the hon. Member's question. Preparations for severer measures are being undertaken, should they be necessary.
Mr. Collins: In view of the fact that consumption by priority users—which it is hoped to maintain—will be very much
112
than that of the ordinary motorist using fuel for private and domestic purposes, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that if the 10 per cent. cut is to be achieved the cut which private motorists will have to make in their consumption of petrol may have to be about 50 per cent.
Mr. Jones: Yes. I hope that all those who motor for private purposes will accept a much greater cut than the 10 per cent. which I mentioned. I am appealing to them to do that. The success of this measure depends upon the co-operation of the consuming public as well as the garage proprietors.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Has my right hon. Friend seen the forecast of Lord Rotherwick, a director of the Suez Canal Company, that in his opinion, from the present information, the Canal could be cleared in a month? If that forecast is correct will not the clearing of the Canal quite quickly ease our oil supplies?
Mr. Jones: I have seen the forecast, and I certainly hope that it will be realised, but, for my part, I prefer to suspend judgment at the moment.
Mr. Gaitskell: Since these difficulties, unhappily, affect not only the United Kingdom but other European countries, can the Minister say whether any discussions are taking place with European consumers of oil from the Middle East, with a view to a fair allocation of what supplies are available?
Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. Discussions have been taking place with Continental consumers, and I think that most of the Western European countries will be introducing measures not dissimilar to the one which I have announced this afternoon. Further, a meeting of the O.E.E.C. Oil Committee has been arranged for Friday of this week, and I should think that that should be the forum where this matter may be pursued further.
Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Minister say whether the American Government are co-operating with the O.E.E.C. Oil Committee?
Mr. Jones: I have no reason to believe the contrary.

HUNGARY
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on developments in Hungary.
According to the latest available information, fighting was continuing yesterday evening in many parts of Budapest. Some sections of the town were in flames. According to a Red Cross report, civilian casualties from Russian firing have become very heavy. There is a complete curfew and anyone seen on the streets is liable to be shot by Soviet troops.
I have no information to confirm that the Kadar Government has succeeded in establishing itself in Budapest. In broadcasts from Hungary, there is now no pretence that Hungarians and Russians are fighting side by side. It is openly declared that Soviet soldiers are defeating "the reactionary forces". Other announcements have been made in the names of the local Soviet commanders. In other words, the fighting in Hungary bears the exclusive character of a Soviet campaign of repression.
So far as I know, the Soviet Government have not yet replied to the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly which called for a cease-fire, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary, and the admission of United Nations observers, and which urged the provision of relief supplies for the Hungarian people. Such supplies are now desperately needed. The International Red Cross is organising a convoy of food and medical supplies from Vienna, which will leave as soon as Soviet permission has been given for it to enter Hungary. Her Majesty's Government appeal to the Soviet Government to grant this permission forthwith.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that Her Majesty's Government are now investigating, as a matter of urgency, detailed arrangements whereby 2,500 Hungarian refugees can be received into this country.
Mr. Robens: The House will have received this further statement with considerable dismay, in view of the terrible tragedy through which the Hungarian
114
are now going. On behalf of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House I should like to say that we support wholeheartedly the Government's action in supporting the International Red Cross and the relief convoy which, it is hoped, will get to Hungary shortly. We should also like to associate ourselves with the offer of Her Majesty's Government to receive Hungarian refugees and grant them asylum in this country. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, however, if he can tell us whether the approximate total number of refugees that have already crossed into Austria is known, so that we might know the sort of proportion that we are taking?
Lord John Hope: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that figure, but I can say that, in our view, if those other countries who have the chance of doing so do roughly what we are doing with our 2,500, the problem should be solved.
Mr. McAdden: In view of what my hon. Friend has just said about the mass slaughter of innocent civilians by the Russians, will he urge upon hon. Members in this House who are proposing to join in the festivities at the Russian Embassy this evening that they would serve their country better toy staying away?
Mr. Bellenger: Would the hon. Gentleman say what further action, if any, the United Nations proposes to take? It acted speedily enough in the case of Egypt. What is it doing in the case of Hungary?
Lord John Hope: I have no more information to give the right hon. Gentleman than that which he already knows on what the United Nations has recommended.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: Does my hon. Friend think, in view of the great sympathy which everyone in this House feels for these poor people, that he would be able to elicit a promise from the trade unions that they will allow them to work when they get here?
Hon. Members: Cheap.
Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the fact that we are told of the presence in Budapest of a considerable number of British civilians, can the Minister say anything about their position?
Lord John Hope: So far as we know, those with whom the Legation is in touch are all right. Further than that it is impossible to go. The Legation cannot at the moment get into touch with anyone except by telephone, and telephonic communications are certainly deteriorating.
Mr. Royle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) any right to make innuendoes against the trade union movement of our country under these circumstances?
Mr. Grant-Ferris: Further to that point of order, Sir. Italian workers have been refused—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think, if I may be allowed to say so, that in view of the grave situation which has been announced, the House would be wise to keep off these sources of friction between hon. Members. We all wish to help these poor people.
Mr. Burden: In view of the strain upon the Austrian economy that the acceptance of these refugees will cause, even though it may be for a short time, may I ask my hon. Friend whether the Government will consider dispatching to Austria, quickly, supplies that will assist them in aiding the Hungarians during the time they are there?
Lord John Hope: I will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, for the words which you addressed to us a moment ago, which were a rebuke to the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris)—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] May I say, quietly, that, for our part, we regret the supplementary question which he put—and which I am sure, on reflection, he would wish to withdraw—and may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the National Council of Labour is meeting this evening as a matter of urgency to consider what it can do in the present situation?
Mr. Wade: While associating myself with the remarks already made about the appalling and shocking events in Hungary, may I ask a further question about British subjects, particularly those who went out recently to help with
116
cal and other relief? Is there any means, apart from communicating with the British Legation, whereby information can be obtained? Can any information be obtained through the International Red Cross?
Lord John Hope: I doubt that at the moment, but I will certainly look into that and consider whether anything can be done to help these inquiries to be made.
Air Commodore Harvey: Many people in this country would like to give some help to the Hungarian people, but they are in doubt about where they should send it. Can my hon. Friend give some guidance in this matter?
Lord John Hope: Not without notice, but I am sure that were they to send them to the headquarters of the Red Cross, their donations would reach the right destination.
Mr. Daines: Has the attention of the Minister been called to a reported statement that President Eisenhower has made a pronouncement on a threat to the independence of Austria? If that is so, when will the Government give us their views on the statement by the President and, if correct, associate themselves with it?
Lord John Hope: I have nothing to say on that particular statement, or on that matter, this afternoon.
Mr. Brooman-White: In the light of what my hon. Friend has said this afternoon, and what the Foreign Secretary said the other day, is it right to assume that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to associate themselves with any action—any practical course of action—which could be devised to mitigate the sufferings of the Hungarian people irrespective of the risk?
Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir.
Mr. McLeavy: Is the Minister aware that not only will the trade union movement of this country welcome these refugees, but that it will give every possible assistance to them? Is he further aware that the trade union movement has already made substantial grants towards relief for the Hungarians and that trade union Members of this House resent the accusation which has been made?
Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Anglo-Hungarian Cultural Friendship Society has set up a fund for the purpose of helping so far as humanly possible their compatriots in Hungary, and that they will be ready to receive all subscriptions and ensure that they are devoted to that purpose only?
Lord John Hope: The House will be grateful for that information.
Mr. Healey: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), can the Minister tell us anything about the Note which the Soviet Government is reported to have addressed to the Austrian Government regarding help which it is alleged to be giving to the Hungarian people? Can he reaffirm in the strongest possible terms this country's obligation as a signatory of the Austrian Peace Treaty, to maintain—if necessary, by force—the neutrality of that Stale?
Lord John Hope: I would rather not go beyond my statement of this afternoon, which was confined to Hungary.
Later—
Mr. Grant-Ferris: With your kind permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a very short personal statement about the supplementary question I put to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs earlier this afternoon. I felt very strongly about the subject, but I realise, on reflection, that what I said might have caused great offence to some hon. Members opposite. I therefore wish most unreservedly to withdraw what I said and to express the hope that hon. Members will accept my apology.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: I think that that observation does the hon. Member credit.

BILLS PRESENTED
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE
  Bill to continue certain expiring laws, presented by Mr. Henry Brooke; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 1.]
  RENT
  Bill to amend the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939, the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, and certain other enactments relating to the control of rents and the right to retain possession of houses; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, and Mr. J. Nixon Browne; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 2.]
  TRANSPORT (RAILWAY FINANCES)
  Bill to make temporary provision authorising the British Transport Commission to meet interest and other revenue charges by borrowing and modifying the requirement of the Transport Act, 1947, as to the sufficiency of the Commission's revenue to meet revenue charges, to authorise advances out of the Consolidated Fund of sums so borrowed, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Watkinson; supported by Mr. Iain Macleod, Mr. Henry Brooke, and Mr. Molson; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 3.]
  HOMICIDE
  Bill to make for England and Wales (and for courts-martial wherever sitting) amendments of the law relating to homicide and the trial and punishment of murder, and for Scotland amendments of the law relating to the trial and punishment of murder and attempts to murder, presented by Major Lloyd-George; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. James Stuart, Sir Walter Monckton, The Attorney-General, and the Lord Advocate; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 4.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That—

(1) save as provided in paragraphs (2) and (5) of this Order, Government Business shall have precedence at every sitting for the remainder of the Session;

(2) Public Bills, other than Government Bills shall have precedence over Government Business on the following Fridays, namely, 7th December, 1st and 15th February, 1st, 15th and 29th March, 12 April, 10th and 24th May and 28th June;

(3) on and after Friday, 12th April, Public Bills other than Government Bills shall be arranged on the Order Paper in the following order:—Consideration of Lords Amendments, Third Readings, Considerations of Reports not already entered upon, adjourned Proceedings on Consideration, Bills in progress in Committee, Bills appointed for Committee and Second Readings;

(4) the ballot for unofficial Members' Bills shall be held on Thursday, 15th November, under arrangements to be made by Mr. Speaker, and the Bills shall be presented at the commencement of Public Business on Wednesday, 21st November;

(5) unofficial Members' Notices of Motions and unofficial Members' Bills shall have precedence in that order over Government Business on the following Fridays, namely, 30th November, 14th December, 8th and 22nd February, 8th and 22nd March, 5th April, 3rd, 17th and 31st May; and no Notices of Motions shall be handed in for any of these Fridays in anticipation of the ballots under paragraph (6) of this Order;

(6) ballots for precedence of unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall be held after Questions on the following Wednesdays, namely, 14th and 28th November, 30th January, 6th and 20th February, 6th and 20th March, 17th April and 1st and 15th May;

(7) until after Wednesday, 21st November, no unofficial Member shall give notice of Motion for leave to bring in a Bill under Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) or for presenting a Bill under Standing Order No. 35 (Presentation or introduction and first reading).

This Motion is somewhat long, but it is simple in form. It carries out the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1946 to the effect that 20 days should be reserved for private Members' business. Ten Fridays will be for Bills and ten for Motions, and of the ten days for Bills, six will be reserved for Second Readings and four for the later stages which will have
120
priority. Thus we are attempting to preserve, according to tradition, the business of private Members.
Hon. Members who wish to take part in the Ballot for Bills will be asked to sign their names in the book on the following days in the usual way. The days are Tuesday and Wednesday, 13th and 14th November, and the Ballot will take place, as I said yesterday, at the very beginning of the third week, on 15th November. There will then be six days before the Bills are presented, and they will be presented on 21st November. That is the sense of the Motion on the Order Paper.
If there are any questions to answer or any arguments to adduce in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who has an Amendment on the Order Paper, I shall be glad to give the answers at a later stage.
3.9 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move, at the end to add:
"unless such Notice of Motion or such Bill shall be concerned with legislation having for its principal object the abolition of the Death Penalty."
Having regard to the world-shaking events which the House has been discussing this past week—and their consequences are as yet unknown—it may seem a little unrealistic, if not almost frivolous, to ask the House of Commons to turn its attention to matters which seemed so very important to us a few weeks ago but which have now been overtaken by a series of tragic events the outcome of which none of us can yet foresee.
Nevertheless, perhaps this representative Parliamentary democracy will not be doing anything that would generally be thought out of place if we continue with the discussion of our own affairs, because the preservation of Parliamentary representative democracy as we practise it is obviously more important to the world than even we thought it was a few months ago.
The purpose of the Motion has, of course, the unanimous support of the House. The principle in the last paragraph, to which I have tabled my Amendment, is one which in normal circumstances would be absolutely right and unchallengeable. The purpose of it is to

121
ensure that no private Member of Parliament shall jump the queue. Since the House is giving its consent to a ballot system, in which each of us who wishes to share in it has an equal place and an equal right, it would be very wrong to allow any private Member, in anticipation of that machinery, to get some kind of priority on the Order Paper or some lien on Parliamentary time in advance of the lottery which is to take place.
The Bill with which my Amendment is concerned is no longer really private Members' legislation at all, for two reasons. First, it is not a matter on which the House is being invited for the first time to make up its mind. It is a matter which the House decided, at the invitation of the Government, on a free vote in its last Session. The question which the House really wishes to decide with regard to the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill is not whether it is in favour of it or not, because we all know that on a free vote the House would reaffirm its decision, but whether it wishes to exercise its rights under the Parliament Act, having regard to the difference of opinion which has emerged between the House of Commons and another place. If the Government had promised us facilities to put that question to the House on a free vote, for which I asked a week ago, I should certainly not have found it necessary to table my Amendment.
I want at this stage to call attention for a moment to the constitutional position. There was an extraordinary constitutional doctrine advanced in a leading article in The Times the other day. It was to the effect that Members of the House of Commons ceased to be representative of their constituents whenever the Whips are taken off. I should have thought that, if there was any difference at all, the argument was all the other way. However, I think that a better argument is that there is just no difference at all.
When a Member of the House of Commons speaks and votes, he does so solely by reason of the privilege accorded to him by his election by a majority of his constituents, and he certainly does not do it with less authority when he is doing it on a question in respect of which he is exercising his private judgment and his conscientious views than when he is complying with some party or collective
122
loyalty irrespective of what his private and personal opinion might be. I think it is a rather dreadful thing that The Times, with its tradition and its abrogation to itself of pontifical expression on constitutional propriety, should invite people to suppose that Members of Parliament cease to be representative precisely when they are acting most as representatives.
The second point is that this policy ought now, according to the Government's declaration, to be Government policy. I should very much like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about this. An extraordinary answer was given by the Prime Minister last week from which it appeared to me that a Government pledge as to policy lasts for only one Session. On a closer reading of the Question and Answer, I think that the Answer was limited to a pure question of procedure and time.
It may very well be that the Government were not pledged by what they said and did last time to do more than provide time in the last Session and that the offer to provide time must be fairly interpreted as meaning an offer limited to last Session. However, I am not referring to that.
I am referring to the debate which took place in the House on a Motion and an Amendment, which preceded the Second Reading of the Bill. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman himself said that the House must make up its mind very responsibly indeed just because the Government expected to base their policy on what the House of Commons then decided. The House of Commons decided, and I think I am entitled to say that the Government cannot honour the pledge which they then gave without making the principle of that Bill their own policy. Consequently, the principle of the Measure goes right outside the run of Private Members' Bills.
It was only a convenience to the Government which made the Bill go through as a Private Member's Measure, and it was at their request, because when the Amendment was carried and the Government Motion defeated, it was thought that the Government would take over the Measure and make themselves responsible for it, in fulfilment of their pledge. It was they who decided that they could carry out their pledge another way.

123
Many of us were not happy about it. Some people thought that it was a breach of the pledge. I myself said that I did not think any such thing. I thought the pledge could perfectly well be fulfilled that way as in any other way.
However, what I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman now is that if the further stages of the Measure—the Second Reading, the Commitee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading—went through on the basis that it was a Private Member's Bill, that was only at the Government's request, in order to carry out the policy which they said they had made their own, in a way which best suited them. Therefore, if the Government still prefer that this policy of the House of Commons, against which they have advised the House, should be carried through as a Private Member's Measure, we have no objection, though we should much prefer that the Government themselves took it over.
However, if they do not do that and still wish us to take the responsibility of seeing it through the House of Commons again, we are prepared to do that; but they must not now seek to go back to the position that obtained twelve months ago, and in those circumstances to treat the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill as if it were de novo, a new Private Member's Bill, liable to take its place with other Private Members' Bills in the Ballot. That would be a total repudiation of every pledge which the Government gave on that occasion.
It may very well be that the Government did not like this Measure. It may be that they still do not like it; I do not know. They could, of course, have come to the House of Commons and said, "We exercise our authority as a Government; we advise you and call upon you to reject this Measure; if, in spite of that advice, you adopt the Measure, we shall resign, because that will mean that we no longer enjoy the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons." Had they done that, they would have been perfectly within their rights and no one could have taken the slightest exception to it.
However, they were equally entitled, and followed the precedent set by previous Governments as well as by themselves, to say, "This is a matter on which
124
the Government will give the House of Commons advice, but we do not make it a matter of confidence; we give you our advice; listen to it, attend it, consider it, weigh it, but if in the end you decide not to accept it, then we will make that our policy." When Governments do that, they cannot thereafter wash their hands of the policy adopted by the House of Commons in that way. They cannot do what The Times leading article suggested they could do, and make themselves a kind of arbiter, an umpire between the House of Commons and another place. That is not their function. There is no such constitutional function.
The House of Commons having made up its mind, if there then develops a conflict between the House of Commons and another place, it is the constitutional duty of the Government to comport themselves in accordance with the majority view of the House of Commons and not in accordance with the majority view of another place. I do not see what is the escape from that constitutional proposition. No Government need to retain the confidence of the House of Lords. If that were a constitutional requirement, there could never be any Government in this country except a Conservative Government. Nor could any Government always undertake to retain the confidence of both Houses, unless they could guarantee that both Houses always took the same view.
One of the rather foolish things which the Government did was to permit a free vote in both Houses, pledging themselves to both without any guarantee that the two Houses would come to the same conclusion. That is one of the causes of their difficulty. The duty of the Government, if they desire to be constitutional, is to retain the confidence of and act in accordance with the view of the majority of the House of Commons. If that is in conflict with the House of Lords, the Government must at least provide the House of Commons with the necessary time so that the House of Commons can decide for itself whether it wishes to avail itself of its rights under the Parliament Act or not.
I say seriously to the right hon. Gentleman that in principle it is no exaggeration to say that in the course which they have followed the Government have reverted

125
to an administrative and executive practice rather more than three hundred years old. I think that it was the Government of King Charles I which decided to proceed without the authority of the House of Commons.
Mr. S. O. Davies: We know what happened to them.
Mr. Silverman: I am trying to protect the Government from that fate, but they are stopping me.
Mr. John Rankin: They have lost their heads anyway.
Mr. Silverman: Here the Government said in advance that they would adopt the policy of the House of Commons arrived at in the way the Government asked of the House of Commons. In the absence of any pledge by the Government to find time or to back the policy of the House of Commons in its conflict with the House of Lords under the Parliament Act, I invite the House of Commons to pass the Amendment. If it does that, we shall be able, without Government support, without Government help, under the private Members' machinery to proceed with the Bill, but without being subject once again to the changes and chances of the Ballot.
Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I beg to second the Amendment.
3.28 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I want to detain the House for only a few moments to add one or two points to those which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has raised. I want first to say that on this side of the House there are hon. Members who regard this action of the Government as a direct breach of the pledge which the Leader of the House gave to the House and to say that the Government's action over this Bill has had the effect of reducing the status of the House of Commons in this matter to an advisory one. It is quite intolerable that the Government should regard the view of the House of Commons on this Bill as only one of the factors which they have to take into consideration in arriving at their policy.
I want to advance a case for the exception of this Bill on constitutional grounds. When the rules of order were
126
first devised in the House it was thought desirable that, owing to the pressure of time, Bills which had a prima facie chance of success, that is to say, Bills sponsored by the party with a majority, should have precedence over Bills without a prima facie chance of success. That, of course, is the basis for the Sessional Order which we are now discussing, which gives any Bill which the Government advance a precedence over Private Members' Bills.
However, the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill which my hon. Friend moved in the previous Session is an exception to that rule, because it is a Bill which, like every Government Bill we are to debate in this coming Session, has a prima facie chance of success in that it is known that the House of Commons as at present constituted is, by a majority, in favour of the Bill. Therefore, I urge the Leader of the House to consider this Bill, whether it is sponsored officially by the Government or not, as a Bill which does in fact represent the will of the House and which should therefore be regarded with other Bills which it is assumed have the will of the House because they emanate from the Government Front Bench.
The Government's action in forcing the new Bill to be regarded as a Private Member's Bill is not only a breach of the pledge which the Leader of the House gave, but a breach of the pledge given by the Leader of the House of Lords in another place. The case for another place is that it gives the House of Commons a chance to think again. I do not accept that view, but it is the view advanced and always advanced by another place when it turns down legislation coming to it from this House, particularly, of course, when it does so on Second Reading.
It is an argument advanced selectively, since on certain Bills—the Television Act is an example—the House of Commons was not thought necessarily to need second thoughts. In this case the Leader of the House of Lords has said that this is an occasion when the other place should give the Commons time to think again. The action of the Government in refusing to sponsor this Bill is preventing this House from having a second chance to think again and express its opinion. I therefore urge the House to pass the Amendment which will put the Death

127
Penalty (Abolition) Bill in the same category as other Government Bills in the coming Session.
3.30 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I wish to submit a point of view on the Amendment, which I support. There is no doubt that the Motion proposed by the Leader of the House has tradition behind it, but so has majority opinion in the House. Majority opinion has an even longer and stronger tradition behind it. It is within the recollection of hon. Members that the capital punishment Bill was one on which the House expressed a majority opinion. It seems to me, in those circumstances, that though there is tradition on both sides, the stronger is in favour of the Amendment, and, therefore, I hope that the Government will accept it.
I suggest that paragraph (7) of the Motion is, in the circumstances, an attempt by an indirect method to override the majority will of the House. That is regrettable, wrong and contrary to the spirit of the constitution. I submit that the Amendment would cure that wrong. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept it. If he does not, I hope that we will divide the House and approve the Amendment.
3.32 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has raised some important issues, but, without wishing to be evasive, I really must keep to the terms of the Motion, which are that we should adhere to the traditional handling of private Members' business. The tradition for Private Members' Bills is that they should be allotted as fairly as possible by Ballot. If the Government were to accept the Amendment, it would mean that an exception would be made, in that, to read the words of the Amendment—
"… such Bill shall be concerned with legislation having for its principal object the abolition of the Death Penalty."
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne made quite a persuasive case, in his usual way, for such an action, but the Government could not accept an Amendment to this effect, because then we should not be able to keep faith with other private Members who might have other Bills
128
relating to other subjects which we should have to treat in a similar way.
Mr. S. Silverman: I apologise for interrupting because I have made my case, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that when leave was given last Session to introduce the Bill about 230 Members of Parliament from both sides of the House signed a Motion urging the Government to find time for the Second Reading. The Government resisted that on the very ground that the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned—that it would be unfair to give precedence to one Private Member's Bill over any other Private Member's Bill. We all accepted that until the time came when the Government decided, for their own purposes, to do that very thing. Can the right hon. Gentleman now advance that argument again in view of what has happened?
Mr. Butler: I cannot, because of that, alter the procedure which we adopted last Session and which has been adopted ever since the Select Committee of 1946 when dealing with private Members' business.
I am not absolutely clear how this issue will work out, but I am clear that we have decided to bring forward our own Bill on the remarks of the Prime Minister that we had a very great pressure of public opinion to put forward a point of view in a Bill which represented the greatest maximum measure of consent. As the Homicide Bill is to be published tomorrow morning, hon. Members had better read and examine it. That does not affect the order in relation to Private Members' Bills; it does not affect the operation of a Private Member's Bill, namely, the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill, which may be brought in under Ballot; and it does not affect the operation of the Parliament Act, because there is nothing in the bringing forward of a Government Bill which affects the operation of the Parliament Act in relation to a Private Member's Bill relating to the death penalty.
Mr. Silverman: What about the time?
Mr. Butler: We must discuss all these matters, but, while I am moving this Motion, none of these issues is finally decided. The Parliament Act is not affected, because it is not affected by time. It is quite clear to me that if I

129
were to move the Motion and prejudice completely the chances of a Private Member's Bill rehearsing and repeating the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill which we passed last Session, and not permitting it to take advantage of the Parliament Act, I should be doing something which was immoral; but in fact I am doing no such thing.
There is ample opportunity and time for a Bill dealing with the abolition of the death penalty to pass through the channels of the private Member's legislation and to take advantage of the Parliament Act and to operate under that Act.
Mr. Silverman: If it gets a place in the Ballot.
Mr. Butler: That is what we must see. It would not be in order, when going into these issues, to deal with private Members' business. What I cannot foretell—and I wish to be absolutely frank with the House—is the relationship of the timetable of the Homicide Bill and any private Member's Bill which may repeat, rehearse or reintroduce the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill for which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was responsible.
I have told him that these matters may have to be discussed between us. That may well be the case, but there is nothing in the Motion which prohibits the operation of the Parliament Act in relation to a Private Member's Bill dealing with the abolition of the death penalty, and I should be out of order if I were to introduce into this Motion an Amendment which gave precedence to a single Private Member's Bill, because that would be unfair to other Private Member's Bills. The only fair course I can adopt as Leader of the House is to ask the House to adopt the Motion referring to Private Members' Bills and to leave these other matters to be discussed in the ordinary course of our business.
Mr. Silverman: I am not sure that I understood the right hon. Gentleman. May I ask him a question? I gather that what he is saying to the House is that if the Amendment is rejected, or not pressed, there might be success in the Ballot for such a Bill. If there were success in the Ballot for such a Bill as to give it reasonable time then the Parliament Act can operate, but do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be saying that if the Death Penalty
130
(Abolition) Bill should not get a success-ful place in the Ballot then the question is still open as to whether the Government will find time in some other way to enable the House of Commons to decide whether it wishes to proceed under the Parliament Act or not?
Mr. Butler: I have only two observations upon which I can with safety and honour rely. One is that we must wait and see whether the Ballot produces the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill before we make a decision. The second is that the matter must be decided by the House of Commons—namely, a vote on the Homicide Bill must be a matter for the House of Commons and eventually a vote on any Private Member's Bill dealing with the abolition of the death penalty must also be a matter for the House of Commons, otherwise the Parliament Act cannot act.
Mr. Silverman: But the right hon. Gentleman controls the time.
Mr. Butler: I agree, but I cannot control the Ballot. We cannot tell what the Ballot will produce. Pending that, it would be unwise of me, indeed it would be wrong, to make any forecast of the situation, but I will maintain open contact with the hon. Member and any of his hon. Friends with a view, as far as I can, to placing them in the general picture as to the Government's mind on this matter.
Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is bulking the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill with other possible Private Members' Bills. Does not he agree that there is a vast difference between that Bill and the other Bills in view of the fact that the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill was actually passed by this House and went to another place. Therefore, does not he think that his argument against the Amendment is wrong? If he would take into account the view that the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill stands in a category by itself, bearing in mind that it passed through this House on a majority vote, then he should accept the Amendment.
Mr. Butler: Let me explain my difficulty. The Government gave facilities for this Bill last Session. The Bill was approved by a majority of the House of Commons but was then rejected by the House of Lords. In the interval of its

131
long passage many representations were made, by leaders of the Church, by one of the leaders of the Liberal Party, as the Prime Minister said, and by many other leaders of public opinion, appealing to the Government to put forward a constructive suggestion for ending the difficulty in relation to the death penalty.
The constructive suggestion of the Government is embodied in a Bill named "The Homicide Bill," which will be published tomorrow morning. It is up to public opinion to examine the Bill and for the House of Commons to pronounce upon it. That does not preclude, nor does the Prime Minister intend it to preclude, the introduction of a Private Member's Bill dealing with abolition of the death penalty on the lines of the old Bill. It is clear that we are not at the end of our perplexities in this important matter.
It is not wrong for a Government to put forward a constructive line on these matters, particularly when many prominent leaders of the Government, including the Home Secretary, myself and others, spoke against abolition of the death penalty. This is still a free country, and it is quite possible for the Government to put forward a constructive view. As has been stated by the Prime Minister, there is a possibility, and indeed I think the likelihood, of a Bill being put forward by a private Member for the abolition of the death penalty. It will be extremely intriguing to see what the final position of the House of Commons is.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that it would be a great convenience to the House if we could get on to the debate on the Address by four o'clock, when, I understand, a statement is to be made. I am in the hands of the House.
Mr. Rankin: In order that there may be some analogy between the procedure on the Abolition Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the Government's Bill, will the Leader of the House tell us whether there will be a free vote?
Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister has already said that there will be a free vote on the Private Member's Bill relating to the abolition of the death penalty.
Mr. Rankin: That was not the question I put to the Leader of the House, which was whether the Government will permit a free vote on their own Bill?
Mr. Butler: No—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am raising a point of order myself. The Question before the House is the very narrow one of whether a Private Member's Bill abolishing the death penalty shall be exempted from a general Order, not the merits of the Bill or what will happen in the future. The only question hon. Members have to answer is whether a particular Bill should be exempted from what is proposed for other Private Members' Bills.
Mr. R. T. Paget: Further to that point of order. It is of vital importance in deciding how to vote on this Amendment for the House to know whether, if the Private Member's Bill is postponed to the Ballot, its position will be prejudged by the Government Bill, which will be forced through the House by the Government Whips.
An Hon. Member: There should be a free vote on the Government Bill.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: It is possible that none of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), will be successful in the Ballot. If the Opposition gave up a day of its time when the result of the Ballot is known in order that the House could decide by a free vote on the principle of capital punishment, would the Leader of the House be prepared to give facilities to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne to introduce this Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure, as was done last Session?
Mr. Butler: It is quite easy for me to answer this point. On the Government Bill, we shall not have a free vote. The Government Whips will be on. On the Private Member's Bill, we shall have no nonsense. We shall have a free vote of the House. [Laughter.]
Mr. Jay: No nonsense?
Mr. Rankin: Is the nonsense only on the Government's Bill?
Mr. Butler: Perhaps "prevarication"' would be a better word. We shall have

133
a free vote of the House on the Private Member's Bill. As to what will happen if there is no Private Member's Bill for the abolition of the death penalty, we must discuss that position when it arises. It is impossible to foretell what chance brings forward. If chance brings forward a fortunate result for the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, there will be no need for discussion, but if chance does not do so, there may be need for discussion. I am not prepared to discuss it today.
Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order. As a new Member, Mr. Speaker, I would ask your guidance on this perplexing matter. Suppose the Government pass their Bill through on Second Reading and that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), or another of my hon. Friends, is successful in the Ballot and a Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill passes its Second Reading on a free vote, we shall then have before us two Second Readings of contradictory principles. What will then be the position of the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical situation about which I cannot give an answer today. I have not seen the Government Bill and know nothing about its contents.
Mr. David Logan: I was the only Member on the Opposition benches to object to the Private Member's Bill when it was brought in. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I object still. I have not changed my mind, but I must admit that there is justice and logic in the claim of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that his Bill should come before the House this Session. We have had a long discussion and we have gone into everything relative to the position of the Government, who altered the position of that Private Member's Bill by adopting it themselves. The Government brought it forward in the House, not as a partisan Measure, but with a right to a free vote. The House of Commons declared in its favour. The only question which arose was about the power of the House of Lords. I agree that the House of Lords rejected the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not on that wider topic yet.
Mr. Logan: The Leader of the House ought to reconsider his decision and declare that the Private Member's Bill may again come before the House on a free vote.
Mr. Butler: Nothing I have said today has prejudged the final issue. All I have said is that we cannot make an exception for a particular Private Member's Bill in moving this Motion to reserve 20 days for private Members' business. That is all I have said. The rest will depend upon the result of the Bill and the opinion of the House of Commons. We are all ruled by the opinion of the House of Commons. I am only asking hon. Members now to decide the simple issue whether we can make an exception for one Bill.
3.50 p.m.
Mr. J. T. Price: I know, Mr. Speaker, that you wish to dispose of this business as quickly as possible, and I shall not detain the House for more than a minute, but I have been trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman, who has been pursuing an extremely dubious line of argument with his usual elegance of phrase, which does not convince us on this side of the House.
I want to put quite seriously to the right hon. Gentleman that -quite apart from the mechanics of the situation as he sees them—the Government propose to introduce a Homicide Bill which varies in certain important respects from the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill, which has already passed all stages in this House and was thrown out by another place. As the balance of opinion on this controversial matter is well known in the country and in the House and the balance lies with the abolitionists—for the moment I am not concerned at all with the merits of the matter—what would happen if the Homicide Bill emerged from all stages, subject to amendment, in exactly the same state as the other Bill and was then thrown out by another place?
Mr. Speaker: I really think that is diving into the future further than the human eye can see.
Mr. S. Silverman: I will not pretend that I am convinced or satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, nor am I even happy about the decision, but I do not think it would be right to divide the House on an issue which in principle

135
goes beyond the merits of the broad question we are discussing. In the hope that the Lord Privy Seal, whose interests in the luck of the Ballot have been increasing in the last few months, may be of some assistance to us when the Ballot comes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put and agreed to.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
Mr. Speaker: It might now be for the convenience of the House if I make a short statement on what I understand is desired to be discussed on the various days which remain for the debate on the Address. The present intention, I understand, is that tomorrow there should be a discussion on the Middle East; on Friday, there will be a general debate on the Question; on Monday, it is intended to hold a debate on economic affairs; and, on Tuesday, I understand that foreign affairs are to be the main topic.
I know that these topics are all subject to alteration in the times in which we live, but that, I understand, is the general idea at the moment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [SECOND DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6th November]:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Vane.]
    Question again proposed.
    3.54 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: If, today, we return to the comparatively peaceable subjects of housing and local government, they are none the less subjects which deeply concern the people of this country and I am sadly disappointed to find that in the Gracious Speech the references to both those subjects are quite remarkably short. I quote from the Gracious Speech:
    "My Government have been reviewing the finance of local government including the incidence of the rate burden between different classes of property. Their conclusions will, in due course, be announced to Parliament."
    So much for local government.
    We now turn to housing, and this is what we find:
    "Legislation will be laid before you to amend the laws dealing with rent control."
    Her Majesty's Government, with that expedition which does not always characterise them and with what I can only describe as a very astute use of the procedure of the House to limit discussion on this matter, have put upon the Order Paper notice of a Bill to amend certain Acts dealing with rent restrictions and control.
    On my way into the Chamber I inquired whether the Bill was yet available. I was told that at that time it was not available, but, as I understand the procedure of the House, this very astute move—astute in the sense of defeating the interests of free discussion—is sufficient under the procedure of the House to prevent any reference today to the one

    137
    contribution towards the housing problem which the Government hope to make in the current Session. I heartily congratulate them upon their astuteness, their clever use of the practice of the House, their reduction to the minimum of discussion of a problem which obviously affects people all over the country. In those circumstances I confine myself to one quotation, and one quotation only.
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mrs. Lena Jeger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us are interested in what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is trying to say to the House. Could you help us and enable us to hear what he is saying?
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will be allowed a fair hearing in this House. I sometimes think that when hon. Members hold private conversations with each other they believe they are speaking in quite a low tone of voice, but the cumulative effect of a lot of hon. Members so speaking at the same time is very loud. I therefore ask hon. Members to refrain from private conversations as far as possible.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I add to what I have said that it was we who asked you, Mr. Speaker, if there could be a discussion on housing, that is to say, on the reference to housing in the Gracious Speech? We then found on the Order Paper the project of the Bill to which I have just referred. May I repeat my congratulations to the Government on reducing discussion to a minimum? The quotation I want to make comes from:
    "a broad and simple statement of our Conservative outlook and aims"
    which was published some time ago, in 1949. It was called. "The Right Road to Britain"—[Interruption.] I am not quite certain whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite are approving or disapproving of "The Right Road to Britain "—[HON. MEMBERS: "For."] Oh, I see, "The Right Road for Britain." The quotation is:
    "Rent control must continue until it can be shown that there is no housing shortage at any given rent level."
    138
    I gather from the applause opposite that that remains the policy of right hon. and hon. Members. We shall see what the Bill is about. What I propose to discuss today is, is there at present a housing shortage "at any given rent level"? For that purpose, tied as I am by the astuteness of the Government, I shall refer to what has been done and not done in the field of council housing.
    May I give one piece of advice to the right hon. Gentleman before I begin or that? His Ministry is at present called—I rather think it was rechristened by the Conservative Party—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The title seems to me to be capable of misleading people—something which, I feel sure, the party opposite would never wish to do. Perhaps it would be better if they described it, in its present activities, as the Ministry to Restrict Housing and to Bankrupt Local Government.
    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Prime Minister has come into the Chamber, I am sure that the whole House is anxious to hear what he has to say. May I be advised as to my proper course in the circumstances, for I should wish to continue after the Prime Minister has made his statement?
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that if he discontinues his speech now to suit the convenience of the House, the House will gladly afford him permission to continue his speech at a later stage.
    4.1 p.m.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): I am very grateful to you and to the House, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to intervene for a few moments again, as I undertook to try to do yesterday. I hoped to be in a position to give the House rather more information about the discussions which are to take place at the United Nations this evening, but the position is that we are at this moment in close and detailed discussion about the various forms of the United Nations Resolutions to come before the United Nations tonight.
    We are in consultation with the Commonwealth Governments, the United States Government and the French Government. The Foreign Secretary is still

    139
    pursuing those discussions at this very minute. I hope, therefore, that the House will grant us some indulgence if I am not in a position to make a detailed statement about that until the discussions are concluded. I am very sorry to have to say it, but I think the House will understand that at this stage it really would not be possible for me to go beyond that. I wish I could, but I think the House will understand that it is clearly impossible.
    I ought to add something on the military side, which is that since the cease-fire took effect we have had reports that Port Said is under control and that our troops have taken up defensive positions. The greatest efforts are being made to clear the obstructions to the harbour as quickly as possible. As regards our offer to assist in clearing the Canal generally, while, again, I do not want to forestall what may be said at the United Nations, I think I should make it clear that we are now clearing the obstacles in the area which we control and that we should like to continue to clear obstacles in any other area and would gladly do so under the authority of the United Nations.
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I am sure we all understand the position of the Prime Minister, but I should like to ask him whether he thinks he will be able to make a statement a little later this evening, or whether he thinks that the consultations will take rather longer. Will he clear up one point on which there does appear to some to be a great deal of confusion? Is it the case that the fighting has, in fact, stopped in Egypt? Have the Egyptian Government accepted the cease-fire? Will the Prime Minister, in any case, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, reaffirm once again that the Government have given instructions that there will be no further movement of our forces, and that they will not take any action at all unless they themselves are attacked, whether or not the Egyptians have accepted the cease-fire?
    The Prime Minister: I will give the House the position as far as I know it. I admit that it is not very clear. We have had no official intimation about the cessation of the cease-fire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cessation?"] I am not
    140
    talking about ourselves. I mean the acceptance of the cease-fire by the Egyptian Government. We have had no official intimation. There have been reports of such a message, but it has not been confirmed to us yet. Meanwhile, there has been some shooting—I would not place too much emphasis on it—at Port Said during the day. Our position remains that the cease-fire stands unless our forces are attacked. Our forces have no intention of moving forward from their present positions.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister confirm that that applies also to the French?
    The Prime Minister: Surely. They have not the slightest intention of moving forward from their present positions. They have accepted, as we have, the armistice terms. I am absolutely sure that they will carry them out. One thing we must be clear about, so that there may be no misunderstanding, is that there must be certain movements in respect of administrative forces—not forwards—into Port Said; and to some extent, perhaps, security forces; but we are not going to attempt any kind of major reinforcement in order to enable anything further to be attempted later on.
    Mr. R. R. Stokes: May I ask the Minister of Defence whether he has any information to give us? Will he make a statement, for instance, on the extent and nature of our casualties so far as he knows them?
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Antony Head): I have not yet got an accurate report on the casualties. I think it wisest and best to await a statement on that until I have a full return.
    Mr. Stokes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects to be able to do so? The French have already declared to a certain extent what their casualties have been. I am glad to say they have not been very heavy. Will he tell us, also, whether the Prime Minister's statement means that Port Said is now—I will not say surrendered—but evacuated by enemy forces, or whether there are still garrisons there holding out?
    Mr. Head: There is every indication that casualties should be very light. The situation at Port Said appears to be one

    141
    in which there is no organised fighting by military units, but there has been some scattered firing, some of which may, I think, be not by the Egyptian Army at all but by scattered francs-tireurs, or youths; but so far as I know there has been no organised fighting whatsoever in Port Said by Egyptian forces.
    Mr. Stokes: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about the numbers of Egyptian military forces who have been captured?
    Mr. Head: No, Sir. I have no precise information about that at this stage.
    Sir James Hutchison: Can my right hon. Friend say how far forward the forward positions are—that is, how far down the Canal either our troops or French troops have gone?
    Mr. Head: There have been a number of reports regarding advance units of what I may term patrols southwards towards Kantara, but, again, the situation there is somewhat obscure; but these are small units, not large formations.
    Mr. F. J. Bellenger: May I ask the Prime Minister another question, the gist of which I put to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs earlier today, when I got no answer? I should like now to put it in this form. Is the meeting of the United Nations to deal only with the Egyptian situation? The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a terribly explosive situation boiling up in Central Europe—in Hungary, I mean. Therefore, is any action to be taken by the United Nations, either at that meeting or immediately after the meeting to deal with Egypt, to do something positive about that situation?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but without the presence of the Foreign Secretary I am not able to say what the exact timetable of the United Nations Assembly is today. I know that the United Nations is dealing with both subjects. Whether they will deal with both subjects at the same meeting I cannot say.
    Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be a suitable opportunity for the
    142
    House to express its appreciation of the brilliance of the operations of Her Majesty's Armed Forces?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I should hope so, because perhaps the most remarkable feature of the whole of this business has been that, so far as the operation at Port Said yesterday morning was concerned, the whole operation has been carried out by one parachute brigade without any kind of preliminary bombardment at all. Whatever political views one may have on the matter, that, as a military feat, must be unparalleled in history.
    Mr. F. Keswick: May I ask the Prime Minister about the Resolution which is now being discussed at the United Nations? Many of us are hoping that, after this wretched business, there will emerge a United Nations police force of an enduring kind. Can he assure us that he is not insisting that there shall be an element of British forces in that United Nations force, and that he will accept the spirit of the United Nations Resolution which laid it down that the force should be composed of representatives of uncompromised nations?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Member's description of the Resolution is right. I do not want to debate this, but I do not think that the Resolution talks about "uncompromised nations" at all. I think that one of the problems which the United Nations has to face is whether, if a force of this kind could be created, it should include; the major Powers, or should not include the major Powers but should consist of Powers other than the "Big Five." Those are very serious questions, and so far, as I made quite clear yesterday, our denominator in regard to all this business is whether or not an effective force can be created. I would not, therefore, like to say more than that in reply to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I deferred asking any further questions about the international police force, because I understood that the Prime Minister was to make a statement later. Could he confirm, for the convenience of the House, that he will be making the statement in, say, four or five hours?
    The Prime Minister: I really think that that is hardly reasonable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If there is a position which would give us information which I felt would be of service to the House then, of course, I will do so, but we are trying to conduct, about this very international force, rather elaborate negotiations—because they do concern a large number of countries, with widely different views as to what shall be done. I think that there is more than one Resolution before the Assembly. Whether I shall be able to tell the House more about that later this afternoon I simply cannot say until I know what the outcome of the discussions is. The House heard, in the declaration which I made yesterday about the cease-fire, what our own policy is in respect of this international force which, let me repeat, we did ourselves propose in the first instance.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that we, on this side, have very definite views as to the attitude which ought to adopted on this matter by Her Majesty's Government? May I ask, further, whether he is aware of the views of the Indian Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I understood that there were some consultations taking place with the Commonwealth, which now appears to be a matter of indifference to hon. Members opposite.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that the Indian Government have replied to the United Nations, laying down two conditions for joining this international force? The first is, submission of a detailed plan to be made with the agreement of the Egyptian Government; and the second, the withdrawal of foreign forces from Egyptian territory. With regard to that, would the Prime Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government agree with the views of the Indian Government?
    The Prime Minister: The position of Her Majesty's Government is as I stated it yesterday. There is no question whatever in our mind of withdrawal by the United Kingdom and her allies, unless and until there is a United Nations force to take over from us.
    Mr. I. J. Pitman: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tell the House what are to be the relationships in the recruiting of that United Nations
    144
    force which is to keep the peace there? We understand from the Press that officers are to have a direct relationship with the United Nations, and, presumably, are to forswear, at least temporarily, their allegiance to their national Government. Does that apply also to other ranks? If so, what is the view of Her Majesty's Government on this question of allegiance in relation to any such police force?
    The Prime Minister: It is quite clear that if this force is to come into being, and to be of the size and influence which I think that the House would like to see it assume, it will raise all sorts of questions such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) has just raised. I really do not think that I can deal with them here, at this Box, without notice. They are too complex. All I say is that they are just the kind of things we are discussing with other countries, and that we will do our best to forward the result which I laid down in the statement which I made to the House yesterday.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Could the Prime Minister confirm our understanding of yesterday that, whatever may be true of the long-term force and the participation in it of major Powers, Her Majesty's Government now accept the Resolution adopted by the United Nations Assembly that the force to go into the Palestine area should consist of contingents from nations which have not permanent seats on the Security Council?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I have already explained that that is just one of the matters which are now under discussion and examination. There are two views. One is that the major Powers should be members. There are others who take the view, and it is perfectly arguable, that the major Powers should not be members, provided the force is sufficient. But I really cannot go further than I went yesterday.
    Mr. J. Grimond: Has the Prime Minister any information about the rumours of further threats of aggression by Russia, both in the Middle East and in Central Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I think, on reflection, that I would rather not say anything about that this afternoon. One has to bear in mind whether what one says is

