Sitting of 5 February 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Fisheries Research Vessels (Accidents)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what precautions are taken to prevent and reduce the incidence of accidents in Government Fisheries Research vessels resulting in injury to or death of officers and members of the crews; and what therapeutic measures are available on board to deal with such cases.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): In such matters these vessels comply fully with the statutory requirements and also with the recommendations of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.
    The answer to the second part of the Question is that all ships are equipped with a medical outfit to Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation requirements. All deck officers and fishing mates hold first-aid certificates of proficiency issued by an approved body.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that comparatively recently an Aberdeen man was fatally injured in one of these ships, which shows that it is important that these protective and therapeutic measures should be kept up to the highest modern standards? Will he state what is being done to effect that?
    Lord John Hope: The position, as I understand it, is satisfactory, but that does not mean in the least that what the hon. and learned Member said ought not to have been said. It is very important that the highest standards should be
    212
    maintained all the time. I know the occasion to which the hon. and learned Member referred.

    Legitimacy
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to introduce legislation to alter the law of Scotland relating to the legitimacy of children in accordance with the minority recommendation of seven members of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce so as to enact that all children should be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents irrespective of the consideration whether the parents were free to marry when the child was born or conceived.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and learned Member on 29th January, the Royal Commission's recommendations are being thoroughly examined at present. Its proposals about the legitimation of children are included in this review, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot yet make any statement about legislation.
    Mr. Hughes: It is all very well to say that this is being examined, but what I want to know is what steps are being taken to remove the stigma of illegitimacy from the innocent children when it should be put on the illegitimate parents.
    Mr. Macpherson: That is just one of the subjects which is being considered at present.

    Potatoes
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the surplus potatoes of last year's crop are cleared.
    Lord John Hope: As my hon. Friend is aware, the purchase of potatoes coming within the guarantee arrangements is a matter for the Potato Marketing Board. So also are the steps being taken for the disposal of any surplus. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board has this matter closely in hand.
    Sir R. Boothby: Will my hon. Friend suggest to the Board that it might zip it up a bit, because that makes all the difference?
    Lord John Hope: I am sure it will see what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Can the Joint Under-Secretary look into the question of having more processing plants nearer to the areas of production, because that would deal with the problem most effectively?
    Lord John Hope: Perhaps the hon. Member would like to put down a Question about that.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the losses sustained by early potato growers in 1956, what plans he has to prevent a recurrence of those losses in 1957.
    Lord John Hope: The marketing of potatoes is the immediate concern of the Potato Marketing Board, which, I understand, has made arrangements for improved intelligence about imports in order to facilitate the disposal of the home crop.
    Mr. Hughes: As this crop is of great interest to Ayrshire farmers, should it not be of interest to the Minister? Will he do a little more to co-operate and get a reasonable situation for these farmers?
    Lord John Hope: I thought and hoped that the Answer I gave would be encouraging to the hon. Gentleman. The Board is trying to avoid what happened last year by the measures which it is taking and which I described.
    Captain Duncan: If the circumstances warrant it, will my hon. Friend take advantage of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill to deal with the dumping of French potatoes, such as happened last year?
    Lord John Hope: That is another question.

    Herring Fishing Industry
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now announce the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the herring fishing industry.
    Lord John Hope: The Government are considering certain proposals by the Herring Industry Board, but my right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a statement.
    Sir R. Boothby: Does my hon. Friend realise that the position of the herring industry at the moment is bad and is rapidly deteriorating? Does he realise the urgent necessity of announcing whatever policy the Government have in mind well before the commencement of the summer fishing?
    Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of the extreme seriousness of the position.
    Mr. Edward Evans: Is the hon. Member aware of the disastrous results, very important to the East Anglian herring fishing in the last two seasons, of the attraction of the white fish trawling industry which deflects men from the herring industry? That difficulty is due to the subsidy provisions under the White Fish Authority scheme. Will he consider using a similar incentive for herring fishing to recruit and retain men in that industry?
    Lord John Hope: I can say no more than I have said. We are fully aware of the seriousness of the situation.

    Sewage and Household Refuse (Composting)
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of local authorities in Scotland arrange for their sewage to be treated together with household and trade refuse and made into compost; what steps are being taken to extend this practice in the interests both of economy and of public health; and what encouragement is given by his department to the use of such compost as a means of restoring fertility to the soil.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): Of the 230 local authorities in Scotland, two have regular arrangements for composting sewage and household and other refuse. Where appropriate, local authorities constructing new sewage purification works are advised to consider composting, and the advisory services of the agricultural colleges in Scotland give advice on the use of such composts where they are available
    Mr. Russell: Will my hon. Friend give every encouragement to local authorities to install machinery of that kind in view

    215
    of the immense amount of waste of public, household and trade refuse and sewage which could be used?
    Mr. Browne: It is for the local authorities to decide what best suits their own circumstances. Composting plant as an alternative to sludge digestion ranks for grant provided that the cost is roughly similar.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of other local authorities to the successful work in Edinburgh in this connection, where valuable fertiliser has been provided for gardens from the refuse?
    Mr. Browne: I will ensure that other local authorities are advised.