    145
    helpful or otherwise, and I think that I would rather say nothing at the moment.
    Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Would my right hon. Friend consider an air component for the international police force? In these open desert areas very much better policing can be undertaken from the air than can be done by ground troops. Further, could he possibly publish in due course the amount of Russian arms which have been found to be in Egypt? From early reports, it appears that these are on many times the scale which had previously been thought by this House.
    The Prime Minister: I answered, in another context, the very reasonable question which my hon. Friend put just now, and I think that I would rather hold to my answer. With regard to the first part of his question, I agree with him.
    Mr. John Dugdale: Reverting to the subject of casualties, while the Minister of Defence may not be able to tell us exactly how many there now are, can he assure us that next-of-kin of casualties have already been informed?
    Mr. Head: I cannot give that precise assurance at the moment, because I do not know what casualties there have been in the last 24 hours, but, so far as I know, all the next-of-kin of the earlier casualties have been informed.
    Mr. Richard Fort: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many on this side think that question and answer in this House is no way to conduct the foreign policy of this country, and that it is our duty here to support, or not fail to support, the general policy of the Government and not to do anything to impede it?
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: Can we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that, in the event of the General Assembly of the United Nations deciding that neither France nor Britain shall participate in the international police force, Her Majesty's Government will not insist upon retaining their forces in Egypt?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I could possibly give an assurance like that.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we ought to get on with the general debate now. Mr. Mitchison.
    4.18 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: The question which I was inviting the House to consider before the Prime Minister's statement was whether we could yet say that there was no housing shortage at any given rent level. I should not have thought that any right hon. or hon. Member had the least doubt about what the true answer was. Even that very cautious, non-committal document, the Report of the Ministry for 1955, after referring, in page 3, to "the severe general shortage of housing accommodation resulting from the war", says that
    "… this problem is still acute in some areas.…"
    I regard that as a quite magnificent understatement. A better way of putting it would be, "There are a few areas in which the problem is not quite as acute as it was at the end of the war." That is about as far as one can go.
    Let us have a look at the size of the problem. Since the war about 2 million houses have been built—I am talking not about temporary accommodation but about houses—1,500,000 of them or thereabouts by local authorities and 500,000 by private builders. What remains? First, one can look at this matter from the point of view of what I will call the family shortage—that is to say, people, often young people, who are at present living in a house with some other family, and clearly ought to have and want to have a house of their own. They do not exactly constitute cases of overcrowding. They are simply cases of people who want houses, and on any census or population figures one can see roughly what sort of cases they were at the time and how many they were.
    A very careful investigation from that point of view was made a short time age by P.E.P. but only on the results of the. 1951 census. The conclusion drawn was that at the time of the census there were' rather over 1 million of such cases, and there are about 750,000 now.
    That, of course, is only part of the story and only one side of it. We then

    147
    come to the question of the houses themselves. There are a million slum houses, scheduled slums, but that is not nearly the whole story. We do not nowadays regard a house as proper to live in—I will not use the technical phrase "fit for human habitation"—unless it has elementary conveniences like a water closet and bath.
    The facts are that of the houses in this country at present, nearly half either have no fixed bath at all or it is shared with someone else, and nearly one-quarter either have no water closet or again it is shared. When I talk about sharing I mean, of course, shared with other families.
    Then if we look at the matter in terms of age, the usual borrowing of local authorities for housing is over a period of 60 years, and 60 years is by and large a fair average life for a well-built house. I do not say there are not some that last longer. There are others in all conscience—some of them put up between the wars—which are not going to last 60 years or anything like it. But if we take 60 years, and add another five years to be on the safe side, we still get a figure of nearly 5 million houses over 65 years old. Even then the numbers are not constant. As we go on with housing—and we have been at it for eleven years now since the end of the war—the age of houses increases and there is a constant inflow of obsolescence into the housing accommodation of the country. These are not stationary figures.
    I would say at once that those figures are not necessarily each to be added to the other. The last two in particular may well contain houses which are both defective in ordinary sanitary accommodation and also much too old, but it is undoubtedly the case that there still remains a need for 1 million houses apart from slum clearance and 1 million houses by way of slum clearance. That is a pretty formidable figure, and I repeat what I said just now, that our total performance under successive Governments since the war has amounted to about 2 million houses in all.
    We are, therefore, very far indeed from having broken the back of the problem, even on the most elementary standards represented by the absence of ordinary conveniences to which I referred just now.
    148
    But I agree that the problem has taken on a particularly acute character in certain places, and by far the most obvious incidence of this is in the very large towns. London, taking for the moment Greater London, represents a very considerable part—roughly one-quarter—of the population of England and Wales. The L.C.C. area in the centre of it has quite a formidable housing list.
    his housing list is divided into three parts and it amounts to 165,000 families and includes no fewer than 53,000 urgent cases. They have recently had to consider their position, and they have come to the conclusion that apart from slum clearance, which they do not expect to proceed with at any very high rate, all they can do towards meeting the claims of those 53,000 cases is to provide rather fewer than 1,000 dwellings a year. Considering that the property in the centre of London, the L.C.C. area, is certainly not going to improve as the years go on, it seems to me that on that state of affairs there is no hope whatever of the London housing problem being settled on ordinary lines.
    need not quote at any great length, but I would like to refer to what these 53,000 cases are. I am reading from page 25 of a report of the Housing Committee of the L.C.C. dated 6th November. It says that these cases are
    "families in most urgent need of housing who have been placed in category A as a result of a careful application of the points scheme."
    It goes on to say that these are people many of whom have waited for a long time on this urgent housing list. That is the position in London.
    For the other large towns I take some figures that were given to us by the Minister the other day in connection with planning. They are figures relating to overspill, the surplus population, of these large towns. They simply represent, therefore, the people who cannot be housed otherwise than outside the area of the place in question. The figures that we were given were as follows: Manchester, rather more than 200,000, Liverpool, 150,000, Leeds and Sheffield, about 70,000 each.
    As for Birmingham, another large conurbation or part of a conurbation, one of the Birmingham officers told a Midlands planning conference the other day

    149
    that if everything went well and if outside local authorities co-operated he could manage to house 90,000 people under the overspill arrangements of the Town Development Act, but that there were left 123,000 people who could not be housed either inside Birmingham or under the overspill arrangements.
    If those figures are not accepted as indicating a really severe housing situation in the large towns of our country and do not indicate also that there is little or no prospect of solving the problem on present lines, then I do not know what further evidence anyone could possibly require. These people who are in need are not choosey; they are not allowed to be choosey. They have to take what is available. There simply is no housing accommodation for them, and there is at present no prospect of it.
    In face of all that, the Gracious Speech has nothing to suggest except something about rent control. We shall not make any more houses by means of rent control. Any contribution, if there can be any at all, which I doubt, can be only infinitesimal, except, of course, in raising financial questions between landlord and tenant, and those questions, as I said, I am in no position to discuss today.
    Let us see what in fact is happening, what the Government have been doing and omitting to do, what contributions they have so far made to this acute housing problem. In 1954, in round figures, 300,000 houses were built. At present, that total number has fallen to 270,000. But what is remarkably significant is the break-up of the figures between council housing and private building. Since 1954, private builders have increased their contribution from 88,000 to 116,000 a year, while at the same time local authorities, which were building at the rate of about 200,000 a year in 1954, are now building this year at a rate which amounts to about 135,000 houses. That is, of course, the total number of council houses and new town houses, including any houses built in replacement of dwellings removed in slum clearance, about which I shall have a few words to say presently.
    Towards the relief of ordinary people who need houses to live in, who have been waiting year after year, many of them living in houses now out of date and deficient in the most ordinary sanitary conveniences, private house building
    150
    can make only a very limited contribution indeed. Such people cannot afford to buy these houses, most of which are built for sale. They have looked, and they still look, to the council housing lists as their best, if not their only, chance of getting a house. In view of the figures I have mentioned, what are those chances now? The Government can only suggest, by way of relief of this problem, something to do with rent control.
    What a sad lack of policy. What complete blindness to the needs of the country and to the needs of people whom, after all, hon. Gentlemen opposite must, as ordinary constituency Members, themselves see occasionally, and whom, as hon. Members know quite well, their councillors and the officers of their councils see day after day. In spite of this human problem and hardship continuing now for many years, all that the Government can suggest, and all that appears in the Gracious Speech, is something to do with rent control. What a miserable view of life they must have. What complacent blindness towards the existence and wishes and hopes of the majority of their fellow citizens. I find it shocking and disgusting that at this stage, with this great need before them, that is all the Government can say.
    The Government tell us that they have initiated a slum clearance programme. Waving the flag of slum clearance before him, the right hon. Gentleman proceeds from platform to platform, and answers Question after Question in this House. When we examine what it really amounts to, we find that it is very small beer, quite remarkably small beer. What the right hon. Gentleman's scheme comes to is this. He has cut the general need housing subsidy, and, out of the kindness and humanity of his temperament, he has left the slum clearance subsidy untouched—a quite remarkable contribution to the housing problem. It seems very like the action of someone who, finding that a man does not hop very well when he has both feet, cuts off one of them and hopes he will hop better like that.
    As one might expect, the results have not been very satisfactory. Before this magnificent Government move came, the local authorities, poor creatures, were asked what they proposed to do about it. They proposed to clear slums at the rate of 75,000 houses a year. The

    151
    Government were a little more cautious. The right hon. Gentleman, on 17th November, 1955, said that they would get at least 60,000 in a year. We find that in col. 803 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that date. That was, no doubt, the effect of the stimulus which his proposals had given to the local authorities.
    What in fact has happened? There has been a little increase, but let us see what it comes to—twenty thousand houses demolished in 1954; twenty-five thousand houses demolished in 1955. If we take the figures for the present year, they are now proceeding at the rate of 33,500 demolitions in the year. The right hon. Gentleman looks a little puzzled; he will find the figures in the latest Housing Summary. This is the grand slum clearance programme, and the Government's contribution towards it. They have by now nearly got to half of what the local authorities proposed to do on their own. Such is the effect of the Government's magnificent effort.
    That, of course, is not all. They have made another really magnificent contribution. Considering that, in the circumstances, this being the condition of the people whom they have to govern, something or other ought to be done, and that the Ministry concerned is the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and ought presumably to help both housing and local government, they have proceeded to cut the housing subsidies. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have abolished them."] Not yet. They began about a year ago. They made a reduction in the housing subsidy which amounted at that time to £12 1s. They now propose, though they have not done it yet, to make a further reduction of £10 and so eliminate the general need subsidy altogether.
    Side by side with this, as part of the general policy of the Government, the rate of interest charged to local authorities has been rising steeply. Since the Government came into office, the rate has risen by 1¾ per cent. on long loans. I am taking the rate in November, 1951, and the rate today.
    The right hon. Gentleman is quite good at arithmetic, except when he takes to spreading it on the averages, at which point it becomes a little peculiar. If he refrains from doing that for a moment and looks simply at plain figures, he will
    152
    find, if he adds those figures together in relation to a £1,700 house, that, taking that house by itself, the actual addition made to the rent chargeable by the council by those three things—the first cut in the housing subsidy, the second proposed cut and the rise in the rate of interest—amounts almost exactly to a £1 a week addition.
    The House will remember the phrase I originally quoted out of that blue book of the Conservative Party, "The Right Road for Britain":
    "Rent control must continue until it can be shown that there is no housing shortage at any given rent level."
    The effect of what the Government are doing is to eliminate some rent levels altogether.
    What ought they to have done? I am not here to conduct a general economic debate about dear money, the rates of interest, the economic position of the country, and so on. Let us assume that for some reason or another it was necessary, and is necessary, to have a dear money policy and put up the rate of interest. What, in those circumstances, is the duty of the Minister of Housing and Local Government? It is certainly not to add to the burden of local authorities and the hardship of people by choosing that moment to cut the housing subsidy. If the right hon. Gentleman says that it was not he but the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that it was an inextricable part of the economic policy of the Government, I would simply reply that in that case he had better resign, even if the rest of the Government do not do so. That is the position as regards what they have been doing.
    There are, of course, other ways in which the Government might have tried to tackle this question. One of them is a very obvious one. Take the case of Birmingham, to which I have referred. After dealing with its surplus population so far as it can by overspill arrangements, Birmingham will still have a very large number—123,000 people, I think—who cannot be disposed of either in Birmingham or by overspill arrangements. The solution is so obvious that it hits one in the eye—and it applies not merely to Birmingham: it is exactly the same as that for which London is asking.
    It is the duty of the Government and not of local authorities, however large.

    153
    to initiate new towns and to deal with those new towns under the financial arrangements in the 1946 Act. Whatever else there is in the Gracious Speech, there is not a word about new towns, still less a word about amending the Act. Christmas is coming on—old Scrooge's season—and the right hon. Gentleman has been making himself uncommonly busy trying to persuade Birmingham, Manchester and London that anybody except the Government ought to pay for any new towns, and that it would be a nice arrangement, convenient to everybody, if they could be paid for out of the rates instead of out of public funds, for the time being.
    I say "for the time being" because right hon. and hon. Members may forget that these new towns are paying their way. It is not a question of putting money into a social experiment in which it will undoubtedly be lost. It is a question of putting one's money into a social adventure which is succeeding admirably from the financial point of view as well as from ours. It is not perfect, but I will have a word to say about that presently.
    Under Labour Governments, twelve new towns were started in England and Wales and two more in Scotland. I will not say anything to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I believe he is entitled to a particular and peculiar laurel wreath for having started one in Scotland, but not so the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It appears to be no part of his duties to do any more than to try to persuade somebody else to do what he ought long ago to have done himself.
    I said that the new towns are not proceeding perfectly. Let me tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman, in simple language, what is the root of the trouble. The right hon. Gentleman and his Department and the development corporations are, in some cases—I do not say all of them—regarding the growth of the new town as a matter of somewhat enlarged development. They are not regarding it as what it ought to be—a housing community, a social community and a social adventure. The result is that in some, but not all, of these new towns feeling is beginning to run very high.
    In an ordinary borough, a man who has complaints to make can do it in one of two ways. He can, and often does, if it is a small matter go to the offices
    154
    of the council; so in the new town he can go to the officers of the development corporation. He has, however, a further remedy in that he can go to his councillor and, if his councillor fails to do what he requires, he may well express his feelings by voting against him in the next borough election. The development corporations are not elected bodies, and those who live in new towns do not have that second method of dealing with their grievances. It is the more necessary that those grievances should be dealt with at a very early stage and in as democratic a manner as is possible for a nominated body. It is not impossible—some development corporations are doing it. I am not certain that it would really help what ought to be done or help the progress of the adventure if I gave too many instances. If they are wanted, I will give them. Other development corporations are not doing it, and the result is accumulated grievances.
    The matter has been made worse by two factors. The first may at first sight not seem to right hon. and hon. Members opposite one of great importance, but I regard it as a matter of principle and one of very considerable importance. The duty of developing a new town rests upon the development corporation, under the general supervision of the right hon. Gentleman.
    What is happening in the centre of many of the new towns is that the whole centre is being let off, I understand, for quite a long term of years, to private companies—prosperous companies, no doubt—who as a matter of business then let it off to shopkeepers and the like. They get some part of the result in annual profit, and if the lease is of any length they will get some part of the general improvement of values in that new town.
    That is not what the New Towns Act intended. The effect of providing a rake-off for large property companies is to increase the charges on the new town as a whole, which could have been met if the development corporation had done, and been allowed to do, its duty under the Act and accordingly make some accommodation—no doubt, not a large one in individual cases—for the rents charged in these new towns. It is wrong to take an Act of that kind and use it in that way. It is wrong to prostitute to

    155
    this purpose the spirit and the ideas which led people to start those new towns and which still lead many people who are intimately concerned. It is not a place where property companies ought to be allowed, right in the middle of the town, to do the job of the development corporation and take their rake-off out of it.
    I take one other point, and this is a most serious one. The right hon. Gentleman has been remarkably discreet about the future of new towns. Perhaps it is as well because, at the rate they are going at present, he may be in no position to deal with their future. Of course, if he were to say anything now, it might be awkward if he were to find himself later on this side of the House. In fact, when the Conservative Party was in opposition, it insisted that new towns ultimately should go, as the Act clearly intends, to local authorities. But the Act is an elastic one. It was a venture which had to be conceived and framed in that form. It is possible under the Act to hand over those new towns to people other than the local authorities, and my information is that that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do, if he gets the chance.
    I do not think that the party opposite dislikes the continual and perpetual existence of appointed bodies in local government as much as I do. I think that it is wrong to keep bodies like development corporations any longer than is necessary for the purpose of development. It would be wrong to deal with housing communities by handing them over to any other people than those whom they themselves elect.
    I now wish to say a word or two about local authorities. It is said, in answer to what I said just now, that some local authorities are too small and may not be able to deal with this kind of position. My answer to that is: "Keep the principle and reform the local authorities, if that is your difficulty". Sure enough, a short time ago there appeared the first result of the right hon. Gentleman's long deliberations with local authority associations. This somewhat uninspiring document was called, "Areas and Status of Local Authorities in England and Wales". I opened it and read it, I am afraid with somewhat diminishing interest, until I reached paragraph 19, where I found a really startling statement:
    156
    "Leaving aside functions and finance, which can be considered separately, there are five main problems to be examined …"
    It goes on to state them, and it says:
    "functions and finance can be considered separately."
    We can therefore define the areas and the status of local authorities and make provision for their future without knowing what they are going to do or where they are going to get the money to do it, for functions and finance can be considered separately. That is a very curious way of dealing with the matter.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever is to reply, this question: does he regard dealing with local authority finance at present as an urgent matter, and, if so, when is anything going to be done about it? The passage in the Gracious Speech to which I have referred was completely obscure and appeared only to relate to a much smaller question, the incidence of the rate burden.
    At the end of that document to which I have referred, which in effect restores something remarkably like the former Boundary Commission, proposes to stir up local authorities to do some minor things and has one or two other provisions in it, we are told that legislation will be needed to give effect to it. Such legislation, of course, is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech; or are we to presume that this is one of the small items, as it were, covered by the last sentence in the Gracious Speech:
    "Other measures will be laid before you in due course "?
    I do not know.
    I regard the right hon. Gentleman's dilatoriness in dealing with the finance of local authorities, which he has done so much to wreck by removing the housing subsidies at a time when the rate of interest was going sharply up, as something which needs a great deal more defence than he has ever advanced.
    I have nearly finished. This is a subject which can be made quite uncommonly dull, and if I have succeeded in doing so, I apologise to the House. It is a difficult matter to put in a form which is at once practical and, I hope, a little forceful. I cannot leave it without putting two broad propositions to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    The first of these arises out of a very remarkable statement which was made

    157
    by the right hon. Gentleman himself in answer to a question. Talking about housing subsidies, he said this: "…
    the relief "—
    that is the relief in housing subsidies and, of course, of reduced rents in consequence—
    "should be given only to those who need it and only for so long as they do need it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 380.]
    Is that really the considered view of the Conservative Party? If it is, it introduces some very remarkable innovations into the conception of public responsibility for housing.
    What was originally the housing of the working classes has become in recent years, by a decision of this House quite a time ago, housing in general and not just housing of the working classes. It was undertaken because housing before that—housing under private enterprise—was rotten, bad and insufficient. That was the reason why it was undertaken, and it was undertaken in order to provide better and more houses. Those conditions are still there. There is still rotten, bad and insufficient housing. There is still not enough housing; yet we are told that it is only to be doled out as a form of charity to those who need it, and only for as long as they do need it.
    What is the result? A man gets a rather better job, and he is to be turned out of a council house because he does not need it any longer. It will not be a council house, for there will soon not be a housing subsidy in the ordinary way. But suppose he may have to get out of a slum and, encouraged by better conditions, he begins to make a little more money for himself. Does the Conservative Party turn him out? What do they do? It would be very interesting to know.
    I come to my second point. We on this side of the House take an entirely different view about housing. We believe that this view has been developing not only in the Labour Party but throughout the country for very many years and that it is coming to a certain conclusion. The view which we take is that housing is not just a matter of building a house, of bargaining about the rent and of putting a man into the house so that the landlord may get the rent and the tenant may pay it. That is a wholly insufficient
    158
    description, just as insufficient as it would be to regard other public services in this country as merely a matter of A3; s. d., merely a matter of profit for someone and payment by someone else.
    We regard housing as one of these social services and that, I believe, was the view some time ago, has been increasingly the view, but is at the moment a view abhorrent to the benevolent opinions of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that that will be denied. It is a view utterly irreconcilable with the sentence which I have just quoted and which the right hon. Gentleman said on 27th October, 1955, as reported in col. 380 of HANSARD. The occasion was when I made some very rude remarks to him about the beginning of his abolition of the housing subsidy. That was his reply—deeply moved, no doubt, by what I had said to him.
    Let us consider the consequences. If housing ought to be regarded as a social service, is there the faintest chance that private building can make anything but a very limited contribution to it? More than that, what is the position of the private landlord and his tenant? During these past few years, let us remember, we have had one attempt after another to get a simple thing done which is the ordinary duty of a landlord.
    I am not saying that all landlords are bad; I know that there are questions of means and resources involved. But I say that private ownership in this country has failed to keep these houses in proper repair and that what was called "Operation Rescue" by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and "a mouldy old turnip for the landlords" by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has proved to be the latter rather than the former. It rescued nobody, it left a nasty taste in the mouth of landlords who tried to use it, and it has scarcely served any purpose at all. Now, I suppose, we are coming to the hidden menace of rent restriction control, which I must not discuss.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: Why not?
    Mr. Mitchison: Because there is a Bill on the Order Paper about it.
    That is the position. Private ownership failed to do the job. I go one stage further and say without hesitation that

    159
    there is something morally wrong in the relationship between a private landlord and a tenant, not in that either of the parties to it are right or wrong but in the nature of the relationship. The landlord regards his house, as he is bound to regard it, as something out of which he gets a certain amount of money, and naturally in the course of that relationship, however benevolent he may be personally, the inducement to him the whole time is to get as much as possible. It will depend on his character, means and view of his own responsibilities whether he does more, but the inducement always remains that way.
    From the point of view of the tenant a house is something much more than an ordinary thing which is hired out to him week by week. It is his home, it is a vital part of his life, it is a vital part of his life as a family man and an inhabitant of the township, wherever it may be, and as a citizen of this country. It is an essential part of his status in the community and of his life as an individual. I need hardly tell the House the effect upon people of having a house or not having one, having a good house or having a bad house. We must all know it ourselves.
    Housing difficulties, the wrong house, not getting a house, get under the skin of ordinary people as nothing else ever does. They wreck their family lives if those factors continue, and wreck their usefulness as citizens. They cause ill health and many, many other results. To leave something of that importance as a matter of private property from which someone else, quite naturally, will get all that he properly can is fundamentally wrong. When we reach a position of that sort there is only one way out of it. That is to make the community itself, in some form or another, and in the form of one of the organs of our democratic government, responsible for doing the job which, by and large, private landlords have failed to do.
    It is on that moral principle, just as much as on any history of the matter, that my party has decided that the time has come in which in all convenient cases the tenant shall be the tenant of the council and not of the private landlord. I am not here today to discuss the details of our proposals.
    Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what he means by "in all convenient cases"? How does he define those cases?
    Mr. Mitchison: I think that the hon. Member can probably afford to purchase a copy of "Homes for the Future," which he will find exceedingly interesting.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): "Homes of the Future."
    Mr. Mitchison: I do not think the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) will wish me to take up the time of the House, upon which I have already trespassed considerably, by expounding to him at length what he can read for himself so clearly written out.
    Mr. K. Thompson: That is not very helpful.
    Mr. Mitchison: I have said what I want to say on the subject.
    May I say in all humility to the House that I had hoped to talk about rent restriction. I can assure hon. Members that I had a magnificent speech prepared on that, and that what they have listened to today is a rather pale and truncated shadow of that effort. The Government can at any rate congratulate themselves on having caused the substitution of a not-so-good speech for the very good one which I hope to deliver when opposing their dealings with rent control.
    My indictment of them is this: the housing shortage is still grave. I do not think that it can be settled at all on present lines, but that is no reason for doing what the Government have done—to put every possible obstacle in the path of local authorities who ought to try to settle it, and to make it much more difficult for the thousands, possibly millions, of people in this country who are suffering hardship through lack of houses to get that which will enable them to live their lives fully and comfortably.
    5.10 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): At any rate, we have a pleasure to come, and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has given the House, as it

    161
    were, a trailer of the film which we shall be able to view at length and probably repeatedly during our future proceedings. I shall follow the hon. and learned Member in devoting most of my speech to housing. Therefore, perhaps I might deal first with the subsidiary matters to which he referred.
    The hon. and learned Member quoted a sentence from the White Paper on Local Government and asked whether proposals on local government finance were regarded as a matter of urgency. I can reaffirm that it is the Government's intention that their broad proposals on this subject should be made known by the end of this year.
    Mr. Gibson: On a point of order. May we take it that those who may be fortunate to take part in the debate after the Minister has finished and who raise questions with which he does not deal in his speech will not get a reply from the Government? If that is the case, I submit that the Minister, in courtesy to the House, might have waited until some of us had spoken.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That is not a point of order. When Front Bench Members get up I call them, as the hon. Member knows.
    Mr. Powell: I shall have my work cut out in answering the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering.
    Mr. Dennis Howell: That is not good enough.
    Mr. Powell: And afterwards we shall see how the debate goes.
    Mr. Howell: Scandalous.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering was mistaken in so reading the Gracious Speech as to indicate that the sole or even main matter of the Government's proposals on the finance of local government was the incidence of the rate burden. The word was, specifically, "including", and I assure the hon. and learned Member that these proposals are designed to cover the whole field of local government finance. As to the proposition in the White Paper that finance and functions can be considered separately, even if no change were to be made at all in local government finance and even no change at all in local
    162
    government functions and their distribution, most people would still feel that there was a strong case for a review of the structure of local government.
    Mr. James McInnes: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring only to the position in England and Wales. The situation in Scotland is the very opposite.
    Mr. Powell: I might as well enter a caveat here, which I was going to make a little later on, and that is that as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be intervening later in the debate my remarks and, I emphasise all the figures and data that I use relate exclusively to England and Wales, as indeed does the White Paper to which I was referring.
    As I was saying, especially as the Government have taken the view that what is needed in the reform of local government is not a revolutionary alteration in the system but a modernisation and overhaul of the structure, there was no reason why matters of finance and functions, though they will clearly bear upon the structure, should not be dealt with in separation.
    As to legislation in pursuance of the White Paper on Areas and Status of Local Authorities in England and Wales, this White Paper, of course, has yet to be debated. I think that most hon. Members would agree that before the House comes to debate it, it would be well if the local authority associations, which I understand are taking the most painstaking steps to consult their members over this, had had a really generous allowance of time in which to formulate their own views.
    I am sure that we would not want to debate these proposals in the House until we have had the advantage of the views of the local authority associations and others. Therefore, we first of all have to see what those will be and have the debate on the White Paper before the question of legislation arises, though I would point out that the Gracious Speech is not necessarily an exhaustive list of legislation likely to be introduced at any stage in the forthcoming Session.
    As to housing, I shall again follow the example of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering in scrupulously observing the rules of order and, in particular, the

    163
    rule on anticipation. The hon. and learned Member was perhaps unnecessarily generous in his congratulations to my right hon. Friend upon the astute move by which the rule of anticipation applies to today's debate, and he was certainly unfair in attributing it to a desire to reduce discussion to a minimum. As Erskine May points out, the purpose of the rule of anticipation is to ensure that the House shall debate matters in the widest framework and in the most effective form of procedure. Therefore, we are merely following the practice which the House has long laid down for itself to ensure that debate can be as useful and effective as possible.
    The hon. and learned Member began with a reference to various statistical assessments of housing needs, and particularly by quoting the assessments which P.E.P. in its pamphlet, "How many houses?", had based on the results of the 1951 census. It would be useful, however, if I quoted to the House the conclusion of that pamphlet, which is as follows:
    "It is, however, clear "—
    and this was over a year ago, I might say 300,000 houses ago—
    "that the demand for more houses is beginning to be met. Local authority housing estates and blocks of modern flats are to be seen in all parts of the country. Private building is now well under way. The time is near "—
    This was October. 1955—
    "when housing authorities must turn then-attention increasingly to the slums, and the decrepit, old and inadequate houses which are now ripe, and more than ripe, for demolition or conversion and repair."
    Therefore, the conclusion about the statistical examination based on the 1951 census, and the building statistics since, was that a balance between the general supply and demand, taking the country as a whole, was then in sight and it was time to switch the emphasis from a net increase of the total number of homes in the country to the replacement and improvement of existing homes.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: The deduction is quite wrong.
    Mr. Powell: In that case, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering should not have prayed in aid a document with the conclusions of which he disagrees.
    Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to defend myself against what he has just said. I did not pray in aid this document or its conclusions. I took from it an estimate of the number of people requiring houses on family grounds. That is all, but it is very difficult to find these estimates, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
    Mr. Powell: I appreciate that, and I felt that I was justified in reminding the House of the conclusion at which that investigation had arrived. These general statistics, of course, slur over the fact that the balance between supply and demand for homes differs enormously in different parts of the country.
    The hon. and learned Member for Kettering was, of course, quite right in referring, in this context, particularly to great cities many of which have not only slum clearance problems but have a very real overcrowding problem as well. He referred particularly to those in connection with the assistance which new towns were able to give to housing authorities that physically are unable to continue to build, as is the case with the County of London, within their own boundaries.
    I would again remind the House, as I mentioned in our debate on 9th July, that the eight new towns which specifically serve the Greater London area have so far attained only one-third of their planned size. Indeed, that planned size is by no means inelastic, so that the existing now towns which serve London have a great deal of capacity that needs to be developed.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend of going round like a Scrooge trying to persuade local authorities to build new towns for themselves when it was the job of the Government to do so. He mentioned Manchester. There is no need for my right hon. Friend to persuade Manchester, because that is just what it wants to do. As for Birmingham, I understand that the Birmingham City Council recently passed a resolution on this matter and has asked to meet my right hon. Friend for a discussion. That discussion is being arranged, and clearly it would be wrong for me to prejudge the results of it.
    Finally as to London. I understand that London is contemplating building a new town for itself. So there again there

    165
    is no question of my right hon. Friend foisting this notion upon a reluctant local authority.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the hon. Gentleman quite right? I have here the Press statement issued by the leader of the London County Council on the report, to which I referred, about London's housing difficulties. He stated that nothing short of another new town can make a worth-while impression on the vast need, and that the Government are apparently unwilling to be responsible for another new town. He then stated that the Council has power to do it and goes on:
    "Only with the Government's backing can we raise such a sum on top of our present capital commitments, already running at some £24 million a year. Assurances on grants from the Government are also esssential."
    The hon. Gentleman would meet much of my difficulty if the could give those assurances now, and could tell me that the Government will give the backing which the leader of the London County Council wants.
    Mr. Powell: I was going on to refer to that matter but I wanted to establish first that there was no question of my right hon. Friend forcing upon a reluctant authority this notion of a new town promoted by London. In fact the initiative comes from the local authority. In our previous debate the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) was very strong on this point. She said that the London County Council—
    "… should be given the necessary financial and ministerial consents to enable it to proceed with the building of a new town in which Londoners might be housed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1956; Vol. 556. c. 94.]
    She added that if my right hon. Friend
    "could find it in his heart to entrust to the London County Council an operation which a private body was apparently about to begin "—
    that was a reference to the proposed Allhallows new town—
    "the London County Council should be able to do a very good job."
    So there is no question of my right hon. Friend, in the guise of a Scrooge, trying to force upon others a function which is that of the Government. These authorities are considering this method of doing it; and want to do it for themselves.
    Mr. D. Howell: I hope the Minister is not drawing the conclusion from that
    166
    statement, and from the resolution concerning Birmingham which he mentioned briefly, that Birmingham wants to be in the same position as London, because its financial structure is of an entirely different character.
    Mr. Powell: I understand that, and in referring to Birmingham I mentioned the discussion which is to take place between the representatives of the city council and my right hon. Friend. So far the London County Council has made no approach to my right hon. Friend on the matters which the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted just now. So there again I cannot prejudge them until the approach has been made. However, let me establish that there is no question either of the London new towns having reached their full capacity and having served their purpose as regards the decongestion of London or of my right hon. Friend foisting this task upon reluctant authorities.
    Mr. Mitchison: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The contribution which the L.C.C. estimates that the new towns can make is of the order of a little over 1,000 a year out of a 53,000 urgent housing list. As regards his second point, the leader of the London County Council has said quite clearly, and with no great pleasure:
    "The Government is apparently unwilling to be responsible for another new town."
    Why?
    Major Sir Frank Markham: Is it not obvious from those figures that the statement is wrong? Even the expanded towns, Bletchley and Swindon, take more than 1,000 a year, and we could take more with the co-operation of the L.C.C. and adjacent areas right away.
    Mr. Powell: Of course every hon. Member in the House recognises that the new town idea can only be one of the methods whereby London can be enabled to build, or to have its citizens rehoused, outside the built-up area of Greater London.
    Before I pass from the new towns, there was the point of the private development of the town centres which the hon. and learned Gentleman brought up again. I am sorry that he should have seen fit to attribute what I thought were intended to be disreputable motives to the new town corporations. If this kind of

    167
    development, if the leasing of land for this kind of purpose, is contrary to the interest of the inhabitants of the new towns, as the hon. and learned Gentleman alleged, and if it is contrary to the purpose for which the corporations were set up, I should have thought it was a severe assault upon them to say that they were engaged in this kind of operation.
    Mr. Mitchison: Misguided maybe, but not disreputable.
    Mr. Powell: I see, they are merely misguided. As I said in our previous debate in July, the corporations in this respect are proceeding like prudent estate managers in spreading the risks—and there is a great variety of their practice as there is of their circumstances—in doing some of the development fully with their own capital and in allowing private enterprise to come in and do another part of it. That is the manner in which any prudent estate manager would go about the job, and I do not think we have any right to suppose that these new town corporations, with the local circumstances and with the local prospects clearly before them, are taking decisions in this matter which are other than the best that they can commercially and prudently take in the discharge of their duty.
    Mr. Sparks: I have followed the new towns legislation from the beginning, and I understood that the main purpose of those towns was to accommodate people who were badly housed—we are talking now particularly of London and Greater London—and yet many people are going to the new towns who have no housing problem.
    Mr. Powell: I am not sure that the remark of the hon. Gentleman is relevant to the matter of commercial development of the town centres, with which I was concerned.
    The views of the hon. and learned Gentleman on the future of the new towns as they approach completion will be noted, but at present, as I said in July, my right hon. Friend is in discussion with the corporations on this question and is not yet in a position to make a statement of policy.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) referred to the contribution of town
    168
    development. Perhaps I may mention that in the last five months, since we last looked at this matter, there has been considerable progress with town development schemes.
    It is well known that Bletchley and Swindon are going ahead nicely. I understand that the London County Council is hoping to conclude four further agreements in the fairly near future, and that it is having continued discussions with a number of other authorities. Since last July, Birmingham, too, has concluded agreement with nine authorities in Staffordshire and one in Northamptonshire, and is in discussion with further authorities. So, although, in the nature of things, town development has been slow to get under way, steady progress is going on, as can be seen from these developments in the case of two exporting centres only since we last looked at this question in July.
    Mr. Mitchison: Do these developments bear out the Minister's estimate of 20,000 houses or families a year for overspill?
    Mr. Powell: I am not quite clear which context the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Mitchison: I will give the hon. Member the reference.
    Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    On the physical question of the production of houses, the broad fact is that the nation's total stock of houses is continuing to increase at a very high rate indeed. Hon. Members will have in front of them the housing return up to the third quarter of this year. This shows that the level of completions this year has been running very little below that of last year; that is with reference to all houses—I am coming to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the breakdown in a moment. Present indications show that, as the hon. and learned Member estimated, about 270,000 houses should be completed this year.
    If we look at the houses under construction which is, as it were, the next stage of incubation, we find no serious falling away there, either in the local authority or the private sector.
    Mr. Walter Elliot: Is my hon. Friend giving figures for England and Wales only, or for the United Kingdom as a whole?
    Mr. Powell: It may be that my right non. Friend entered the Chamber after I mentioned that all my statistics and all my remarks relate to England and Wales only.
    Mr. Elliot: I wanted to make quite sure that the number of Scottish houses had to be added to the figure of 270,000; otherwise a misleading impression might be given.
    Mr. Powell: I quite agree, but all the figures that I am using are England and Wales figures, and the Scottish figures have to be aggregated with them to produce the national total.
    The hon. and learned Member argued that the change in the balance between houses built by local authorities and houses built by private enterprise over the last few years had been to the disadvantage of those in housing need. He said that private enterprise building made a very small contribution indeed to the relief of ordinary people. When private enterprise is building at the rate of between 120,000 and 130,000 houses a year, that, on the face of it, is a fantastic statement, because the possibility of that development going on steadily at that rate is evidence that the demand is being taken up by a great many very ordinary people.
    Admitting that the people who will be purchasing these houses—and they are nearly all for purchase—are people with some stability and some financial prospects of meeting the mortgage charges, the fact remains that there is that virtually net addition to the total stock of houses. What we are concerned with is the balance between families and potential families and the number of homes for those families to inhabit, so that the addition made to the stock by private enterprise goes as directly as any other addition to meet housing need.
    This brings me to the extraordinary point which the hon. and learned Gentleman made—he quoted words of my right hon. Friend—about subsidies being applied only to those who were in financial need of them. To listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman one would have thought that this was an extremely rarified, high Tory doctrine to which my right hon. Friend had given expression; but I happen to have in front of me the agenda and report of the Labour Party conference on housing which took place
    170
    in January of this year, which I recommend to hon. Members opposite as well as to my hon. Friends, because it contains a most useful anthology of Labour Party views on the question of differential rents.
    Because it is so convenient I shall not trouble the House with more than a few quotations. Going back to 1934 one finds the resolution:
    "that housing subsidies can be put to best use and best benefit according to need, by the adoption of the differential principle."
    In 1950, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), speaking at the Labour Party Conference, said:
    "There is no justification for arguing that subsidies should be increased in respect of post-war housing rents. But there is a case—nobody has ever denied it—for adjusting the position to individual families and indivdual households."
    The fact is that both sides of the House recognise that housing subsidies are to be applied to meet real financial need, and that there is no justification for an overall flat subsidy, or the flat application of the available subsidy. We are really at one about this.
    Mr. D. Howell: But there are no subsidies now.
    Mr. Powell: As the hon. Member well knows, local authorities have a large amount of subsidy which they can apply in accordance with orthodox Labour Party doctrine.
    I have looked at the rate of completion of houses and the rate of houses under construction. As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend invited local authorities to inform him of their intentions with regard to the submission of tenders during the current financial year. Not all the returns are yet available, and it is my right hon. Friend's intention not to publish the figures until they are available in full, which I think is clearly the sensible course. But I can say that from the vast majority of returns which are available it is clear that local authorities were envisaging the submission of not fewer tenders this year than were approved in the previous year, 1955–56. That is a very useful indication of the sort of view which local authorities themselves take of their prospects in the housing field and their prospects of letting the houses which they propose to build.

    171
    In fairness, and in order to clarify the position, I would say that these are intentions; they cannot be taken as firm commitments of local authorities, and it would be very unfair to take them as such. But they are the best statements of their intentions which the local authorities could provide my right hon. Friend in August, which was the time of rendering these returns.
    Mr. Mitchison: It was promised to publish those returns in the autumn. It is now November. May we have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that, however incomplete they are, they will be published, as were the slum clearance ones, before we consider rent control? They bear very much upon that matter.
    May I take this opportunity of giving the hon. Gentleman his right hon. Friend's reference to the rate of building in new towns and expanded old towns for overspill purposes, at 20,000 houses a year? It is in HANSARD of 17th November, 1955; col. 806.
    Mr. Powell: That was the estimate of my right hon. Friend of the break-down of future local authority building, as between slum clearance, overspill and general housing needs, at a time when the change in the subsidy structure would have taken its full effect. I think that is the context in which that sentence comes.
    Mr. Sparks: Regarding the number of houses completed and under construction by local authorities, will not the hon. Gentleman agree that 90 per cent., if not 100 per cent., of them carry with them, first, the full rate of subsidy, and secondly, the reduced rate; and that local authorities are rushing forward with their schemes to get the benefit of the subsidy because they know that the subsidy is going off altogether? That accounts for the figures which the hon. Gentleman has read out and, within a year or two, he will find they will drop considerably.
    Mr. Powell: In the first place, a good many of those houses must undoubtedly be appropriated to purposes which carry, and will still carry, the higher rate of subsidy. In the second place, the local authorities knew perfectly well what were the intentions of the Government in regard to the general needs subsidy.
    172
    Although I agree that one cannot treat these figures as cast-iron undertakings, they do indicate that local authorities in the country were optimistic about their capacity to go ahead with building.
    In completing this very brief survey of the rate at which our housing stock is increasing, I should mention the contribution made by conversion. One has no means of assessing the number of private conversions—it must be quite considerable—which take place without subsidy. The housing return shows that conversions with grant are going along at a steady rate. So we can place on record that the total stock of houses, of homes, which are available is continuing to increase at a very high rate indeed. The net rate, of course, and that is what matters in the balance of supply and demand, must take account of the number of houses demolished under slum clearance.
    Now I come to the question of the slum clearance programme and the manner in which it is developing. When we were discussing the Housing Subsidies Bill, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) was very pessimistic about the future of the slum clearance drive. I mention this because I am sure that no one would be more delighted than the hon. Member himself to find that he was deceived. On 15th February, 1956, he said:
    "In both these fields of activity "—
    That was building for slum clearance and overspill—
    "… activity will decrease and not increase." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 2384.]
    The hon. Gentleman said also:
    "The number of slum dwellers who will be rehoused next year under this Bill "—
    He was referring to the Bill which is now the Housing Subsidies Act, 1956,—
    "will be far fewer than the number rehoused under the Acts each year since 1945–46."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 2385–6.]
    I am glad to say—I am sure the hon. Member is equally glad—that these gloomy prophecies are being disproved.
    As my right hon. Friend recently informed the House, the rate of demolition in the first six months of this year is 50 per cent. greater than in 1955. One gets the demolition figures rather later than the other figures, so that the latest figures

    173
    available are those for the first two quarters of this year. During the first nine months of this year the submission of slum clearance orders has been going on at twice the rate for 1955. I can add a detail to those figures, because the figures of clearance and compulsory purchase orders submitted and confirmed during October are available, and they show that the rate is going up month by month. In October last, orders covering 4,200 houses were submitted and orders covering a rather larger number of houses were confirmed. That shows an increase upon the rate during the third quarter, so that month by month the number of houses in orders confirmed—which of course are the seed-beds of future slum clearance work—is going up.
    Mr. Mitchison: Can the hon. Gentleman deny or confirm my conclusion, which is that the demolitions at present—they are the latest figures—are rather less than half the rate of what local authorities said they would do before the slum clearance campaign was introduced at all?
    Mr. Powell: What the local authorities said they would do over a five-year period. The five-year period began only at the beginning of this year. After all, most hon. Members present in the Chamber have practical experience of the processes involved in slum clearance work and realise that the getting into gear of a slum clearance drive is a gradual matter.
    Mr. Gibson: And a long one.
    Mr. Powell: Yes, and a long one. In the case of the London County Council—
    Mr. Gibson: And we started before the Government thought of it.
    Mr. Powell:—in the first eight years it pulled down 160 houses, if I remember correctly.
    Over the country as a whole the numbers involved are increasing month by month, so that before long a very large number of houses will be actually being demolished and the occupants rehoused; and the present rate of increase is consistent with the achieving by local authorities of the slum clearance programme for the first five years of 375,000 houses, which they set themselves in 1955. I
    174
    would point out that they set themselves that programme at a time when both interest rates and, to a certain extent, costs of building were more favourable.
    I should like to mention another aspect of slum clearance which I think deserves the attention of the House. Slum clearance is not, or rather it should not be, merely a question of the physical demolition of one house and the physical construction of another and the migration of a family from the one house to the other. It is a process which, while it wipes out features we want to see disappear, makes possible the redevelopment of our town centres which would not otherwise have been within our reach so soon. In other words, there is a planning as well as a housing aspect to slum clearance, and for many of our larger towns and cities it affords an opportunity for the planned redevelopment of their inner areas.
    Local authorities, when they are planning their slum clearance campaigns, in particular when they are deciding on the methods which they will use in carrying them through, will have this possibility of redevelopment very much in mind. Where, in the future planning of the inner area, land is required for a public purpose; where, for example, it is intended that there should be a new ring-road or a public open space, or an area appropriated to educational purposes; where the local authority is itself to redevelop for housing, or where the pattern of ownership is so fragmented, so inconvenient, that satisfactory development is impossible without consolidation, local authorities doing slum clearance have at their disposal the acquisition procedure under Part III of the 1936 Act.
    On the other hand, there is the alternative procedure of clearance orders which enables private owners and private enterprise to play a part in the work of redevelopment where the planned future uses and the pattern of ownership makes that possible.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is aware that after a slum area has been cleared, say in the very heart of a town, and the local authority wishes to build on it certain amenities which may be absolutely necessary—even educational institutions—the Government, to put it mildly, are extremely slow in granting the necessary sanctions for the rebuilding of such

    175
    areas? I hope the Government will be a little more liberal than they have been in that respect in cases of redevelopment.
    Mr. Powell: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the present restrictions on credit are not being allowed to limit the rate at which slum clearance can proceed, and where it involves redevelopment or plays a part in facilitating redevelopment, slum clearance and the consequences of slum clearance go ahead as part of the slum clearance campaign.
    It would be useful if I pointed out that where an authority engaged in slum clearance uses the clearance order procedure, that need not mean that the tenants are deprived of the advantages of any proposals to do patching work under the 1954 Act, for there is provision in that Act whereby houses can be leased for that purpose pending demolition under a clearance order. Therefore, within the scope of the machinery of slum clearance there is means not only for the redevelopment of inner areas but for both public enterprise and private enterprise to play their part.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend's title of Minister of Housing and Local Government was, at any rate in respect of its first portion, a misnomer. If that be so, what should be said of Administrations of the past? The rate at which the nation's stock of housing is expanding is greater today than at any time under the previous Administration.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: So it should be.
    Mr. Powell: I agree with the hon. Member. So it should be, under a Tory Administration which is prepared to use private enterprise as well as public enterprise for its purposes.
    Now a further phase has opened, which, as I have shown the House, is developing at the rate envisaged by the local authorities themselves, where we can use the approaching balance between the overall supply and demand in respect of houses as our opportunity to begin at an increasing rate replacing and improving existing houses. Looking back at the tremendous expansion in the total number of homes over the last five years and looking at the opportunities in housing for the future which are now opening, I suggest to the
    176
    House that the title "Minister of Housing" has been well deserved indeed.
    5.54 p.m.
    Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: My primary intention is to deal with local government reform, but I should first like to say a word about the subject which has already been discussed. I will not go into the figures, although I could give some interesting and, indeed, distressing figures relating to the City of Birmingham, but I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the fact that housing is a human problem and for hundreds of thousands of families it amounts to a daily, continuing drudgery. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that that statement is correct. They will know, from their contacts with the electors, that almost every day people come to us and say, "What can you do to get accommodation for us?"
    It is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this is a matter only for slum clearance. It is not. It must be obvious to all hon. Members that we shall not deal with this human tragedy merely by talking in terms of slum clearance. From my own experience, I could give particulars of hundreds of families who have approached me in the last few months. These people have said that their families have been on the housing register for, not twelve months, not two years, not five years, but as much as ten years, and are living under deplorable conditions.
    We ought to bear that constantly in mind when we talk about housing. Too often we throw statistics about and pick up White Papers and say that the position is improving. If the sufferings which these people have undergone for so many years, and which they will apparently continue to suffer for a long time, were fully realised, I am sure that all hon. Members would redouble their efforts to extend the housing programme beyond its present limits and do everything possible to ensure that such people were rehoused at the first opportunity. Instead of that, by the abolition of subsidies, by the increase in rates of interest, and by what the Government are proposing to do about rent restriction, a subject that we cannot discuss, we are making the problem very much worse instead of better.

    177
    Turning to local government reform, I believe that the White Paper which the Minister recently presented will be a disappointment to the majority of those engaged in local government. The Government have run away from one of the most urgent problems of the day. They have sheltered behind the natural differences of local government associations. I regret those differences. Nevertheless, I consider it to be the duty of any Government in such circumstances not to run away from the problem and say, "If you cannot settle the matter yourselves we shall do nothing," but to say, as the supreme council in the land," We will listen to both sides and to public opinion on the matter and then make a decision and submit the matter to the House." The Government have not done that. They do it in other matters, and I cannot see why they should not do it in connection with local government reform.
    The Government must know that the so-called agreement between the local authority associations is very largely artificial. The associations were almost in despair. Having heard the words of the Minister at a recent conference, they said to themselves, "Very well, we will go ahead on this basis and try to get as much as we can." They have been frustrated for a long time and they have clutched at a straw. It is a matter of regret that we have now been forced into this position.
    The White Paper asserts that local government has not broken down. I am not sure what the Minister had in mind when he used those words. Of course, local authorities have not called in the brokers, or shut down council offices and dismissed staffs. Nevertheless, local government today is in bad heart. It is not operating as effectively as it should. It is neither adequately nor properly financed, and in many areas, especially smaller areas, citizens are not receiving the services to which they are entitled.
    The structure itself—the White Paper, of course, is confined to structure—is so ill-adapted to modern conditions that services eminently suitable for local government administration have been transferred either to major authorities, or to the central Government. On the one hand, we have minor authorities which are quite incapable of functioning as they should. They are not using even those permissive
    178
    powers which they can take and, in twentieth century terms, are simply not doing their job.
    On the other hand, there are many instances where large local authorities; are not effective instruments of democracy as they should be. In some of the counties, for example, only a very small percentage of seats are contested at elections. The reason is obviously that there is one section of the community which, because of the travelling, the expense and the time involved, simply cannot undertake to contest seats in widespread counties. I do not have the figures with me, but I think that I am correct in saying that at the last election in some of the counties the number of seats contested was as low as 10 per cent. of the total.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that in circumstances of that kind we will not have an effective functioning of democracy. We do not want local authorities made up of people drawn from one particular group of the community. Unless there is a mixture, we will not have democratic functioning of local government. Unfortunately, even in 1956, it still remains true that in some counties local government and administration is still dominated to a very large degree by the parson, the squire and the rich man.
    There is an equally strong case in respect of some of the larger county boroughs. I can speak with even more assurance on this topic, because for many years I was a member of the largest county borough. My experience convinces me that the time has come when something must be done about the very large local authorities. On balance, I prefer the large authority to a small one, for reasons into which I need not go at the moment.
    Nevertheless, I realise that the size of such an authority is, in itself, a danger. For some county boroughs the difficulty of finding people who can give the necessary time to council duties is great. A few minutes ago I noticed in an evening paper that one of the aldermen of Essex County Council was labouring this point about his own county authority, deploring the fact that members of that authority found it almost impossible to give the necessary time to council duties.

    179
    If we cannot get candidates drawn from the community on a fairly even basis, we will have councils composed of people lacking community experience. They have the financial ability to carry on their duties, but that is not good enough for the community. In large county boroughs of that kind, there is an almost inevitable tendency for the authority to get into the hands of its officials, which is a very bad thing for local authority administration. My experience is that that tendency is developing at a regrettable rate. That is another aspect of local government reform which should be very seriously considered.
    Those facts show conclusively that local government in its present form is incapable of meeting modern needs. That view is shared by virtually every writer on local government in recent years. It is also shared by a very large number of those who have actively participated in local government and by the official organisation of local government employees. The Local Government Boundary Commission, in its Report in 1947, referred to the failure of the local government system to keep pace with the changing pattern of modern industrial needs.
    Finally, there is the Association of Municipal Corporations, one of the most important associations concerned with local government affairs. In its Report for 1954, prepared after very long and detailed consideration, the Association said:
    "No mere adjustment of existing functions and boundaries is adequate to meet the changes brought about by these far-reaching developments in the social, political, technical and economic aspects of the life of the nation."
    That is a fair and certainly an adequate expression of opinion by people primarily concerned with local government.
    Despite all those things, in his White Paper the Minister says that he has looked back over the years since 1888; things have changed, but there is no need for radical adjustment of the local government system. In those sixty years practically every institution in the land has had to adapt itself to the revolutionary changes which have taken place. However, the Minister says "No". He puts his telescope to his blind eye and says that he can see no need for changes.
    180
    Instead, he makes a few adjustments which will do very little to improve the position.
    He is separating—and he gives his reasons—structure from functions and boundaries. That sort of separation is absolutely fatal to a sound solution of the present difficulties. Obviously, finance, boundaries and functions go together and cannot be separated. The Local Government Boundary Commission endorsed that view. It said:
    "Our experience amply confirms … that it is nonsense to talk about functions and boundaries separately."
    The common-sense thing to do is, first, to decide exactly what services and functions ought to be placed within the administration and control of local authorities. Having done that, one can then decide properly what areas are most appropriate to enable those functions to be effectively and democratically carried out. Thirdly, having settled those two questions, one can say by what method we should finance those services and functions.
    The Minister has said "No". In the Gracious Speech we have a reference to the financing of local government, but there is no general reference to local government reform. I am sorry that the Government have once more put off what I consider to be an important and urgent reform. I do not know whether the Minister intends to reply to the debate. I hope that he does and that he can give some encouragement to us. I hope that he will say that, despite the White Paper, he is prepared to keep an open mind on this subject and, if he is persuaded by the House, to go very much further than appears to be his present intention.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I do not rise to make a speech, but I should like to clear up a point made by the hon. Member for Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon), who has great experience of local government administration. There is no intention at all on the part of the Government to shelve, or postpone, this question of local government organisation. What is happening is that we have had long discussions under my chairmanship with the local authority associations. Thereafter, the Government considered very carefully what proposals they should

    181
    put forward. Those are set out in broad terms—deliberately in broad terms—in the White Paper.
    Mr. David Jones: They are so broad that they cannot be seen.
    Mr. Sandys: I will not take up the hon. Gentleman on that. The next step, we felt, was to give a period of time during which the local authority associations and the separate local authorities could consider their position and make their views known.
    For my part, I would not object to having an early discussion of the whole matter, but I think that there is a great advantage in postponing the time when the House should take up a view and a position in this matter. I have had representations from virtually all the local authority associations saying that they hoped very much that they would be given an opportunity to study these proposals and to express their views upon them.
    It takes time for these bodies to consult the many local authorities. They hope that they will have the opportunity to express their views before the House is asked to reach any conclusions on these matters. I think that, in questions which affect local authorities and the many people involved in local government throughout the country, this House would wish to allow a certain time for these people to express their views before trying to arrive at conclusions about what should be done. That is what is happening at the moment.
    Mr. Wheeldon: If a little further delay would produce something like an ideal solution I should be the first to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows very well that this question of local government boundaries has been under discussion not for twelve months but for years. Further, the local authority associations themselves had made up their minds long ago.
    My final point is that there is nothing in the Gracious Speech about local government reform. It is clear from the White Paper that it is the view of the Minister that, once he gets what he calls the "views of the local authorities," he can proceed with this business piecemeal. If he wishes to deny it, well and good, but, as I understand him, he intends to
    182
    deal with the functions of local government. My contention is that that i,5 a fatal way of proceeding. We must deal with the three matters together—structure, functions and finance. If we do not do that, it seems to me that we shall be committed for a long time to come to the hotchpotch, inefficient, undemocratic system that is operating in many local authority areas today.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Crouch: I should like to offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on the way in which he proposed the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty. I have listened to quite a number of similar speeches in the past, but I do not think that anyone has spoken so well, or made the speech so nicely and with the correct amount of light and shade. It was a first-class performance.
    I have been most interested in the debate today, and especially in some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon), who spoke about large authorities. In my constituency there are eight local authorities, a whole lot of small ones. I was most interested to hear of the difficulties which large areas experienced in persuading people to serve on the local authorities. It may surprise him to hear that even the small authorities have similar difficulties. The hon. Gentleman said that people did not take an interest in local government. A similar state of affairs prevails in the smaller local authority areas. As there are eight local authorities in my constituency, I can claim some; knowledge of the difficulties of persuading people to serve in local government.
    The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the difficulties of obtaining new houses. There are still housing difficulties in North Dorset, but I am proud of the fact that just over two years ago, when the figures were published, the Sturminster Newton Rural District Council had the honour of having built per head of the population more council houses than any other local authority in the land. This year, a local authority at the other end of my constituency, Wimborne, occupied the same position with regard to the erection of private enterprise houses. Constituents of the hon. Gentleman, especially those who may have retired and who have

    183
    housing difficulties, might be interested to know that in North Dorset conditions are not quite as hard as they are in the large cities.
    I welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to local government finance and rating. I know that the incidence of the new rating assessments has fallen very heavily on some of my constituents. This is a subject which has caused great concern and I shall look forward to the presentation of the proposed new legislation.
    The level of rents is a very old and difficult question. There are many properties in my constituency which are let at very much below a reasonable rent because of the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Can anyone suggest that 1s. 11d. a week is a proper rent to pay for a house with three or four bedrooms, when perhaps £25 a week is going into the house in the form of wages?
    Mr. D. Jones: Not farm labourers?
    Mr. Crouch: No, they are not farm labourers. They are people who were fortunate enough to take over the houses before 1914. I can think of several examples of houses which are rented from very noble people who are not very well off now.
    Mr. McInnes: What does the landlord do with the rent?
    Mr. Crouch: Goodness knows what he does. The house is a burden upon him. It is not one house I was speaking of. I know of several instances. If the hon. Gentleman likes to come with me I can take him to some of these places They are kept in first-class repair.
    I hope that every encouragement will be given to the maintenance of the present progress in our agricultural industry, to which reference is made in the Gracious Speech. The progress has been "very great during the last five years. When we compare its present position with that which we found when we came into office five years ago the difference is astounding. All foods are now un-rationed and we have increased agricultural production to such an extent that beef production is well ahead of what it was before the war. There has been a fall in the price of beef because of supplies that come in from overseas.
    184
    It is interesting to note that we can now export beef. During the past year beef exports have increased about sixty times and I hope that the increase will continue. The meat that we export is wanted in places like Holland, Belgium and Western Germany. Owing to the greater use of tractors on the Continent there is a diminution in the number of horses. Continental people like big, heavy meat, and they take from us what has been a drug on our market, the heavy cows and steers. This trade increases week by week, and will continue to increase.
    We should, however, go also to the other end of the scale and try to produce more baby meat, something killed before it is 20 months' old. Let us have younger beef. We shall then find that our beef producers have a ready market.
    Now let me turn to the increase in milk production. During July, August and September, milk production increased by no less than 9 million gallons per month over last year. Milk is increasing to such an extent that the Milk Marketing Board has given notice to the producers that it fears that by next March they will be receiving 3d. or 4d. per gallon less than in March of last year. That is very serious, and it will affect the small farmer. All of us must see what we can do, individually and collectively, to see that better use is made of the additional milk.
    As a producer, the last thing I want to see is a cutting down of the production of any commodity. Every effort should be made to put manufacturing milk into the highest grade, like that which is used for soups and other highly nutritious manufactures. The next grade is cheese. We have to turn our attention to the production of local cheeses that are in good demand and that people like. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you come from the County of Gloucester. During February or March of last year the Milk Marketing Board's factory at Sturminster Newton started to make Double Gloucester cheese. It started with a small amount, but it is now making nearly 20 tons a day. Nearly the whole of the milk going to the factory has been turned into Double Gloucester. The producers are starting to make it in another of their factories. This is a local cheese, and is very palatable.

    185
    I spoke to the Chairman of the House of Commons Kitchen Committee about this cheese when we came back in September, and I am pleased to say that we can now have it in our Dining Room in the House. I recommend those who have not tried Double Gloucester cheese to do so at the earliest opportunity. They will be helping home production. I can assure them that it has taste about it and is far better value than many cheeses that we import.
    Mr. John Rankin: May we have samples?
    Mr. Crouch: The samples are in the Dining Room, waiting for all hon. Gentlemen.
    The production of eggs increased by 8 per cent. from April to September this year and I understand that the increase continues. We have more than filled the gap in a number of these agricultural commodities. I have mentioned the export of beef; Double Gloucester cheese will soon be exported.
    There is one commodity of which we cannot produce too much because we have always been importing it, and that is cereal. We shall have to turn more attention to the production of cereals. As the result of the work of scientists, the yields of all our cereals have increased beyond recognition. The yield of malting barley is about twice now what it was before the war, owing to the introduction of a new variety proctor which was discovered and grown at the National Institute of Agricultural Production.
    We shall have to make very much greater use of fertilisers if we wish to get a proper return from the land. I was very much impressed with what I saw of the use of fertilisers when I spent a holiday in Scotland with my family. I was invited to see a bog at Birkhall, close to Douglas Water. The bog is owned by Dr. Smith. I understand that it had about 4 ft. 6 ins. of peat upon it. By the application of 2 tons of lime and 2 tons of basic slag and, later, by the use of 100 lb. per acre of seed sweepings, there was an excellent take of grass. That on which 6 cwt. of nitro-chalk had been applied has been turned into one of the finest pastures hon. Members could wish to see. It is dry and firm.
    Dr. Smith believes that there are two methods of getting water off land. One
    186
    is by pipe and the other is by vegetation, either grass or trees. He says that pipes are useless in peat, because the peat moves and breaks the pipes.
    This work will go on. Other landowners may wish to emulate the example of Dr. Smith. If they do, we can bring back many thousands of acres of peat into cultivation and they will certainly produce more food that is; so badly needed. Agriculture can make a great contribution to the prosperity of the country. We have difficulties with our export markets, but if we get a prosperous agriculture we can call upon industry for still larger quantities of farm machinery. I feel very strongly about this, because I believe that we cannot afford to waste an acre of ground. We cannot in any circumstances allow our agricultural production to fall.
    Before I sit down I should like to turn to another matter mentioned in the Gracious Speech, one which has concerned this House a great deal over the last nine days. The problem we have had to face in the Middle East is nor. a problem of a few years' standing. If one went back into history one would find that it started at the time when Moses took the Children of Israel out of Egypt. I do not believe that they have ever been really at peace since then.
    I feel that had we not taken the steps we have taken soon this outbreak would have grown into a very large fire. I believe that we and our French allies were the only people who could step in. I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his most masterly handling of the situation. I believe we have seen the start of a new era; we have seen that the United Nations is now to have a proper police force.
    I believe that we have witnessed a mobilisation of the largest force the world will ever see again. From what I have been able to gather, there have been about 500,000 men mobilised by the Jews, the Egyptians, the British and the French. I think that as a result of the speed of our action and the pressure brought on the belligerents by the dividing armies the world will now realise that masses of men will not be allowed to get together and arm themselves and shoot not only each other, but many civilians as well. The action we have taken will have a very great effect upon the peace of the world in future.

    187
    I am very sorry, as, of course, the whole House is, about the situation which now exists in Hungary. I should like an appeal to be made by the United Nations and by the British and French allies to the Russians to call a cease-fire in the same way as we have called one in Egypt, because those people are being murdered and wounded at present. I hope that there will be a very great effort to get the Russians to stop their onslaught against Hungary.
    I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is not in his place. I sent him a letter on Monday telling him that if I caught your eye, Sir, I would be referring to the right hon. Gentleman in this speech. Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman said that a number of speeches which had been made recently would perhaps better have been left unsaid. I could not agree with him more. I believe that in less than a year from now, when a large number of hon. and right hon. Members opposite look back on what they have said during this period, they will hang their heads in shame. When the Election comes they will find that many of those speeches will recoil round their necks and strangle them.
    We have seen demonstrations like those before. The same people jump up and say that Britain is always wrong and the foreigner always right—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Yes they do; they say it every time Each time they are pleading for the spineless section of the community, not for the people who are ready to stand up and face the issues. We have seen extraordinary scenes recently. In August, the right hon. Gentleman supported the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but he has done many somersaults since then. This I wish to say to him, and I had hoped that he would be present. He will never lead his party victorious from the polls.
    Then there was the right hon. Gentleman's broadcast, last Sunday night—
    Mr. D. Jones: It was very well done.
    Mr. Crouch: After that broadcast had finished, within two minutes I had a continuous series of telephone calls asking me what could be done to prevent a repetition. I could not use in this House the expressions which were used on the telephone—
    Mr. Jones: By farmers?
    Mr. Crouch: Not only farmers; by other people as well.
    The right hon. Gentleman made great play about our intervention in Egypt. This country relies on oil supplies. Reference has been made to that matter by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, who said that agriculture would not be restricted. It has been said by an hon. Member opposite that a drop of 1 per cent. in oil supplies would mean unemployment. If we had our oil supply lines cut off we could have 5 million unemployed in this country. Could we get the United Nations to pay for that? Of course not. We would have to shoulder the cost ourselves. I think that for many years the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) will regret the speeches he has made.
    The world has recognised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was the great designer of victory in the Second World War. History will record that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is the man who has prevented a third world war.
    Mr. Rankin: He nearly caused it.
    Mr. Crouch: He did not nearly cause it. We believe in our cause and we also believe in, and are behind, our Prime Minister.
    6.36 p.m.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch). We are supposed to be having a debate on local government, but we were delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member and his references to agriculture because we know that the farmers in his constituency have said that they have no confidence in him, or in the Minister of Agriculture.
    Mr. Crouch: No, they have never said that they have no confidence in me. They may have said rude things about the Government, but they are not against me.
    Mr. Howell: They are men of great understanding. I am quite sure that if they stopped short at condemning the hon. Member that was on personal grounds

    189
    alone and not on grounds of policy. I know very little about agriculture, so the hon. Member will excuse me not following him on those lines. I should like to say a word or two about the Middle East situation—as I had intended—because, when the hon. Member reads it, I think he will find that his speech was completely incomprehensible.
    The truth about last week has been that the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government have led this country almost to the brink of war. They have done that without even consulting members of the Commonwealth. What a position we are in when the Prime Minister of this country, far from agreeing with the Commonwealth, does not even consult or inform members of the Commonwealth on a matter like this. No wonder there is grave perturbation in the Commonwealth about the attitude that we have adopted.
    Last week, before this business started, shipping was going through the Suez Canal, there was no disturbance of our oil supplies, but—whatever the hon. Member may say—the result of a week's activity by Her Majesty's Government has been to reduce our oil supplies, to stop any shipping going through the Canal, to cause great disturbance within the Commonwealth, great perturbation among the members of the Atlantic Alliance, the condemnation of this country by world opinion and completely to split this country as it has not been split for many generations.
    If that is something of which the hon. Member is proud to stand behind the Prime Minister, he is welcome to his isolated state. He knows as well as we do that his party, which, yesterday, put on a brave show over the volte face, will be facing the day of reckoning. We shall be happy to put the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition to the test of public opinion as soon as the present Administration allows us to do so. We shall be very happy to put this to the test, and I hope that the hon. Member for Dorset, North will persuade his right hon. Friends to go to the country at the earliest possible moment.
    This is a debate about local government, and perhaps it is right that after discussing the dropping of bombs on Egypt we should discuss the dropping of financial bombs on local authorities. The
    190
    Government have been dropping those financial bombs for much longer. Local government is getting into a very parlous state, and we must consider the general effect which the interest rates are having upon local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon) talked about the need for local government reorganisation, but no one knows more than I do, although I am sure that all of us in this House know it, the grave need there is for reorganisation of local government finance. I myself think that it is the most urgent problem.
    Those of us who are serving, or who have served, on local authorities have only to think for a few minutes of the multifarious tasks which confront any local authority to realise the great importance of reasonable interest rates. Many and various tasks they are, including health services, with health centres to be built; maternity and child welfare services; the provisions of schools, especially technical schools; the provision of houses; the provision of community centres and of places for leisure and recreation; the building of roads; the laying of sewers and mains; the provision of essential water services.
    These are all things without which the country could not continue, without which industry could not continue, and they are all provided by local authorities. Interest charges are becoming increasingly a burden upon local authorities and, therefore, upon the people, and they have gone up and up since the present Government came to power.
    It is perfectly true that there is a place for owner-occupiers in our community. I would agree with the Parliamentary Secretary about that. None of us denies it. I was pleased to see the statement, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred, giving the policy of this party on that matter so clearly.
    Millions of people who became owner-occupiers, who undertook the obligation of repaying mortgages, the only way in which they could buy their houses, have now been completely deceived by the financial policy of the Government. Many people in Birmingham, and millions in the country generally, who calculated their income and their expenditure in order to ascertain their

    191
    ability to repay their mortgages, found, almost before they could get into their houses, that interest rates went up. They were told by various housing associations that they had to pay 8s. or 9s. or 10s. a week more on their mortgages in consequence, or, alternatively, that they would have to pay for five, six or even ten years longer than they thought they would have to do in the first place.
    I know of a man who bought a house when the Government came into office in 1951. I have told this story before and I repeat it here. As a result of the financial policy of the Government, this man, after five years' occupation of his house, now owes more money on it than he did on the day he went into it.
    That is the situation in what is supposed to be a property-owning democracy. What a sham that looks in the light of the circumstances. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the people who took on these obligations knowing that their incomes were secure. Even that is not true today. In Birmingham I see around me, in the owner-occupier community in which I live, notices going up on house after house, "This house for sale." Why? Because the credit squeeze and the policy of the Government have made industrial conditions in Birmingham very uncertain indeed, especially the motor industry. People who thought, two or three years ago, that they were safe and could start to buy and live in their own houses are now finding that they have not the same amount of money coming into the family as they had before and that, therefore, they cannot afford the ever-increasing outgoings which owner-occupiers have to make.
    As one who believes that there is a place in our society for balanced housing, with local government housing on the one hand and with owner-occupied houses on the other, I say that this Government has been most hard on the owner-occupiers, and I believe that the phrase "property-owning democracy" means very little at all in these days. I believe that the owner-occupiers will soon find the Government out. That is something else we should like to put to the test at the polls at the earliest possible opportunity.
    192
    General housing and slum clearance problems also face local authorities. We in Birmingham, at any rate, cannot come under the strictures of the hon. Gentleman. We are doing our share in slum clearance, if not more than Coventry or any other city. It is so because of the pattern of the development area and of the clearance which has been going on ever since 1946.
    We have taken over between 20,000 and 30,000 slum houses since 1946, yet we find, despite all that, that we shall not really make any appreciable impression on the problem within our city for the next twenty to thirty years, even at the speed at which we are progressing now. Unhappily, every time we demolish five slum houses we can rebuild only three houses in their place, because of the shortage of land. In addition, we have 60,000 people on our housing registers, people who have no house of any sort at the moment.
    In Birmingham we face an impossible position, and we are not receiving any assistance from the Ministry. It is true, as the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say, that the city has passed a resolution asking the Ministry to receive a deputation. I am happy to hear that it is going, and I can only hope that when they do meet the Minister my Birmingham Corporation colleagues will speak as forcefully to him as they do to us, and that they will express as forcefully to him as they do to us what they think of his policy in this matter.
    We in Birmingham have been dealing with overspill for some years now, and the problem has now reached an absolutely critical stage. There is no land available to us at all in the city, and we have no agreement worth talking about with neighbouring local authorities, except Staffordshire County Council. I suppose that one has to speak with a due sense of responsibility and say nothing which would upset them still more, but as far as I can see our neighbouring counties, Warwickshire and Worcestershire, are showing no signs whatsoever of coming to the assistance of Birmingham, despite the fact that they and many of their local authorities enjoy their present circumstances because of Birmingham, because Birmingham is so important industrially to them.

    193
    For instance, there are Sutton Coldfield and Solihull, where there is land on which houses could be built, and the people of those towns earn their livings in Birmingham. Sutton Coldfield and Solihull are in existence because of the industrial importance of Birmingham, yet they are making no contribution to help Birmingham, and have flatly said, both of them, that they refuse to help Birmingham in solving its housing problem.
    I believe that to be a very anti-social policy. It is not one which the Minister would support, I think, and I hope that the Minister will use his influence to try to get those county authorities to play the game by the City of Birmingham, and thus also, of course, to play the game by the nation.
    The real solution of this problem is a new town, but we cannot have one because the Minister is not in favour of it unless we pay for it ourselves. Having in mind Birmingham's finances, it is impossible to put the burden of building the new town upon its ratepayers. I hope very much that the Minister will think again about this, especially when the deputation sees him, and will realise that, to get out of this mess, we must have the new town at the earliest opportunity. Birmingham will make as great a financial contribution as can reasonably be expected, but the initiative, and the weight of financial help must come from the Ministry. That is a reasonable proposition, and one which I hope the Minister will support.
    It is out of order, I believe, to talk about a Bill which is to be brought before the House very soon, but I think that we must mention the phrase in the Gracious Speech which says:
    "Legislation will be laid before you to amend the laws dealing with rent control."
    I do not want to refer to that in detail, but I do say that the present time, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is running up and down the country making speeches about the need for wage restraint, and the need to keep the economic ship on an even keel, is psychologically the worst time of all to introduce a Bill to remove rent control. Just think of the effect this will have throughout the country when people are told, as I forecast that they will be told, that they may have to pay anything up to 7s. 6d. more in rent. That is almost £20 a year
    194
    increase. It is a fantastic amount of money to ask people to pay at the time when we are supposed to be on an economic plateau.
    I am sorry, too, that the Gracous Speech shows no sign of tackling the problem of the right of succession. I forecast, again, that the proposals of the Bill with which we are to deal shortly will show that, far from maintaining security of tenure, we shall be removing it. We shall find that when an existing tenant, a parent, dies, the child who has lived there since birth will have its right of succession taken away.
    What effect will that have? Again, thousands of people who have been living in such houses will be thrown into the arms of local authorities, who are already in an impossible position. This right of succession is extremely important. A person has probably lived in his home for ten, twenty or thirty years. It is wrong that when the parent-tenant dies, that person should be put on the street; and that Her Majesty's Government should encourage such a policy at this time is reprehensible. When we are dealing with the Bill I hope the Minister will consider that point, so that such people as those shall continue to enjoy even the scanty protection which the Rent Acts give at present.
    Again, the Gracious Speech says:
    "My Government have been reviewing the finance of local government including the incidence of the rate burden between different classes of property. Their conclusions will, in due course, be announced to Parliament."
    There is nothing in that, nor was there anything in the speech from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, to say that Her Majesty's Government are to deal with the problem of derating. All of us who are interested in local authorities will agree that industrial derating still remains one of the curses of our age. There is absolutely no reason at all why industry should be excused 75 per cent. of the rates that all the rest of us have to pay. Why should industry, which needs more of the local government services than dot" any other section of the community, be so excused? It is something that I cannot understand.
    Because of the recent changes in the rating system it is impossible now to put forward accurate figures, but I do not think that the Minister would disagree with

    195
    the suggestion that industry is now paying local government at least £40 million a year less than it ought to pay. That is a very heavy figure. In Birmingham alone, even before the rating system was changed, industry was paying £1,200,000 less than it ought to have been paying.
    Industry has been prospering more than most. If it paid its fair share, and that money went to the relief of rates—and I am aware that in all cases it would not, because there are many local government projects which cannot go on because they cannot be financed at present—I think that it would be possible to get a 10 per cent. reduction in the rate levy in cities like Birmingham. That is a considerable amount, especially having in mind the difficulties of owner-occupiers that I have mentioned.
    Lest anyone should say that the levying of full rates on industry would have any material effect upon the selling cost of articles, I may say that an industrial survey made of the Lancashire area by the University of Manchester—admittedly, in 1932–33, but I think the proportions will be well understood—snowed the difference it made to the selling price of an item is between ·17 per cent. and 1·36 per cent. of the cost. Even if the result of fully rating industry increased the selling cost of an article by 1·36 per cent., the resulting benefit to the community as a whole would make it well worth while, though we know that in most cases, especially in the case of heavy products and capital products, the increased cost would be likely to be below ·25 per cent.
    I hope, therefore that Her Majesty's Government will appreciate today what some of us have been saying, that local government finance is in growing difficulties; that wherever one goes—and this does not apply only to Labour-controlled authorities, but to all authorities; and especially the A.M.C. and the County Councils' Association—one hears expressions of dismay at the approaching impossibility of conducting local authority services under the Government's present financial policy; and that there is growing discontent amongst owner-occupiers at the terrific levy made upon them. That is a levy which, I agree, they have the right to think ought not to be placed upon them, in view of the Conservative
    196
    Party's propaganda, at the last two or three Elections.
    I hope that it will be seen how important it is to have Government action to deal with new towns, the overcrowding of houses and so on; how important it is to deal with this question of the derating of industry. That has been a very sore point for very many years now, and a matter on which I should not have thought that there was any need to defer action, because almost everyone agrees, and, certainly, the local authority associations agree, that it is a matter of paramount importance and that the justice of their claim is completely beyond argument.
    6.59 p.m.
    Mr. William Hannan: If the Secretary of State for Scotland has been listening very carefully to the debate, I hope he will have noted that the main trend of the arguments and requests from this side has been to stress the importance of houses for general needs. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in an admirable speech today, made that point quite clear, and he emphasised that slum clearance alone is not sufficient to meet the overwhelming needs of the mass of the people. Coming as he does from Scotland, the Secretary of State knows that that statement is even more true north of the Border. The point has been made repeatedly by my hon. Friends; it was certainly supported by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) last November when the Secretary of State made his original statement on the question of subsidies and housing generally.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon), speaking earlier, said that some of the residents in his area had applied for houses not five months ago, nor five years ago, but ten years ago. He made that statement in order to stress the length of the period that some people had to wait for homes. But we can go further than that north of the Border, and particularly in Glasgow. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are people who have been waiting for twenty and twenty-five years. The thing has become a laughing matter. Their families have grown up and are themselves now applicants for houses. From what we can see in the Gracious

    197
    Speech, the Government are making no serious attempt to deal with the housing problem.
    Let us consider for a moment the extent of the problem. It was made clear in the Westwood Report of 1943 that Scotland needed half a million homes at that time and, although 256,000 have been provided since then, there is still a great need; indeed, it is reckoned that there is still a need of 400,000 houses.
    We on these benches believe that the private investment of capital in houses to let will never cope with this backlog. Yet the Government continue in their pathetic belief that this will overtake the problem. The Royal Commission in 1917 stated that housing must become a social service. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government accept that housing should be a social service. The Government's actions seem to belie it because, by cutting subsidies and increasing interest rates, it appears to us that they are trying to price local authorities and individuals out of the housing queues altogether. We shall regard it as an attack on the policy of housing being a social service if the Government proceed with some of the legislation which they have in view.
    Mention is made in the Gracious Speech of a Measure to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts. We on these benches say that if that is done it will confirm the belief of my hon. Friends and of the people in Scotland that this is the final part of a jigsaw puzzle which, in its cumulative effect, constitutes an attack on the living standards of the people.
    First we had the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954. The purpose of that Measure was to increase by 40 per cent. the amount of rent accruing to factors and landlords on condition that they did certain repairs. That Act was designed to help the friends of hon. Members opposite. But the effect will be that the rents having been increased by 40 per cent., that will be used as a new basis from which further increases can stem as a result of tampering with the Rent Restrictions Acts. Even when that Measure was passing through its Committee stage the prospective beneficiaries protested that the 40 per cent. increase was not enough. Yet if these same people had carried out their responsibilities in
    198
    the past there would have been no necessity for the Act which was designed to transfer the cost of repairs to the tenants themselves.
    Increasing interest charges have been a continuing trouble to local authorities. Since this Government took office in 1951 there have been ten changes in the rates of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board, and this has been a real problem to housing committees. Interest rates are of even greater significance to them than is the question of subsidies. There are two methods being used by the Government to curtail local authorities' housing programmes. First, they are raising interest rates, and secondly, they are decreasing the rates of subsidy. That is projected in the Gracious Speech itself.
    All this talk about a slum clearance campaign is only a sham, a smokescreen, to cover up the real attack which is being waged on housing for general need. The problem of interest charges is dominating the discussions of local authorities, not only in Scotland but throughout the whole country. They cannot plan ahead with any degree of certainty. The Government are setting an impossible task to earnest men and women who give much of their time serving on these committees trying to render some assistance to their fellow men.
    Let me give an example of what increased interest charges mean. In 1951, on a four-apartment house which cost £1,700, with capital repayment plus interest at 3½ per cent. as it then was, the total cost was £3,676. In 1956, taking that same house at £1,700, with the capital repayment plus interest at 5½ per cent., the total cost is £5,800. The increased interest rate alone means that the weekly rent goes up from 12s. 8d. a week in 1951 to £1 6s. 5d. in 1956—double the amount. These are the real problems which the Government must face. They must recognise that they are setting the local authorities an impossible task. Some of us believe they are deliberately making these difficulties, because if the local authorities can work only within their means, then, of course, the result is that the number of houses which they build decreases and people are priced out of the queue.
    Just recently, we in Scotland had another Measure which had for its purpose

    199
    the shifting of the burden of payment of rents and rates from the owners to the tenants. This was the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Bill, which embodied the proposals of the Sorn Committee. That Bill, which is now an Act, had for its purpose the transferring to the tenant of that portion of the rates which the owner previously paid. The real significance of the change is this, that with increased rates in the future the tenant will have to bear the whole of the burden; and that, of course, was the purpose of the Act.
    As another phase of the master plan, we are told in the Gracious Speech that legislation will be laid before the House to amend the laws dealing with rent control. I understand the difficulties which we all have in developing arguments on this matter, and I will merely make this comment in passing. We protest that the Secretary of State has agreed that such an Act will incorporate that aspect of our rent and rating affairs in Scotland. There should have been a separate Measure, as there has been in the past. We protest most emphatically at the Government's decision not to introduce a separate Bill for Scotland, where housing conditions and overcrowding are very much worse than they are in England and Wales.
    We are now to have other proposals on subsidies. The Secretary of State has not as yet introduced the Bill, and we make an appeal to him to recognise, before he does so, that our situation in Scotland is different. The point has been put to him, and in the Report presented by the Working Party on Housing Subsidies in Scotland, this fact was pressed:
    "While the individual figures submitted by the local authorities varied very widely, the broad picture is clear and we conclude that in Scotland as a whole the need for houses for families without homes of their own and to relieve overcrowding is greater than the need for houses to replace unfit houses."
    It is the implication of that paragraph that most of my colleagues on these benches would stress, and we plead that the Secretary of State for Scotland should think again and again before he makes a final decision on subsidies.
    I conclude by giving a few figures to bear out the case I have been trying to make. The most evil feature of housing in Scotland is overcrowding. The overall
    200
    problem is three to four times worse than that in England and Wales, but in overcrowding it is twenty times worse. We have something like 1,400,000 houses. Approximately half of those are 75 years and more old, yet two-fifths of our population lives in them. Three hundred thousand of our houses have no independent water closets or sanitary conveniences. Such a situation is hardly credible in these modern days. Yet the Government are trying to find ways and means of cutting expenditure on housing.
    Mr. William Ross: By raising the rents.
    Mr. Hannan: Thirteen per cent. of our houses in Scotland consist of one apartment, one room in which all members of the family live, eat, sleep, in which the mother cooks, darns and looks after the family. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to proposals to reduce housing subsidies to the meanest and poorest section of the community. He must think again. He cannot allow it to proceed.
    Forty per cent. of our houses consist of only two apartments. The right hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues on the back benches have been in these places—a butt and a ben, they are called, with the common water closet on the stairhead. In Glasgow, the proportion is even higher; 62 per cent. of the population there live in one and two apartments. In Dundee, the figure is 71 per cent. In the past five years, the Government have been changing the proportion of three-apartment houses to four- and five-apartment houses. Let me explain what I mean. In the period from 1945 to 1950, 11 per cent. of all houses which were built were of three apartments, while 89 per cent. were of four and five apartments. Since this Government came into office, that proportion has altered to 57·5 per cent. of three apartments, which is an increase, while the proportion of those of four and five apartments has gone down from 89 per cent. to 42·5 per cent. This is perpetuating the very thing from which Scotland suffers. Yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes to cut housing subsidies.
    The number of completed houses in Scotland is going down. In 1953, 39,500 were completed. In 1954, the figure was 38,600. In 1955, 33,600 were completed, 6,000 less than in 1953. The number of

    201
    completions this year will be even smaller, so far as I can see. Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that in the first quarter there were 6,698 completed, in the second quarter 8,284, and in the third quarter 7,400, making a total of 22,000, and leaving, if they are even to complete as many as were completed last year, something like 11,000 to be completed in the last quarter? Yet the Secretary of State proposes to cut the housing subsidies.
    It is no answer for the Secretary of State to say that what he proposes is justified because the need has been contracting and that some authorities have either stopped building or have reduced it. That is just not true. The need for housing in Scotland is just as great as ever. I do plead with the right hon. Gentleman that he must go back to the Government and state in the most emphatic terms that there is this difference in housing conditions in Scotland. He must demand that a greater proportion of our resources be placed at the disposal of the local authorities.
    7.19 p.m.
    Mr. Hector Hughes. One of the many defects in the Gracious Speech is that it does not contain any plan to deal with the outstanding problems of Scotland. A number of problems have been indicated by previous speakers, but not one of them is dealt with adequately in the Speech. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) was documented and detailed and dealt closely with the housing problem in Scotland.
    The Gracious Speech delivered on the Prorogation of Parliament consisted of two closely printed pages containing 108 lines, but less than four of those lines—about a one-twenty-seventh part of the whole Speech—referred to Scotland. The Gracious Speech delivered on the opening of Parliament consisted of two closely printed pages containing 91 lines, but only two of those lines—about one-forty-fifth of the whole Speech—dealt expressly with Scotland.
    Neither of those Gracious Speeches contains any comprehensive plan for Scotland. They are, in fact, a measure of Scotland's neglect by Tories and apportionment of favouritism in this House. It would indeed be a great thing for Scotland, and, indeed, for Britain, if
    202
    there arose once again a Secretary of State for Scotland who could, and would, put into the Gracious Speech some coordinated plan for Scotland. It has never happened since Labour left office.
    Such a noble Secretary of State would see with a wise, comprehending and far-seeing eye, first, the details of Scotland's problems; secondly, Scotland as a coordinated unit, and thirdly, this distinguished Island of Britain as a co-ordinated whole in which people of North and South would have equality of opportunity in markets, freight charges and otherwise. That has never been done during the generations when Liberal and Tory Governments were in power. They have failed to solve the problems. They have failed to repopulate the Highlands, they have failed to cure the congestion of Southern Scotland and it is they who have preserved many of the inequalities from which Scotland is suffering today.
    Today, the people of Kent, Sussex and Berkshire have better and cheaper access to markets and amenities than the people of Caithness, Sutherland and Lewis. That is why Scotland gets such ungracious treatment in each Gracious Speech, as one succeeds another. Whatever the Act of Union has done, it has not given equality of treatment between the north and south of this island, which should be treated as one unit, particularly in these troublous days.
    Scottish people, indeed, will be greatly shocked at the inadequate attention given to Scotland in these two Gracious Speeches. They show that Scotland is neglected by the United Kingdom Government in breach of the Act of Union. Scottish problems are as great, numerous and various as are the people of Scotland themselves. Those problems relate to fields, factories and workshops. They are found on farms, in towns and villages and on the seas. They include the fishing industry, manned by men who, for north and south alike, provide nutritious and succulent food in time of peace and who fight and win Britain's battles in time of war.
    They affect also those able Scotsmen who are spread throughout the world governing Britain's Colonies and consolidating her Commonwealth. It would be a great thing indeed if those skilful administrators were enabled to concentrate on drafting a Gracious Speech on