    Teachers (Salaries)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that teachers are the only large body of public employees whose salary awards cannot be back-dated; and if he will consult the appropriate authorities about legislation to rectify this anomaly.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: At the request of the Educational Institute, my right hon. Friend is arranging for one of his colleagues to meet representatives of the Institute in order to hear their views and he will also, of course, take account of any views that the education authorities may submit to him.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that his reply will go some way to satisfy the teaching profession? May I also ask whether he is aware that a Measure similar to the Police Fire and Probation Officers Bill is necessary to put right this anomaly?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, I am aware of that Measure.

    Forestry
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the decline in acreage of plantable land acquired by the Forestry Commission, and the consequent reduction in their reserves of such land; if he will state the reasons for this decline; and what are the difficulties.
    Lord John Hope: The area of plantable land annually acquired by the
    216
    Forestry Commission fluctuates from year to year and the rate of acquisition in Scotland cannot be described as declining.
    Mr. Hannan: Surely the Joint Under-Secretary is aware that the past three annual reports of the Forestry Commissioners make clear that the acquisition of land is declining, which, in turn, will affect the rate of planting? Will the hon. Gentleman please read the reports and become conversant with the facts?
    Lord John Hope: Yes, I have done so. But the hon. Gentleman asked me about the rate of acquisition and the answer I gave is correct. For instance, the amount acquired last year was the second highest amount during the last five years. It fluctuates; sometimes it is down and sometimes it is up. It is now up.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will my hon. Friend make sure that in its search for plantable land the Forestry Commission does not take too much land which should be kept for sheep?
    Mr. Hannan: Is not the Joint Under-Secretary aware that the Scottish Land Owners Federation estimates that a million acres of land is lying derelict and that it has asked the Scottish Office to take some action to see that such a potential is not left indefinitely in a nonproductive condition?
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much of this land in Scotland is still an eyesore and should be replanted? Is not the Department a little too tender about making compulsory orders where landowners are unwilling to co-operate and it would appear that there is delay in getting ahead with this planting in Scotland?
    Lord John Hope: The supplementary questions appear to refer more to Question No. 8, but I will try to cut short the time by answering the last supplementary question. The Commission is not at all anxious that there should be compulsory acquisition if that can be avoided.
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance he proposes to give to the Forestry Commission to maintain an expanding programme.
    Lord John Hope: In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and with

    217
    the Commission, my right hon. Friend is considering measures by which the rate of acquisition could be accelerated.
    Captain Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Forestry Commission owns over a million acres in Scotland more than half of which it regards as unplantable or not to be planted? Would not it increase the Commission's reserves if same of the land were planted which at the moment the Commission states that it does not intend to plant?
    Lord John Hope: I should like to look into that matter.

    Hill Cattle Subsidy (Farm, Castletown)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the exclusion of East Greenland Farm, Castletown, Caithness, from the Hill Cattle Subsidy Scheme if he is aware that the Caithness Branch of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland has unanimously requested that the case should be reopened; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord John Hope: My right hon. Friend is aware of representations which have been made in this case. The claim to hill cattle subsidy for East Greenland Farm, Caithness, has been fully investigated on a number of occasions since 1948 and was again reviewed in October last year on representations by my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot accept the farm as qualifying for this subsidy. I might add that the scheme under which these payments are made falls to be renewed this year when the conditions of eligibility will be reviewed.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the fact that every farmer in Caithness realises the injustice of this case and that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland is also supporting it? Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the Secretary of State about the desirability of appointing an advisory committee, because a system whereby the Secretary of State acts as judge and jury and sole decider in a case which is manifestly wrong is not a right system?
    Lord John Hope: Ever since this scheme began the Secretary of State has had to make up his mind, after due consideration of evidence carefully prepared
    218
    and recommended by experts. My right hon. Friend must do what he thinks is right.