    203
    Scotland's problems and to collaborate with those patriots who stayed at home in Scotland doing their part for the good of Scotland. That would indeed be a Gracious Speech, more detailed, comprehensive and constructive than this Speech, which is quite unworthy of its patriotic task.
    This Gracious Speech shows how little attention the Government in London give to Scottish problems. All that it says about Scotland is expressed in these ambiguous words:
    "Legislation will be introduced to revise Scottish housing subsidies and to facilitate the relief of congested local authority areas in Scotland."
    This, the only reference to Scotland, is a threat to penalise house building at high interest rates, to harass workers during a credit squeeze and to embarrass local authorities generally. It is a challenge which the people of Scotland will take up and contest.
    This Gracious Speech has not even the imaginative, picturesque and colourful qualities of a Tory manifesto, which makes golden and gaudy promises never to be performed. This Gracious Speech does not even promise to solve Scotland's problems. It does not know what they are.
    What are these major problems? Why and how do they arise? I cannot hope to deal with or to list all of them in such a speech as this. They relate to problems like the uneven spread of the population, the drift of population to the south of Scotland and to England, the undue concentration of industry in the south of Scotland, and arid depopulation of northern Scotland, the invidious system of transport and of freight charges, the paucity of light industries in the north, and the omission to make the most of our fishing fleets.
    These omissions from the Gracious Speech are the negation—if not the negation, certainly the incompletion—of good government. These failures are contrary to modern doctrines enshrined in such Statutes as the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and the New Towns Act, 1946, passed by a Labour Government. These failures are prejudicial to the social, economic and educational well-being of the Scottish people. They are also strategically unsound and outmoded because
    204
    the congestion would facilitate the destruction of all our national resources by a few atomic bombs.
    Why and how do these astonishing neglects and failures arise? They arise because tired and uncomprehending Ministers are unable to cope with the modern exigencies of Scotland. They have the minds of people who live in a bygone age in an atmosphere of old-fashioned Highlands and feudal castles, of untouchable deer forests, of vast private estates and unearned incomes. They fail to realise that we live in a different democratic age, that we live in an atomic age, that hydro-electric, atomic and nuclear power can operate industries in the Highlands and that good roads and rapid transport can bring population, amenities and commodities to those Highlands which, for generations, have been so depopulated. They fail to realise that new towns can be built and populations be healthily dispersed to the satisfaction of the Scottish people, and to the disadvantage of foreign bomb-throwers when they seek aggression—and that may not be so far off in these troublous times.
    It is a tragedy that this age, which is so advanced in physical science, should produce a Gracious Speech so lacking in political fertility, so destitute of moral fibre, and so destitute of spiritual vision. It is clearly not Scotland or the Scottish people who are lacking. It is the present British Government, whose conception of their political duty is indicated by this inept, unimaginative and feeble Gracious Speech.
    Scotland has great advantages in its country and its people which, because of these and other anomalies, are not fully exploited or developed as they could be, and should be, for the common good of all the people. It is almost a platitude, but not, perhaps, to people in England, to say that such advantages include a country not only of great natural beauty, but of enormous potentialities in its physical attributes. Add to all these the modern powers recently developed in Scotland—developed during the Labour Government in Scotland—the vast hydroelectric schemes, the gigantic Dounreay reactor station and the proposed nuclear power station in Ayrshire. With all these modern resources, natural and scientific, no British Government ever had opportunities one-half as great as the opportunities which the present Government

    205
    possess, but which they fail to use or to implement in the way in which they should be used.
    It is not the people of Scotland who are lacking—neither the people nor the country. I have spoken about the country. Let me now say a few words about the people of Scotland. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote a recognised authority. I do so in order to make the position clear and to stress the contrast between potentialities and actualities in Scotland today. It was the great Buckle who said of the Scots that their
    "… eminent and enterprising thinkers whose genius lighted up every department of knowledge and whose minds, fresh and vigorous as the morning, opened for themselves a new career and secured for themselves a high place in the annals of European intellect."
    These are the people of today, as well as of yester-year, who played a great part in building up the British Empire, who provided governors, diplomats and Ministers—even Prime Ministers—soldiers, sailors and airmen, administrators of every kind, men and women distinguished in learning, literature and art. Yet today it is sad to realise that one-half of Scotland is depopulated, that there is great unemployment, the housing problem is atrocious, the emigration rate is high, immigrants are comparatively few and transport rates are invidious and unfair.
    Why are these problems still unsolved? It is not for the want of able men and women. Scottish universities and scientific laboratories contain many distinguished men and women of science whose fame is world-wide. In Aberdeen University alone we have wise and informed men whose authoritative and constructive books have dealt with these and other industrial and social problems. I need mention only Professors Hamilton and Mackinnon. Yet, ignoring all this wealth of material available to them, the Government can find nothing more useful to put into the Gracious Speech than the two ambiguous lines which I ventured to quote about Scotland.
    To realise that many Scottish problems remain unsolved, one has only to look at the latest Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland, reports of banks, reports of chambers of commerce and statistical bodies, to mention only a
    206
    few. This great race of people have developed and administered other countries, but look at their own by contrast. Look at the defects to which I have just referred, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill referred and concerning which he gave detailed statistics, facts and figures.
    May I refer to some startling facts about the bad population distribution in Scotland, the unfair freight rates and the inadequate way in which the fishing and shipbuilding industries are dealt with. As to population, if the present population were evenly distributed over the whole of Scotland there would be over 171 people to the square mile, but, as things are, by far the largest number is concentrated in the south and occupies less than half of the country where the density is very high.
    On the other hand, the rest of the country, north, has a population of less than one person to the square mile, with vast uninhabited spaces which could be used. In this anomalous state of affairs, thousands of Scottish people are trekking to the south instead of to the north. The population is concentrated in the south of Scotland. The north of Scotland is depopulated, and yet these people from the congested areas of the south of Scotland go not north to repopulate it but South to make still greater the congestion of the South of England. I suggest that any Government worthy of its name would be able to envisage this problem, and evolve a plan for Scotland, to induce the trend of population north instead of south. One way of doing that would be by developing light industries in the north.
    I said in an earlier speech in this House, and I still think that it is true, that one ton of coal would cost just as much to send by rail as one ton of precision instruments—watches, for instance. If that doctrine were applied to this population problem, it would enable light: industries to be founded in the north of Scotland. With a proper transport system for the purpose of carrying the commodities to and fro that problem could be dealt with in a constructive way.
    Here are some further facts which flow from this bad distribution of population. That bad distribution involves also bad distribution of markets and large consuming centres which are concentrated in

    207
    the south. It also involves invidious freight charges for transport, because this island which is treated as a unit in war is not treated as a unit in peace.
    Aberdeen, Wick, Thurso, Inverness and Stornoway, in sending their goods to the large consuming centres and markets, have to pay more in freight than their rivals and competitors in the south. The people of the north are treated in these matters in war as friends and fellow countrymen, but in peace they are treated as strangers and aliens. In fact, they are priced out of business by high freights. They are good enough to fight Britain's wars, good enough to administer Britain's Colonies and big business, but they are not treated as equals for transport or population purposes. I submit that these are very grave omissions from the two Gracious Speeches, and I hope that some imaginative and able Secretary of State will arise who will deal adequately with these problems and formulate a proper and constructive plan for the good of Scotland.
    7.39 p.m.
    Mr. James McInnes: I think that it is most unusual in this House for three Scotsmen to speak one after the other.
    I listened to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who opened the debate with a devastating attack upon the Government's housing policy and all its attendant problems, and the endeavour of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to paint a rosy picture of those problems.
    When I listened to the facts and figures which were being bandied across the Table, and to other remarks about the housing problem in England and Wales, I could quite well appreciate the Government's complacency, especially when I compared the problem in England and Wales to that north of the Border. We in Scotland regard housing as the most serious and the most pressing social problem confronting us today.
    In Scotland, we suffer from a legacy of the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century—a legacy created by the inability of private enterprise to provide homes for our people and the failure to maintain those homes
    208
    which they built in a good state of repair. Scotland's housing problem has existed for almost a hundred years, and when one delves back into history to appreciate the position it appears that the problem is becoming infinitely worse each succeeding year.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) gave the House some exceedingly important statistics about Scotland's housing problem, and although I do not want to weary the House I hope that it will bear with me if I give some further statistical data in order to bring out precisely the gravity and the urgency of the problem which confronts us in our country. We have about 1½ million houses in Scotland. Of that number, over 300,000, or 21 per cent., are over 100 years old and up to 130 and 140 years old. We have another 300,000 houses which are from 80 to 100 years old. We therefore have 600,000 houses out of 1½ million which are from 80 to 140 years old.
    Over 16 per cent. of the people of Scotland are living more than two persons to a room. The average in England and Wales, I understand, is 2 per cent. Our overcrowding problem is, therefore, far in excess of anything which exists in the whole of England and Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill indicated.
    I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) and others, but I must confess that none of the figures which they quoted comes in any way near the serious problem of overcrowding which exists in Scotland.
    I regret the absence from the Gracious Speech of anything of a constructive nature designed to remedy the condition of affairs which exists in our country. This is the position in Glasgow, perhaps the worst housed city in Great Britain. Despite the fact that Glasgow Corporation has built more municipal houses than any other corporation in Great Britain—it has built, in fact, more than 100,000 municipal houses—48 per cent. of Glasgow's population lives in one and two-apartment houses. The Gracious Speech contains absolutely nothing which will help to remedy that state of affairs.
    At present, we have 48 per cent. of our population in one and two-apartment houses. The percentage in the City of Birmingham is 2 per cent., in

    209
    Manchester it is 2 per cent. and in Liverpool it is 34 per cent., compared with 48 per cent. in the City of Glasgow. Glasgow, a city which has built 100,000 municipal houses, has a housing waiting list today of 112,000 people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said, some of these people have been waiting on the Corporation's housing list for twenty and twenty-five years. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom will hon. Members find conditions like those in Glasgow.
    I find that no less than 76 per cent. of Glasgow's population occupies one-, two-and three-apartment houses. In Birmingham, the figure is 14 per cent.; in Liverpool, 12 per cent.; and in Manchester, 10 per cent. I am reliably informed that this very day in the City of Glasgow over 1,200 families are living more than six people to a single room.
    Conditions of that kind ought not be tolerated in this, the twentieth century, and I regret the absence from the Gracious Speech of anything of a concrete nature to deal with them. Equally, there was nothing in the Government's policy, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, which would deal with the problem. The Parliamentary Secretary said, "We are breaking all records". Let us see how they are breaking the records in Scotland. He takes great credit for the achievement which followed a General Election when the Tory Party pledged their whole reputation on their capacity and ability to build 300,000 houses a year.—[An HON. MEMBER: "We succeeded."]—I know that the Tories succeeded and I paid tribute to the Tory Government for having succeeded, despite the fact that the number was achieved because they built smaller houses and houses with fewer apartments. I will quote some Scottish figures to prove that.
    Let me take the present position in Scotland. I think the figures which I have quoted so far are the sign-posts, as it were, of the need for drastic and vigorous action. I regard the small house as the curse of Scotland. In the twenty-one years between the two wars successive Tory Governments failed to recognise that the small house was the curse of Scotland.
    Of the houses built in Scotland between the two wars, 74 per cent. had three
    210
    apartments or fewer. In the post-war years, under a Labour Government, the policy was altered. The Labour Government built 11 per cent. of houses with three apartments and 89 per cent. with four, five or six apartments. In those years Scotland was getting the accommodation which her problem warranted. Since the return of the Conservative Government in 1951, we have reverted to the policy of building houses of one, two or three apartments. Sixty per cent. of the houses built by the Tory Government are one, two or three apartments.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Conservative Government had achieved their objective. They have achieved it on the basis of building smaller houses. I have made an analysis of the houses built in Scotland. In respect of 30,000 houses built in one year by the Conservative Government, there are 11,000 fewer apartments compared with the houses built by the Labour Government. It is a simple matter to build houses if it is done by building smaller houses and reducing ceiling heights and other things to provide an economy house rather than a house which will provide a decent standard of life for our people.
    Why should we have houses mainly of three apartments in Scotland? What has been the result? In certain parts of Scotland the municipal houses which were built in the inter-war years are now grossly overcrowded. I hope that the Government will stop building small houses in Scotland and will give us houses similar in size to those provided south of the Border.
    I want now to deal with the Government's achievements in building house" in Scotland. There has been a tendency in England and Wales to maintain the figure in the region of 280,000–300,000 per annum, but what has been the tendency in Scotland? The Parliamentary Secretary would have been most uncomfortable had he been defending the Scottish housing records, because, in 1953, 40,000 houses were provided; in 1954, 38,000; in 1955, 33,000; and in 1956 the figure will fall below 30,000.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will pay attention to what I am saying and will attempt to answer the charge which

    211
    I am about to level against the Government. There has been a reduction in house building in Scotland of 10,000 houses, or 25 per cent., comparing 1956 with 1953. I wonder what English and Welsh hon. Members would have said had there been a 25 per cent. reduction in their house building programme. Yet the house building figure in Scotland, which has the worst housing conditions in the United Kingdom, is going down and down.
    What is the Government's answer to it? I shall probably be told that a large number of small local authorities have completed their programme. I have been given that line so often that I have investigated it. I find that between 25 and 30 local authorities have completed, or are about to complete, their programmes and that the total number of houses built by them is less than 3,000 or 4,000. We get places like Kilcreggan, with 10 houses built since 1945 and its housing programme completed. That is how the Government attempt to delude us over the fall-off in the rate of provision of houses in Scotland.
    Housing, health and unemployment are inter-related subjects. Housing affects the health of the people, and it even affects the question of unemployment, strange as it may seem, Scotland has the highest slum rate in Great Britain, the highest tuberculosis rate and the highest unemployment rate. The death rate from tuberculosis is 39 per 100,000 population in Glasgow; in Liverpool it is 29; and in Manchester 27. The Scottish unemployment rate is twice that of the United Kingdom. The housing shortage is obviously an obstacle to both industrial development and the wider distribution of factories and employment.
    It was in the light of those facts that, as I listened to the Gracious Speech, I learned with profound regret that the only action which the Government are proposing to take to deal with the tragic problem of housing in Scotland is to reduce housing subsidies. The Tory Party is running true to form. Right from 1919, when housing, previously regarded as a commercial enterprise, was first looked upon as a social service like education, health and other services, up to 1935 and now up to 1956, Tory Government
    212
    after Tory Government have been running true to form over housing subsidies. The first housing subsidy, given in 1919, was abolished by a Tory Government in 1921 because the Treasury could not afford the money. In 1923, Baldwin was obliged to reintroduce the subsidy, but in 1928 the Baldwin subsidies were slashed and even in that year an attempt was made to clash the Wheatley Act subsidies. In 1933 a Tory Government abolished the Wheatley subsidies and in 1935 abolished subsidies for relief of over-crowding—a record of year after year of Toryism; and now we have it again in 1956. The tragic consequence of this abolition of subsidies in each period that there has been a Tory Government has been that in Scotland imediately subsidies were slashed or abolished there was a considerable reduction in the number of municipal houses being built. That is inevitable and that is what will result from the Government's present policy.
    I want now to deal with another aspect of the problem which confronts Scotland, that of Glasgow's overspill. I wonder what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would say about a situation of this kind. In Glasgow, we have an overspill problem of 300,000. London has an overspill problem of approximately 450,000. London already has eight new towns in which to deal with that problem. In Glasgow, physically unable, as we are, to build within our own area, we have had one new town designated, the town of Cumbernauld, a town presumably designed to take a population of about 40,000.
    That still leaves Glasgow with an overspill problem of 260,000. The Gracious Speech says:
    "Legislation will be introduced … to facilitate the relief of congested local authority areas in Scotland."
    Where are the congested local authority areas? Glasgow is the only one, the only city or town with an overspill problem. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to tackle it? He proposes to introduce national legislation to deal with the problem of one city. Presumably the legislation to which the Gracious Speech refers is the introduction of a Town Development Act for Scotland. What will be the arrangements under that Act? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for

    213
    Kettering explained some of the arrangements under the English Act of 1954.
    However, in Scotland we do not have importing authorities as large as those south of the Border. How many places in Scotland will be able to take more than 3,000 or 4,000 of Glasgow's population? If they all take 3,000 or 4,000 of Glasgow's overspill, the overspill will be spread over 80 or 90 different towns. Where will we get the employment for those people? Already, we cannot get sufficient employment in many existing towns—because, as I have said, our unemployment problem, like our housing problem, is far in excess of anything in England. Yet the right hon. Gentleman sits with a smile on his face as if he knew nothing about it.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): Is the hon. Member referring to me? I did not know that I was smiling.
    Mr. McInnes: Yes, Sir. I want the right hon. Gentleman to reply to my question about the Town Development Act and the whole problem of Glasgow's overspill. What are the cogent reasons which compelled him to decide that there would be no more new towns in Scotland when London can get eight and is applying for more to deal with an overspill almost identical with that of Glasgow? I have made that plea to the Secretary of State before and I repeat it.
    I very much regret the absence of anything concrete in the Gracious Speech to enable the Government to tackle the problems confronting Scotland. I hope that on this occasion the Government will take the advice proffered in order that our people, in common with people south of the Border, may have decent homes and other amenities to which they are entitled.
    8.6 p.m.
    Mr. John Rankin: On this side of the House, we have been seeking to impress on the Government the urgency and appalling nature of Scotland's housing problem. We want also to appeal to the packed masses of Tory Members who are listening to the debate to realise that Scotland's problem is fundamentally different from that of England. It is far more intense. It reaches a depth, particularly in Glasgow,
    214
    which is not reached in any other part of the world which I have seen.
    I was in Hong Kong in the middle of September. With some Chinese friends I visited some of the Chinese houses on the waterfront at Kowloon. I saw one house where twelve or thirteen people were living. The Chinese tend to live in a sort of family community. The house had three apartments and was a terrible place. There is no argument about that. It was dark and the sleeping spaces completely lacked the ordinary comforts we associate with a bed. Strangest of all, above my head there was a sort of cage in which one or two of the family were able to sleep.
    When I tried to impress on those people that I did not need to come to Hong Kong or Kowloon to see housing conditions of that sort but that they were comparable with some of the homes I know in my division, they found it difficult to believe. The Joint Under-Secretary of State knows that there are scores and scores of comparable houses in my division, some of them even worse.
    Three years ago on Christmas Day I was summoned to a home in Blackburn Street. Eleven people were living there, a widow with ten children. Her husband, a docker, had been killed at his work. They were living in the top flat, a single apartment. There was a boy of 19, an apprentice on Clydeside, a girl of 17, a typist in a city office, and so on, down to a little fellow of two years of age. The gas had to be kept alight because it was almost impossible to see the way about even at two o'clock in the afternoon. There was only one bed, and I reckoned that if three slept at the top and three at the bottom that was six accounted for, and once that number was disposed of the rest of the family would find a place: to lie down in the remaining part of the house. That was an example of the state of affairs in my division three years ago. At the door were four pails for the ordinary conveniences and facilities of civilised life. I did not need to go to Kowloon merely to see conditions which, though indescribable, I find at home.
    This summer before I left for China and the Far East I visited certain parts of Govan division. On the first Sunday in August I went to Hoey Street and stood in houses where there were no ceilings at all except for paper, with brown paper

    215
    backing, which made a sort of makeshift. In one close to Hoey Street 70 people had to use one lavatory. Of course, I know that something can be done about that, but such a feeling of despair has been created in many parts of Glasgow because of the inaction of the Government that folk simply sit and complain among themselves instead of going to their Member of Parliament.
    What I have described is the direct outcome of the inaction and inefficiency of Tory Governments, including this one.
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: What about the Labour Governments during their period of office in the last ten years?
    Miss Margaret Herbison: This is not the result of ten years. It is the result of generations.
    Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) is vainly trying to fill the immense gap caused by the absence of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Nevertheless, we welcome his attendance.
    In order to place responsibility, I want to refer to the Report of the Department of Health for Scotland for 1955 which shows the amount of money spent since subsidies were introduced in 1919. An appendix details the subsidies voted by every Government since 1919 up to 1955 and the amount of money expended. The total subsidies paid by the Government to try to overcome, or at least to ease, the conditions which I have been describing, in those thirty-six years was over £104 million. Before the war the money spent amounted to £75¾ million. That works out at an average of £3¾ million per year spent on trying to improve housing conditions which, in my view, are worse than anyone could see in any other part of Europe.
    The amount expended in post-war years was £29 million, an average of £3¼ million a year. Therefore, the official figures supplied by the Department of Health show that we have been spending £½ million per year less on housing since the war than we spent before the war. That is a most alarming state of affairs because the problem has become much worse though the total spent by the Government to meet it has become less,
    Mr. E. G. Willis: Less than half the cost of a battleship.
    Mr. Rankin: Yes. A further examination of the figures shows that the amount paid out by Labour Governments in subsidy between 1919 and 1955 was £57 million in ten years. During that time there were three Labour Governments which held office for a total period of ten years, and an average of £5,700,000 a year was spent. The amount paid out by Tory Governments in their twenty years of office was £47½ million, which gives an average of £2,400,000 per year. Therefore, Labour Governments spent nearly two and a half times as much in subsidies to combat this fearful problem—
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): Is the hon. Gentleman including the war years in the period of office of the Tory Government?
    Mr. Rankin: I have cut out these six years. The difference every year on the average amount spent by the two parties when in office is £3,300,000. If we take houses at the prevailing cost which local authorities have to pay, one calculates that if the Tories had sought to match the Labour's Government's figures we could have built 79,200 houses of the three-apartment type in addition to those which already exist, or 65,800 five-apartment houses. If that had been done we should have gone a long way towards wiping out the 113,000 slum houses in Scotland. The Government cannot escape from the condemnation, implied in these figures, that they have not sought to tackle the problem seriously. If the Government had tried to keep up the subsidy paid by the Labour Government the housing problem would not now be nearly so serious.
    The Government tell us that they are to try and
    "facilitate the relief of congested local authority areas in Scotland."
    I would like to probe that statement. What exactly does it mean?
    We have been hoping for a long while to hear from the Government something about the Town Development Bill. Whether that intention is contained in the words which I have just quoted from the Gracious Speech, I do not know. Is

    217
    there a double purpose in that phrase? Is it the Government's intention to tie up the reduction in the subsidy with the Town Development Bill? We will generally welcome a Bill that will relieve the congestion existing in our large cities, but we shall not accept the lowering of subsidies. If we are to build more houses in town development areas or new towns, there should be increased and not smaller subsidies for that type of house.
    How urgently do the Government regard this problem? There are 300,000 people in Glasgow who have to be taken out of the city somehow and somewhere. By the year after next Glasgow will have no space in which to house anyone at all. We have a year in which to operate, and 300,000 people to deal with in that period, or as quickly thereafter as is possible.
    What do the Government propose about it? Do they regard the Town Development Bill as providing a solution? It may be an aid, but it will not absorb a worthy fraction of that 300,000. Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State going to squeeze some of those people into the one new town that is handy to Glasgow? Is he going to pressurise Glasgow and East Kilbride, the one to send and the other to take more people into the new town? It is said that the Government are pressing East Kilbride to take 10,000 people into the new town. Of course, when people are looking for houses and local authorities are desperate to find places for their people to live in. they are inclined to jump at any solution, particularly if it is an easy one.
    I hope that the Government will pause and think about this matter a little more carefully. New towns were meant to be towns in themselves and to have a definite character. They were to be new units, with homes, industries, schools, cinemas and other things necessary for civilised living. They were not to create new transport problems. East Kilbride was designed with a definite peak population. It was to take about 40,000 people for whom there would be sufficient jobs and adequate facilities in every respect. If more people are to be squeezed into the town, however desirable it may be to find them homes, more people than jobs are there for them, that will destroy completely the idea of the new town. It ought not to be done.
    218
    At a time when we are condemning the piled-up conditions in which people live in Glasgow, it is wrong to take them and put them into piled-up conditions, however new, in East Kilbride. Those of us who have seen East Kilbride know that it has gone in for the terrace and semi-detached types of house, and that there is not a flat in it. If we pour more people in than East Kilbride is designed to take, we must build the ghastly kind of tenements from which we are taking them away in Glasgow. That is wrong.
    The Government are beginning to destroy a new idea which would have been one of the most fruitful experiences that ever came to Scotland. Instead of seeking to extend it, they are trying to destroy it As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has said, the Town Development Bill will not in any way deal adequately with Glasgow's enormous overspill population. We have to think not only of Cumbernauld but of providing at least another two new towns for Glasgow. They would help Scotland generally, but they would cost the Government money. I agree that their record in providing such money over the twenty years when they were in power is not a very good one.
    I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to pause before he adopts what would be a wrong policy in regard to new towns, and to think again before deciding that the congestion in Glasgow can be relieved by a Town Development Bill. When he thinks along those lines he will realise that there is only one solution for the evil housing conditions of Glasgow, only one way of dealing with its overspill, and that is not by destroying new towns but by seeking to create more of them. If we are to deal with the problem in any adequate fashion, it is absolutely essential to have at least two new towns to meet the needs of Glasgow. I hope that before the debate ends we shall have an assurance from the Secretary of State or from the Joint Under-Secretary that the Government will cope with the congestion in great areas like Glasgow by providing us with more new towns.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: I hesitate to take part in a debate dealing with Scotland, but I hope that hon. Members opposite will excuse me if I make a small contribution to it. Glasgow is

    219
    not the only city which has slums. Some can be found without going many miles from where we are now.
    I was interested in the historical survey of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) about what happened in the twenty years before the war in which, apparently, there were twenty years of Tory Government.
    Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member should pay close attention to what I say. I was dealing with the period from 1919, when subsidies began, to the period which finished last December, 1955.
    Mr. Baldwin: If I misheard the hon. Member I shall be interested to see HANSARD tomorrow. He said something about twenty years of Tory rule since the First World War. My recollection is that, in that time, for only three or four years was a Tory Government in office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In that period there was a Coalition Government and two, if not three, years of Socialist Government. If the hon. Member had given a little history of the last eleven years it would have been more to the point.
    I should like him to have reminded the House of how many houses were built in Glasgow from 1945 to 1951. I hope that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), when he speaks, will give the figures of houses built by a Conservative Government in the years since his Government were in office. I cannot think that Scotland did not get its fair share of the houses we built—about 300 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three hundred million? "] Three million houses, which the Socialist Party said was impossible.
    Mr. Mitchison: The right figure is 2 million since the end of the war.
    Mr. Baldwin: Yes, and I think that of that number the Conservative Party built the majority.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. Member is making comparisons between 1945 and after 1951. Is he aware that in 1945 the building trade was reduced to less than half its pre-war strength, and that it was not built up for some years to its prewar strength? Is he aware that we were
    220
    living on Lend-Lease, that it was impossible to import goods to the extent necessary, that brickworks were only gradually reopened, and that it was impossible to get all the materials needed? Is he comparing that with a period in which there were plenty of materials?
    Mr. Baldwin: It is all very well to make excuses, but the hon. Member for Govan should have given a proper assessment of what has been done by the Socialist Party since 1945 and by this Government since 1951.
    The reason slums exist today is that no Government, until this Government did it, tackled the problem of the Rent Restrictions Acts. That meant that it was impossible for owners to keep houses in repair, with the result that they became slums. This Government have been plucky enough to deal with that problem. Although we propose to do away with the subsidy on much house building, we are retaining it for rebuilding houses to replace slums and we have made a special effort on slum clearance. We are giving a special grant for those houses which will not be paid for the houses which have to be pulled down.
    The hon. Member who told this very sorrowful tale should have been fairer to the Conservative Party by pointing out what the Conservatives have done about housing.
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: I add my protest to those already made at the way in which the Government are handling the legislation affecting rent control in Scotland. Most of us deeply deplore the fact that the legislation affecting Scotland is to be tagged on to the English legislation. Speeches have been made in the House already today pointing out the vast differences that there are between the situation in Scotland and the situation in England, and all the arguments indicate that the problem in Scotland ought to be handled differently from the manner in which it is handled in England. We ought, therefore, to have separate legislation for Scotland, so that Scottish Members can give it their usual very full consideration.
    It is a great example of the vigilance of Scottish Members that we have been able to convert this debate into a Scottish housing debate. It shows how assiduous

    221
    we are in our Parliamentary duties. I am glad we have been able to do this.
    I do not want to add to the large number of figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). My hon. Friend pointed out how the Government had by 1953 pushed up the output of houses to 39,000 in Scotland. It is interesting to notice that the increase in the housing output in Scotland went on while the Government continued to operate Labour policies and that since the Government have commenced to operate Tory policies, or, at least, since Tory policies have come more fully into operation, that output has steadily declined.
    What are the facts? The Government have increased housing output. Of course they have, because they decreased the size of the houses, eliminated a large number of the amenities, and curbed school and factory building. Thus they increased the number of houses being built. That is what the Government did. They did nothing else very wonderful.
    The Government having exhausted Labour policies, there has been a disastrous fall from 40,000 to what this year will be 30,000 or fewer. That was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central. What alarms me even more than that is that the number of houses on which construction has begun continues to fall. That is even more alarming. The number of houses on which construction has begun has fallen from 40,000 in 1953 to 34,000 in 1955, and the number will be lower this year. It was only up to 21,000 at the end of the third quarter. It will not reach 34,000 this year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but it will be a record quarter if it does. Judging from the figures provided by the Government, the number of new houses is falling, and the number on which construction has begun also tends to fall; there are fewer houses under construction today than there were at the end of 1955. That is a very serious situation. Not only has the number of new houses fallen very rapidly, but it continues to fall. What is happening? The Government are switching housing from local authorities to private builders.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: For sale.
    Mr. Willis: For sale. We discussed this in the Scottish Grand Committee.
    We are beginning now to reap the fruits of Government policy. Now the Government can no longer live on the fruits of Labour Party policy, the fruit of their policy is revealed, first, as a decreasing supply of houses, and, secondly, an intolerable burden of debt for the local authorities for generations to come and increasing difficulties for those people who are trying to buy their own houses privately.
    We have heard something about interest charges today, I try to avoid detailed figures, but I seem to remember that when buying a house today it costs twice as much for interest as it costs for the labour and materials. Is there anything more preposterous than that—that twice as much should be paid to the moneylenders as is paid for the material and labour? Do the Government really think that that is justifiable? Furthermore, whether they are in or out of these houses, citizens for generations to come will be shouldering that burden of debt. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) murmurs, it really is economics for madmen.
    The same applies to people who are trying to buy their own houses. The interesting thing about the figures provided by the Minister, in his quarterly statement, is that there is practically no increase in the number of houses being built privately. Why? The answer is that the Government are making houses too dear for people to buy. And what is the position of those who bought their own houses three or four years ago?
    I have a letter from a major in Singapore—I do not think that he is a supporter of mine. The burden of his letter is that he bought a house two or three years ago, when the rate of interest was about 4½ per cent.—I forget the exact figure. He now finds himself paying 6½ per cent. In other words, he budgeted to pay 4½ per cent. and now has to find another 2 per cent. He rightly points out that when one buys a gramophone, a radio or a television set on hire purchase, the same rate of interest applies for the whole period of the purchase. Only when buying a house does one find

    223
    oneself suddenly having to pay almost twice as much.
    In Scottish Grand Committee I gave some figures but, of course, my estimate then was very modest. The fact is that people are paying more than 10s. a week more than they had to pay when they first entered into the commitment to buy the house. That is why the hon. Gentleman's figures for privately-built houses are not increasing. Scotsmen are very shrewd people. They do not fancy entering into a commitment at 6½ per cent. when in two or three years' time, the rate may be down to 5 per cent., 4½ per cent. or 4 per cent.
    Mr. Bence: May I interrupt my hon. Friend to tell him that two people from Milngavie, in my constituency, visited me? They had bought a house when they were aged 35, and had budgeted just like my hon. Friend's correspondent, the major. They cannot pay any more. Indeed, I understood that the building society cannot force them to pay any more. The result is that, although they had hoped that at the then prevailing rate of interest they would have bought the house by the time they retired at 65, at the present rate of interest they find that the house will not be theirs until they are 102.
    Mr. Willis: That is just one example, but there have been other examples; letters in the Press giving instances equally fantastic as that quoted by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. D. Jones: The economics of Marks and Spencer.
    Mr. Willis: Yes, these are the economics of Marks and Spencer. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not doing something new. They are simply trying to go back to the old days—there is nothing wonderful about that—and, in the process, the people are having to suffer.
    I do not want to say a great deal more about housing, but I was interested in the fact that, according to the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), the annual amount spent in housing subsidies by the Government, divided over the years, is just a little more than the total amount which has been spent on the "Britannia" up to the present. That seems to me to be another ridiculous situation in which
    224
    we find ourselves, that we spend about £2,500,000 on the "Britannia," according to a reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and yet we spend very little more on housing subsidies per annum in Scotland.
    An hon. Friend of mine says that we spend less, but I am giving the information which was provided in this House. Surely there is something wrong with a society which thinks that the housing of the people living in deplorable and shocking conditions is only as important as providing a Royal yacht to career around the world. Is there not something wrong with our mentality when we accept that sort of thing?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I also point out that in addition to costing £2,500,000, this Royal yacht is now costing £6,000 a month to run?
    Mr. Willis: I am content to leave the matter there. Surely there is something radically wrong with our sense of values when we are content to put up with that sort of thing. The quicker we decide not to put up with it the happier I shall be.
    Before I conclude I wish to refer to one other matter. I am very concerned at the fact that there is no mention in the Gracious Speech of any intention to assist the lot of the pensioners. It is two years since we did anything for them, and since then prices have continued to rise. Almost a year ago the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said in the House that the spending power of the pensioner was equivalent to what it had been in 1946, when the pension was first increased. In other words, the pensioner was able to buy last year what he was able to buy in 1946.
    Are we to understand that the policy of the Government is that the pensioner must never be any better off than he was in 1946, a year after the war ended when there were acute shortages of everything? What about the increased productivity of the nation since then? Are pensioners not to share in that increased productivity? The Government must tackle some of these questions in an enlightened manner.
    But that is not the whole of the story. Since that last increase was given—since, in fact, the Minister himself claimed that

    225
    the purchasing power was roughly what it was in 1946—the price of bread has gone up considerably; so has the price of milk and coal, and prescriptions and rents are also increasing. The cost of everything that the old-age pensioner needs most is going up.
    There is not a word in the Gracious Speech to say that anything will be done to alleviate the position of the pensioners. That is a scandalous omission at a time when everyone can see, particularly in the City of London, the enormons sums of money that are being spent in the form of expenses by business people who can afford to pay as much for a dinner as a pensioner gets to keep himself for a week. It is a shocking state of affairs if we cannot do something to offset these serious increases in the cost of living of the old-age pensioners. It is a scandalous state of affairs for which the Government ought to be ashamed. I hope that we on these benches will press for something to be done for the old-age pensioners during this Session.
    8.50 p.m.
    Mr. John McKay: I have been waiting to have an opportunity of discussing this matter of pensions which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). In most of the questions we ask during the course of the years when endeavouring to examine the matter of pensions, more often than not we talk about the cost of living. What did we do in 1945 and 1946 when we introduced the new social legislation on pensions? Did we then relate the pensions we then created to a cost of living basis, or did we not really relate those pensions to the general standard of life in the country? I believe we did the latter, and I think we must, in fairness to the old people, continue to relate their pensions to that broad idea.
    In 1938 to 1945, we were paying a 10s. pension. In 1945, when we started to discuss the new proposals for old-age pensions, the cost of living had gone up about 50 per cent. When we dealt with the pension itself we raised it from 10s. to 26s. a week, a rise of 160 per cent. Thus, in reality, when we laid down the standard in 1945 and 1946, we had regard more to a balance with the general standard of life in the country than to cost-of-living figures.
    226
    Some people do not like figures, but figures are necessary sometimes definitely to prove a proposition. In the few remarks I am to make, I wish to indicate the rise in various standards which has taken place since 1945 and 1946 compared with the increase in pensions. Taking the figures for gross trading profits, after tax, as shown in the Blue Book for companies and public corporations, the figure for 1946 was £840 million, and for 1955 the figure was £2,250 million, a rise of 168 per cent. in tax-free trading profits. Undistributed profits, tax-free, were £571 million in 1946 and £1,655 million in 1955, a rise of 190 per cent. Turning to dividends, and taking the figures for dividends and interest, after tax, in 1946 they were £344 million and in 1955 they were £654 million, a rise of 90 per cent. for dividends and interest. If we combine the undistributed profits clear of tax and the dividends together, the rise is 152 per cent. These are collective group figures.
    Taking the wages of men and youths individually, wages in 1946 were 101s. and in 1955 they were 187s., representing a rise of 85 per cent., compared with rises of the order of 190 and 168 per cent. in other sections. In 1946, the average yearly wage of men was £314. After deduction of tax, it was £287. In 1955, it had risen to £580 or, after tax, £527. Deducting tax and insurance contributions, therefore, the rise for men was only 84 per cent.
    The question then is, what was the rise in the pensions? It is a well-known fact that the rise for pensioners was not a matter of 84 per cent., 100 per cent. or 150 per cent., but only 55 per cent. My comparisons are with the wages and profits for 1955. When we get the actual figures for 1956, we will find from the financial returns that the rise in wages and profits combined will be much higher than the figures I have given.
    That indicates quite clearly the point I want to emphasise concerning the relative standard of the old-age pensioner. We are speaking of millions of elderly and retired people who today are living largely in poverty. Many of them—at present they number a million, I think—have to turn to the National Assistance Board for help. There can be no doubt whatever that, in justice and for reasons of sentiment, when the relative standard of life improves the position of the aged pensioner ought also to improve.

    227
    Let us consider the percentage rises in National Assistance. When dealing with National Assistance, we are dealing with that section of the community which is so poor that it is impossible for them to live on their pension, if they have one, and they have to apply for assistance and submit to a means test. We have talked about means tests many many times, but there is not much hesitation in applying a means test to the ordinary workers, and that is what happens today. It will continue happening until there is a change in the pensions position. Millions of our poor people have to go through a means test to get a subsistence rate on which they can exist. During the comparable period, the National Assistance rate has risen 67 per cent., which is far higher than the 55 per cent. increase in pensions, and public servants' pensions have increased 70 per cent.
    If we consider the position of public servants, who have their pensions and undergo no means test, we find that there has not been any great agitation in this House with regard to public servants, teachers, civil servants, and so on, but they get a greater increase, which we all agree. We find that in 1945 public servants' pensions had risen, not by 55 per cent. but by 70 per cent. That was without making any contribution towards it. They had a rise in 1947, again in 1952 and again this year. They received that payment without any agitation at all. A great many of those in that section could live quite easily without any increase in pension. The advocacy put forward in their case was not a question particularly of the cost of living. Being people engaged in public service, they expected a pension at a given time, and that that pension would give them a standard of comfort.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that all these things are wrong.
    Mr. McKay: No.
    Mr. Williams: I would like my hon. Friend to make that clear, because, so far as the civil servants are concerned, they all believe—and I agree with them—that those payments were very much in arrears and should have been paid much earlier.
    Mr. McKay: I am not putting that forward as an argument. I am quite in harmony and agreement with what has been done for them. I am arguing that we have a duty towards the great number of people in our country who have had to agitate continuously to get something better even than the assistance rate.
    Dr. Horace King: I am in complete sympathy with my hon. Friend's main argument. Will he accept my assurance that none of these pensions has been granted except as a result of very bitter fighting by teachers and other government employees?
    Mr. McKay: It is all a question of the amount of pressure put on the Government. But what is the position with regard to the ordinary pensioner at the moment? Most of the rises in the ordinary pensions have been paid through contributions from the pockets of the wage earners. Instead of paying 2s. 10d., they are now paying 6s. 9d. to help towards those pensions. Most of this has come not from the Exchequer, but from the wage packets of the ordinary workers.
    We find today, under the special regulations which now exist, that it is quite common for a single man who is boarding and paying a given amount to get from public assistance 52s. or more. He gets a pocket money allowance in addition to his board. If it is a good National Assistance Board he gets pocket money of about 8s. or more.
    If we raised the pensions by 30 per cent. today it would double the amount compared with 1945. Of course, it would cost a lot of money. In addition to the 30 per cent. for ordinary pensions, more would have to be paid to sick people in other sections of National Insurance.
    Even if we doubled the pensions, the standard of life of the pensioner would not be as high as it was in 1946 compared with the standard of life of the remainder of the country. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East that it is shameful that in these circumstances not a line or a word appears in the Gracious Speech to suggest that the five million of the poor of this country are to be given a rise not merely to meet the cost of living but to lift them to the same standard as that to which they were lifted, in relation to

    229
    the rest of the community, in 1946. To do that would involve a 30 per cent-increase in the payments made to them. To the extent that we did that we should simply be doing justice to that section of the community.
    What is the financial position? What is our ability to make these payments? At present we are creating an annual balance of about £40 million over and above the expenses of the National Insurance Fund. This money is being placed in some fund which has never been used to create more benefits for the people. Some people say, "This is merely a paper sum and the money is not there". But the Government Department which deals with this great financial problem repeatedly tells us in its report that the National Insurance Fund has been increasing year by year by millions of pounds and that, in addition, there is another fund, called the reserve, which is also increasing year by year.
    The Department has told us that in the course of this National Insurance business it has accumulated these so-called assets. I do not know whether the money has been used to help to repay the National Debt or invested, but I regard it as a credit standing in favour of the National Insurance Fund. It is a credit of £381 million. In addition, there is £1,068 million in the reserve fund, making a total of £1,449 million. That is an accumulated asset to the fund, and I presume that it was created simply to meet some unexpected calamity. All this money is being saved in case of emergency. It seems a farce to do this.
    In addition, special pension schemes are organised by companies throughout the country. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for information on how much it is costing the Exchequer in not charging Income Tax on the contributions to private company pension schemes. The answer was that it was costing £15 million in the case of the ordinary employees because their contributions to these private pension schemes were not taxed.
    What is important is that, apart from the £15 million, £80 million is lost to the Revenue in providing special pensions for, not the ordinary workers, but directors and so forth. Is it not ridiculous that such things should be allowed when we are not even giving
    230
    retired workers a subsistence rate? We are not even giving our pensioners the National Assistance rate.
    The spirit which existed in 1946 was very different from the spirit today. We want a return of the 1946 spirit. We ought to say that what we did in 1946, when we raised the standard of living of ordinary pensioners who had retired from work, we can do now. If what we give to our ordinary pensioners is less than the rise in the cost of living while the general standard of life in the country has increased, no one can say that we are doing justice to those poor people. We may be in the same position in the near future, and, therefore, it is necessary for us to do what we can to help them,
    The Exchequer contribution to the fund has not been increased proportionately to the needs of the fund. The total benefits paid to most sections of beneficiaries have continually increased, and yet the Exchequer contribution, instead of rising, has been reduced to nearly 50 per cent. The Exchequer contribution used to be £145 million, but in recent years it has been reduced to about £72 million. In that respect, we have broken one of the main planks of the insurance scheme. By reducing the Exchequer contribution, the Government have weakened the position of the fund, and the result has been an unnecessary increase in the amount of the contributions by workers.
    The Government and future Governments ought not to harp on the cost of living in relation to our aged pensioners when the standard of life of the community has, in comparison, risen so much. We should apply those principles established in 1946 to maintain the standards of pensioners while taking into account the cost of living and, as time passes, hope for the opportunity to do better.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Alan McKibbin: I notice that although the Gracious Speech mentions that legislation is proposed to enable increases in pay and allowances with retrospective effect to be given to members of the police, fire and probation services, there is no mention of increases for war-disabled men and war widows. The fact that so many of us may be attending Remembrance services next Sunday for the men and women who died

    231
    for us and the country makes this a particularly appropriate time to call attention to that fact.
    It seems incredible that there should be such a lack of interest shown by the people of this country in the British Legion's claim for a basic rate of 90s. a week for the totally disabled man. This same lack of interest was shown at both the Conservative Conference at Llandudno and the Labour Conference at Blackpool.
    I have often heard it said that the British Legion is overstating its case and that the 100 per cent. disabled man, by the application of special allowances, can receive much more than the present basic rate of 67s. 6d. a week. That is true, but it applies to only slightly more than 6 per cent. of the total number of 621,000 war pensioners. Is it realised by hon. Members and by the public that 93½ per cent., 585,000, are not regarded by the Ministry as eligible for any supplementary allowance and receive only a basic pension of 67s. 6d. a week?
    As an example of how this works, a man on a 30 per cent. pension gets only 20s. 3d. a week, although he may have a disability which inconveniences him very much, for example, a duodenal ulcer. Is the British Legion asking too much? I do not think so. A short time ago there was a report in one of our leading Sunday newspapers about an eight-year-old girl who had lost an eye in a car crash for which her father was legally held to be two-thirds to blame. She was awarded £3,750. That means an income of between £3 and £4 a week for life, but a soldier who lost an eye in the service of his country gets only 27s. a week.
    The same newspaper also referred to a case where, not long ago, a man was awarded £16,000 for being crippled in an accident. That gives him an income of nearly £16 a week, but a totally disabled soldier, disabled in the service of his country, gets only 67s. 6d. a week.
    The Ministry appears to be considering that in a few more years the problem will be solved by the disappearance of the pensioners. It is a sad and sombre fact that these pensioners are now dying at the rate of 20,000 a year. In answer to a Question I put recently I was told that no fewer than 164,000 pensioners had died
    232
    between 1st January, 1935, and 31st March, 1956. That is one way of solving the problem, but it is not a way which will appeal to the great British public.
    We are reasonable people, with reasonable minds, and I am sure that these figures must startle all of us. I will say no more except to express the hope that when the Government have got out of their present difficulties they will give priority to this matter and give these men to whom we owe so much a basic pension of at least 90s. a week.
    9.20 p.m.
    Mr. L. M. Lever: I am sure that all of us are happy that we can discuss our problems at home without being clouded by some of the great problems that have exercised our minds and given us cause for anxiety in the last week.
    I welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to the statement about the pay and allowances of members of the police, fire and probation services being given retrospective effect. That is long overdue.
    I wish principally to draw atention, however, to a matter which has been, so to speak, within the precincts of the House since 1951. I refer to the plea of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association on behalf of the aged limbless veterans of the 1914–18 War. In 1951, we set up an all-party committee to consider the very serious position of this section of the community, whose average age now is 64, and who are today suffering a grievous burden, discomfort and loss of amenity due to the artificial limbs which they are wearing.
    There are about 23,000 surviving limbless pensioners of the 1914–18 war and about 2,500 of them are pensioned at 100 per cent. plus, in most cases, one or more of the supplementary allowances for unemployability, constant attendance, and comforts. The remaining 20,500 are pensioned at the rates of 50 per cent., 60 per cent., 70 per cent., 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. in accordance with the "Tables of Assessments for Specific Injuries" relating to the length of the amputated stump which remains.
    In the vast majority the assessments today are the same as they were in 1919, the exceptions being those of men with left arm amputations, the assessments

    233
    for which were increased in 1947 to bring them into line with right arm assessments and men who sustained additional disabilities accepted by the Minister as arising from amputations and the wearing of artificial limbs.
    Our plea on behalf of this section of the community is not a party plea. This matter has been dealt with by an all-party committee since 1951. I have had the privilege of being honorary secretary of that committee. During the past five years we have met Minister of Pensions after Minister of Pensions, sometimes in conjunction with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, so that something might be done to improve the position of these aged limbless ex-Service men.
    From time to time we have been told that the Ministry was taking specimen cases to see what the effect of wearing artificial limbs was on this section of the community. Now, of course, we have had a report which indicates that there is loss of amenity but we find that the Ministry of Pensions is still adamant in its refusal to deal with a matter which should have been dealt with years ago. We have been told this by Minister of Pensions after Minister of Pensions. It seems that, no sooner have we got to a climax with one Minister and are about to settle the issue, than unhappily the Government of the day changes the Minister of Pensions and the new Minister says, "I must have time to go into the matter; I am new at the job." We have been put off from time to time during the past five years.
    We were told by the last Minister of Pensions that if we had sufficient medical evidence, if the B.L.E.S.M.A. and the all-party committee got sufficient evidence, we should be able to satisfy the justifiable claims of these aged limbless ex-Service men, claims which are long overdue.
    We visited the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, the President of the Royal College of Physicians, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons (Scotland) and the President of the British Orthopaedic Association, and other eminent medical authorities. They all supported the justifiable claims of the aged limbless ex-Service men of the 1914–18 war. Is there any source of information or authority of a medical character on this side of the planet to
    234
    which we can go to support our claims other than those to whom we have been, so assiduously, on behalf of this section of the community?
    I make a special plea to the Government. For the last five years this section of the community has been waiting patiently for something. The men are getting older; they are dying off. Is it not time that their special needs received attention, especially now that we have submitted this medical evidence to the Ministry of Pensions and to the Treasury? This matter will not brook delay. We ought not to have it on our consciences that we neglected those who served their King and country in those days and who are now falling by the way.
    I want also to add a word on behalf of old-age pensioners and spinster pensioners. They are suffering tremendous hardship. I do not want to elaborate upon the position of the old-age pensioner, because the matter speaks for itself. I see many old people who are suffering dire hardship and poverty because of the fall in the value of money and the increasing cost of the necessities of life. The pensionable age of aged spinsters should be reduced from 60 to 58, so that they may have an optional retirement possibility. This section of the community may not be numerous, but they were deprived of the men of the 1914–18 period whom they might otherwise have married. Many of them would have done so. They have been working all these years supporting other members of their families. This is a field to which—although mention of it is omitted from the Gracious Speech—the Government might give very earnest attention, in addition to the other matters about which I have spoken.
    9.29 p.m.
    Mr. Cyril Hence: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) in his plea for the aged limbless ex-Service men and the old-age pensioners. In my constituency I come into contact with men and women who do social work among crippled children, limbless ex-Service men and old-age pensioners, and they tell me that the condition of these people is deteriorating very seriously. The rising prices of fuel, milk and bread and the increases in rent that many of them have had to pay under the 1954 Act

    235
    have had a serious effect. I hope that the Government will do something this Session to alleviate the position of the old-age pensioners.
    In the five minutes I have been allowed I want to speak about the general housing position of the country. We have legislation for increasing rents or decreasing subsidies and keep thinking of the problem in terms of money, but all that legislation has not a great deal of bearing on how many houses have been built or have not been built. It is not only a problem in Britain but exists in all the industrial communities of the world. Wherever one goes one comes up against a deteriorating housing position in the industrial world.
    I was very well acquainted with a building contractor in the West of England. He built houses in Bristol, Newport and Cardiff at the turn of the century. They were six-roomed houses, and I know some of them. There was no bathroom, they were gas-lit and had a lavatory inside and one outside. The cost of those houses was £125 apiece. The eldest son of the contractor was a motor engineer in Coventry, working for a famous engineering firm there. That firm built a motor car—I have forgotten the horse-power—costing £800 to build. It was marketed and sold to a few people who in those days were regarded as maniacs. The car cost £800 but these six-room terraced houses, which were good houses and well looked after, cost £125 apiece. In 1936 one of the sons of that building contractor was able to build five-apartment, semi-detached houses for £675 apiece. I was working then for a subsidiary of the British Motor Corporation and we were building Austin Sevens at £50 apiece.
    That is the story which has gone on throughout industrial civilisation. Technology has put before the people of the world processed goods of all sorts, in metal, food and textiles, but we cannot apply that technology to the production of houses; it just cannot be done. Housing is no longer an investment proposition; it is not a commercial job. I challenge any building contractor in Europe or the United States to provide houses that can be offered to those who want them on the same desirable terms as motor cars, refrigerators, typewriters,
    236
    vacuum cleaners or suits of clothes. Housing is now outside the commercial field.
    I am an engineer, and we in that profession appreciate and understand this problem. If we were to attract labour to the building industry to such a degree as to put housing before the people as a commercial proposition, to satisfy their needs and satisfy a changing and increasing desire for a better commodity, as in the case of motor cars or anything else, wages in the building industry would have to be doubled. The skilled man in processing industries can earn 10s. an hour, but a man cannot be put on to a building site to earn the same money because he is not dealing with horse-power or technology. No Government will ever solve this problem or achieve what Governments say they want to achieve—a home for every family in the country—so long as the approach to the problem is based upon financial techniques underlying which are commercial principles. That just cannot be done.
    We could not do it with water or with refuse collection. I am absolutely certain that if I had to buy fresh, pure water by the gallon it would be cheaper to buy whisky. The same argument applies to refuse collection. It applies also to education. I could not possibly buy the education I had with the income I have. It would be absurd. I could not do it. I could not get a private tutor to do it. The argument applies, as I have shown, to housing.
    So I urge the Government to get to grips with the problem of housing the people and not to worry about the possibility that if they do get to grips with it and start building houses as a social service they may destroy the investment value of properties already standing. That would be just too bad. When an engineer designs a new machine, or puts a new product on the market, he is not much concerned that he may be destroying the investment value of some obsolete article, or of some other already existing product.
    I am sorry the time for the debate has been so short, for I should have liked to have been able to deal with the matter more fully. I wanted to speak about the problems of the owner-occupier. In this world there is practically only one thing it is possible for a human being to

    237
    own by which he can exercise his personality and feel a sense of independence, and that is a house. A man can have shares in industry. What do they mean? They do not mean anything. Only in a house with a bit of land around it can a man feel he really has something of his own and a place of his own where he can function.
    It would be a grand thing if there were a policy by which every person could own his own house. I was brought up to believe in owning one's own house. I was taught never to have a landlord. In Wales, we were taught to loathe landlords. That is why there are so many owner-occupiers in Wales.
    It is a crying shame that the party opposite should have started in 1951—or even before—to talk about a property-owning democracy, and have created an urge amongst people to own their own homes, only since then to have adopted a financial policy and a Bank Rate which mean that so many will not be able to own their own homes. That is one of the worst indictments of the present Government.
    9.37 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I think the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) will forgive me if I do not follow him, because the subject he spoke of is dealt with by another Department. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), and I agree with much that he said. However, he said that in Wales there was a large number of private owners of houses because they were taught to dislike landlords so much. If the hon. Member pursues the logic of his argument to Scotland, then landlords there must be much more popular, because there are not so many in private hands.
    We have had an interesting and useful debate. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will probably not expect me to follow him at length in what he said because he was adequately answered, I think, by the Parliamentary Secretary sitting beside me. The debate has concentrated on housing in England and in Scotland, and on the Government's policy for housing. I agreed, of course, with the hon. and learned Member when he stressed the importance, as did many hon. Members from Scotland as well as
    238
    from England, of family life and of getting—I am not quoting him exactly—the right sort of house in which to live. I could not agree with him more. Indeed, the Government could not agree with him more. That is what the present Government wish to achieve.
    In reply to some of the criticisms which have been made I would say that the present Government can be proud of their record over the past five years in the matter of new housing. Indeed, I think it must be obvious that if the rate of building had not been stepped up and if we had not achived the figure for Great Britain of 300,000 and more, the situation today would be worse than it is. That must be obvious. Indeed, not only did we achieve more than the 300,000 houses, but in 1954 we reached the record figure, for Great Britain, of 347,605.
    As it happens, our best year in Scotland was the previous one, 1953, when we had 39,548 completions, and in 1954 we were down by only about 900 on that figure. According to all indications and information at my disposal, in the present year the Great Britain figure of completions should be in the neighbourhood of 300,000, and for Scotland it should be approximately 33,000. Therefore, we are running at about the figure which we undertook, not only before the last Election, if I may say so, but before the one before that; that is to say, in 1951. Of course, it took a little time to step up to these figures, but nevertheless they were achieved.
    Although I will answer as many as possible of the questions that have been put to me, I should like to say, in passing, that I did realise that the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) had given a good deal of thought to this problem of local government reform, and he was answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. In Scotland we are not in the same position in this respect, and perhaps the House will forgive me if I do not pursue the matter further, because not only did the Parliamentary Secretary deal with it but my right hon. Friend the Minister intervened for a minute or two.
    Mr. Mitchison: It must have been an anticipatory answer.
    Mr. Stuart: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) referred to

    239
    the number of houses under construction. At 31st October, 1956, as compared with 1955, the total figure in Scotland is exactly 506 lower, which does not show any catastrophic drop, I would suggest. There are always some fluctuations, but I will deal in more detail with the general position in a minute or two.The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) asked a number of questions. I know that he has naturally a great interest in this subject and knowledge of it. He referred to the Glasgow waiting list. I have, of course, never attempted to deny this, and our endeavour is to see that this matter is dealt with as rapidly and as well as possible. As he knows well, and as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes)—who, I think, was housing convener for the Glasgow Corporation not long ago—also knows, it is the most serious problem with which we have to deal.
    The hon. Member for Maryhill referred to the fact that private building in Scotland will never meet the demand. I frankly admit that it has never been so successful or effective as it has been in England. It has increased a bit, and I hope that it will increase—but before I turn to the general question of the Government's policy on housing, I should, perhaps, just answer another point made by the hon. Member for Maryhill with regard to the adverse effect on costs of the rate of interest charged. It is true that the interest charged does affect costs, but the general suggestion was—I do not suggest that the hon. Member made it today, but rather implied it—that local authorities should be enabled to borrow at lower rates of interest to help them with this problem. As a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that that means what some people would call giving a concealed subsidy; but I would not even call it concealed. I should call it a very ill-concealed subsidy to the local authorities. I think that the best way to deal with subsidies for housing is to do so in the open and on general lines.
    The hon. Members for Maryhill and Glasgow, Central referred also to the question of the size and type of house being built and the fact that we are building fewer of the bigger sized houses. I think that is so. I am not hiding anything. The truth of the matter is that
    240
    in the early years after the war we concentrated upon these bigger houses for young people with families—that is to say, four and five apartment houses. Then later the need for them was not so great as for smaller houses. What I really wish to explain is that local authorities themselves are in a position to deal with this question and to decide what their local needs are. They are in a position to build the type of house which their needs demand. Indeed, that subject is dealt with in Circular No. 91 which was issued to local authorities in 1953 by the Department of Health for Scotland.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that this is a most serious and pressing problem. The Government are and always have been most anxious to see the Glasgow overcrowding situation rectified and assisted as far as possible. We will push ahead in all fields—it is our policy to do so—connected with the subjects of overcrowding, slum clearance and overspill.
    I will deal in a minute with the question of East Kilbride referred to by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). As Scottish Members know, the work at East Kilbride is progressing, and the new town of Cumbernauld is proceeding as rapidly as possible.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central and others referred to the rate of building in Scotland, and it was suggested that there was a tendency for this rate to decline. I have given the figures quite fairly and frankly, and I am satisfied that in the areas where housing is needed the housing rate is being maintained. The local authorities in those areas are rightly and properly most anxious to ensure that the needs of the people living in their areas are met, and they are doing their best to get on with the job.
    However, some local authorities have slowed down their building; they are still building, but at a slower rate because they have to some extent overcome their problems. Some have stopped altogether, but some of these have started up again. I could quote places where this has occurred—one place, for example, is in my own constituency—though I do not say that in all of these places large figures can be quoted. Taking it overall,

    241
    there has been a slowing down in a number of areas for the reasons which I have given before.
    With regard to the general question of the Government's policy on housing subsidies, I made a statement in the House on 31st July, following a review of housing subsidies in Scotland. The necessary Bill to give effect to the Government's proposals will be brought before Parliament during the present Session and there will then be full opportunity for debate.
    Reference has been made to representations received from local authorities against the proposed revision of subsidies. Underlying these I think there is some misunderstanding as to the Government's proposals. Very briefly, the Government's policy is that, while no one should be asked to pay more rent than he can afford for a local authority house, subsidies should not be paid to those who are not in need of them. I stated this on 31st July. I have been asked what subsidy will be available in Scotland for houses built for general needs as distinct from those provided for special purposes. The position remains exactly as I stated it at the end of July, that the new subsidy rate of £24 will be payable for houses built for approved needs.
    Mr. McInnes: There is a very vital point here. The right hon. Gentleman a moment ago mentioned general needs; but the Bill does not provide for general needs; it is approved needs. What we want to know is what the Government mean by "approved needs". We understand general needs, and all local authorities understand that term. What do the Government mean by "approved need"? Does it mean a need that the Secretary of State alone approves?
    Mr. Stuart: If I may continue, I shall perhaps be able to deal with that. The intention is to approve proposals for those purposes where a local authority has to provide houses required in order to rehouse persons living in unfit or overcrowded houses, to house those who are sharing houses and who, quite naturally, require homes of their own, or those who need houses on grounds of ill health or disability. But I shall also be prepared to consider for the £24 subsidy any other category of genuine housing need where the local authority is of the opinion that it should be approved for subsidy purposes.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: That means, does it not, that there is no subsidy for general needs, and the Secretary of State has taken unto himself the responsibility of deciding what are the approved needs of every local authority in Scotland?
    Mr. Stuart: I never tried to deny the fact that this is a change, yes; and I am dealing with what we call approved needs.
    On the question of town development, which is of great importance, the Queen's Speech foreshadows legislation to assist in dealing with the problem of overspill population from congested urban areas. I think it will be accepted on all sides of the House that this problem is particularly urgent, especially in the Glasgow area. I stated to the hon. Member for Maryhill I think it was, on 30th October that I was to initiate discussions with the local authorities very shortly. I will just add to that that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already had discussions with the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee, which is representative of the 18 Clydeside authorities, including Glasgow. He has received from that Committee its suggestions as to what should be included in the Scottish Town Development Bill. These suggestions are being examined.
    It will be necessary to hold further discussions with the local authority associations, and that will be done as soon as we are in a position to do so. In view of the discussions which have to follow, I cannot at this stage anticipate what detailed proposals will be included in the Bill, but I can say that we are fully aware of the urgency of this matter, and, indeed, we have been trying to press on with it for some time.
    The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), whom I now see in his place, complained that the Gracious Speech made little reference to Scotland and its needs. I must remind him that we in Scotland are really interested and concerned with most of the Speech, because, of course, it is a Speech dealing with Great Britain, if not the United Kingdom. I do not suppose that the hon. and learned Member would expect us to write in at the end of each sentence of the Gracious Speech "N.B.—This sentence does or does not apply to Scotland." After all, this is a

    243
    United Kingdom Parliament. I would take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. and learned Member on his wonderful vocabulary and the list of adjectives with which he manages to embellish his contributions to our debates. I am afraid that my vocabulary does not contain enough adjectives to compete. I would not know where to begin or to end. The hon. and learned Member moved from shore to shore and covered a very wide field, but this debate has been concerned in the main with problems of housing and local government.
    In reply to the hon. Member for Govan the target population of East Kilbride has always been 50,000 and there are no proposals for altering this figure to any significant extent. The actual population is now approaching the 20,000 mark and is increasing at the rate of 3,000–4,000 a year.
    With regard to the letting of houses at East Kilbride to tenants from Glasgow, I do not think that the new town authorities can be expected to assign houses to individual tenants whom Glasgow might nominate irrespective of the kinds of skill and experience needed by the industries established at East Kilbride. If, however, Glasgow is prepared to pay, say, annually £14 for ten years for each house let, I think that this would certainly entitle Glasgow to influence the selection of tenants by reference to their housing needs. What one would like to see is an arrangement under which the housing needs of Glasgow families are taken into account, together with employment considerations, in selecting Glasgow tenants for these houses.
    Since the housing in East Kilbride of any tenant from Glasgow's waiting list, or any tenant who vacates a Glasgow Corporation house, is a direct contribution to Glasgow's housing problem, it would seem that there is a great deal of scope for balancing housing needs with available employment. While no actual agreement has been reached between them, I will do all I can to encourage this
    244
    method, and I intend to pursue the matter with the parties concerned.
    The House is perhaps not quite as full as it has been in recent days, and I must thank hon. Members for giving me such a courteous hearing. I hope I have managed to answer some of their questions.
    Debate adjourned—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
    Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, ETC. (PROCEDURE)
  Ordered,
  That, during the present Session, except in such cases as the House may otherwise order—

  (1) No Proceedings on a Motion to which this Order applies shall be entered upon at or after half-past Eleven o'clock.

  (2) If such a Motion is under consideration at half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the Question thereupon to the House, provided that, if he shall be of opinion that—

  (a) owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the Motion was entered upon, or

  (b) because of the importance of the subject matter of the Motion,

  the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall interrupt the business and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next Sitting (other than a Friday).

  (3) A debate which has been adjourned under paragraph (2) of this Order shall not be resumed later than Eleven o'clock, but shall stand further adjourned till the next Sitting (other than a Friday), and the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall apply to any debate which has been further adjourned under this paragraph as if the further adjournment were an adjournment under paragraph (2) of the Order.

  (4) The Motions to which this Order applies are—

  (a) any Motion for an Humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that a Statutory Instrument be annulled, and any Motion that a draft of an Order in Council be not submitted to Her Majesty in Council, or that a Statutory Instrument be not made.

  (b) any Motion that, or for an Humble Address to Her Majesty praying that, any other document which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a Statute be annulled, or cease to be in force, or be not made.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

  COUNCILLORS (VOTING RIGHTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Snow: The subject which I wish to raise on this Adjournment Motion concerns the voting powers of local authority representatives in matters which arise chiefly with regard to housing. As the House is aware, I am not allowed, under the Standing Order, to base my case on anything which may produce the question of amending legislation. Therefore, I must try to address my remarks to the whole question of the interpretation of the law as it exists.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.)
  Mr. Snow: The law in this case is the Local Government Act, 1933.
  It is not always very easy for people outside the House of Commons to appreciate how difficult it is to find an appropriate occasion to propose amending legislation, and no doubt other hon. Members who are also perturbed about the present situation will join with me in trying to find an appropriate Bill to which we may table an Amendment on this matter. For the moment, therefore, I must restrict myself to the question whether or not the Act is being properly interpreted.
  I was given to understand from a not unfriendly source, shortly before this debate began, that the question of interpretation is, finally, the responsibility of the court, but I am also advised that interpretation so far as personal pecuniary interest is concerned, once the subject of a ruling by the Ministry, would be very strong evidence in any subsequent court action. I make that point because I shall in a few minutes take the liberty of refreshing the memory of the House on the recent Northampton case which concerns this particular matter.
  246
  I am raising this issue tonight at the instance of the Lichfield Rural District Council, and I am also supported by correspondence which I have been shown concerning the proceedings of Rugeley Urban District Council on the same matter. In the Northampton case, the Lord Chief Justice, in summing up—the case is more properly known as Brown and others v. the Director of Public Prosecutions—said this:
  "The simple question is whether or not the vote they gave on this occasion was contrary to Section 76 of the Act of 1933, and it is no doubt of the greatest possible importance that there should be a strict observance of the Act."
  I do not wish to challenge anything which the Lord Chief Justice said. It would be very improper if I did so. I should, however, like to ask the Minister how he reconciles that court observation with the answer which he gave to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) on 19th March last. In that case, my hon. Friend had raised the question of a ruling which the Minister had given about certain members of the Dartford Rural District Council, and the general complaint of my hon. Friend was that certain councillors who were tenants of council houses were debarred from voting in connection with the rent question while certain owner-occupiers on the same council had not been debarred on the question of charges for the emptying of cesspools.
  The Minister was asked by my hon. Friend how he could differentiate on the question of personal pecuniary interest. He said:
  "… my right hon. Friend took the view that the degree of pecuniary interest involved was not enough to justify refusing the application."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 824.]
  The question which I should like to ask the Minister is this: if the Lord Chief Justice is to be supported in saying that there must be strict observance, how can the argument be introduced that a small pecuniary interest does not matter but a rental pecuniary interest does matter? That is my first point.
  I have also been looking into Parliamentary practice on this matter. I would be the first to say that the rules by which we govern ourselves here are not necessarily applicable to local government and that local government has its own legislation, but, at the same time, if the Parliamentary Secretary will be good

  247
  enough to refer to Erskine May on this point—Chapter 17, page 418—so far as this honourable House is concerned, it says:
  "In the Commons it is a rule that no Member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question shall be allowed to vote upon it; but, in order to operate as a disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal, and not merely of a general or remote character."
  There is an explanation of that by Mr. Speaker Abbot in a Ruling which he gave on 17th July, 1811.
  I suggest that in Circular No. 30, of 1956, which was issued by the Ministry on this question, there is ample evidence that whereas it may be argued that the court is the final arbiter on pecuniary interest, nevertheless the Minister on that occasion—and there were many precedents—exercised a great deal of discretion as to what should or should not represent a pecuniary interest disqualifying members of a given council.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Could the hon. Member draw my attention to the part of Circular No. 30 which he has in mind?
  Mr. Snow: Section 7.
  I am, therefore, saying that if we in Parliament abide by a rule which says that personal pecuniary interest is not a disqualifying factor if the interest is general or remote, then a perfect example of that is the question of rent matters in housing debates of local authorities. That is my contention.
  What is the situation at present? We have some members who are not disqualified, who were personally very much interested in rating assessments and who are allowed to vote; yet members who are very interested in rentals are not allowed to vote. I cannot see how we can differentiate between the two. I concede that valuation and assessment are no longer local authority questions, but they were at the time of the passing of the 1933 Act, which is in question.
  The reasons which the Minister accepts for the removal of a disability, which are explained in Circular No. 30, are twofold. First, he would give a dispensation where too great a proportion would be disqualified, thereby impeding the transaction of
  248
  business. Secondly, he would give a dispensation where it appeared to the Minister that the overall interest of the inhabitants would be adversely affected. These observations about discretion in the circular make one believe that it is not a good argument to say that the Minister cannot take responsibility for defining pecuniary interest.
  Incidentally, in the correspondence between the Ministry and the Lichfield Rural District Council, the clerk of that council raised the question of what ought to be the position of a councillor who is prepared to pay an economic rent. That question was not answered in the subsequent replies by the Minister. It may have been considered a bad point by the Minister, but I think that the Minister might like to see that a reply is sent to the local authority.
  In the Lichfield Rural District—and I merely cite this because it may be applicable in other parts of the country —at least one-third of the total population of the rural district council area, I am advised, are council house tenants. It is frankly a question of disfranchisement when matters of rent are raised on the local council and the local authority representatives are not to be allowed to fulfil their ordinary functions.
  I should like at this point to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has given me certain information on the matter. In my examination of the problem, it has become quite obvious that, as a result of earlier Questions in February last on this matter of voting rights, the Ministry adopted a most progressive attitude and went a long way in their subsequent Circular No. 30 to improve the position.
  But I think that there is still room for improvement. I believe that this is a developing problem. How can one justify a position in, for instance, local authority elections where the electorate can say, "Candidate A is a council tenant. It is no use voting for him, because we, as council house tenants, could not have our viewpoint on rent voted upon or even discussed by him under the present rule? "
  Mr. Powell: It can be discussed, because Circular No. 30/1956 points out that the Minister is always ready to grant the necessary dispensation for discussion to such a councillor.
  Mr. Snow: That was the next point to which I was coming.
  Discussion is possible provided that the prior permission of the Minister is obtained. I consider that that comes within the category of impeding business. It may sound odd, but if one says to a local authority that, before one will allow discussion and voting on the matter by certain interested councillors, it must write stating when the discussion is to take place, the precise matter to be discussed, and so on, that is, in my understanding of local government work, a definite hindrance to normal activity and progress.
  A friend in my constituency said, when the matter was discussed at the Lichfield Rural District Council, that if one wanted to fulfil one's proper function as a councillor in matters relating to rents and allied subjects one simply had to be occupying a privately-owned house. That is the situation, and I think it is very unfair.
  The Lord Chief Justice makes it clear that, in his judgment, the Act of 1933 should be strictly observed. I have tried to demonstrate that the Minister himself is exercising a lot of discretion, and that, if that means that the interpretation of the law is still in a certain stage of development, we should go straight forward and ensure that such councillors are not disfranchised.
  It must be realised that the problem is exercising the minds of many people, irrespective of party. Indeed, the Lichfield Rural District Council, which asked me formally to put the matter forward, is a Conservative-dominated council. There should be all the more praise for it in asking to have the matter aired in a way which, if my demand was met—I know it cannot be met tonight—might result in an alteration in the political decisions of the council.
  I have been asked to consult my Parliamentary colleagues. I must in all frankness tell the Minister that, so far as I have been able to do that, I have not secured unanimity of opinion on the matter. I believe that the matter should be explored. Since I cannot suggest amending legislation, I ask the Minister again to review the whole question of the interpretation.
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am sure the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) for raising this subject. Many members of local authorities will be very interested to hear a further statement from the Government.
  I have received representations from members of a local authority in my constituency. Some of them have said that they are very sensitive about the ban which is placed upon their full participation of the work of the council because they happen to be resident on a council housing estate. One of them was chairman of the council's housing committee. He felt that he was in a most invidious position; although he was chairman of the housing committee, he was at a disadvantage in endeavouring to play his proper part in the work of his local authority. Since the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) is in his place, I may mention that these councillors were members of the Sowerby Urban District Council of which he was once a distinguished member.
  I am sure we all want to keep local government and all forms of government clear of any suspicion that those who serve their fellow citizens are not free of corruption and self-interest. That is a fundamental condition of healthy democratic government, and in this country we pride ourselves on having that throughout central and local government. We want to safeguard the good name of local government in every way.
  However, is this state of affairs not carrying things too far? The law was laid down in 1933 before local authorities had anything like the responsibilities they have today for local housing affairs. As my hon. Friend rightly said, as time goes on the functions and the scope of work of local authorities are likely to extend. I have heard of a proposal made in a certain political quarter to municipalise all tenanted property covered by the Rent Restrictions Acts. If that ever comes about, we shall be in a still stranger position, although not very different from the existing position of local citizens who have a personal and pecuniary interest in the level of rates.
  My hon. Friend mentioned that before the transfer of responsibility for assessments of property for rating purposes all members of local authorities had a

  251
  responsibility for the level—the tone, as the experts call it—of valuations for rating purposes locally. Street works, cesspool clearage and many other aspects of local affairs all created a personal pecuniary interest in some member of the council.
  This is carrying matters too far. The fact that members of local authorities live in council houses is more likely to persuade them to discharge their public duty with complete disregard for their personal interest than otherwise. On the whole, if we feel that there is any suspicion that we may be exercising our vote in our own interest, we tend to lean backwards to avoid any suspicion being levelled against us. I do not believe for a single moment that local government would be imperilled in any way by a more liberal interpretation of the law.
  10.19 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I am glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) raised this topic tonight, because I am sure that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about Section 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which this debate gives me an opportunity to attempt to dispel.
  I should first explain that, apart from subsection (8), to which I will come in a moment, the interpretation of it is entirely a matter for the courts. In particular, what is a "pecuniary interest" within the meaning of the Section—that is mentioned in subsection (1)—is a matter for the courts to decide. It is not a matter on which the Minister has any right to give a ruling, and it is not a matter on which his ruling would protect any person against prosecution in the courts. It could not be pleaded and it would not weigh in the decision of the court. So that, apart from subsection (8), although my right hon. Friend can express opinions about the Section, his opinions have no authority. The interpretation is for the courts and it is is for each individual councillor, after taking what advice he thinks fit, to decide for himself whether he is within the mischief of the Section.
  I now come to subsection (8), which relates to the action of the Minister—I am ignoring, for simplicity, the county council in relation to a parish council—
  252
  in removing "in any case" the disability which the Section imposes. That is a discretionary power of the Minister: the word is "may". It is true that the subsection sets out the considerations to which he has to have regard in exercising his discretion; but it is his discretion. It is there, and there alone, that the Minister can say from time to time by what sort of considerations he proposes to be guided and what sort of rules he intends to lay down for himself and to make known for the guidance of others in exercising his discretion to remove the disability.
  May I illustrate that sharp contrast which I have tried to point out from one or two of the points which the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth made? He reminded the House that the Lord Chief Justice had insisted in a recent case that this Section ought to be applied strictly. He then argued that the decision of my right hon. Friend to remove the disability in a case mentioned by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) had been inconsistent with that, because in that instance my right hon. Friend had said that the degree of pecuniary interest appeared to him such as not to justify the maintenance of the disability. But there the Minister was not interpreting subsection (1). He was not saying, "This is not a pecuniary interest for the purposes of the Section". He was saying, "In the exercise of my discretionary power to remove the disability, I take into account in connection with the transaction of council business and the other considerations there set out, the fact that, after all, the pecuniary interest is very slight".
  The Minister was not departing from any strict interpretation of the Section but was mentioning one of the factors which had weighed in his mind in his purely discretionary power under subsection (8) of removing the disability.
  Similarly, in paragraph 7 of the Circular to which the hon. Gentleman referred, what is in question is not the meaning of "pecuniary interest," it is not the question whether any particular councillor in any particular debate is within the mischief of Section 76. It refers to the circumstances in which the Minister is prepared to exercise his discretionary power under subsection (8) to remove the disability. The hon. Member argued that

  253
  there is a difference between the practice of this House in comparable circumstances as set out in Erskine May, whereby the interest to be taken into account requires to be immediate and personal, and what is the interpretation given to Section 76. But of course the words of the Statute are very different from the practice of this House as set out in Erskine May; and, being on the Adjournment, it is to the words of the Statute that we must adhere. Those words, amongst others, are:
  "… any pecuniary interest, direct, or indirect …"
  Clearly, the words of the Statute go beyond the comparatively narrow sphere to which the practice of this House restricts this matter.
  Mr. Snow: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I was very much bound in the debate by the rules of order. I was trying, so far as my bulk will permit, to exercise a very tight figure of eight round the rules of order.
  Mr. Powell: All the same, I think it is of use to point out that Parliament has drawn the definition in this Section—and the hon. Member has brought this out—in a much stricter way than the practice of this House.
  Both the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth and the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) mentioned the position of a councillor as ratepayer who, of course, is in many ways affected in his quality as ratepayer by the decisions which he helps to arrive at; but the Section specifically exempts that capacity of a councillor by the words:
  "Provided that this section shall not apply to an interest … which a member may have as a ratepayer …"
  Although, therefore, we may feel that there might be some inconsistency in this matter, it is an inconsistency which is provided for and foreseen in the Statute.
  The hon. Member finally asks, "Given all this, ought the Minister not to exercise his discretion under subsection (8) in a different"—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say "in a more generous"—"way?" The hon. Gentleman made two suggestions. One was that it might be possible for the Minister to give a blanket removal of disability in advance. I am afraid that the Minister is debarred by the Statute from doing that. Quite clearly the words "in any case" oblige
  254
  the Minister to take each case on its merits and as it arises. He must know before he can exercise his discretion under subsection (8) the circumstances of each particular case. Otherwise he would be exercising a discretion which Parliament has not given to him.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said, "Are there not cases, lying outside the scope within which the Minister is working in Circular 30/56, in which it would be beneficial and would affect substantially the deliberations and decisions of a council if the disability were removed?" I would repeat that so far as discretion is concerned, the Minister has stated in the Circular that he finds no difficulty in removing the disability for a council-tenant councillor to discuss matters concerning rent. It is only, therefore, the question of voting which remains. As the disability is removed either where the majority are concerned or where the decision would be affected it does appear that the manner in which the Minister is already exercising the discretion given to him by subsection (8) is such as to ensure that a council does not, by reason of the disability, take a decision different from what it would have taken if the disability did not exist.
  It seems to me that, working under the terms of Circular 30, those who elect to represent them a councillor who is a council tenant can genuinely feel that they are as fully represented in any debate or discussion as they would be by electing anyone else, and that the decisions of the council will not be different by reason of the fact that they have elected a council tenant as their councillor.
  I hope that this opportunity to explain Section 76 and the manner in which the Minister exercises such discretion as that Section allows will have allayed anxieties and removed certain doubts from the minds of councillors in various parts of the country.
  Mr. Snow: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary very much for his observations, many of which I find disagreeable and unsatisfactory, may I say that on a more favourable occasion we shall try to amend the existing law in this respect?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Research Council (Composition)
  Research Council (Composition)
FUEL AND POWER
  Petrol Coupons
  Petrol Coupons
  WAR CRIMES
  WAR CRIMES

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Marquess of Normanby—Took the Oath.
The Lord Kilbracken—Took the Oath.

THE FOREST OF DEAN
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like to explain that, by some strange error in transcription, the words "Government Committee," as I drafted them, have on the Order Paper been converted into "Royal Commission". I may say that I have presided over three Royal Commissions and I know the difference between a Royal Commission and a Government Committee. While recognising the extreme illegibility of my handwriting, I cannot quite understand how the words "Government Committee" could have been transformed into "Royal Commission". I am asking this Question as the Senior Verderer of the Forest of Dean, an office which I have held, incidentally, for the last forty-nine years. I now beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is anticipated that the Government Committee appointed more than a year ago to consider the future administration of the Forest of Dean, especially in regard to commoners' grazing rights, will issue their Report, and Legislation based thereon be introduced.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST.ALDWYN): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for clearing up the point of his Question. The Committee which is considering the situation in the Forest of Dean, particularly as regards commoners' grazing rights, was appointed
26
in June, 1955, by the Forestry Commissioners. A considerable amount of evidence has already been taken by the Forest of Dean Committee, and more has yet to be taken. I am afraid I cannot at present forecast when the Committee will be able to make its Report and recommendations or what, if any, legislation might result.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, in reply to what the noble Earl has said, may I suggest that the acceleration of the issue of this Report ought to be encouraged by the Government, bearing in mind what has actually happened? A large number of sheep, claimed to be owned by commoners in the Forest of Dean, which are, unfortunately, wandering about the roads, have been largely instrumental in spreading a serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease. If only the Committee had reported this, and action had been taken along the lines suggested by the verderers and others in the district, it would have been brought under proper control and this spreading would have been averted. I venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government will take steps to accelerate the issue of this Report and indeed, the introduction of the necessary legislation as soon as possible.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I should like to add a word in support of what my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has said. This is a matter of great urgency. There are about the country large areas of common land which were recently under cultivation. They are now going out of cultivation, and—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BARNBY: The question I was going to ask the noble Earl is whether he can suggest that there are any means temporarily possible for those public bodies who are respossible for the common land to let it with a view to increasing agricultural production.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that we are very concerned by the spread of foot and mouth disease in the Forest of Dean, and that we will do all we can to expedite the workings of this Committee so that we can get the desired results. With regard to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Barnby, although it might

27
appear to arise out of the Question on the Order Paper, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, assured the House that his Question is not correctly worded and dealt entirely with the Forest of Dean.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before we resume the debate on the Address, I should like to inform the House that it has been arranged that the debate will be concluded to-morrow, when the main subject will be the foreign situation, with special reference to Egypt and the Middle East. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will move the adjournment this evening and will open the debate to-morrow. Owing to the large number of your Lordships who have notified their wish to speak, the House will meet to-morrow at twelve noon.

THE SITUATION IN HUNGARY
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on developments in Hungary. According to the latest available information, fighting was continuing yesterday evening in many parts of Budapest. Some sections of the town were in flames. According to a Red Cross report, civilian casualties from Russian firing have become very heavy. There is a complete curfew and anyone seen on the streets is liable to be shot by Soviet troops.
I have no information to confirm that the Kardar Government has succeeded in establishing itself in Budapest. In broadcasts from Hungary, there is now no pretence that Hungarians and Russians are fighting side by side. It is openly declared that Soviet soldiers are defeating "the reactionary forces". Other announcements have been made in the names of the local Soviet commanders. In other words the fighting in Hungary hears the exclusive character of a Soviet campaign of repression.
So far as I know, the Soviet Government have not yet replied to the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly which called for a cease-fire the withdrawal of Soviet troops from
28
Hungary, and the admission of United Nations observers, and which urged the provision of relief supplies for the Hungarian people. Such supplies are now desperately needed. The International Red Cross is organising a convoy of food and medical supplies from Vienna which will leave as soon as Soviet permission has been given for it to enter Hungary. Her Majesty's Government appeal to the Soviet Government to grant this permission forthwith. I am glad to be able to tell the House that Her Majesty's Government are now investigating, as a matter of urgency, detailed arrangements whereby 2.500 Hungarian refugees can be received in this country.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords there is little that one can say on this very grave statement. I am sure the whole House will be glad to hear that we are doing all we can to alleviate distress caused by Soviet action and that we are doing it in a practical way by receiving 2.500 refugees. I do not know whether the noble Marquess could tell the House whether there has been any discussion with the Dominions over the reception of other refugees, in addition to the 2.500. Also, I presume that the noble Marquess will make a further statement to the House as soon as he has any information to give, such as the reply of the Soviet Union to the United Nations.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I will, of course, make a further statement as soon as there is anything which it is right that the House should know. As regards consultation with the Commonwealth. I cannot answer that question at the moment, because this decision has been very recently taken and urgently acted upon—and the pressure of events made it most obvious that it should be urgently acted upon. In fact, I am quite sure that steps will be taken to see that the action we have already originated will be extended to the Commonwealth.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether we shall be able to give the Austrian Government some direct financial help to cope with the overwhelming refugee problem with which they are unfortunately faced?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords. I cannot at the moment answer that question. Perhaps the best help we

29
can give the Austrian Government is what we are doing, and that is to try to take a not inconsiderable number of the refugees off her hands at the earliest possible time.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that, unlike some recent events, this action of Her Majesty's Government will have the unanimous support of all people, in all Parties and in no Party, in this country?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, that is a gratifying piece of information.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.46 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Birdwood—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as followeth:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, in resuming the debate on the humble Address, we pass from the harmonious proceedings of yesterday to the possibly less harmonious proceedings which confront us for the rest of the Session. The proceedings of this House have been dominated for some time past by the international situation, and we have therefore thought it right, as the Chief Whip has announced to the House to ask the House to discuss that subject tomorrow on a special Motion. Unfortunately, events happen so rapidly that the Amendment which we prepared yesterday has already become out of date. We had hoped that the noble Marquess would be in a position to make a statement on the international situation this afternoon, but presumably he has nothing more that he can tell us.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURRY): My Lords, perhaps I can
30
answer that immediately. The position is that the Prime Minister hopes to be able to make some form of statement later in the afternoon in another place. If he does I shall, of course, make the same statement here.
LORD SILKIN: I hope the House will appreciate the difficulty in which we find ourselves o this side of the House in putting down an Amendment which would be worthy of serious consideration by the Home. For instance, although we have been informed that there is actually a cease fire in the Press this morning we are told that that has not been accepted by the Egyptians, And we are quite unaware what is the actual position at the moment. Of course, I do not blame Her Majesty's Government for that—the position is obscure and uncertain. But I think the House will understand if we await this statement before we actually put down an Amendment.
I said that we were proposing to discuss the international situation to-morrow, but we have it ought it right to refer to one particular aspect of the earlier proceedings, and that is the doctrine of self-defence enunciated by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on the occasion when we last discussed the matter. This doctrine—I hope he will not mind my saying so—was so startling to many of us that we thought it right to put the point of view of noble Lords on this side of the House at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt has been good enough to undertake to speak to the House this afternoon on that particular aspect. We hope also that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will be in a position to speak to-morrow and he has already indicated views in The Times.
Coming to the gracious Speech, we welcome on this side of the House, as I ant sure all noble Lords, the references to the Commonwealth, and particularly t the advance in Parliamentary democracy and prosperity which is visualised Reference has been made in the gracious Speech to the Gold Coast, the British Caribbean Federation and British Guiana. As a policy which we on this side of the House feel particularly responsible for initiating, we are very glad indeed that this policy is being pursued in those parts of the world. Of course, the difficulty is always one of

31
timing. The right thing done at the right time will always be successful; the right thing done too late may very often do a great deal of harm. I feel that in these particular cases we are probably doing the right thing at the right time and I have for myself no criticism to make. But there are examples of not doing the right thing at the right time, and Cyprus is one of them. Some of my noble friends will have something to say on Cyprus and also on Malaya and Singapore. If only we could have caught the psychological moment at which to make these Parliamentary advances and established democracy, we might very well have saved ourselves a great deal of trouble.
I said earlier that the international situation had dominated our proceedings in the last few weeks, but we must not underrate the far-reaching effect of many of the domestic proposals which are referred to in the gracious Speech. If I refer first of all to one particular proposal it is not necessarily because it is the most important although it is important, but because I am sure it will be one which will be of great interest to your Lordships—that is, the reference to the reform of the composition of this House. I want to say at once that, in my opinion, any major constitutional change that is proposed ought to be the subject of the fullest possible discussion in the country and the greatest measure of approval. Our Constitution is a very ancient one and we ought not lightly to make major changes in it.
I am not for a moment suggesting that these changes may not be necessary or desirable, but any major change must not be one which is just put forward in the form of a Bill and passed in the course of a single Session of Parliament. The country ought to have the fullest opportunity of considering it. The noble Marquess will, I am sure, agree with me that in this case, though not necessarily in all cases, the doctrine of a mandate does not really apply. Both Parties, in putting forward a particular proposal have often sheltered themselves by the statement that the matter had been included in their Election manifesto—which probably few people will have noticed, and still fewer read. But in a matter of this kind it is sufficient to say that this question has been included
32
in their Election manifesto. Of course it has been; and I am very well aware that noble Lords opposite have indicated their intention of doing something about the House of Lords. If I may say so, however, nobody has stated that very seriously, and even if he did, he had no idea about what was to be done. So I am somewhat comforted by the fact that the gracious Speech does not refer to "the introduction of legislation" but to the making of "proposals." They may well take the form of a White Paper which it would be possible to discuss. I should hope that that will be the course that will be taken.
Now I should like to say a word about the merits of the subject itself. I hope I am not too greatly daring in venturing on what will probably be one of the most controversial subjects with which we shall be faced in the near future; nor am I, at this stage, committing myself to the desirability or otherwise of making any changes. What I do say is that one has to be quite sure that any different composition of this House will work better than the present one does. The present composition is quite anomalous and illogical, and impossible to justify on any rational ground. I defy even the most irrational noble Lord to stand up and justify the present composition. Nevertheless, however easy it may be to criticise the present composition, one has to find something that will work better.
We have to consider what are the difficulties about the House as at present constituted. The first is that there is a permanent Conservative majority. That is quite indefensible. It is a majority which works very well indeed when there is a Conservative Government, but it does not work so happily when there is a Labour or Liberal Government. I am not suggesting that the noble Marquess and his friends have not done their best to make it work, but always overshadowing any proposal of a Labour Government is the possibility of either a hostile action of this House which will completely defeat a measure or the introduction of hostile Amendments which will cripple it. So any kind of amendment of the composition of this House must take account of the fact that if the new composition is going to work, there must not be a permanent Conservative majority or a permanent majority of any other kind.