    Road Junction, Cumbernauld
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to reduce the danger to pedestrians and traffic at the junction of A80 and A73 at Cumbernauld.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: This junction is protected by duplicate halt signs on A.73 and by adequate carriageway markings, and visibility has been improved by cutting down trees and shrubs. My right hon. Friend has just authorised the erection of an advance warning sign on A.73, and his Department has offered to discuss with representatives of the county council whether there are any other steps which can be taken.
    Mr. Bence: I am aware of these negotiations, which have been going on for two years. The same suggestion is being made. The Dumbartonshire County Council and the people on the spot agree that there is only one remedy to stop an increase in accidents, and that is the erection of traffic lights at this spot. We are getting a little nearer to the ultimate decision, and would the hon. Gentleman please speed it up so that we may have traffic lights before more accidents occur and more people are killed?
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has offered to discuss this matter further with the county council.

    Housing Subsidies and Interest Rates
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given, since the new Administration took office, to demands by local authorities that interest rates be reduced and housing subsidies maintained.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he proposes to make to the recent memorandum on housing subsidies issued by the Association of County Councils in Scotland, the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Corporations of Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee.
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations

    219
    he has received from local authorities and local authority associations against the reduction in housing subsidies; and what replies he has made.
    Mr. Nixon Browne: There will be a full opportunity in the proceedings on the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill to discuss the views expressed by local authorities on the proposed new rates of housing subsidies and the rates of interest for housing loans.
    Mr. Bence: Will the hon. Gentleman demand from the Treasury that we get immediate action to lower the interest rates for Scotland, because there is strong resentment among the local authorities in Scotland that the extra burdens put on them are to satisfy the theoretical claims of a high Bank Rate, which has no connection with the general economy of the country? Will he maintain subsidies as a factor taking account of whatever interest rates are fixed for the purpose of local authority finance?
    Mr. Browne: I think the House will agree that these matters would be better left to be discussed later.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's policy is making housing impossible in Scotland? Is he aware that Gourock, which is in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Scotland, has stopped building houses, and who will speak for them in the Scottish Standing Committee?
    Mr. Browne: I cannot agree that the hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that Government policy is stopping house building in Scotland, as replies to later Questions will show.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the fact that the Government decisions have aroused universal opposition among local authorities in Scotland, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Government should drop the Bill altogether?
    Mr. Browne: No, Sir.

    Electricity (Generating Stations)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, megawatts installed, the new electrical capacity installed in Scotland during the year 1956; what part of this capacity
    220
    was at thermal stations and what part hydro-stations; and the average cost £ megawatts installed, respectively, for thermal and hydro-stations.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The capacity of new electrical plant installed in Scotland during 1956 was 255·9 megawatts. Of this, 101·5 megawatts was installed at hydro-electric stations at an average cost of £175,000 per megawatt, and 154·4 megawatts at thermal stations at an average cost of £59,830 per magawatt.
    Mr. Nabarro: How much coal would be saved per annum by these hydroelectric installations?
    Mr. Macpherson: I would ask my hon. Friend to put that Question down.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state the sum expended, in millions of £s, by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for new capital works completed during 1956; and what sum was authorised by him, again expressed in millions of £s, in respect of new constructional works and appurtances thereto, forming the subject of Statutory Instruments.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I am informed by the Board that £17·8 million has been expended on generating stations and related capital works which came into full operation during 1956. During the year constructional scheme No. 23C (Moriston Project (Further Amendments)) was confirmed. The cost to the Board of the works authorised by this scheme, which is at present before the House, is £267,500.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does the fact that more than £17 million was actually expended in 1956 on new projects and that practically nothing of a new character was authorised by the Secretary of State for Scotland in that year denote a change in policy in regard to hydro-electric development?
    Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Nabarro: When will further authorisations be made?
    Mr. Macpherson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question down, too.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that, in regard to Scottish electricity, we consider the hon. Member for

    221
    Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to be one of the "appurtances thereto" that Scotland could well do without?

    Mountain Climbing (Accidents)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the periodical loss of lives from mountain climbing in Scotland and the frequent danger and loss to local inhabitants involved in rescue work; and whether he will inquire into the possibility of controlling or warning climbers with a view to avoidance of such tragedies.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. I am assured that everything possible is done by the police to deter climbers from attempting ascents in unsuitable conditions, including the display of posters describing the precautions which climbers should take. These posters are displayed at youth hostels, hotels and other places in Inverness-shire, including Skye; and I am suggesting that this might also be done in other areas. While I shall, of course, gladly consider any suggestions that the right hon. Member may wish to make, I am afraid that control of climbing would involve difficulties both of principle and of administration.
    Mr. Woodburn: I am no expert in climbing, and my advice would not be of any special value, but would the Secretary of State not consider getting together people who are expert in this connection to find out what can be done to stop this dreadful waste of valuable young lives and to avoid distress to people in the localities who are compelled to go out to rescue them and to the general public who are disturbed every year at finding these boys losing their lives seemingly for no purpose whatever?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. Mountain courses are available for those who wish to learn to climb, but I would point out that most of the fatal accidents occur to those who have not informed themselves as to the conditions, or indeed as to the methods.
    Mr. Woodburn: Cannot something be done about the provision of huts and roads at places where people do this climbing regularly?
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Are not similar dangers involved in Snowdonia, in the
    222
    Welsh Principality? Is there any reason why the Ministers and Departments concerned should not issue suitable warnings to inexperienced young men and women who tackle some of these very dangerous mountains without knowledge and experience of them?
    Mr. Macpherson: I hope that these Questions and the publicity given to them will do something to deter inexperienced people from undertaking these impossible tasks.