33
Then there is the question of powers. As noble Lords know, there is very great jealousy on the part of the House of Commons about granting this House any further powers than it already has. Although the revision of the composition of this House is not necessarily related to powers, it would be very difficult to constitute a new House without considering the question of powers. One of the difficulties, for instance, is that if the House consists of eminent persons who are expected to devote their time to the work of this House, they will naturally expect to have substantial powers; and they may not be satisfied with the powers that we in this House have at present. I do not want to enlarge on this aspect at this stage, and certainly anything I say at the moment is purely tentative and without any knowledge of what Her Majesty's Government have in mind.
We are all aware, of course, of one of the reasons, at any rate why the question of the reform of the composition of this House has come about at all. It is that, owing to economic and other circumstances, noble Lords, particularly on my side of the House, are finding it increasingly difficult to attend and, even more, to devote themselves to the work of the House. I need hardly say that attendance is one thing; devoting oneself to the work of the House, is guile another. One can get a House of silent Members or of inattentive Members, but if one is to conic here and take an intelligent and worthwhile interest in the proceedings of this House, it involves the sacrifice of a great deal of time—not only by mere physical attendance here but probably much more outside. There arc a considerable number of noble Lords who would be willing and are capable of making that effort if only the financial situation were adjusted.
My Lords, the problem goes further than that. From time to time new Peers are created. We need fresh blood in this House, and we are much indebted to the fresh blood that we receive from time to time. But a great many persons are deterred from coming here because of the fact, among other reasons, that they cannot afford to do so. There are eminent Members of another place who would make first-class Members of this House, but they are in receipt of a remuneration, whereas we in this House are not.
34
It is asking a great deal of persons who are, to a certain extent, dependent upon their remuneration in another place to come here.
I said a moment ago that noble Lords here arc not paid. Of course, that is not true of the whole of the House; a substantial number of the Members of this House are paid. There are the Bishops, for instance. They are not paid as Members of this douse, but they are in receipt of a stipenc which I am sure they will regard as wholly inadequate, but which at any rate enables them to come here from time to time. There are the Lords of Appeal; and there are, of course, Her Majesty's k Misters. But for those persons who are not in receipt of such remuneration, I submit that it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain a good House, anti, in particular, to maintain an effective Opposition. All that I have said to-day cannot be news to the noble Marquess who leads the House; it has all been said be fore, though I doubt whether it has been; aid in this House. I thought it right to sty it, however, in view of the proposal that we should consider the reform of the composition of the House. I would emphasise, before leaving this subject, that a mere reform of the composition of the House will not, in itself, be adequate; and I would therefore ask the noble Marquess to agree that the two matters should be considered quite independently. Reform of the composition is one thing but the steps to be taken to enable noble Lords to act effectively in this House is quite a separate matter and the two should not be in any way interlocked.
Now I want to conic, perhaps by way of anti-climax, to another point in the gracious Speech, and one in which I have taken a considerable interest since I was a Minister—that is the question of subsidence. It is proposed in the gracious Speech
"to provide e remedy for damage caused by subsidence resulting front coal mining."
The House will he aware that a large part of this country is affected by subsidence. All I want to say at the moment is that we shall welcome this measure, but why confine it to subsidence from coal mining, when a great deal of damage is caused by subsidence from salt mining and other forms of miring? Noble Lords who know Cheshire will know that a large part of

35
that area is affected by subsidence from salt mining, and I should hope that when the time conies for dealing with this matter any proposed measure will be much wider than one dealing with coal mining alone.
There is a reference in the gracious Speech to local government finance, which is, of course, a most important matter. But why is there no reference to local government reform? Everybody agrees that to-day the existing form of local government, the existing boundaries and the existing type of local authority are very much out of date and in need of review. I know that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has given a great deal of consideration to this question, but why is there no suggestion that local government will in fact be reformed? The implication is that the Government will deal with finance but will leave the structure of local government exactly as it is.
There is one minor matter. After the debate we had some months ago on the question of betting, when the House was of the opinion that some action should be taken as the result of the Report of the Royal Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, went so far as to tell us what he thought should be done. It is most disappointing to find that, in fact, nothing has been done at all. We have therefore really wasted our time in having a debate and in listening to the noble Lord's remarks on what he was going to do.
I see that one measure which we are going to have very soon is that dealing with an amendment of the law of homicide. I understand that this Bill is actually ready. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount can tell us whether that Bill relating to the law of homicide is actually ready, but I see from the Press that we are likely to have the Bill in the course of a day or so. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can tell us later on.
I am surprised at the speed with which the Government have acted in this matter. Clearly, they can act with speed when they want to; but it seems to me to be misdirected speed when it is directed to the question of homicide at a time when there are so many other more important matters that might well
36
have been dealt with at this early stage of the Session. I cannot help thinking that possibly the reason for the speed was, if I may put it vulgarly, to "dish" Mr. Silverman—to get in first. With respect, I do not think that that is a very creditable thing to do. After all the Government had agreed to leave this matter to a free vote; and to come in in advance of the opportunity for Private Members to bring in a Bill seems to me to have the effect of "queering their pitch". Moreover, while not knowing what the Bill is intended to do, it would appear that the purpose of the Bill would be to define different degrees of homicide, a thing which the Government had all along said could not be done. It was said not only by the Government; the Royal Commission expressed difficulty in differentiating punishment for one type of murderer as against another. Now, at the earliest possible moment in this Session, the Government are trying to do what they regarded as the impossible.
I imagine that one of the most controversial measures that we shall have to deal with in this Session is that relating to rent control. I can promise noble Lords that that really will be regarded as a very controversial measure. It will affect a great many tenants. If I have understood it correctly, the matter will be dealt with by degrees, in that people who are at present in the category of paying the highest controlled rents will come first. They will be the very persons of whom Her Majesty's Government have constituted themselves the champions—the lower-paid middle classes, people whose rentals are in the neighbourhood of £150 a year. They are the people who are going to be hit first. I would not for a moment suggest that the Rent Acts are all that they should be or as fair as they might be, or that they are not in need of some amendment. But the purpose of this legislation is not merely to clarify the law; it is to change the law, and to take a number of dwellings out of control.
Nor would I suggest that rent control should remain for all time—I do not think that anyone has suggested that. But this is not the time, nor the place, for there is still a shortage of that type of accommodation which it is proposed to decontrol. I invite any noble Lords

37
who have the misfortune to need one to try to rind a flat or a small house at a rental of £150 a year. They may get it on payment of a premium of £5,000 or £6,000 or by acquiring a lot of fixtures and fittings which they do not want, but it is quite impossible to go into the market at the present time and get a flat at anything like that rent. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, who has great knowledge of this subject, will agree with me, yet it is proposed to decontrol that kind of property and to place people at the mercy of landlords, to take away their security and to give landlords a completely free hand to increase rents to any figure that they think is desirable or possible.
I would invite noble Lords to consider what are likely to be the economic effects at this stage, apart from the hardship caused to tenants. Undoubtedly it will result in increases in the cost of living and there will be quite legitimate demands for increases in wages, so that we shall once more be making a contribution towards the inflationary process. I hope that even at this late hour Her Majesty's Government will hesitate before involving the country in this grave conflict on domestic affairs—for I prophesy that it will be one of the gravest conflicts that we shall have in the present Parliament—and before they cause this distress and economic difficulty.
I do not want to deal with any other measures at this stage. Anyone reading the gracious Speech will see that this promises to be a very heavy Session and there will be the greatest need for scrutiny of legislation and other measures which will be brought forward. Therefore it will be of the utmost importance to have a live and vigilant Opposition. We will do our best within our very limited and restricted means. But, coming back to what I said at the beginning, I regard the straightening out of the position of Members of this House as a matter of the greatest possible urgency and importance, and I hope that before Her Majesty's Government think at all about reforming the composition they will have regard to this particular aspect. That is all I wish to say this afternoon but I am afraid that the House Neill be hearing something from me tomorrow on the international situation.
3.16 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not think it improper if, before proceeding, I revert to some remarks made yesterday in the early part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood—I refer to his remarks about the Royal Family. The noble Lord put his tribute to Her Majesty the Queen and Her Family in most felicitous phrases and I should like once more to say how sure I am that all noble Lords endorse what he said of their unselfish life, and of the deep affection in which we regard them—an affection which, with the greatest respect, is, I believe, an almost personal affection such as has never before beer shown in the history of our country.
The arrangements for to-day and to-morrow, as your Lordships know, are that, in principle, we should try to confine ourselves to-day to internal affairs, proceeding to external affairs to-morrow. In view of what has happened over the last week in two that is, I am sure, a very big demand upon the patience and restraint of many of your Lordships. It is difficult to concentrate on internal affairs of Sate when minds are at present so much occupied with external affairs. Personally, I would have wished that we could have had this debate next week, rather that this week; but as that is impossible we must make the best of the position.
As one cannot at present totally ignore the impingement of external affairs on this House and another place, even if we are talking to-day on home affairs, I would just say that we in this quarter of the House support Her Majesty's Government it any development of the present situation which may lead most quickly to some peaceful solution. In those words I include the tragic position of Hungary, and I very much welcome the words which fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, this afternoon. Like noble Lords on the Left, we are frankly critical of the Prime Minister and of Her Majesty's Government for events which ha e recently occurred, but I should like to make it clear that we do not accuse the Prime Minister of bad faith towards the people of this country. We believe that he acted in good faith, but mistakenly; and because mistakenly, wrongly. But to say or suggest, as has

39
been suggested in some parts of the Press and elsewhere, that we who criticise him regard him as a warmonger is perfectly untrue and perfectly unfair.
I should also like to take this opportunity of deprecating that kind of argument which I am glad to say does not, for the most part, occur in responsible quarters, though sometimes it seeps almost to the doorstep of your Lordships' House—I mean the argument in which people refer to those who do not agree with them as being always ready to believe that their country is in the wrong. That seems a most unfair accusation. For example, in connection with the Bill "to amend the law of homicide" which is to cone before your Lordships' House this Session, to accuse those who would like to see the abolition of capital punishment (I am taking no sides at the moment) of being more concerned with the murderer than with his victim and the victim's relatives seems to me unprincipled and a charge that cannot be substantiated. I hope that kind of accusation may be dropped in future.
We on this side of the House and I hope that here I may speak for my noble friends on the left, consider that this country of ours is the best country in the world and though we have an imperfect system it is the one system in the world under which we would choose to live. We yield to no one in our feeling on those two points. I hope that I am not being offensive in suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that other nations also will subscribe to one's own views about oneself or one's Commonwealth. Although we may have a good opinion of ourselves (and I feel that we are justified in that) it is not reasonable to expect—as sonic politicians seem to expect—all other nations to take the same view of us. Those who take that point of view are motivated by high principles. I was most interested to read two significant sentences in a speech yesterday by Mr. Macmillan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
"We do live of course, at a rather difficult time but we have done that before. At the moment we seem rather isolated, but we have been that before"—
two unexceptionable sentiments, I am sure.
40
He goes on to say this:
"Nothing matters so long as we think what we have done is right and that what we do will lead to something better coming out of it."
On first reading, that sounds very fine and laudable. But is it really enough to say that so long as what we think we do is right it must be right? I am afraid I cannot go quite so far as that. I feel that we must consider the opinions of others who may conceivably think that what we think is right is not right. It is, of course, difficult to know what the majority opinion is and after all, that is what expresses, on the whole, what should be done in a country. I had hoped for, but did not expect, a reference in the gracious Speech to some improvement in our British electoral system which, as your Lordships may remember, revealed, even at the last General Election, that more people voted against the Conservative Party than voted for them. Accordingly in our whimsical and quixotic British way we immediately put a Conservative Government into power. I would also remind your Lordships that both Conservative and Socialist Governments are put into office and kept in office largely by the votes of those who prefer the devil they distrust to the devil they distrust even more.
If I may refer to a domestic affair and if I may call the Tory Assembly a domestic affair, I was a little shocked that when two very difficult controversial questions came up at that Conference, one of which was Egypt, which I will not go into now, and the other capital punishment, the case on the side of those questions which was not popular with the Conservative Party was not allowed to be heard. The would-be advocate was, I believe, shouted down and the Conservative Assembly would not even hear what was to be said against their view on those two matters. That shocked me very deeply. I was equally disturbed—if I may now attack my noble friends on the Left—that at the Labour Assembly a very eminent Socialist statesman, referring to municipal affairs, said of those who took part in them—and, remember, he was referring to the men and women who give their time to looking after their fellows, to dealing with the welfare of the State—that he was afraid that some of "our people" thought of themselves as councillors before they thought of themselves as Socialists. It seems to me

41
that anyone, a councillor or a justice of the peace or a judge or anyone else giving service to the country in any way, should put that service far above being a Socialist: or a Communist or a Conservative or a Liberal. It may be a little unfair to take these quotations out of their context, but I hope that I have not been giving a false impression. There is always great danger in taking things Out of context.
If I may continue in a somewhat lighter vein for a moment, I should like to anticipate noble Lords opposite in quoting a little announcement which appeared in a newspaper this morning. It came under the heading "Ecclesiastical News" which, of course, deals with Church affairs entirely—it has nothing to do with politics. This announcement reads:
"The Archbishop … has become a vice-president of the Association for Promoting Retreats."
I think, in fairness to the Archbishop, I should explain that the "retreats" are not the sort of retreats which your Lordships may have in mind, nor is the Archbishop referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, commented briefly on the question of House of Lords reform. This is of course, a matter which touches us very nearly. He spoke of the possible addition of power that may be involved. But it is set out in the gracious Speech that it is not the powers but only the composition of your Lordships' House which is going to be under consideration. I think that that should set at rest many of the fears which may, perhaps, have been entertained in regard to this subject by people who have been wondering what those powers might be. If I may refer again to this—I do not know how many times it has been referred to since Mr. Asquith said in 1911 that it was a question which "brooks no delay"—I would remind your Lordships that you can lead a Government to a brook but you cannot always make it jump. But judging from the gracious Speech it looks as though the jump is at last about to he made. Those who have supported this proposal for the last half century or so will wish the Government good luck in this task.
I cannot join with Lord Silkin in saying that we must again go to the
42
country and again examine this matter in all its details. It is only eight years since recommendations on the composition of a new House were virtually agreed by leaders of that three Parties, and it was only because of some difference on technicalities between the Party opposite and the Party on the left that they were not able to come to terms. I do not think we have a tremendous job to do here, and I feel that under the very able guidance of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House who has taken such a helpful attitude in this matter it should be successfully accomplished. There is just one aspect of it upon which I should like to touch. I believe it is more or less generally accepted that there will be created a number of Life Peers to sit in your Lordships' House. I think it is conceded on all sides of your Lordships' House that that is probably a desirable and necessary thing.
As to the qualification for becoming a Life Peer, one presumes that such Peerages will be bestowed as the result of the merit and of what has happened in the career A the person involved. For that very reason it seems to me that we arc unlikely to get many Life Peers under the age of seventy, or even perhaps eighty years. I, for come, value highly the tremendous contributions which are made to the debates of this House by its younger Members. I am much tempted to mention names, which is a thing one ought not to do, but there are one or two young Peers particularly on the Government side, who seem to me to give great life to this House and to do work which is of great value. I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider this matter bearing in mind also the great value of youth in this House. Youth, of course, is a comparative term. If we take the words of the psalmist who tells us that the span of life is "three score years and ten", then those of us in your Lordships' House who are over thirty-five are past middle age.
The matter of capital punishment is going to he threshed out again in great detail. All I have to say is that this really is a matter of conscience, and not a flatter of obstinacy on either side of the House. I must say that the wording in the gracious Speech seems to me a little surprising. I refer to the words: "limit the scope of capital punishment."

43
I do not suggest that if a man commits a murder he should be only slightly put to death, but it seems to me that the wording might be altered with some advantage. In dealing with this matter, I ask Her Majesty's Government to bear well in mind, as the Prime Minister I think has indicated that he wished to do, the very helpful suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Samuel that we can get round much of the difficulty by increasing the Prerogative of the Home Secretary.
The questions of anti-dumping and European Free Trade are very dear to the hearts of noble Lords on these Benches. Before the faces of noble Lords opposite fall too much, let me say at once that I am not going to proceed to deal with those two matters, because there are experts who will, I think, deal with them much better—partly because they are experts and partly because the matters will be cropping up at a time when it will be more suitable to deal with them in detail. I cannot help saying, however, how much we welcome the inclination shown by Her Majesty's Government towards this proposed new Free Trade area on the Continent.
When the noble and learned Viscount was reading the gracious Speech from the Woolsack I could not help noticing that the faces of several noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber seemed to fall to a great depth. I do not think they need have any great fear. This matter has been gradually built up and other countries are taking the initiative—we are not. I do urge that if this Federation of Free Trade is built up it would be a tragedy if we were left outside of it, only scrambled in later by some undignified means, which would not be advantageous to us.
Finally I would mention the fact (which is, of course, already known to your Lordships) that this country of ours is an island. In the old days the advantages of being on an island were obvious, but in these days they are less and less obvious, and indeed they are less and less physically, militarily and morally. I think that one of the disadvantages nowadays of being on an island like ours is that it is apt to give one astigmatism on the big issues in which the United Kingdom is only affected really as one element in world
44
affairs. We are apt to be too much isolated. It may have been a good thing four hundred years ago, but it can be a good thing no longer. Let us pull together in this island. Let us argue fully and criticise incisively. But let us shun the poison of deep and bitter hostility between those who share that cherished and priceless common bond—British citizenship.
3.30 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Lords. Lord Birdwood and Lord Cromer, for the speeches they made yesterday, which I thought were characterised by both happy phraseology and balanced judgment, two qualities that do not invariably go together. I was particularly struck by one of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, which I should like to emphasise with reference to the work of the Opposition in your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords who watched the progress here of the Road Traffic Bill and the Copyright Bill cannot but be filled with admiration for the noble Lords who took such an active part in that work. I think it is fair to say that both Bills were greatly improved in this House, and though noble Lords often complain that they do not always get their way, in fact, they make a very considerable impression on Bills before they leave this House. Whether that is a compliment to their powers of dialectic or a recognition of our willingness to meet them halfway, I do not know. One thing is certain: that Bills do not go to another place in the same form as when introduced in your Lordships' House. I should like to assure the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, that we fully recognise this fact, and that this is one of the important considerations which we have in mind in our proposals for the reform of the composition of your Lordships' House. I do not propose to go any further than that to-day, because I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House may say something before the day is out, and I am sure that your Lordships would much rather hear about it from him.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned a large number of subjects—and the noble

45
Lord, Lord Rea, also mentioned a number—which were not, referred to in the gracious Speech, but I feel that it would be more useful to-day if I were to explain what is in the gracious Speech. May I be permitted to say this, however, on the question of betting? We still wish to proceed with the Betting Bill, although no reference to it is contained in the gracious Speech. We have encountered certain difficulties, and discussions are taking place with the different parties who are interested in this subject—those on the betting side, the Churches' Committee on Gambling and racing organisers. We felt that it would be desirable to try to get as near a measure of agreement as possible before bringing the matter before Parliament. I say this only because I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is justified in what he said.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, welcomed the steps which had been taken in the development of colonial government. I think we all welcome that. But sometimes I wonder whether we always remember the difficulties with which we are faced in trying to implant in the Commonwealth countries democratic institutions which we in this country have developed through some 600 years. Some people are inclined to think that it is only a matter of a ballot box and a Parliamentary Assembly; but in fact it is a great deal more than that. It is not only the introduction of democratic institutions, but also an endeavour to maintain freedom with human dignity and efficient administration—something that is not always so easy to obtain and which can be obtained only through the courage, wisdom and sense of responsibility of the statesmen concerned. I think that I can say, on behalf of your Lordships' House that we wish every success to those on whom the responsibility is likely to fall.
Perhaps I may mention shortly the question of capital punishment. A Bill is being introduced in another place to-day, and therefore I will say little more. I recognise fully what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said: that this is a matter or which people feel deeply. What we have endeavoured to do is to bring together the divisions which exist on the subject. There is not simply a division between the two Houses of Parliament, butt a division right through the country. We have followed closely what has been
46
said by your Lordships, including the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to see whether we cannot obtain the highest measure of agreement that is possible.
I will refer shortly to the economic position of the country, which dominated so much of our consideration of the gracious Speech last year. We are engaged in an effort to stop inflation and to redeploy a larger proportion of our resources towards exports and investment. It is fair to say, I think, that the indications are that we are moving in the right direction. Retail prices have remained steady for six months, and the gap between imports and exports is smaller ages have risen more than prices in the last year and, what is of great interest, consumption has risen only slightly—about one per cent. This suggests strongly that savings have increased. I think that we can trace an increase in savings from the recent rise in small savings, in the fall in overdrafts and the repayments made on hire purchase. All this is encouraging.
We have to continue the policies which we are pursuing at present. For that reason, we propose to introduce a Bill to place the control of hire purchase on a permanent basis. I do not suggest that it will always be necessary to control hire purchase, but the Government feel that they should be in a position to do so, should they consider it to be necessary. Up to the present time, control has been exercised under Emergency Powers, and the Bill will enable us to dispense with these Emergency Powers. I should add that the main impact of the existing regulations will remain unchanged, at least for the time being, so that in fact the Bill will simply be changing the basis of control, and not the nature of the control itself. The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, mentioned the question of subsidies. I think that we are all broadly agreed that consumer subsidies are not good in principle. They are expensive to the Government and, above, all, they are wasteful, because they artificially reduce prices and do so in places where it is not necessary. I think that everyone will agree that it is desirable to concentrate such funds as are available where they are most needed.
The noble Viscount, Lord Birdwood emphasised the need for technological education and referred to the quality

47
element in that education. I have been abroad recently and was immensely struck by the volume of education which is being done in some countries. It seems to me that in the present interest in education there is a danger that there will be too much emphasis on volume and not sufficient on quality. None the less, I can say that we are going ahead with the building of the necessary accommodation. Local authorities have been told that up to the end of 1959 they can construct £40 million's worth of building for technological education. Already eight colleges for advanced technology have been. designated, and the awards to be made by them are now being examined by the National Council for Technological Awards, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord. Lord Hives.
Our economic future depends on technology, but I think that technology is even less important than labour relations. The best technology in the world will be useless unless the relationships between those who have different responsibilities in industry are harmonious. We often complain about the number of days lost by strikes. It is interesting to note that up to September this year the number of days lost was substantially lower than that for the same period last year. At the present time, the figures given by the International Labour Organisation show the United States of America to have five to ten times as many days lost per 1,000 employed as we do, and the figures in this respect are more favourable to us than to Australia. Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, India and Japan, but not so good as to Germany and the Netherlands. I think the recognition of the importance of this subject has been brought out by the conference held by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, referred in such charming language yesterday. This indicates the high importance which we attach to this particular subject and to the need of understanding its nature.
I feel that I should say something on the paragraph dealing with European trade, perhaps one of the most important paragraphs in the gracious Speech. What I should like to emphasise is that this matter is still at the stage of consideration; and, in any case, the proposals cannot be brought into effect for a consider-
48
able number of years. But one thing of which I am sure is that we cannot stand still on this matter. We shall have to take a decision of some character or another. We know that the Messina countries have been considering proposals which look like leading to a Customs Union. We could, of course, stand outside this, but it would almost certainly mean that we should have to compete in Europe over a tariff barrier; and to compete with Germany in such circumstances would, I think, put the industries of this country under a serious handicap. Only certain outlines have been made public by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I ask the House to recognise that the general lines are of a tentative character. I do not want to pretend that we have reached anything like finality.
What we have in mind is a situation where we should be able to continue our general policy of free entry of a large range of Commonwealth goods, together with reciprocal preferential arrangements which we enjoy at the present time. We would exclude all agricultural produce needed for human and animal consumption. This means that our agricultural policies will not be affected. We would retain the right to protect our trading with countries outside the European area in the manner which we think most suited to our commerce; that is to say, broadly we would allow the continued importation of raw materials and food and be free to protect our own production in our home markets. I do not disguise the fact that there are risks in such a policy, but no policy in this matter is devoid of risks. Clearly, I think there are substantial advantages. These are large issues, still subject to discussions and consultations which will continue, and I am sure it will be necessary in due course to have a full debate in this House on the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the Anti-Dumping Bill. As he knows, for a long time we have been trying to discourage export subsidies, and, indeed, we have been fairly successful in doing so. Nevertheless, we have thought it right that we should take this further step to take powers to protect ourselves in cases where subsidising or dumping continues. Of course, we will administer this in conformity with our international obligations under G.A.T.T. and under O.E.E.C. I should like to make it clear, however, that this legislation is not aimed

49
at genuine low-cost competition, but at those cases in which imports are clearly subsidised or dumped and which do harm to our domestic industry. I feel sure that this will be genuinely welcomed in the House.
I would say only a word or two as to the legislation about shops. This is a further instalment of legislation recommended by the Committee which met under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers. The former Bill that we passed—namely, the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act—was also based on the recommendations of that Committee. At the present time the law affecting shops is quite out of date and we hope to bring it more into line with modern requirements. I should now like to say a few words about the Film Bill, in which I expect the noble Lord. Lord Archibald, is interested. We are continuing what is generally known as the "Eady Plan" on a statutory basis. We hope that in due course it will be possible for the film industry to stand on its own basis without support but we think it is necessary that this form of assistance should continue to ensure that film production maintains a fairly high rate.
I should like to refer briefly to the question of nationalised industries. We have never been very fond of nationalisation as a method of management, but we have from the first taken the line that the nationalised industries must be run in the most efficient possible way. The gracious Speech mentions that there are two of them which we are tackling, in a manner which I hope will be broadly acceptable, because we think that this is the way in which they can best serve the public. I would say only this about the railways. I am certain that for three purposes the railways remain, and will always remain a vital requirement to the public. The first is transport of freight in bulk; the second is the carriage of passengers for long distances; and the third is the carrying of what I may call daily passengers. It is essential that these services should be maintained. We know that the modernisation scheme has been put forward but the financial results of that scheme will take time to mature, and in the interim period difficulties may occur.
50
For those reasons, we propose to make special advances up to £250 million from the Consolidated Fund to cover revenue deficits which the Commission will incur during the period of rehabilitation. These loans will be liable for interest, but for a limited period the Commission will be authorised to borrow additional special advances for the interest payments. All these advances will, of course, have to be repaid in due course. As the White Paper says:
"There is ample precedent in similar circumstances tot permitting undertakings, both public and private, to capitalise payments of such interest t and to raise additional money to meet them."
We very much hope that this will in the end enable tie railways to operate in a sound, businesslike way using the most enlightened principles of private enterprise. This is something which, I may say, has already been achieved in the Air Corporations
I would now say a word or two about electricity. Careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Herbert Committee, and the Bill which will come for ward is largely based on the Report of that Committee. It is, I think, important to recognise that the Herbert Committee was the first full-scale review of a nationalised industry by an independent Committee appointed by the Government. It is therefore of special interest. I think it is Appropriate that these alterations in stricture should come at the present time, just when the first nuclear power station has come into operation and is feeding electricity into the grid. We will proceed, on the basis which will always be our approach to nationalised industry, whither we regard it as the best way of running the nation's activities and serving the public or not.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned subsidence caused by coal mining. I am glad that he welcomes that Bill, which will be based on the Turner Report. The Coal Mining Subsidence Act, 1950, covered structural damage to small dwellings only. Experience has shown how hard it is to draw a line between small and large he uses, and between houses and other kinds if property. In general, local authorities are not protected for damage to their set vice pipes. It is sometimes felt that thus puts an unfair burden on the rates. We propose an effective remedy by introducing a comprehensive measure

51
that will require the National Coal Board to afford all land, buildings and service pipes the same degree of protection that is to-day given only to some small dwellings under the 1950 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the question of salt and other mines. I cannot give him an answer on that matter but, of course, ample opportunity will be given to ventilate that point.
As I expected, the noble Lord gave his views on rent control. This is a thorny subject, and I am glad that the noble Lord went as far as he did, without committing himself, in saying that the Rent Acts are not all they should be. That, at least, is some concession on his part, and I think it is putting it very mildly. The real fact of the matter is that rent controls are unfair to almost everybody. They are unfair to the tenant, who pays in certain cases a different rent from that of a neighbour living in exactly the same sort of house. They are unfair to those living in dilapidated houses which the landlord cannot afford to repair. They are unfair to landlords and, indeed, unfair to the country, because the most important thing of all is that our precious stock of houses should not be allowed to degenerate into slums. We have since the war built about 2½ million houses—that is about 20 per cent. of the houses in this country. Although I am aware that this is a bold measure. I think it is necessary that this difficult subject should be tackled. I am given to understand that the Bill is to be published today, and therefore I think it would be unwise for me to comment in detail on it at the present time.
I have only one other point I should mention, and that is regarding the police. The Government's attention has recently been drawn to certain weaknesses in the smooth working of the negotiating machinery for the Police Service. The reason was that statutory regulations which give effect to pay awards cannot operate retrospectively. The Government have decided that it would be right to remedy this defect, and the result will be to enable future increases in police remuneration to be given effect from such date as may be agreed in negotiation or recommended by arbitrators. It will also make it possible to carry out the recent award of the arbitrators to the Police Service. The Government have
52
decided that this legislation shall also extend to the Fire and Probation Services.
I think I have covered most of the points in the gracious Speech and I hope I have been able to explain some of the Government's proposals. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, in saying that this is a heavy legislative programme and that The Times is wrong in saying that the programme is not particularly heavy. I am sure that we have a very heavy Session before us, and I know we shall be able to count upon the assistance of the noble Lord in seeing that these Bills are made as good as we can make them.
3.54 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it falls to my lot on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in your Lordships' House, to make critical comment upon the contents of the gracious Speech in so far as it deals with economic and industrial matters—in other words, upon those aspects which confront us when we consider the problem of how we are going to earn our daily bread. Before I do so, may I, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his most generous references to the work of the Opposition during the last Session. I hope he will not misunderstand me when I say that as he was speaking the thought went through my mind of the alleged comment of a young and, I am afraid, rather materialistic young lady who, when a gallant gentleman kissed her hand, said, "A kiss on the hand is so nice, but a diamond ring lasts a lifetime." Therefore, I feel I must support my noble friend Lord Silkin when he said that it matters not what you do with your Lordships' House, you will always have trouble and be confronted with difficulties until you have tackled the most materialistic problem, the economics.
Your Lordships' House has played a magnificent part as a revising Chamber. Now a revising Chamber has to be peopled by men who are willing to do the drudgery of legislation and of committee work—not coming down once now and again and making a brilliant speech upon some altruistic subject which will capture the headlines of the newspapers, but going on with reforming and revising Bills such as the noble Lord mentioned—the dry-as-dust Copyright Bill, and Bills of that description.

53
My noble friend was quite right. It is a very hard struggle to have an effective Opposition in your Lordships' House, and the day your Lordships' House does not have an effective, intelligent and virile Opposition, it will cease to play its allotted part in the Constitution of this country.
Having said that, may I say one personal word to the noble Viscount Lord Hailsham, who will take on the difficult task of replying to this debate at the end of the proceedings to-day? I sympathise with him and admire his courage. I suppose of all Her Majesty's Ministers, he has had the most strenuous time during these last two weeks. To come here and tackle this job—a subject about which I remember he once said from the Back Benches of your Lordships' House, he knew nothing—is, I think, a feat that will fill us with admiration. He has my personal good wishes.
May I now deal with a number of matters that appear in the gracious Speech. I think that by far the most important is the one which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, raised, and that is the principle that there shall be a free trade area in Europe. That is the most momentous proposal that has appeared before Parliament and this country for many a long day. I can assure the noble Earl that it will receive the approbation of this side of your Lordships' House. If I were to make a personal comment, it would be that I am a "whole-hogger".
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM):
A what?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: A whole-hogger, and I hope the noble Viscount is one, too—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have never been anything else!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will not say in circumference, but in enthusiasm, because we must, as a country, if we are to maintain a reasonable standard of living for our people, increase our markets. We cannot go on giving a high standard of living to 50 million-odd people with only 50 million-odd customers. We cannot do what we want to do and build up our balance of payments so that we can play our part with our colleagues in the Commonwealth, as
54
we did before the war when the interest on our overseas investments was the only thing which balanced our trading account. The balance of trade of physical imports and exports was against us then. I have asked the question in your Lordships' Souse many times: How do you think we are going to reverse it when the markets of the world gang up against us aid we have potential competitors in the export field that we have never had before? I really cannot see one difficulty, one criticism, that could be made of our entry into a European free trade market, which is not doubled trebled or quadrupled if we stay out of it.
Let us be honest about this matter. We have no option, unless we want to see German goods go into the European market tariff-free, and the tariffs against our own goods increased. Cold shudders went clown my back while the noble Earl was speaking. He seemed to be so apologetic. He wanted to impress your Lordships that this was only tentative that he was not committing anybody. I sincerely hole that Her Majesty's Government will not be content with entering into this European free trade market because they have to do it. I hope that they will go into it with initiative, and will lead the way.
Of course we shall have criticism; of course industry in this country will be divided, because there are so many in industry in (his country to-day who want to freeze the pattern of our industrial make-up into the old pattern that has been the same for fifty to a hundred years. When there are crises, such as the one e are up against in our balance of payments, one hears so many people standing up and saying, "Oh, yes; of course the old order of things has gone. We must have new ideas. We must revolutionise our thinking." Then they cast sidelong glances over their shoulders and lay all their plans to make sure that no such silly things are going to take place in their vested interests. Of course, some industries in this courtly will have a shaking up. If we and Her Majesty's Government believe that competition provides the incentive for efficiency, then, if we cannot compete, let us change the shape of some of our industries into more modern industries. There is a field open to us there as gigantic as anything we have had in the past.

55
I know that I shall cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in what I am about to say now. One of the criticisms about our entry into the European free trade market is that it will affect trade with our Commonwealth. I beg to suggest to your Lordships that that is nonsense. I happen to be one of those who believe that Imperial Preference is on its way out, not through anything that this country can do, not through any proposal of free trade in Europe, but by the very alteration in the economies of the countries in the Commonwealth: some countries in our Commonwealth to-day are lowering their tariffs on foreign goods and putting them up against British goods to protect their secondary and consumer industries: and that process will go on.
I know that the bulk of exports from the Commonwealth to this country will be in food and materials. The proportion has been put at 90 per cent. These imports are outside the scope of this free trade arrangement, so that only about 10 per cent. of the total can be affected. If we examine what that 10 per cent. is made up of we find that hardly any Commonwealth trade will be affected adversely by our entry into the European free trade market. There have been so many specious arguments—and, of course, arguments there will be. I shall listen to the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Inchrye, as I always do. with respect. I expect he will put up a good argument. This idea that our trade with the Commonwealth will be adversely affected has not appealed to me yet perhaps it will after I have heard him speak.
The next subject I want to mention is one to which the noble Earl has referred, though instead of alleviating my fears he rather underlined them. I refer to the statement in the gracious Speech that:
"A measure will be laid before you to replace the existing emergency powers in respect of hire-purchase and hiring agreements and to regulate borrowing by hire-purchase finance companies".
What is now subject to Emergency Regulations will go on the Statute Book. I believe that it was the Leader of the Conservative Party in another place who said that the great object of the Conservative Party was to create a property-owning democracy. My experience of the
56
policies of Her Majesty's Government has been that they prevent anybody from owning anything, either by hire-purchase or in any other way. I would invite the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, if he will and if he can—and, if he cannot, I will not press the point—to tell me what is the Government's policy on the general principle of hire purchase—and I do not mean temporary regulations made to amend an immediate loophole. Many people in this country look upon hire purchase as a contraption of the devil, but I hold a different view. Hire purchase, properly regulated, so as to guard against the abuses that we have had in peace-time days, is a proper investment in an individual's propects for the future.
Why has hire purchase grown? Hire purchase grows with the increase in taxation because everybody has an income but no capital. The youngsters to-day the boys and girls who want to set up homes on their own, could never do it without hire purchase. I think it is something to be encouraged, not derided and hampered. I would not make comparisons in the state of hire purchase or time payments between America and this country but nobody in that great country ever pays cash for anything. A story is told of the young couple who, when their first child was born, paid the doctor's bill on "hire purchase" or time payments. Every twelve months he used to say to the young couple, "Go on. Don't you want it spread over another twelve months? Haven't I another bill due? The young girl said to the husband. "Do you mind, dear? Do you think the child will ever belong to us?" I want to know whether the Government are really out to foster hire purchase, with all the necessary safeguards, because once this measure gets solidified in the Statute Book I have serious apprehensions as to whether it will not he more of a hindrance than a help.
I now come to what I think may be one of the most industrially contentious parts of the gracious Speech, and that is the proposal to get over the financial difficulties of the railways. I do not intend to go into any great detail, but I want to ask the noble Viscount who is to reply for the Government whether he will see that Her Majesty's Government put down a Motion in your Lordships' House so that the White Paper

57
which deals with the matter can be debated before the legislation is introduced. It is far better that Her Majesty's Government should put down a Motion to take note of this White Paper, because that will give them an opportunity of explaining a number of the matters contained in it. If Her Majesty's Government cannot do that, perhaps we can have consultations through the usual channels as to whether we on this side of the House shall be able to do it.
Let us look at this matter for one moment. What is the simple arithmetic of the proposal? We have heard of the anticipated deficits, and the borrowings which will be made to balance those deficits. The loans and the interest on the loans will come to a sum of approximately £450 million—that is the simple arithmetic. And that sum is to be treated as a capital charge, instead of being written off as lost. I am not going to say that that is not the right way of doing it—it may be. There are other ways. I make the suggestion to the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, who I know will have a good deal to do with this matter in his capacity rot only as a Cabinet Minister but as the spokesman in your Lordships' House on these matters, that it might be better to attempt to arrive at the loss that has been made up to date, write it off as a loss, and say to the British Transport Commission, if I may use the vernacular, "From now on you have got to wash your face." That may be another way—I do not know.
I think that those of your Lordships who are knowledgeable on this subject should have an opportunity of debating it, because it is a very serious matter. Those of your Lordships who have read the White Paper must be impressed with the fact that it presents the country and Parliament with a serious problem. Parliament has first to make up its mind on this question: Are they going to take politics out of the railways? We have all played lip service to that principle, not only in this House but in another place. In their Report the British Transport Commission lay the blame for the deficits chiefly on the interference suffered from various Governments on the grounds of political expediency. Can we do as the Report suggests, and take politics out of the railways? Is it within our nature to do it?
58
Railway fires, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, knows, are political "dynamite." Do you think we can do something which must be done if this is not to be a recurring problem and the£450 million repaid upon what I once heard termed the "Kathleen Mavourneen "system—" It may be for years, or it may be for ever"?
Are the railways of this country going to be told that they are to be given a free hand in their charging arrangements, in the same way as any other commercial and industrial. I firms? We have a Tribunal "footling around" for months and months, and before one application for fare increase; leaves the Tribunal, another one is being formulated. What the Transport Commission say in this White Paper, and keep on saying, is that they will never get into a healthy financial position while they have to wait months and months for their charges to be allowed to catch up with increasing costs. Are we going to de that? If we do that, are we going to have the railways in the highly competitive position which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk envisages?
Modernisation will not cure the difficulties of t railways. They cannot be cured and put on a financially sound and a profit-earning basis until they are moderrised, but to-day the commercial ins met in British railways is archaic. They have not the slightest idea how to sell their services to the British public. The system is antiquated. As the noble Viscount knows very well, you well have glittering chromium-plated trains; you can have diesels; you can have this, that and the other in regard to modernisation; bat if you do not know how to sell what you have got to the public (and, of course, the roads start off with a Feat advantage over the railways, with a door-to-door conveyance), and unless you have good commercial selling brains, as well as engineers, you will never salve this problem.
Those are some of the things that this White Paper "shrieks" at one. I can only hope that when we come to debate it we shall have some replies from the Government. It is no good their bringing forward legislation and retaining this top-heavy structure of tribunals and conditions which existed when the railways had a complete monopoly of the transport of this country—which was in the days of George Stephenson or Queen