    Knitwear Firm, Hawick (Sale of Shares)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the communication received from the managing director of the Hawick knitwear firm of Lyle and Scott concerning the threatened take-over bid.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has had about an attempt to take over an 83-years-old Hawick knitwear firm; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the implications for Hawick and the Border counties which are likely to arise if local control of the 83-year-old knitwear firm of Lyle and Scott is lost by a take-over bid; and what action he is taking in the interests of this area.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Like other right hon. and hon. Members, my right hon. Friend has received representations from the managing director of Messrs. Lyle and Scott, Ltd., about the sale of shares in his company. My right hon. Friend has informed him that he has brought these representations to the notice of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but that as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has himself no jurisdiction to intervene and as he understands that the company has raised certain actions in the Court of Session, he would not be justified in making any comment.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister not aware that a great proportion of the population of Scotland is deeply shocked by the immorality and the ruthlessness of this take-over bid? Has the hon. Gentleman received a letter from the

    223
    chairman of the company, dated 31st January? The chairman says, among other things:
    "My personal view is that the dignity of man and his pride in his work are allowed to be trampled into the dust by a system under which anyone can buy shares in a company without revealing his name."
    Is not the hon. Gentleman disturbed by this kind of thing? Has he or the President of the Board of Trade no power to stop this despicable action?
    Mr. Macpherson: As the matter is sub judice, I would deprecate any further comment upon it.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Without wishing to comment upon any parts of this issue which are sub judice—we are all agreed about that—may I ask whether the Minister, when approaching the President of the Board of Trade, pressed on him that this responsibility falls clearly to him under the Companies Act? Was the purpose of bringing it to his notice a possible inquiry under the Companies Act?
    Mr. Macpherson: I prefer to withhold further comment on this matter at the present time.
    Commander Donaldson: While not wishing to intervene in matters which may be sub judice on this company and affairs which lie in my constituency, may I ask my hon. Friend to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade to the principle involved in this matter of take-over bids which is causing concern in the three counties which I have the honour to represent?
    Mr. Rankin: Will not the Secretary of State for Scotland give his views on the matter and not hide behind a mere legal technicality? Does he not realise that the monopolistic tendencies of Mr. Hugh Fraser will have to be dealt with either now or at some later date?
    Mr. Speaker: I must protest against the use of the phrase "legal technicality" with regard to the rules of order about discussing matters which are sub judice. I do not know the extent of the action in the Court of Session, so I am unable to control it, but hon. Gentlemen who know more about the subject should be very careful.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Surely, apart from any stage which this business has reached on the legal side, the Secretary of State for Scotland still has views on the question which—
    Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Lawson: No doubt the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be aware of the importance of this industry to the Borders of Scotland and the need for its extension. Does he not agree that the more successful the firm the greater the danger of its being bought out by some group of financial Smart Alecs? Will he see that the matter is looked at much more closely than he has suggested?
    Mr. Macpherson: This matter is primarily within the Departmental responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade, to whom there is a Question down later today.

    Forth Road Bridge
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the continued upward trend of prices, he will give an assurance that rigid financial considerations as to the total cost will not adversely affect the commencement of work on the Forth road bridge on the date recently specified.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The Forth Road Bridge Joint Board now has authority to take tenders as soon as it can. The acceptance of tenders will require my right hon. Friend's approval in the normal way, but subject to this the date on which the work will start will be determined by the speed at which the Joint Board is able to complete the plans and take tenders.
    Mr. Hamilton: I think the hon. Gentleman has read the Answer to the wrong Question. He has read the Answer to a Written Question. Was not the cost originally given as £.14·3 million? May I ask a supplementary question, however, as though the Minister had given the right Answer? What did the Minister mean by the phrase:
    "Does not materially exceed … £14·3 million"?
    Is he aware that, in view of rising prices, the cost is likely to be more than £15 million before the date of commencing work on the bridge? Will he give an

    225
    assurance, if that is the case, that the Government will not use that excuse to stop further progress? Will he give a further assurance that if there is such an increase of £1 million or so it will be borne by the Government and not by the local authorities concerned?
    Mr. Macpherson: The difficulty in answering the Question of the hon. Member was to know exactly what he meant by "rigid financial considerations." Provided the tenders received are competitive, I have no reason to suppose that there will be any avoidable delay in starting.
    Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is asking me what the Question means. I told him what it means and asked a supplementary question.
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister did not ask the hon. Member what the Question meant. He merely stated that he did not know what it meant.