59
Victoria, or halfway between the two. I am hoping that the Government will wake up to that fact before it is too late.
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, mentioned the Herbert Report, which I have read. I shall be watching closely for this legislation. This is a critical Report. There are only one or two words that I am going to deal with from this voluminous Report, the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Electricity Supply Industry, which in paragraph 506 comes to the definite conclusion that
"the industry has not done as much hard thinking as it should about the economics of electricity supply."
I brought this matter before your Lordships House, and I asked the Government whether they would hold an inquiry into whether, with the development of the railways and the development of atomic power, it was necessary to have this huge super-Grid. What has happened is that the electricity supply authorities of this country in putting in the home the amenity of electric light, have ruined the amenities of millions of people in the countryside. I still have the feeling that the day will conic when we shall find that we have wasted millions and millions of pounds. I put this thought to the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk. Perhaps he would like to have an inquiry into the hydroelectric schemes of Scotland; and he and the Government might consider whether the millions of pounds spent on damming the watersheds of the Highlands have not been wasted. Certainly I should imagine that in the years to come the whole outfit will be found to be a dead loss.
I think we are up against a big problem with the economics of the supply of electricity in this country, and when the legislation comes forward we on this side of the House may have something to say upon that matter. There is one other point about the electricity supply of this country: I regret that the terms of reference to the Herbert Committee did not include, and I am sorry that Committee did not extend their inquiries into the archaic methods adopted for consultation with citizens of this country whose amenities are desecrated by the laying of these lines overland. Perhaps we may hope that something more will be heard on this subject when the Oliver Franks Committee reports; but the public in-
60
quiry system connected with the activities of the Central Electricity Authority in this country is a disgrace to any country which calls itself a democracy.
There is only one other point I want to mention. I am tempted to do so because it was mentioned by the noble Earl. Lord Cromer, in his excellent speech, upon which I would offer him my sincere congratulations. The noble Earl went outside the gracious Speech and said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 200, col. 17):
"I believe it is true to say that the general opinion is that the road programme is not being treated with the urgency which it merits."
A masterly understatement! In the gracious Speech of last year Her Majesty then said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 7):
"My Government will press forward their far-reaching programme of road construction and improvement."
I am not going to say anything about the scope of the Road Plan. We all know it is inadequate; but that is not the fault or the responsibility of the Minister of Transport: he is governed by the Treasury. But the speed and the forcefulness with which the programme agreed to by Her Majesty's Government is going forward is a disgrace. There is procrastination and circumlocution at the official level. The whole atmosphere in the Ministry of Transport appears to be to do everything possible to delay getting on with the job instead of doing everything possible to speed up the programme of Her Majesty's Government.
We all hear that this work is a vital necessity, yet I could cite cases where many months have elapsed between the holding of a statutory public inquiry to listen to objectors and the time at which the Minister conies to any conclusions on the report of the inspector. Months elapse while we are jamming up our roads. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this matter seriously, because at the earliest possible opportunity we on this side of the House will put down a Motion on this particular issue and will press Her Majesty's Government very hard to give an account of their stewardship of the plan which they announced to the country.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he knows that, broadly speaking, I support him in this matter. Does he intend

61
to put down the Motion of which he speaks in fairly wide terms or on a very narrow front, in some technical detail?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I had intended to consult with all noble Lords in the House who are interested as to what the terms of the Motion should be, for this is not a Party matter. We have co-operated on all sides on this question and we have to put a spark behind Her Majesty's Government.
I finish by repeating the words of my noble friend, Lord Silkin: Her Majesty's Government may rely on having all the help and helpful criticism that we on this side can deploy to see that their legislative programme goes out, at the end of this coming Session. a credit to the House, as legislation always has been in the past.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
4.25 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl, the Chief Whip could tell us whether it is proposed to have a statement, and, if so, when would be a great convenience to know.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, may I say that I understood that a statement was to be here at four o'clock, but it is evident that the Prime Minister is not yet ready with it.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
4.26 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the gracious Speech from the Throne contains the intimation that a Bill will be introduced early in this Session to grant independence to the Gold Coast. There are noble Lords in all quarters of the House who are acquainted with that territory, and I had the honour of being Resident Minister there for some months towards the end of the war, following the far longer and far more distinguished work of my noble friend Lord Swinton. Our tasks were economic, in connection with the war effort, and not
62
political. Nevertheless, I am sure that I voice the feelings of all noble Lords who have teen in that territory, and, indeed, those who, though they have not been there, have watched its growth, in saying that we wish Ghana, this new independent State within the Commonwealth, all good fortune in the years to come; and we shall welcome her as an independent State within the boundaries of the all-embracing British Commonwealth.
The only other topic upon which I should wish to address your Lordships for a very short time is that which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, quite rightly said will be debated at much greater length on sonic fu tire occasion—that of the common market for Europe. I find myself in no great agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, except in one remark which he made: that the decisions of Her Majesty's Government on this matter are decisions which ultimately will decide the economic future of this country for many years to come. While therefore, it would be inappropriate to debate this project in any detail, I feel that in the debate on the Address it is right that we should comment broadly upon the proposals, having particularly in mind what was said by the noble Earl, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaste—that Her Majesty's Government are still pondering upon these matters and have not yet come to any final decision.
Her Majesty's Government have to balance the risks as against the possible gains, and the main case put by the advocates of the European markets is that the six Messina countries will raise their tariffs and include us from those markets, which is a state of affairs which we cannot afford I to contemplate. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was typical of the ardent protagonists of the scheme—I think he called himself a "whole-hogger"—in presenting a picture which is not quite exact. The kind of picture he painted, which I have heard described in words elsewhere, is that of song 250 million people in Europe, shirtless, ill-equipped, half-starved and all just longing to buy British goods. In fact Europe is the oldest industrialised area in the would, and its possibilities of further great expansion must be weighed against the loss of the ability to obtain a preferential I position in new world areas

63
which have not been exploited and developed to the extent of those we see in Europe—those new areas where expansion is almost limitless.
The pattern of our export trade is, broadly. 50 per cent. to the British Commonwealth and Empire, 25 per cent. to Europe and 25 per cent. to what I would call miscellaneous areas. India. Pakistan, New Zealand and Australia—who dare visualise the tremendous industrial expansion possible in those areas over the next twenty-five years? On this idea that we tie our economic policy directly to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade coupled with this European free trade area proposal, I would submit that the Government must consider whether, in going in for this free trade area scheme, they will be, in fact, surrendering a chance of negotiating a priority position in those areas of vast expansion and already tremendous value which I have just mentioned.
I wonder whether the Government consider that in supporting the European free trade area and still tying our economic policy to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade we are, in fact leading a movement away from the dollar area to a European area of sterling discrimination. That is what it is. Would it not be better to consider becoming the leader of a movement away from the dollar area to a sterling area, first of the British Commonwealth and then of Europe a sort of a two-tier system, as it were, with a first preferential position for the Commonwealth and a second preferential position for Europe.
I should like to submit to your Lordships one more consideration which deals particularly with the home market. In return for membership of this European free trade area, we are to open progressively our home markets to the full blast of free entry and free competition from the six Messina European countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, many industries would suffer from such a blast of uncontrolled competition. I submit that they would not suffer necessarily because they are inefficient but because the corresponding goods made in certain other countries are made by workers who have lower wage standards or in industries which benefit from hidden subsidies for exports. The motor
64
industry, the jute industry and some part of the textile industries and other major industries are protesting to-day against the dangers of this common market. I must say that I hope the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when travelling in this country in order to make speeches from public platforms, will go to Coventry, to Dundee and to the textile areas and say from the platforms of the Labour Party: "If we cannot compete—get out." I do not believe that if he did that, he would get a very hearty reception either from the audiences or from the political candidates standing for the Labour Party in the particular districts concerned.
It is axiomatic that a healthy export industry must depend on a sound home production. I do not believe that uncontrolled entry of the Volkswagen into this country can really assist the workers in the motor industry in Coventry to produce cars with greater efficiency for our home market and for our export markets. The reply, Lord Lucas of Chilworth says, is: "We must be competitive." That is a perfectly reasonable reply if one is willing to define what "competition" is. It may be—and here I suggest we come to the truth—that this project is as much political as it is economic. I believe that this policy, to succeed, would require uniformity in standards of wages, uniformity in standards of hours, uniformity in the social burdens that the industries of the various countries would have to carry. It would need also strict regulation for the abandonment of assisted exports such as is the declared policy of France at the present time.
The variables in cost structure which determine the final prices are: transport, taxation, social services and direct wages. Those are the chief variables. How can we expect British industry to compete unless these things are regularised throughout Europe, standardised throughout Europe and finally supervised throughout Europe? As I see it, we are in some danger of losing control of our own wage policy and labour conditions which we have built up in this twentieth century, if we go into this European free market without insistence by Her Majesty's Government upon adequate safeguards. The danger is that, if we have to compete, we shall find ourselves having to conform to the lowest level of our competitors as regards wages and hours

65
of work. The speed of a convoy travelling across the sea is the speed of the slowest vessel.
I believe that organised labour is at the present time studying the implications of this proposal. I am sure that they will be very much alive to the possible dangers to the standards which they have built up and which they are so rightly keen to safeguard. Some time ago, at a Conservative Party Conference, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Butler, said that he saw no reason why we should not double our standard of life over the next twenty-five years. I hope he will be proved to have been right. But let us be sure that we do not take on our shoulders an obligation to double the standard of life of 250 million people in Europe in order to achieve our objective.
My Lords, I am interested in this subject, as is everyone else in Europe but primarily I am interested in the British Commonwealth and Empire where the greatest chances still lie and fewer dangers, I believe, exist. It is because I see these difficulties, which I hope Her Majesty's Government will, allow me in all humility to put forward, that I have tried to flash the red danger sign before we go too far in this direction.
4.40 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I want to take one paragraph in the gracious Speech: that dealing with Her Majesty's Forces. One could roam over a large area of organisation and scientific and other subjects, but I want to confine myself to one: that is, the activities of the Armed Forces during the past few years. In this time the Forces, especially the Army, have had to undertake a large number and a great variety of tasks—some uncongenial; none, I think, easy. The war in Korea was a long way away and of no very obvious or urgent danger to this country. Yet, without those incentives, the Army played its part to the full, not only ably but with a gallantry and devotion which I think has never been surpassed in its history and in the histories of the regiments concerned.
After the evacuation of the Canal Zone—and its final phase was by no means a pleasant task for the Army—a large number of troops went to Cyprus, where they fully expected to have the
66
amenities and comforts of a well-organised peace station. I myself saw some of the beginnings of this, and very promising they were; but these expectations were not to be fulfilled. Instead, the Army found itself faced with the most distasteful task which it is ever asked to perform—that of acting in aid of the civil power, and doing so in an atmosphere of terrorism and atrocity. When carrying out this sort of task, against an opponent so vicious and treacherous as E.O.K.A., it is of the first importance that the troops should feel absolutely confident that they have the fullest support of the Government behind them. The ramming of Athens Radio and the issuing of information over the Cyprus Broadcasting Service were a great help, and are being a great help, to the Forces there. I realise the difficulties which the Government had in coming to the decision to carry out those two things, but, none lie less, to the men on the spot the start of this propaganda must have seemed very slow.
Then there was the Mau Mau emergency in Kenya. This was not so difficult as the emergency in Cyprus but, equally, it meant sudden moves of units from their normal stations, with the consequent domestic upheavals; and the actual operations themselves in the dense forests of the Aberdares and Mount Kenya were totally different from those for which the troops had been trained. Yet here again, the Army did its duty satisfactorily.
Subsequently, the Services—and again especially the Army—were faced with the difficulty of the reservists. These Reservists had bee n called up in circumstances of peculiar difficulty. On other occasions, such is Korea, reservists with their units went straight to the scene of the emergency, and the reason for their presence was perfectly obvious. On this occasion the reason was not so obvious to them, and for a good reason, although I think it is not generally realised in the country. I believe there is a general view that reservists are not called up unless there is a fight ready for them to go to. To cake that view is to jump too far ahead And to ignore the important and delicate period when diplomatic negotiations may be becoming strained, and even it danger of foundering. It is at this moment that the Armed Forces first appear over the horizon, not to go

67
into immediate action but purely as a deterrent.
In peace the Army is organised primarily to take part in dealing with an emergency of an internal security nature, such as in Cyprus and in Kenya, where in neither case was there any question of calling up reservists. When the Army is required as a deterrent it is essential that it should obviously be prepared to carry out any task which may be required of it. The organisation must be stepped up; reservists must be called up; specialist units, which do not exist at all in peace time, and for which the Army Emergency Reserve was specially designed, must be formed. In my view, that is what happened on this occasion, and it was by no means for the first time. In 1914 when the naval reservists were called up, war was by no means a certainty. They were called up in order to make it quite clear that we were prepared to take action, if necessary, in the hope that that might make the Germans think again. On another occasion, in the Shanghai emergency of 1927, when there was a danger of the Chinese Army overrunning the International Settlement, reservists were called up. A naval force and troops, not only from this country but from other countries interested in the Settlement—the United States, France, Japan and other countries—were sent to the support; and on that occasion the operation was entirely successful. The strength of the garrison in Shanghai was so obvious that the Chinese Army bypassed the city, and there was no question of any destruction or damage being done.
On the present occasion, reservists were called up as a deterrent, and, as was almost inevitable, there was very little for them to do, and, as I have said, no very obvious reason for their being called up. In the circumstances, I think the vast majority of these reservists conducted themselves extremely well. They answered the summons of recall without any question, and they accepted uncomfortable living conditions and other difficulties, with a great deal of grousing, I have no doubt, but just as part of the job. But one cannot ignore the fact that there were incidents, which were not only regrettable and potentially dangerous but might well have undermined the deterrent purpose of
68
their recall by showing an apparent weakness and faltering in our stand. Here I think that one must say that the retreat of the Party of noble Lords opposite from the stand they took on August 2 may well have made it much more difficult for the reservists to appreciate and accept the need for their presence. If it is not taking too much upon myself, I should like to add, in all fairness, that any questions or debates in another place which have directly concerned the troops have been conducted with great restraint.
Then there was the attitude of the Press, of all shades and opinions. The Press, I think, did a grave disservice, not so much to the Army, which is well able to look after itself, but to the men themselves, by headlining the comparatively few incidents which there were, so branding these men, reservists who had been called up and who were doing their duty under difficult conditions, as disaffected and ill-disciplined. A particularly glaring case was the publicity given to the first figures of one of the parties returning to Germany from leave. The final figure of this particular party was not 202, as published, but 22, who were apprehended as absentees, with 10 more who had not been traced. If one takes the worst view, and adds the 10, the percentage is 2 per cent. of absence; and if one gives the 10 the benefit of the doubt, the figure is 1·6 per cent. These are not alarming figures of large-scale absence on the part of reservists.
I should now like to consider how the recall was handled. It appears to me that it was well organised. It was carried out in three stages, so that the number of men who had to be exempted because they were in essential civilian jobs could be checked; and no unnecessary man was, I think, called up. Here I should like to add that the policy of the Government in maintaining the period of National Service, instead of reducing it, did, in fact, mean that many fewer reservists had to be called up than would otherwise have been the case. There are, however, some aspects of the recall which I should like to put to my noble friend who is to reply, and of which I have given him notice.
The first arises from the point I made about the difficulty of ensuring that the

69
reservists realised why they were required. It seems to me that a strong directive should have been issued from the highest level, explaining the great importance of making it quite clear to these men why they were needed, what their duty was, and why, in some cases, it was necessary for them, apparently, just to stand by doing nothing. That applies particularly to the supply services and to the specialist units, whose presence is essential if the Army is required to undertake any kind of operation, but who, until that happens, often have hardly anything to do. It may be that a directive like this was issued, but I have not heard of it, and I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell me.
Then there was the question of National Service grants. The machinery for dealing with these grants was based on the known numbers and regular intakes of the young National Service men who were being called up in the ordinary routine. When it was decided to call up reservists, surely it should have been realised that there would be older men, with heavier financial responsibilities; and it should have been realised also, that, whatever one may think of hire purchase—and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has already dealt with that matter in some detail this afternoon—it is a well-known fact that a large amount of household equipment is bought under that system, so that any sudden reduction of income can cause grave hardship in a home. I feel that an immediate Cabinet decision should have been taken to short-circuit some of the machinery for the issue of these grants, and so make certain that no unnecessary hardship was caused to the men who were called up to honour their engagements.
Having said that—and I think it needed saying—I should like to touch briefly on the Services at the present moment. It is a subject that one obviously has to touch on with great delicacy, because a great deal is still obscure. It seems to me that the forces, and especially the Royal Air Force, were given two tasks in the recent fighting. One was a normal one of reaching a decision as quickly as possible. The other was a difficult one, and one which I doubt has ever been issued in a period of fighting: that
70
the decision should be achieved by inflicting as few casualties as possible—in complete contradistinction to the normal directive in war. As I say, it is too early Li say much on this subject, but it seems at present as though those two objects have been achieved. Finally, having dealt with the reservists and their problems it some detail, I want only to add that, though I have no doubt Her Majesty's government will release as many reservists as possible as soon as possible, I think it would be unrealistic to expect any immediate and large-scale releases.
4.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, my intervention will be short and on one subject only, and happily it is not contentious. My purpose is to draw attention to the fact that in the gracious Speech no mention is made of any intention to introduce the domestic legislation prerequisite to a ratification of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, or to ratify them. On November 1 the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, told your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government were replying to the formal inquiry of the President of the International Red Cross whether the United Kingdom would ratify those Conventions. As the words of the Lord Chancellor in reply are textually important, with permission, I will read them. He said [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 199, col. 1348]:
"We are replying that although certain legislation is required before we can ratify the Conventions, Her Majesty's Government accept the Conventions and have every intention of applying their provisions should the occasion arise. The Egyptian and Israeli Governments have both signed and ratified the Conventions and we shall consider ourselves entitled to receive from them the treatment provided for by the Conventions."
A similar statement, as your Lordships will know, was made in another place. In the present circumstances, it is surely a matter of great concern to large numbers of families that all rights possible under these 1949 Conventions shall be secured both for members of the Armed Forces and for civilians.
It was in 1949 that our plenipotentiary signed these Conventions; and, therefore we have had some seven years to ratify them. Meanwhile, fifty-eight other States have now ratified or adhered to them. The difference in these two words implies no more than whether they were or were

71
not originally signatories. We must have studied every aspect of these Conventions during the four months in which they were debated and agreed to by our plenipotentiary, who then signed with one reservation—and this is important—that which regarded the death penalty. It has therefore been competent to the United Kingdom for these seven years to ratify, subject to confirmation in its ratification of its own reservation on the death penalty, if this is still desired.
It was as far back as 1952 that the International Red Cross Committee urged ratification as a pressing recommendation, and in that same year Mr. Selwyn Lloyd stated in another place that the United Kingdom intended to ratify these Conventions. Still this has not been done, although the matter has been brought repeatedly to the notice of the Department concerned. As a layman, I find it difficult to assess the value of words which are no doubt easy to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor; so, although I appreciate that his words on this subject, read in conjunction with the Conventions, appear to secure to our nationals the benefit of those Conventions, I am left with some unresolved difficulties. If the statement of Her Majesty's Government last Thursday is fully sufficient, why does the President of the International Red Cross urge us to ratify?
Is our present indeterminate position which, I submit, is hard for a layman to understand, causing needless anxiety in this country? In view of the commentary of the International Red Cross Committee on those Conventions—which I now quote partially in these words:
"Ratification can alone give these Conventions obligatory force"—
have we now achieved the optimum protection for our nationals by last Thursday's declaration, or only something less than the optimum, although the optimum was offered to us seven years ago? We have been told that certain legislation is a prerequisite to ratification. This, after all, has been common knowledge for years, and, surely, the drafting of such legislation must have long been studied and prepared in view of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's undertaking of 1952, to which I have referred. Yet Her Majesty's
72
Government have not even now promised action in this Session.
Summing this up, I think your Lordships and the whole country are entitled to know two things. The first is why, in this matter, we have refused to accept our proper leadership in supporting to the maximum the greatest of humanitarian organisations and have remained the only great Power which has not ratified. The second is whether Her Majesty's Government now intend, within this Session, to introduce the domestic legislation prerequisite to ratification and then intend at once to ratify these 1949 Geneva Conventions. I hope the noble Viscount who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government will be able to answer these two questions unequivocally. Finally I would say, as I have said already, this matter is no new one to certain Departments, and I know that familiarity breeds contempt. But there is no breeding without familiarity, and I trust that my familiar words may breed action.
5.7 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I hope I shall not be thought to be speaking out of turn or breaking the convention that the day is primarily to be expended in talking about matters other than the Egyptian situation. My trouble is this. I have told the Lord Chancellor (I am sorry that he cannot be here at the moment, and I quite understand the reason) that I am sitting in the Privy Council at the present time, and I shall not be able to be here until half-past four to-morrow. Our discussion starts at half-past twelve, and it would be quite idle for me, not having heard what has taken place in the previous speeches, to say anything about it then. Therefore, I have indicated that I have no option but to say to-day what I have to say. I understand perfectly that no answer may necessarily be given to me to-day. I shall not have the smallest complaint if it is not, but it will perhaps be convenient if I state what I conceive the position to be.
There is another reason why I should not sit silent at this time, in view of the most important statement which the Lord Chancellor made the other day, in which he expressed his understanding of our obligations and rights under the Charter of the United Nations. For the Lord Chancellor both as a man and as a lawyer, I have the most profound respect, but

73
that does not prevent my saying, as I must, that on that particular occasion I thought he was quite wrong in the view he took. I thought that if the principle which he enunciated were to apply, it would virtually destroy the whole structure of the United Nations Organisation. I feel strongly about this matter, because the first speech I ever had to make in this House, on August 22, 1945, eleven years ago, was to move that this House agreed with our becoming a party to the United Nations Treaty. I expounded then my understanding of the obligations into which we were entering. I was followed by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—whom we are all so glad to see back in the House again—and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who were both kind enough to say that they agreed with the interpretation that I had put upon the Instrument which I was quoting to the House.
I did point out (I was dealing particularly with the question of the small nations and, as the noble Marquess knows, one of the many difficulties of those who played a prominent part in getting this Treaty signed was the anxiety of the small nations), that, despite the many imperfections of the Treaty, which I hoped would improve and grow with time [OFFICIAL. REPORT. Vol. 137, col. 113]:
"The real protection of the smaller States lies in the fact that such unanimity … is a prerequisite of action. … The great Powers have given the most solemn undertakings that they will not use force for national ends."
With those observations I think the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who followed him, expressed their general concurrence.
There is one other observation I should like to make about that debate. If there is one man—though we do not see him very often these days—who has done more in the cause of peace than any other, it is the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. He said then about the Treaty we were then discussing [col. 136]:
"… it is well to recognise the really great change it does make…in our conception, that the decision to fight or not to tight in preventing aggression is no longer in the hands of the individual nation but is in the hands of the majority of the Security Council."
That is why we all said and believed that the effect of this Treaty was to do away
74
with what are called "private wars" and to substitute for private wars the conception and idea of a public war—that is to say, a war which was waged under the auspices and with the permission of the United Nations. It is just because I venture to think that the principles laid down the o her day by the Lord Chancellor, which I shall examine in a moment, are so far-reaching that they would tend to eliminate altogether the distinction Between what I have termed private and public wars that I feel I must make my observations in regard to them.
Your Lordships are all painfully familiar now—we had all this discussed the other day—with the various Chapters and Articles dealing with this matter. There is Article 33 which says that you must first of all try to pursue pacific means—as, of course, we quite rightly did. Then comes Article. 37; then Article 39:
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression."
Those are all Articles, but the broad general conception is that stated in Article 2, which includes the following:
"3. All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All men hers shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against he territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
That is the broad conception. On that we shall all agree.
My difference with the Lord Chancellor arises, and I think arises only, on the construction which he places on Article 51, the "self-defence" Article. And here, let me stress that it is a question of getting our facts right. The facts at the present time are so obscure (I am not making the smallest complaint; I think I shall probably have a I your Lordships in sympathy with me) a at one really does not know what is happening or where one is. I am not blaming the Government—I do not suppose they know either. They may do, but it is not certain what Colonel Nasser is doing at any particular time. The fact that he does one thing on Monday is no guarantee that he is going to do the same or Tuesday. Therefore, we are in a position of great difficulty. I believe that the confusion starts in this way. We

75
have confused, or people tend to confuse, two wholly separate things. There was, first of all the dispute about the Canal, which started, of course, by Colonel Nasser seizing the Canal—as I thought, and still think, in plain breach of the obligation he had entered into. With regard to that, of course, there were all the negotiations the comings and goings which we remember, Mr. Menzies going out and finally the submission of the matter to the Security Council. Then there were suggestions, for which India was largely responsible, that ways should be found of dealing with and making effective the accepted principle. That is the one thing.
The other thing, which is quite different I think, was the war which broke out between Israel and Egypt. I understand—I think I am right—that the Lord Chancellor did not justify the action which we took on the ground of the dispute about the Canal. I think I am not doing him an injustice when I say that he justified the action we took by reason of the dispute which had arisen between Israel and Egypt; and, of course, the armed operations which were taking place. It is essential to get that fact plain. The Lord Chancellor's proposition was this. Israel had invaded Egyptian territory. Whether or not she was justified is a matter which does not concern me; at any rate, it is quite obvious that she had the most extreme provocation. The noble Earl, Lord Home, said the other day that he did not condone her action. I suggest that, if we do not condone her action, it is very difficult to condone our own—but I will discuss that in a moment.
Anyhow, the position was this. Israel had started that war, and we thereupon decided to present an ultimatum to the parties; and, when Egypt did not accept that ultimatum, we decided to occupy a strip of territory, the Canal territory. The Lord Chancellor said that we were entitled to do that on the ground of selfdefence—self-defence, my Lords! Going from the general to the particular, he said that the three grounds on which we were entitled to do it were: first, danger to our nationals at Ismailia; secondly, danger to shipping and, thirdly, danger to the valuable installations on the Canal. There were those three grounds.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): Would the noble and learned Earl add one word? The second ground was, of course, danger to shipping and the crews on the ships.
EARL JOWITT: Certainly; and the crews on the ships. The noble and learned Viscount said—and, of course, this is plainly right—that if we are entitled to go in and use force, then manifestly the degree of force which we use has to be dependent upon the resistance which we are likely to meet. With that I agree. I was not very impressed, if I may say so with the arguments derived from a hundred years ago or forty years ago, or any time ago before this Treaty, because this United Nations Charter set up, as we believed, a wholly new system. It is that system that I want to consider.
If the Lord Chancellor's propositions are right, just consider what is left of the Charter and how far he has gone. Let me put the case of Russia and Hungary. There are Russians in Hungary, and the Russians in Hungary, for very obvious reasons. I should imagine. were in considerable danger. Is it really suggested that Russia was therefore entitled to invade Hungary to protect her nationals? because, if so, we may as well realise that this Charter can be scrapped. But I submit to your Lordships that if we are entitled to occupy the Canal Zone because Israel starts a war against Egypt, then a fortiori are not the Russians entitled to go and occupy Hungary, if her nationals are in danger in Hungary? Let us consider, if you like, China, when China becomes, as some day I suppose she will become, a member of the United Nations. Let us suppose that she is a member now. Would she be entitled to invade Hong Kong because the Chinese in Hong Kong are the subject of riots or are being set upon? Equally, would she be entitled to go and invade Singapore? Take the case of Greece and Cyprus. If you can find a handful of Russians anywhere—what is so dangerous is that they are likely to place themselves there if it suits their purpose—is it supposed that the Russians can go and protect their nationals?
I beg the Lord Chancellor to see whether he cannot in some way limit his propositions, because, to my mind, the consequences of those propositions, if they are expressed in the way in which

77
the Lord Chancellor expressed them, are so grievous. Take the case of the Israeli aggression. As I have said, we do not condone that; Lord Home would not condone that Let us just consider if that is wrong in the view of the Government. Israel had been subjected to blockade; Israel had had her ships shot at when they went up the Gulf of Aqaba; Israel had been threatened that she was going to be wiped off the face of the earth by all these people who were ringing round her and she gets her blow in first. That is said to be an aggression which cannot he condoned. I ask your Lordships to consider this: by what possible reasoning can it be said that the aggression by Israel is not to be condoned arid that our aggression in going into the Canal Zone is allowed by the Charter? I cannot see that these things are possible. As I said before, if it means that these exceptions are to apply in this way, then this Charter, on which so many of us worked so hard, and in which so many of us believed, although we knew not to be perfect, is not worth the paper it is written on. I am not going to attempt to define—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Will the noble and learned Earl forgive me for interrupting? I was here when my noble friend said that Israel's action was not to be condoned. I may be wrong, but I had the impression—my noble friend is not here—that what he meant to say was that he was neither condemning it nor endorsing it. But I quite agree, on a literal interpretation of the words, that the noble Earl can quite rightly say what he has said. But I think it would be unfair to my noble friend, if I may say so, to take the words literally, because I had the impression that lie was putting on them the meaning which I have pointed out.
EARL JOWITT: Be it so I am quite prepared to accept that. I do not want to press the matter unduly. The noble Earl may not have committed himself, but the point remains good. If our aggressions can be condoned, then I cannot see why Israel's must not he condoned; and at the present moment it has not been.
Let us see what help we can get from Article 51 of the Charter. I think that often these words are overlooked—
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collec-
78
tive self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken"
the necessary measures; and the measures taken are to be reported at once. Where is there armed attack? I agree with the Lord Chancellor, who made this quite plain. He says—and he is quite right—that the wore s must not be strictly limited to armed attack. You may have a factory in your own territory which is manufacturing poison gas or death-dealing germs, or "what have you?" and which is sending out these things against a neighbouring territory. That would be so like armed attack that it is reasonable to consider that it should be included. The fact that "armed alts" is mentioned indicates that the sort of case in mind is something equivalent to armed attack. In various treaties, countries have tried to define what they mean by aggression, and these are the definitions which have been given: "Declaration, of war"—that is obvious; "The invasion by armed forces, even without a declaration of war"; well, that also is obvious. Other definitions are: "Attack by armed land, naval or air forces, even without a declaration of war, upon the territory, naval forces or aircraft of another State"; "Naval blockade of the coast or port of another State"; "Aid by a State to armed bands operating in its territory invading the territory of another State, and failure to deprive the armed bands of aid or protection."
Those are the cases to which Article 51 might apply. But it has never been applied, so tar as I know to anything like, for instance, the protection of property, even valuable property. We have a pipeline through Syria which has been cut. Are we entitled to invade Syria to put hack our pipeline? I think we should consider exactly where we have gone to and where we arc being led by this definition. Be it remembered that although in the first instance, it is of course essential that a State itself should judge whether or not there has been an armed attack, or the equivalent of an armed attack, in the long run that question must he submitted to some international tribunal which will have to pronounce upon it. Our own Nuremberg Tribunal pronounced with regard to this in the year 1946—I say "our own", but: I mean the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, with which both the Lord Chancellor and

79
myself had a certain amount to do. This is what they said in their Judgment:
"It was further argued that Germany alone could decide whether preventive action was a necessity and that in making her decision her judgment was conclusive. But whether action taken under the claim of self-defence was in fact aggressive or defensive must ultimately be subject to investigation and adjudication if international law is ever to be enforced."
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I ask the noble and learned Earl a question?—I did not catch whether he gave the authority for these various definitions of armed attack, blockades and so forth. I gather it was not in the Charter but came from some other source.
EARL JOWITT: It is from treaties. All these various treaties are stated in Oppenheim's International Law, Volume II—I think in Section 52 (g). The noble Viscount will find them set out there. They are mere illustrations of what has happened. The learned author of Oppenheim says this about them. He talks about the difficulty of definition and he says:
"If you get a definition, of course, you get rigidity, and that is rather against defining. On the other hand, it is useful. A definition of aggression may also be instrumental in making it more difficult for States to pursue a policy of treating the conception of self-defence as identical with the defence of any interest to which they attach importance."
I know the Lord Chancellor will not mind my criticising what he said but I think that the fallacy underlying his speech was that he confused the conception of self-defence, and the circumstances which give rise to it, with the defence of any interest to which he attaches importance, great importance, even tremendous importance. I think those two have been confused. To my mind, that is the difficulty we are in.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, will the noble and learned Earl allow me to interrupt on one point, for I am following him, as one would expect, with the closest attention? Is the noble and learned Earl going to deal with my main point: that Article 51 does not cut down rights of self-defence under customary international law?
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, yes, it does. I think we have here a new conception under this Charter, and I think Article 51 is drafted as an exception,
80
although I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord. Chancellor that there may be grounds for saying that one must not consider too narrowly the words "armed force". If we are going back to previous history, we are altogether overlooking the fact that this was a new start, a new conception, the new conception being that we were doing away with the idea of private war and substituting what we believed to be public war that is, war under the auspices of the Security Council. Therefore it is not legitimate to go back and look at old history as though it were embedded in the Charter.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor did not say anything about "police" or "fire brigade" action. Those may be useful descriptions of the particular type of warfare which is going on, but of course it is war. As one newspaper wittily observed to-day, one would not give to the people who take part in this war police or fire brigade medals. Obviously not, for this is war, no matter what one may call it. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having "butted in" at this stage, even inappropriately: but, having regard to the position which I occupy and the speech which I had to make in b introducing, the Charter, I should put myself in a false and invidious position if I sat silent and said nothing in regard to these matters. As I cannot very well be here to-morrow, I am sure your Lordships will forgive me for coming and speaking to-day.
Let me add one or two other considerations on a slightly different point. I have always believed as I have often said that the ideal system for this country in all its present difficulties is to have what I call a bilateral foreign policy, a foreign policy to which poth Parties can contribute and on which they can make their agreement. We have plenty to fight about in domestic issues and it is a very sad thing that we should find ourselves at loggerheads in diverging on foreign policy. Like the noble Marquess, I had the honour of being a member of Mr. Churchill's great Coalition from the very beginning. The strength which we an derived throughout the whole time was from the fact that we had the whole nation solidly behind us. I may be old-fashioned in wanting a bilateral foreign policy, but that is my belief and nothing will shake it, and I will do everything I can to see that it is brought about.

81
One other thing: in thinking of these things, my belief is that ultimately the only solution will have to be some kind of world government. It will not come in my lifetime, nor the lifetime of anybody here present—well, it might; perhaps I am being more pessimistic than others. But it will not, and cannot, come until there is a change of heart in Russia, until Russia is prepared to play the game properly by us. Looking back in history, 100 years is not a very long period of time, though it is a very long tune from the point of view of one human life. I do not know how long it will be before this tyranny is passed away, There is this satisfactory aspect: the fact that Russia has sent the sort of letter she has sent and has made the threats she has made has done something to bring the Parties in this country together, and certainly has done something to heal the breach with America, though I believe it would be idle to pretend that grievous damage has not been done.
I should like to ask the noble Marquess a question, if it is convenient for him to tell us the answer: I do not understand how long it is proposed that our Forces or the forces that replace them, when there is a suitable replacing body, are to stay. The noble Marquess may prefer not to answer, or perhaps cannot answer at the present time; but is this the conception: that we, or the forces which supplant us, will stay in the Canal Zone only until the Israeli-Egyptian war is finished; or shall we stay there until we have got some satisfactory settlement in the Middle East instead of these constant threats of war which have been making the whole place miserable. Or is it that we, or the replacing force, shall stay until the problem of the Canal is solved? I am really not clear in my own mind, for documents, resolutions, counter-resolutions and so on, have followed each other so quickly that one gets confused. It would help us to clarify our minds if the noble Marquess could, at some time, though not necessarily to-day, make some statement telling us what is the conception in the mind of Her Majesty's Government as to the length of time during which the force should stay there; for I, at any rate, am confused.
I hope your Lordships will realise that have tried to state firmly the views which I have honestly held. I need hardly
82
say that I very much doubt the correctness of my awn views, from the fact that they differ from those of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, whose judgment generally I prefer to my own. Perhaps on this occasion I am stubborn, for I venture to think that here my own judgment is to be preferred. At any rate, feeling as I do on this matter, I felt that I ought not to pass over the subject in silence, since it might be thought that I was agreeing with views which, however cogently and sincerely expressed were views with which I was in complete disagreement.
5.38 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, first of all, I should like to offer a sincere apology to the House for having been absent during the earlier part of the debate; but as I am sure they will understand, I have been concerned with other duties connected with the present situation; therefore, I am sure that they will forgive me for not being in two places at once. I hope the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will also forgive me if I do not fellow him this afternoon into that portion of his interesting and very important speech which dealt with the foreign situation. As he will know, the intention Which has been agreed to between the Parties with regard to this debate is that we should try to concentrate as much as possible on home affairs to-day and deal with foreign affairs to-morrow. I do not say that in any sense on criticism of the noble and learned Earl; because I know that he cannot be here to-morrow, so that if he were to speak at all he had to say what lie was going to say to-day. He asked certain very specific questions and I am trying to arrange for my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who will be replying to the debate, to answer those questions tonight, in order that the reply may be given while the noble and learned Earl is here
For the information of the House however, I should like to repeat a brief statement which has been made this afternoon in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. It is very brief and, if the House will permit: me, I propose to use his own words:
"I am very grateful to the House for allowing me to intervene for a few moments again as I undertook to try to

83
do yesterday. I hoped to be in a position to give the House rather more information about the discussions which are going to take place at the United Nations this evening, but the position is that we are at this moment in close and detailed discussion about the various forms of the United Nations resolutions to come before the United Nations tonight. We are in consultation with the Commonwealth Governments, the United States Government and the French Government. The Foreign Secretary is still pursuing these discussions at this very minute. I think, therefore, that the House will give us some indulgence if I am not in a position to make any detailed statement about that until the discussions are concluded. I am very sorry to have to say it, but I think the House will understand. At this stage it really would not be possible for me to go beyond that. I wish that I could, but I think the House will understand that it is clearly impossible.
"I ought to add something on the military side, which is that since the cease-fire took effect we have had reports that Port Said is under control and that our troops have taken up defensive positions. The greatest efforts are being made to clear the obstructions to the harbour as quickly as possible. As regards our offer to assist in clearing the Canal generally, while again I do not want to forestall what may be said at the United Nations I think I should make it clear that we are now clearing obstacles in the area which we control and we should like to continue to clear obstacles in any other area, and gladly would do so under the authority of the United Nations."
The situation is, as your Lordships know, very delicate, and in some ways, I am sorry to say, still rather obscure. I hope, therefore, that the House will not press me more closely to-night. Nor do I intend to deal with the greater part of the gracious Speech which deals with home affairs.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess for a word of explanation? He stated that discussions were proceeding with Commonwealth
84
Governments. May I take it that that includes the Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly—all Commonwealth Governments.
My noble friend the Earl of Selkirk has already spoken on most of the issues of home policy and there will be further opportunities later. But there are just two subjects with which I have thought that perhaps I, as Leader of the House, ought specially to deal. There is, first the question of reform of your Lordships' House, which, as you will have seen, finds a place in the gracious Speech. I have no doubt that I am not the only person—not the only person on any side of this House—who is glad to see it there. I am perfectly certain that there are many of us in all Parties who know this House and who now feel that some amendment of the composition is necessary—and it is only amendment of the composition that is in question—if the House is to carry on and discharge its duties efficiently.
It is a very great tribute to the competence with which your Lordships conduct your work that so many people outside the House think that no reform is necessary. I am always being told when I go outside the House that the House is doing very well as it is: and I think that it really does its work extremely well. But no one who is not constantly here can realise on what a narrow margin we are performing our duties. I often gaze with mingled astonishment and admiration at the achievements of Peers like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who have to master at very short notice such appallingly complicated technical measures as the Copyright Bill and the Road Traffic Bill. They do it with great skill: but the strain must be terrible. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has already mentioned this subject to-day. He said—or I understood him to say—that any great measure of change should have the fullest consideration by the country. But I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will support me in saying that this question has in fact been under constant consideration now for forty-five years. I think he once quoted a remark made in 1911 to the effect that it "brooked no delay": and he poked

85
some fun at us all for not having done anything about it since. Surely Lord Silkin would not say that that was no consideration.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would the noble Marquess allow me to say that I imagine that the whole country has been aware that some change was necessary. What I meant to say—and what I hope I did say—was that the country ought to have the opportunity of considering fully the nature of the change that is being proposed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With that I would entirely agree. No doubt, in due course, that will be done. But I would certainly not accept the noble Lord's doctrine that the presence of a subject in the Election Manifesto of a Party does not justify that Party in proceeding to deal with that subject. If your Lordships remember—I am sure the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will remember—in 1945 we were put in a very difficult situation because there was a large Labour majority in another place and a large Conservative majority here. We decided that if any measure had been on the Labour programme at the Election we should regard it as having been approved in principle by the country. For that reason we passed all the Government's nationalisation Bills and did our best to improve them, though in principle we disliked them intensely. I hope that Lord Silkin's new doctrine does not mean that lie wants us to alter our practice in that respect.
VISCOUNT SHERWOOD: My Lords, I hope the noble Marquess will not think that because he and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, had agreed on this question, all noble Lords on these Benches are in agreement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have never thought that the Liberal Party are ever all in agreement. But I entirely agree, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and everyone else will agree, that some means must be found, if the House is ever to be a really effective body, of bringing in new blood and also of enabling existing members to come here. That means first, legislation, in some form or other to deal with Life Peerages, and it also means, in some form or other, some payment of the expenses of Peers. That was a point
86
raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to-day and agree warmly with what he said. We cannot expect people to do their duty if we do not make it possible for them financially to perform that duty. The noble Lord is, if I may say so, banging at an open door over this. I am also inclined to agree with him—though I should not like him to regard this as a firm statement of Government policy—that there is a great deal to be said for separating the payment of the expenses of Peers from any general scheme of reform. I think that is a matter well worthy of consideration.
Lastly, in addition, of course, to the question of Life Peerages, and the expenses of Peers, which have to be tackled in some form or another, there is the problem of the hereditary Peerage, which is different but also equally complicated. I do not pretend that all this makes the problem easy to solve. Indeed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, knows far better than I do, it has defied the efforts of the most experienced and intelligent men in the country for the last forty years—or rather of a great many of the most intelligent men arid nearly all the most experienced. But the Government have been working very hard on the problem and there have emerged the outlines of a plan which should, I hope and think, avoid all the most obvious objections that have been adduced against preceding plans. The nature of our ideas I cannot divulge today, but I hope to do so in due course. If time permits—and I hope it will—the Government intend to submit proposals to Parliament during the present Session. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not say any more on this topic to-day.
LORD SILKIN: Will the proposals take the form of a White Paper or Memorandum?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will certainly consider that when the time comes. It is not at all the desire of the Government to hustle legislation on this subject through Parliament. We are as anxious as the noble Lord that, when the time comes, it should have due consideration by everyone.
LORD REA: May I ask whether it is proposed to appoint a Select Committee or any Blither Committee to go into this matter?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, no. The Government's view is that they have thought the matter over very carefully and that in due course they will submit proposals to Parliament. I am afraid that another Select Committee would lead only to further delay.
There is only one other subject about which I should like to say a word to your Lordships. It is an extremely thorny one—the question of capital punishment, which also finds a place in the gracious Speech. I do not think that I need recall to your Lordships recent events with regard to this subject. We all remember the introduction of a Private Member's Bill in another place: the decision of the Government to allow a free vote: the approval given to the vote in another place: and the rejection of the Bill in your Lordships' House. I do not propose to-day—it would be quite unsuitable—to retrace the arguments in favour or against that Bill. This is certainly not the time for that.
I would only made one comment. Attempts have been made in certain quarters to represent this controversy as only a conflict between the two Houses. I do not agree at all. What I believe has emerged from all the discussions which have taken place on this question, inside and even more outside Parliament, is that there is a very deep and conscientious cleavage of opinion throughout the country, held by people, who on both sides hold strongly to their own views, for and against the death penalty. That obviously must put any Government—at least any democratic Government—constitutionally, in a position of immense difficulty. As I see it, their duty must be not to try to satisfy only this or that section of opinion on either side of the controversy, but to try, so far as they can, to meet the wishes of the greatest possible number of their fellow-citizens.
It is certain that a great many people favour the abolition of capital punishment. It is equally certain that a large number favour the retention of capital punishment. But, in this latter group of retentionists, there are a great many people who are not happy about the law in regard to capital punishment as it stands at the present time. They want reforms and modifications to the existing law. I thought that the case of these people was put with great power during
88
the debate in your Lordships' House by the most reverend Primate, by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avon-holm, and others who took part in that debate. The Government, while retaining what they consider, in the light of their responsibility for maintaining law and order, as essential in the present law feel that they must seek a solution which they believe would be acceptable to the largest number of people in Britain. It is on those lines that the Government have been working; and when the Bill is produced, as I believe it will be at a very early date, I think that it will be found that a very real effort has been made to get the points raised by noble Lords whom I have mentioned in our debate. That is all I want to say about capital punishment.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, will the Bill be introduced into this House or into another place, or would the noble Marquess not wish to say?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it has already been introduced in another place to-day. Therefore the noble Viscount will be able to see the terms of it immediately. I am very sorry to have had to interrupt the debate for so short and fragmentary a speech, but it seemed to me, as Leader of the House, that there were one or two questions on which perhaps I ought specially to give guidance. That I have tried to do. Other urgent and grave problems of foreign affairs I propose to leave, if I may, until to-morrow.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, before the noble Marquess sits down, would he be good enough to tell us what has happened to the Betting Bill which was promised for this Session? If the Government have made up their minds about what should be in it, perhaps they would consider publishing a White Paper to allow the interests concerned to discuss the matter before the Bill is introduced.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Viscount was not here when I spoke. I dealt with that point, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who raised it earlier on. What I said was that in the course of consultations it had been realised that there are differences in opinion, and it was felt

89
desirable to get the widest common measure of agreement before presenting a Bill.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, for guidance. He has said that he would be speaking to-morrow on foreign affairs, and although we shall very much look forward to hearing him, as a matter of procedure could he tell us whether other noble Lords can speak to-day and tomorrow as well?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I understood that the Opposition proposed to put down an Amendment on the subject of foreign affairs, which would enable them and other noble Lords to do just that. If I am wrong, we should all be in considerable difficulty.
LORD SILKEN: My Lords, in my opening speech I said that the position was changing so rapidly that any Amendment put down at six o'clock might be out of date at seven, and that I was waiting for a statement from the noble Marquess before we decided exactly what would be necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps I might have a word with the noble Lord after the debate and see what we can arrange if we cannot have an Amendment, I think we may have to strain the rules of the House to enable us to do what obviously ought to be done.
5.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, it had been my intention to deal almost entirely with domestic matters to-day, but after the speech of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I feel that I cannot well do so. However the argument about procedure may be settled, I have no intention, even if it is possible, to inflict myself a second time on your Lordships in the course of this debate. I have often listened to the noble and learned Earl with admiration and respect, and therefore it was with the greatest regret that I heard him make a speech this afternoon which I think did him less credit than any I have ever heard before. It seemed to me that his speech was merely legalistic quibbling and forensic hair-splitting, in order to attempt to put Her Majesty's Government In a false position.
90
Let us consider what were the alternatives to the action taken by the Government on the Suez question—that is to say, given the position in which they found themselves. I cannot absolve them altogether from blame from being in that position, because they ought never to have left the Canal. It would have been far better if, when the Canal was first seized, a force had been sent in, if that ware physically possible. But, given the situation in which they found themselves had there not been a well-nigh instantaneous intervention it is probable that on a very short space of time the forces of Israel would have cut the Egyptians to pieces and heavy fighting would have taken place on the Canal itself. That would have resulted probably in the sinking of a considerable number of ships belonging to other nations as well as our own, in heavy casualties among their crews and in a much worse destruction of the Canal itself and of the installations which are vital for its running than could otherwise have been done by ordinary sabotage.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I ask, on the noble Earl's argument, would Russia equally have been entitled to intervene?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I do not think that that intervention either is worthy of the noble and learned Earl.
We now come to the second phase of what would have happened. Apart from the destruction of the Canal and possible loss of innocent lives, it is almost certain that with I a period of days the Arab States world have attacked Israel from all sides, not for the benefit of Colonel Nasser, w horn they heartily dislike, as does practically everyone, but simply because they have this undying and unreasoning hatred of Israel, for reasons into which we need not go at the present time, because it would take far too long. Israel could hardly have stood up for long to a concerted attack from all the Arab States. We should then have seen her annihilation, and the annihilation of her population in blood—a massacre unequalled since the Socialist Government left India, with the resulting deaths of anything up to 5 million people.
Not only that, but Colonel Nasser's ambitions were very great. In his wilder moments, King Farouk saw himself as a

91
modern Haroun Al-Raschid, taking the place of the Caliph and ruling over all the Arab States surrounding Egypt. Colonel Nasser's ideas went further. We know that he is already endeavouring to make trouble right down to East and Central Africa. We know that he has been supplying arms to the Algerian rebels—I make no comment on whether the French Government have been wise or not in their handling of Algeria. We know that Nasser throughout the whole of the East is endeavouring to stir up the Moslem world, and would turn the whole of North Africa and Central Africa down to Lake Chad, and East Africa as far down as he could, into one blood bath in order that he could appear as the newest modern sawdust Cesar. Of course, his ambitions could never be fulfilled. If they were, Russia would soon see that he was liquidated, because Russia cannot stand anyone having so much power; and it is probable, also, that his own Arab allies would deal with him, because, as I have said, the Arabs like neither Egypt nor Nasser.
But that is the position with which we were faced, and that is what Her Majesty's Government had to contend with, as I have no doubt they knew well. All the legalistic hair-splitting in the world will not alter the fact that we were faced with a position that was truly desperate. I must confess that even to-day, with the cease-fire, I cannot regard that Middle Eastern position with other than the gravest apprehension; and I am sure that both Her Majesty's Government and the French Government have in mind the possibility that a ceasefire may be used, as in Korea, merely for the building up of new so-called Egyptian forces. I hope they are watching to see that the Soviet are not pouring in a couple of army corps by air so that they may make a sudden attack upon us when the time comes.
It is known that the Soviet are having heavy troop movements near the Persian border, in East Germany and in Central and Eastern Europe, and we know well that when movements like that are made they are not made for fun: they may be only precautionary, but then again, they may not. Because a couple of the chief gangsters came to this country some months ago and were,
92
apparently, affable, a certain number of people seemed to have come to the conclusion that the Soviet leopard had changed his spots. Well, he has not: all he has done is to have a bath in whitewash; and the whitewash is coming off already, if we may judge from what has been happening in Hungary. Here I may say that I expected rather more sympathy with Hungary to come from the Benches opposite. It is not landlords and capitalists who are being liquidated there, but the Hungarian peasants and working classes.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, I think we expressed in the plainest possible terms our sympathy with Hungary. We all feel the same in this House; there is no division about that whatever.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am only comparing the proportion of time spent in discussing the two issues. As I have said, Her Majesty's Government found themselves in a difficult position indeed, and that position was not improved by the gross and most unfair attacks made upon the Prime Minister. I have known the Prime Minister now for some thirty-seven years since we were both undergraduates at Christ Church together. I have not always agreed with his politics. Sometimes I have considered that he has gone much too far in the direction of trying to achieve peace, sometimes to the extent of taking undue risks. But there is one thing that no one who knows the Prime Minister could rightly call him, and that is a warmonger, or one not devoted to the cause of peace. Yet we get one organ of the gutter-Press putting up in banner headlines "Eden's War"; and another Sunday newspaper, hitherto regarded as respectable, saying in its editorial that the time has passed when a British Government should invade a small country just to protect its own commercial interests. The Prime Minister throughout his whole career has deserved better than to be treated like that; and he has deserved better than some of the epithets and accusations thrown against him in another place, as well as in the country outside and in the Press.
I do not want to take too long, so I must condense my remarks. With regard to what the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House and we are all delighted

93
to see him here again—said about the reform of your Lordships' House, I hope that this will be done, if possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, in a way which would meet with general approval. This, however, is rather doubtful, and I must warn the noble Marquess and the Government that if any attempt is made to interfere with the undoubted right of the hereditary Peerage to sit here—not necessarily to vote, but to sit and speak—then there will be considerable and implacable opposition from many Peers. Personally, I see no objection to the creation of a reasonable number of Life Peers, with payment, of course, and anything which can assist the Opposition in their undoubtedly arduous task.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spoke of the difficulties of carrying on while there was a Socialist Government and Cabinet in another place and a large Conservative majority here. But that point was dealt with very well by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House. He painted out, quite correctly, that at no time during the period of office of the Socialist Government had any single measure ever been turned down, or so grossly amended as to be unacceptable to another place, if it had appeared on the programme of the Socialist Party. Therefore, there is no reason to anticipate that in the future there will be any change. We can run the Constitution of this country in our own way quite well, and I, personally, would join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as to whether the present arrangement could not be logically justified. Certainly no-one would fail to agree that it works remarkably well, and also that the prestige of your Lordships' 'House stands high in the country—and in some cases, higher than that of another place.
We have heard a certain amount about the Capital Punishment Bill. I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on grasping the nettle firmly and at once. Although there was in another place a narrow majority in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, I think there is no doubt whatever that there is in the country a decided majority against it. If a referendum could be taken—and I often regret that a referendum is not part of our Constitution—I think it would be found that the people of this country are in favour of the retention of hanging in extreme cases
94
in a proportion of something like six to four. But probably there are ten to one in favour of some modification of the present position, and I am certain that if, as I anticipate, Her Majesty's Government produce a good Bill, we shall find little opposition in another place, less here, and wholehearted approval throughout the country.
There are many other points that have been raised on which I should have liked to speak, but I will say one last word on the subject of housing in Scotland. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind that we in Scotland have a more difficult position in regard to housing than is the case in England. The expense incurred by local authorities in building houses is becoming a crushing one, quite apart from the subsidy. In my own county, which is one of the most economically run in Scotland, our rates have just gone up by 2s. in the pound and it would hale been at least another sixpence if we had not had some reserves with which to cushion the shock. That means that, quite apart from a reduction in subsidy we shall have to reduce the rate at which we are building houses unless we are to impose an altogether too severe burden upon our ratepayers. I hope, therefore, that the Government will have special regard to the circumstances of Scotland, and will treat us with reasonable generosity and make provision for a certain amount of money to be given for the modification and bringing up to date of old houses, many of which for a few hundred pounds can be made infinitely more suitable for present-day occupation than modern houses of more flimsy structure, build at three times the cost.
6.12 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I shall be brief, partly because of the lateness of the hour, and partly because I sense in tie House a feeling that some of the domestic matters which we are discussing tend to be submerged in our general preoccupation with the weighty matters which will be more fully discussed to-morrow. I should like to mention that it would appear, from the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House is not only going to find the Liberal Party divided with regard to House of Lords reform, but may also find Members on his own Benches divided on that subject. I should like to be perfectly frank,

95
and to say, to round it off, that I think it more than likely that there will be division on these Benches on the subject also. Therefore, whatever else may happen when the measure comes before the House, it is assured of a lively and controversial reception.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in opening the Government's case to-day, was good enough to refer to me in connection with the proposals set out in the gracious Speech for continuing the lending powers of the National Film Finance Corporation, and the substitution of a statutory levy for the present voluntary levy. I hope that I shall not be regarded as uninterested in this topic if I confine myself to saying that I welcome the proposal to continue the lending powers of the National Film Finance Corporation and, to a lesser degree, the proposal for a statutory levy.
I should like for a few minutes to refer to another matter which is dealt with in the gracious Speech, and to which little, if indeed any, attention has been paid to-day that is, the reference to agriculture. The gracious Speech says:
"My Ministers will continue to make it their aim to promote conditions which will enable the agricultural industry to maintain its progress in increasing efficiency and to achieve the maximum economic production from our land."
These are, of course, quite impeccable sentiments. I might even say that it is a completely innocuous paragraph in the gracious Speech in fact, I might go further and say that it is practically an empty paragraph. It says nothing at all with regard to the Government's intentions for agriculture. I think that is unfortunate, because, as has been said in this House in recent agricultural debates, there is a lack of confidence in the industry at the present time. There is doubt as to its future. Is it safe to continue with high-scale production, with its greater financial risks, or would it be wise to go over to some measure of "dog-and-stick" farming, with its lower returns but lesser risks? That is the type of question that many farmers are asking themselves at the present time. The answers which they give depend, naturally, on their degree of confidence in the future of the agricultural industry of this country.
I should say, at this stage, that I do not expect the noble Viscount. Lord Hailsham, to reply to this subject this
96
evening. I know that he is privately knowledgeable on the subject, but I recognise that it is somewhat outside the scope of his departmental duties. I shall be entirely happy if, at an appropriate date, the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to the matter. I hope that it will very soon be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister to say something—and something much more substantial than is in the gracious Speech—that will increase the confidence of the farmers, because on the answers to these questions, as to what type of production they are to engage in in the future, depends the future level of agricultural production as a whole.
There is also, I am sorry to say, a lack of confidence in the Minister and in the Ministry. I will give one or two examples of the type of things which I believe have produced that lack of confidence. For some time now it has not been at a very high level, and I feel that it is, if anything, getting less. There was, for example the recent statement by the Minister of Agriculture about the difficult harvest we have had in this country this year. I noticed that the Minister has recently repudiated the suggestion. That there was any difference between the statement as made by him and the statement put out officially by the Ministry. It was merely, the Minister said, that his language was more colourful. I can assure your Lordships that it was not nearly so colourful as the language of the farmers who heard or read the statement, and who could find in it no resemblance to the harvest conditions which they knew and the harvest results which they and their neighbours had experienced. But whether we are going to take the "penny plain" version from the Ministry, or the "twopence coloured" version from the Minister, we are assured that the estimates contained in these statements were based on information collected by the officers of the Ministry.
I should like to ask that an early opportunity should be taken by the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary, to tell us something more about that, and about how the information was obtained. May I say, by way of background to that request that I was recently at a county executive committee of the National Farmers' Union. At that meeting, there was indignant repudiation of the

97
Ministry's statement as constituting a true picture of harvest conditions or harvest results. The question was raised which I am raising here, as to how the Ministry obtained the estimates on which that statement was based. Not a single one of these county committee men had been asked any questions by the local officers of the Ministry, and not one of them knew of any of his neighbours who had been asked any questions. It would seem strange, if the district officers were going round to collect information (I am not suggesting that they should accept all the answers they got; they could qualify them by their own assessment of what they saw), that not a single one of these county committee men should have been asked, or should know of any of his neighbours being asked. Until we are given some information by the Ministry as to how they get their information. I am afraid that many farmers will regard these statements as being based on nothing more than a "think-piece" by some of the officials of the Ministry.
It is very important that there should be confidence in Ministry estimates because what I have said about the estimates of this harvest applies also to the estimates made by the Ministry with regard to harvest yields. These harvest yields are, in some cases, used in part of the calculation of deficiency payments, as for example, in the case of barley. It is most important, if they are to have confidence in the industry, that farmers should feel not only that the Ministry figures are accurate but that they have been collected on some rational and known basis. The same point might be made with regard to the collection of figures relating to the returns which are made from time to time of earnings in the industry. I hope that the noble Earl will try to throw light on this whole subject at a fairly early date.
There is only one other example that I want to give of the sort of thing which has undermined confidence, and that is to be found in the disastrous experience of beef producers over the past many months. So many of your Lordships are yourselves farmers that I need not weary the House with details of how the system of the 52-week rolling average works. It is sufficient to say that it has failed to maintain the promised price level. The beef producers were in despair. Now
98
the Minister has come forward with the offer of some £10 million or £11 million to be used it the form of retroactive back payments. I should be glad if we could be given information at some suitable time as to whether that is in fact, as has been stated in some quarters, an additional butt en on the Treasury, or whether it only using up what would have been short-fall in the payments already provided for under the deficiency payments scheme.
I would crake two comments upon it. One is that, under the many varied and complicated marketing arrangements in this country, there will be many cases in which the back payment will go not to the beef producer out to someone to whom the Ministry do not intend it to go. In many cases it will go to the producer, bit there are a great many cases in winch the producer will not benefit at all from this payment. The other point is that the low price of beef over these past many months has affected the price of other types of cattle, stores, calves, barreners and so on, and all the farmers who have suffered from that low range of price will get no benefit whatsoever from the further payment that is to be made. I had intended to develop a further point, but in view of the lateness of the hour let me content myself by saying that I regret that there is not in the gracious Speech something more positive with regard to agricultural policy which would have brought greater confidence to the industry.
6.25 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the proposer and seconder of the humble Address have paid tributes to Her Gracious Majesty and Members of the Royal Family in terms which I cannot hope to emulate, but I should just like to make one comment. I do not believe that a Parliament has ever before been opened in the full panoply of peace-time ceremony at a time of greater strain and crisis. When I look at that single Throne on the dais, I am always reminded of the loneliness of Monarchy. I am sure we must all have felt a particular loyalty and affection to Her Gracious Majesty yesterday in that she had to go through that ceremony without the support at her side of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.

99
I am going to confine my remarks to-day to one subject only. I want to express my regrets that there is nothing in the gracious Speech which indicates that the Government intend to give any assistance to the hotel industry. At least, there is nothing in the gracious Speech which gives one directly the hope of that outcome, although one paragraph, that dealing with the incidence of the rate burden, says that the Government intend to review
"the incidence of the rate burden between different classes of property."
I hope that when that review is carried out the Government will give particular consideration to hotels. In my view, they should be treated for rating purposes as industrial premises.
When one appeals for a certain industry or a certain class of person, it sometimes, in fact usually, means an additional drain on our resources. In this case, however, I believe that assistance to the hotel industry will bring in a rich return of foreign currency and particularly of the dollar currency which is so vitally needed by this country. Already the hotels are the bottleneck of our tourist industry, and although there is a tendency for the number of visitors to rise each year, we cannot take many more unless we get more beds for them. I would remind noble Lords of the great extra potentialities of tourism which are likely to arise during the next few years. We are coming to the age of jet aircraft. It has been estimated that in four years' time there will be another 600,000 air seats per annum to bring passengers over the Atlantic. That is an enormous figure. Moreover, the third class air fares are coming within the region of practical possibility. I believe it is quite likely that people will be able to cross the Atlantic by air in a few years' time at a return fare of something in the region of £120. This will bring no benefit to this country unless we can house the people when they get here. Already we are losing visitors to Continental countries, either losing them altogether or they are limiting their stay here to two or three days and then going on to Europe for two or three weeks.
The costs of building a new hotel to-day are enormous. It is estimated that in the top class the cost is somewhere
100
around the staggering figure of £5,000 a room, and even in the medium-class hotel it is something in the region of £3,000 a room. Unless the hotel industry can get more help, these hotels will not be built. There are many suitable vacant sites in the West End to-day which are ideally suited for hotels, and unless they can be used for that purpose I think many of them will remain empty, because, as I understand it, the demand for office blocks is much less urgent than it used to be and it is unlikely that many more vast office blocks will be built in the near future. Compare what we are doing which is literally nothing, to other countries in Europe. I believe that no fewer than 500 new hotels have been opened in Italy during the past twelve months. Of course, some of them were small, but that is still a staggering total. Great assistance is given in Denmark, Sweden and Spain. In all these countries one can see brand new hotels in many cities, even in some of the small cities, nearly all the rooms having their own bath, toilet and shower. The new traveller is not going to demand great luxury, but the American, in particular, at least wants a room with a shower and a toilet; and we just have not begun to cope with that demand.
This is a serious problem and we shall lose the benefit of this vast potential of foreign currency unless the Government act quickly to help the hotel and the tourist industry.
6.32 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am very superstitious, and I observe that, including the Lord Chancellor, there are present thirteen Members of your Lordships' House. I only hope that nothing terrible happens to one of us in the next twelve months. I do not propose to mention more than once the names "Russia", "Egypt", or the "Suez Canal"; I propose to talk upon the subject which has been mentioned in the gracious Speech and which relates to a matter of great domestic necessity—namely, the reform as I understand it to be, of the Rent Restrictions Acts.
I do not wish to create any disharmony. One can observe a growing sense of harmony everywhere, especially in your Lordships' House; but I have an idea that the storm in the Suez Canal will be a mere academic discussion as compared with the hurricane which will arise

101
when the Rent Restrictions Acts are discussed. However, I am quite sure that in your Lordships' House, at all events, the Socialist Party will treat this matter with great decorum and restraint. Incidentally (I hope that I may be pardoned for saying so), I am never quite clear whether one should refer to them as the "Socialist Party" or the "Labour Party." But your Lordships know who I mean; needless to say, I mean the Party represented by the good-looking noble Lords who are seated immediately on my left.
So far as rent restriction is concerned, I am not suggesting for a moment that the housing problem has been solved or is anywhere near solution, but I do say that a large measure of decontrol will assist and not retard the solution of the housing problem. There are between 8 million to 10 million hereditaments which are controlled by the Rent Restrictions Acts. Of that number, about 5 million are in a state of what one might describe as "suspended animation"—they are owner-occupied but still alive to the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts should they be let at any time. I understand that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to free all those 5 million owner-occupied houses from the control of the Rent Acts. As to the remaining 3 million to 5 million hereditaments, we all know that some of these are controlled by what is known as "old control" and that others are controlled by what is known as "new control".
I see no point in floundering over this problem; I should attack it in a very bold way. The first thing to do is to free a number of these houses from control altogether, and I would suggest that the top limits of rateable value, at present £100 in London and £75 elsewhere, should be reduced forthwith to £75 in London and £50 elsewhere. By the gradual process of decontrol over a period of, say, three years, every single house should be freed from the Rent Restrictions Acts. While this process of gradual decontrol is going on, the rents of those houses still under control should be increased and a degree of uniformity obtained while relating the rents to the rateable value. I make this merely as a suggestion, but it may be practicable to fix the new rents at one and a half times the rateable value.
102
The only other subject I would mention, briefly, is that of rating. I am not clear whether the subject of derating comes within the ambit of "local government finance"—I wish. that people would call a spade a spade, and not a legislative shovel. I do not know whether or not derating comes within the ambit of the gracious Speech, but I hope that legislation will be introduced at an early stage to abolish iterating entirely in the case of industrial hereditaments and, in some degree, to revise the rating of agricultural land. So far as agricultural land is concerned, I appreciate that it may take some three to four years to value agricultural properties and to bring them back on to the valuation roll. There must have been some good reason in 1929 for relieving industry and agriculture from rates, but today the people who want relief are the residents in dwelling-houses. There is a great deal more that one could sty, but I am quite sure that it would be letter said by other Members of your Lordships' House.
6.38 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, we hive had an interesting debate to-day, wandering over a considerable number of topics, as is quite necessary on occasions of this kind. At this stage of our proceedings I am not going to add to the fatigues of Her Majesty's Government or other Members of the House by making anything like a long speech. We have not been altogether able to keep out of our discussions affairs in the Middle East. I am one of those who hope that before we start our debate to-morrow the situation will have cleared a little, and that we shall understand a little more what has been going on, what is going on, and what is expected to go on in the early future I thoroughly endorse what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has aid: that the situation at the moment is very obscure; but I am quite sure that y our Lordships would agree with me that that, in effect, does not apply to the lucid and able speech of my noble and learner friend Lord Jowitt, in his masterly summary of what he believes to be the legal situation with regard to the United Nations and our right to make war while teat body is in existence.
No-one, I think, has mentioned one matter which I feel is of great importance and which is, of course, referred to in the

103
gracious Speech—namely, the matter of Cyprus. I want to put on record my views on this matter. Important as the question of Enosis and self-government, and the forms of all these things, may be, in my own view the really essential point about Cyprus is: what is it that Her Majesty's Government want to do with the island? I believe that, if we are content to have a military base on the island, the inhabitants of Cyprus, the Cypriots, whether they are Greeks or Turks, will be prepared to agree to our retention of the island so long as they have a wide measure of self-government; but if, instead of that, we insist upon turning the whole island of Cyprus into a British military camp, I believe that we shall have opposition which we shall never succeed in beating down.
Now I come to the question of the House of Lords. I listened with great interest to the description by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, of some of the items which he gave us to understand were likely to be in the new reform proposals regarding the House. I need not say (the noble Marquess has already made the point) that there is not, and could not be, anyone on our Benches who for one moment would support any increase in the powers of the House of Lords. I understand from what the noble Marquess has said that there is no question whatsoever of that. But there was one omission in the various points he made which I cannot think was intentional. I cannot believe that in this year 1956, if there is to be reform of the House of Lords, it will not include permission for women to enter our walls. We are about the only institution which at the present time is still holding out in that respect, and I cannot believe that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government still to keep the barrier against the other sex.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I cannot go very far, but I believe I can go so far as to say that I should expect that to form part of the scheme.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am very glad to hear what the noble Marquess has said.
On the question of capital punishment, Her Majesty's Government, I understand, hope to introduce a Bill which will more
104
or less satisfy everybody, or at least go some way to doing so. Perhaps I am putting it too strongly, but the suggestion is that the Bill should go some way to satisfying both sides of opinion—in other words, it is to be a compromise Bill. There are only two ways in which one can compromise on this question, or in which one might conceivably think one could compromise, though I cannot see how one of them could come to anything. One might try to compromise between hanging a man and not hanging a man. I cannot see that that is at all possible. The only other way in which one can make a compromise is by having different degrees of murder; that is to say, those guilty of more horrible degrees of murder should suffer the penalty of capital punishment, while those guilty of less horrible degrees should not. As I understand it, it was precisely to decide that that the Royal Commission was set up. The Royal Commission came to a perfectly definite conclusion that one could not do that and I understood that its verdict was that capital punishment must either be kept more or less in its present form, or with some slight alteration, or abolished altogether. I shall be very interested to see the Bill proposed by Her Majesty's Government and if it can find its way through that difficulty I shall regard it with great interest, though I shall not necessarily approve it, because I am a wholehearted abolitionist.
I want now to turn to a question discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I have taken an active part 'in this question of protection right through my life, and if time permitted I could tell your Lordships many stories on that subject. I believe that where the noble Lord goes entirely wrong is in imagining that we who favour this free trade proposal do so because we imagine that it will bring us large additional markets of starving, naked persons from the 250 million people in Europe. It is nothing of the kind. The position is this. If a great free trade area is started in Western Europe and we keep out of it, then we shall lose the markets we have there at the present time, or at least shall stand to lose a great part of them; and as those markets bring us, in export trade, something in the neighbourhood of £100 million a year, I think we should be very unwise to do that. We do not, of course

105
want to lose our Dominions market by so doing, for that would be another grave blunder. I believe that there is a halfway house, a compromise which I do not see with capital punishment, by which we could keep our great overseas Dominions markets and not lose our markets in Western Europe.
I had intended to deal at some length with the financial aspect introduced at an early stage of this debate by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. He explained how well Her Majesty's Government were doing in their financial methods of securing that there was no great rise in prices at the present time. That may or may not be so, and I am not going to deal tonight with the question of whether or not the methods they have adopted are good. In my opinion, however, there are two great issues which are very unsatisfactory and which, unless they are successfully dealt with, will give Her Majesty's Government no great credit in the financial world. The first is the balance of payments, which at the present time is most alarming. The second is the high cost of money, which is a stranglehold upon the economic life of the country. I think it better to-night not to go into those issues at any great length. Those are the views If wanted to put before your Lordships.
6.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will allow me to say so, I was rather touched when he said that my task of answering to-night was for many reasons not an easy one. We have all been preoccupied, and I suppose all of us have had as anxious and painful a time in the last few days as at any time in our lives. I suppose I am no exception to that, but the noble Lord was quite right when he divined, I thought with sympathy, that one who had the administration of one of our great Fighting Services under his care should have had a particularly heavy burden to bear; and I think the task with which I am entrusted at the present time is one which I might well have performed with less difficulty had this not been the case. Should any of my remarks be found amiss, I hope that due consideration and compassion will therefore be extended to me.
As most of the remarks which we have heard have extended to general affairs. I
106
should like to begin with one or two general observations of my own. To use a term which I would draw from the speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party at the beginning of the debate—with the passage to which I am going to refer I must say wholeheartedly agree—we have all see it in the last few days a great cleavage and a great convulsion of public opinion, probably more violent and more perplexing than has happened for a very long time. Obviously that convulsion will occupy the debates and attention of those who are engaged in controversial politics for quite a time to come, but my own humble suggestion to your Lordships (and here I speak, I hope, without provocation) is a at this is really a moment for constructive statesmanship and leadership on the part of all three Parties. I may be wrong, but my own conviction is, from the little I know of our economic situation, of our practical problems, of the dark and perhaps darkening international landscape, that—whatever the rights and wrongs of cur disputes—we really cannot go on in the mood we are going on now.
It is not that I question the sincerity of anybody One of the most distressing features of the past few days, at any rate to me, has peen the fact that I knew myself to be passionately sincere, and that every morning I begged to know what my duty ' as and to have the courage and resolution to carry it out; but that other people, for whose integrity and patriotism. I have nothing but respect and for whose persons I have nothing but affection, felt as deeply and passionately that the thing I believed to be my duty was the contrary of what was right. So I deny or question the sincerity of nobody when I say this. But may I suggest that a cease-fire does not only extend as a courtesy to our enemies? It is also something we need very much at home.
However much we wish to debate these things in a controversial spirit, we must get down a nation to the profound problems with which we are going to be confronted at every turn—perhaps never more urgently than at the present time. Let us never forget this. If I may also say this—again, I hope, not provocatively those terrible events have been going on w lich have been occupying our minds, there was a voice in Hungary saying:
"We die Hungary and for Europe."

107
They died for us, because we are part of Europe; and if we ignore their cry or think we can be insulated from their suffering, the next thing will be that it will be us "for whom the bell tolls."
That leads me to answer—in a very few words, I hope—the very remarkable speech made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, this afternoon. In answering it, I hope he will not suppose that I am setting myself up as an authority on law equal to himself, though he probably realises that for the better part of my life I have practised in the courts and that I have made the law my profession and, in a very real sense, a vocation. So what I have to say is rather as a lawyer, and I must tell him why, though very much less distinguished than he is, I happen to differ in some respects from his opinion. As he will realise better than anyone—indeed, as I think he really said at the beginning of his remarks—when you are giving a legal opinion you have really to do three things. You have to ascertain and state the correct principles of law to be applied. Secondly, you have to appraise, see the significance of and understand the facts. Thirdly, you have to apply the ordinary common judgment and sense of mankind in the application of the principles to the facts. I do not think that the first is for the legal expert quite so difficult as the second and third. That is why I say that the academic lawyers—an excellent race of men, but I must say a word of criticism here—are not always right in particular cases.
By way of answer to the noble and learned Earl, I should like to pose to your Lordships one or two considerations about international law at the present time. We have had a good many analogies. There is the analogy of the policemen, there is the analogy of the fire. But all analogies are misleading, however carefully they are used. I am going to give another probably not less misleading. It is only an analogy, but it is one that appeals to me. I believe the true problem is—and here I speak not having consulted my noble and learned friend—what are the rights, moral, political and legal, of men and nations when anarchy 'breaks out, when either there is no law applicable or law has ceased to be operative because it cannot be enforced?
108
Suppose I had lived in the United States in the old frontier days, and I had a dispute with a man about a house. And suppose I saw about that house, concerning which I had the dispute, two people I hardly knew—perhaps one of them my antagonist, perhaps some person wholly strange to me—fighting with guns and knives at that house which I believed owned. Perhaps there were a couple of children in the house. There was a state of anarchy, a state where there was no effective sheriff, no law ran and no man's right was effective. Is there a person in the world who, in such conditions, would deny either to a man or to a nation the right of intervention as a matter of urgency—the right to try to stop the fighting and preserve the subject matter? Personally, I believe that a system of jurisprudence which denied a man or a nation such a right in such a state of affairs would not be worthy of the name of civilised jurisprudence. I know of nothing in any charter, pact, or book or international law which has taken away such a right.
I would say respectfully to the noble and learned Earl, for whose opinion and reputation I have such profound respect, that where I think I differ from him is not in his statements of legal principles which, as one would expect, are excellent—but in the question, which is ultimately a question of fact, as to how far my analogy is a correct analogy or an incorrect one. As I say, we do differ. I am not denying that there are differences here. But let us know where we are. I believe it is because I differ in my appraisal of the facts; not because I differ so much from him in his statement of the law. He will, I know, allow me to say this to him without any kind of offence at all. When you are talking about facts and the application of principles to fact, once the law is correctly stated, the opinion of a lawyer as such is worth as much as, but not more than, that of any other intelligent man of affairs. And we are all entitled to make up our minds about this great issue of law and fact—without, I hope, rancour—realising that we cannot rely on experts to make up our minds for us. There was a man in Pilgrim's Progress, a friend of Mr. Worldly Wiseman, called Mr. Legality. Legality is not the same as law. And Mr. Legality, noble Lords will

109
remember, was unable to lift Christian's burden from his shoulders.
I would venture to put before your Lordships this further reflection. We, on our side of the House, like noble Lords on their side of the House, arc no less concerned with the establishment of the rule of law among the nations. But what I think ought to preoccupy us, and noble Lords opposite no less than ourselves, is the danger lest the rules which we have invented for ourselves to prevent aggression become themselves vehicles for encouraging it. We are talking, for instance, about Israel. I should think that if it is going to be aggression for a nation to try to break out of a slowly strangling net, what future is there for the small nations of the world? If the only kind of thing which justifies a nation in resorting to self-help is an all-out blitz attack, which was largely the preoccupation of those who drafted the Charter, what future is there for the Charter?
I ask this second question, which I think should preoccupy noble Lords and which certainly has preoccupied me all the time I have anxiously considered my duties this last week, If it is part of the function of the rule of law to prevent the aggression or attack of the strong against the weak, ultimately what protection should the rule of law offer to prevent the exploitation by an unscrupulous dictator of a small Power from trading upon the unwillingness of a great Power to use its terrific strength? Because if, in the long run, the rule of law gives no protection to the great Power, gradually its force will be nibbled away, and one small act of lawlessness will lead to another until the whole rights and standards of living and future of the great Power, of maybe 50 million or 100 million people, may be utterly undermined and destroyed without regard to law. Whatever one's convictions about the correctness or incorrectness of policy during the last few days, one simply cannot afford to let these problems go unsolved. The only way in which the rule of law can ever be preserved is by preventing anarchy from breaking out. Where anarchy has broken out, self-help becomes one of the natural rights of man: and that is just what all lawyers want to prevent.
May I now turn for a moment—because I have taken too long about this
110
subject, bit I felt that the noble and learned Earl was entitled to a reply this afternoon, even if it was only I who had to answer (if I may say so with due humility)—to some other subjects which have been raised in the course of the debate. As one would have expected, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, criticised the policy Linda-lying the Rent Acts, but I wonder how far he really faced up to the difficulties of the problem. He seemed to think that legislation of some kind was necessary: but hardly this kind of legislation. What sort does he think necessary? He thought that there might be some time at which to legislate; but not this particular time. Well, when does it become right to legislate? What is the evil underlying the Rent Acts? I will tell your Lordships exactly the way in which this problem occurs to me. Not so very long ago somebody said that the difference 'between the two Parties was that the Socialist Party—or rather he Labour Party: I always like to call them by the name they like to be called by—believe that housing is a social service and that the conservative Party believe that it is a source of profit.
I do not think that represents the true difference at all. Of course, it is a social service to provide people with houses. It is a social service to provide people with meat, but I nobody expects the butchers to provide meat at an artificially low price. The quest on is: how long after the beginning of an emergency we can expect to go on letting an adequate supply of new houses or old houses kept in a proper state of maintenance if we provide a hidden subsidy out of the pockets of the persons whose business it is to supply them. No longer, I venture to think, than we would get good meat if we asked the butchers to subsidise the meat supply. Until we face that problem with intellectual honesty, as I try to do, it is no good criticising Government policy. We shall have plenty of debates during the course of the Session in which these problems will be threshed out.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, put a number of problems to me about economics. He seemed to remember that I had said that I knew nothing about economics. If the noble Lord will search his memory a little more deeply, he will remember that I said, perhaps less modestly, that my friends always tell me

111
that I know nothing about economics. I would not commit myself entirely to agreeing with them. It is not Government policy to discourage hire-purchase as such. Hire-purchase is a most useful form of credit. It is a great aid to family budgeting. It is one of the means whereby the weekly wage-earner can obtain the amenities of life. But of course it is also a source of great expenditure upon consumer goods. As I understand it—and I am very conscious that I should be more careful to read from a Treasury brief at this point—the problem of restriction on hire-purchase and credit is only another aspect of the restriction of consumption; and this Bill, which is adumbrated in the rather inscrutable words of the gracious Speech, does not alter the degree or extent of the restriction of credit at all. It is not contemplated that it should do that. It is designed simply to alter the legal basis of the restriction, to put on a permanent footing what was previously under the Emergency Powers. We do not want restriction of credit for ever and a day. Of course, there may be times when, so far from wanting to restrict credit, we should increase it; but we now recognise the necessity of having the power, and, having the power to put it on a legislative footing instead of on a basis of Emergency Powers.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation. It is a short-term policy and not a long-term one.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes; the restriction of credit is short-term policy, and the proposed legislation is enabling and not executive.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, would the noble Viscount always bear in mind, if the policy of the Government is to diminish the demand for home goods in order that there may be more exports, that there is much to be said for stopping the present system of advertising more home goods by television?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Am I right in suspecting that the noble and learned Earl is trying to embarrass me personally? Because if so, he will not succeed on this occasion. At this time of night I do not think it would be wise to embark upon the three-cornered debate between the noble Lords, Lord Rea, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and Lord Balfour of Inchrye.
112
I would support the remarks made by my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, earlier this afternoon about the value of the European market and I do not wish to commit myself further.
The noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, asked a number of questions. I should like, first of all, to thank him for what he said on behalf of the Services. I know that noble Lords opposite would wish to be associated with that. However much they may differ from the Government's policy which necessitated the use of those Services, I know they would wish to extend the thanks of a grateful nation to all three.
My noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell spoke particularly from the point of view of the Army. It is natural that I should be particularly preoccupied with the Navy, and I am not sure how much it is realised that this was largely a naval operation. The aircraft were largely naval aircraft: the land forces were largely Marines; and, of course, the carriage was largely by sea. I know that your Lordships would desire me to say, speaking for the moment as a Departmental Minister, that that work was carried on with faultless efficiency and absolutely unswerving devotion to duty. If for no other reason, I am glad that I have been chosen to answer this debate to-day, in that it has enabled me to say that with all my heart, not only on my own behalf but also, I believe, on behalf of a grateful nation.
LORD SHERWOOD: The Air Force was not used? It has not been mentioned by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: With respect to the noble Lord, I am certain that it has been mentioned. He and I served as Joint Under-Secretaries of State. Everything that I said about the Services was intended to include the Royal Air Force, and it was only because I have the liveliest recollection that one of my noble friends spoke in glowing terms of the achievement of the Air Force that I did not pay special tribute to them on this particular occasion. It would be less than right if I gave that impression and if I did, I would seek to rectify it. On the special questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell. I hope that we shall learn a certain amount of valuable experience about the National Service grant. I have a long dissertation

113
in my brief which I should like to show to the noble Lord, but I think he would prefer that I should do that privately and not trouble your Lordships at this late hour.
The question of the explanation to the Reservists of the reasons for their recall is not altogether an easy one. A pamphlet was issued, which again I will show to my noble friend, if he so desires. I think noble Lords opposite would probably agree with me that there are two divergent streams of public interest to be observed. It is, of course, intrinsically desirable that all who serve in connection with the Armed Forces should have explained, in the clearest possible language, if possible by their commanding officers, exactly what it is all about. But your Lordships will remember that this was itself a matter of acute political controversy and I think (I do not know whether the House will agree with me on all sides) that there were considerable political dangers in indoctrinating Reservists, from the political point of view, as to the reason for their recall. I think that in a free country, where matters are of political controversy, there are many people who would consider it an abuse of Government power to give Reservists a full explanation of matters which others would want to contradict. We had to be careful in what we did. However, I will show my noble friend what we did.
The noble Earl, Lord Limerick, asked me some questions about the Conventions of 1949. Speaking personally, this is the part of my brief which I like the least, but in what I have to say I will try to be perfectly frank. Let there be no doubt whatever about this. The Government are absolutely wholeheartedly behind their adherence to those Conventions and behind the remarks made by my noble friend only a few days ago. For the reasons which the noble Earl, Lord Limerick. explained, legislation is necessary and is considered desirable, and I do not think—I am now speaking personally, rather than as a Minister—it would present any great difficulties to draft it, although when I came to look into it I found that it would involve a greater amendment of our criminal law and other aspects of our law than I thought when I started to look at it.
Again speaking personally, I have always thought—I do not know whether
114
this opinion is shared by noble Lords—that one of the minor scandals of our time is the inability of Parliament to digest certain aspects of quite uncontroversial legislation. I should have regarded this, legislation, together with some other Bills which have been squeezed out of the Session's programme, as quite uncontroversial. I am bound to tell your Lordships, frankly, that this is what happened to the Bill ratifying the 1949 Conventions. If noble Lords opposite, with their friends in another place. and through the proper channel, could devise a means of getting Parliamentary time for sue h legislation. I know that the Government would try to co-operate. At any rate, again speaking personally, I find it almost impossible to explain to people outside Parliament in this country, left alone in the world outside, why something which obviously ought to be done is something for which Parliament cannot find time in a particular Session. I hope that I have explained that part of my brief with reasonable honesty—though not to my own satisfaction.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I know the noble Viscount will not expect me to be any more satisfied than he is should like to be quite clear about this matter. Is the position that the noble Viscount has been good enough to tell your Lordships that the answer to my question is "No", subject only to his reaching some arrangement with noble Lords opposite about creating from a vacuum a reality of Parliamentary time?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I forget the exact form in which the question was asked, and therefore I hesitate to give an unqualified negative. But if the question was whether it is in the programme for the present, the answer, subject to what: I have said, is "No." I am sorry to say it, but it is the only answer I can give.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me about a debate about railways aid the White Paper on railways. I am not sure that I understand the intrinsie advantage of our putting the Motion down, rather than his doing so, but I am sire that that is a matter which will be favourably considered by those more competent to discuss that particular question than I am.

115
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, asked my noble friend Lord Salisbury a question about the duration of the time for which the forces in the Suez Canal might be used. The noble and learned Earl will realise again that, speaking, as I do, not within my own Department and not with very long notice, I must be extremely careful, and for that reason I may be a little indefinite.
EARL JOWITT: I would make it quite clear that if the noble and learned Viscount prefers not to answer I shall not have the slightest objection.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should like to say this, and I hope that it may give some satisfaction. So far as our own troops are concerned, the sooner we can hand over to the International Force which is contemplated, the better. So far as the International Force is concerned—and if I understood the question of the noble and learned Earl, he was adverting rather to that than to our own troops—I imagine that the answer must be that, as that Force will have been set up by the United Nations Organisation, its terms of reference will have to be determined by that Organisation although naturally, as a member of that Organisation, we should have something to say about them. I do not think I should say more than that, and if it is not definite enough. I apologise to the noble and learned Earl.
I should like to conclude with one observation about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. We have lived in challenging, times. I agreed with the remark of my right honourable friend that in such times the only guide is a man's own conscience and a nation's own conscience. I quite agree that, in forming that conscience, one has to take account of the deeply held and cherished convictions of other people. But, having come to a conclusion about what is right, I do not think that one ought to do what one thinks is not right because one is afraid of what other people may say about what one has done. I would say to him quite respectfully, something about this country which emerges from that; and on that note I should like to close.
Of course, it is true that this country with its great complex of interests and friendships all over the world, has most earnestly to consider the aspirations, the
116
interests, the religions, the ideals of almost every other people in the world: and I hope that nothing I may say may cast any doubt on the sincerity with which I say it. I should like, however, to add this. I have sometimes thought, in the last few years, that we were, on the whole, very conscientious about what other people thought of us, and that other people did not perhaps take enough account of what we thought of them.
I believe that it would be a serious thing if that state of affairs were allowed to continue. You cannot go on niggling, provoking, annoying and insulting a people with an honourable tradition like ourselves without creating some kind of resentment at what you have done. I have sometimes thought, in the past few years, that there were people in the world who sought to curry favour with their own populations—sometimes populations whom they ruled by force and not by choice—by trying to score off, or exploit, the British who happened to have interests which they were loth to defend except by force of argument. That is not a situation with which any nation or any Government in this country can indefinitely rest content. I would say respectfully to all here, whatever their convictions, that the time has come when all of us must be quite certain that we should not allow others to exploit either the interests or the standard of life of our own people without a protest.
7.23 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned, and I wish to give the terms of an Amendment which will be moved by my noble friend Lord Henderson when he comes to make his speech to-morrow. The Amendment is to move to add to the humble Address the following words:
"but, in view of the grave international situation and of the divisions of opinion in the Commonwealth regarding Your Majesty's Government's policy in Egypt, call upon Your Majesty's Government to convene immediately a conference of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth, in order to arrive at an agreed policy in support of the authority of the United Nations."
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Mothers.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask one question of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. That Amendment, which is an excellent Amendment, deals with a rather limited aspect of the present international situation. It deals merely with the calling of a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I take it that it is not the desire of the Opposition that the debate should he limited to that point. I rather hoped
118
that we should have the opportunity of ranging over the whole situation.
LORD MATHERS: The Amendment was intended I to provide that opportunity, and to keep within the rules.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.