    House Building
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities are not building houses at the latest date for which information is available; and what are the reasons for this cessation of new construction.
    Mr. Nixon Browne: At 31st December there were seventy-nine local authorities with no houses under construction, but twelve of them were due to start additional houses under approved tenders. The authorities concerned are rural counties or small burghs, and it is probable that most of them have gone a long way towards meeting current needs.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that one in three local authorities in Scotland which have no houses under construction have not got them under construction because supply is equated with demand? Is that what he is saying?
    Mr. Browne: The percentage covered by this number of local authorities is approximately 4 per cent. of the population of Scotland.
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses
    226
    for which local authorities have sought approval of tenders since 31st July, 1956; and if he will also give the figures for the same period in the two previous years.
    Mr. Nixon Browne: The number of houses in tenders approved during the six months ended 31st January, 1957, was 10,433, as compared with 12,777 and 15,026 during the corresponding periods ended 31st January, 1956 and 1955, respectively.
    Mr. Ross: Is it not evident, taking that in conjunction with the figures available of houses under construction, that there is a continuous fall in the house building programme in Scotland? Since we have not got the up-to-date figures for the latest months, are we not entitled to conclude that that is going to continue and get even worse? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great danger of unemployment in the building industry in Scotland at a time when we are in dire need of more and more houses? What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Browne: I think the hon. Member is drawing quite wrong conclusions from the figures. The figures have been showing a steady decline since the peak year of 1953. The reason for that decline is one we are all very glad to see, that the smaller local authorities are approaching the end of their programmes.
    Mr. Ross: How can the Minister justify a decline from 15,000 to 12,000 and now to 10,000 in tenders approved when things are getting worse every week?
    Mr. Browne: We are very glad to see Scotland overtaking at least part of her very great housing problem.

    Deer
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take on the agreed proposals on deer in Scotland submitted to him by the interested parties.
    Lord John Hope: The joint report is being considered. It has been discussed with the Nature Conservancy, which has furnished some additional information designed to facilitate a proper appreciation of the proposals. At this stage, my right hon. Friend cannot say whether or when the Government may be able to introduce legislation on the subject.
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Whilst thanking my noble Friend for that Answer, may I ask if he would speed up in every way he can, particularly in view of the season?
    Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir.

    Rabbits
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many rabbit boards have been set up in Scotland similar to the Easter Ross Rabbit Board; and what co-operation there is between the Department of Agriculture and such boards.
    Lord John Hope: Many voluntary organisations have been set up to further the rabbit clearance campaign in Scotland, and I understand that about fifteen of these have grouped themselves together to employ skilled trappers on the line followed in Easter Ross. There are no formal arrangements for official cooperation with these bodies, but there is much informal contact between them and the agricultural executive committees.
    Mr. Macleod: Does not my noble Friend agree that there should be far more co-operation, because the rabbit is becoming a menace once more and this could be used as a pilot scheme, as it has been very successful in Easter Ross? Would he encourage other people to form such boards?
    Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir.

    Elsie Inglis and Bruntsfield Hospitals (Consultant Physician)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any decision has yet been reached on the representations made to him concerning the position of the consultant physician at the Elsie Inglis and Bruntsfield hospitals.
    Mr. Nixon Browne: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend wishes to consider carefully the representations that have been made to him, and he is of course in consultation with the regional hospital board, which is responsible for the specialist services in the area.
    Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to bear in mind that there is very widespread opposition in Edinburgh—in all classes—to any
    228
    change in the position there? Could he say when a decision is likely to be made?
    Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend will carefully note the views the hon. Member has expressed, but I do not think that at this stage I can usefully add anything to the Answer I have already given.

    Strip Mill
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the need for a strip mill in Scotland; and what steps he is taking to encourage its provision.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I am aware of the strong desire in many quarters that a strip mill should be set up in Scotland and of the benefits that might be expected to follow from it. This is a matter for the industry itself in the first place, but my right hon. Friend is in touch with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my noble Friend the Minister of Power on the subject.
    Mr. Rankin: Can we take it that the Secretary of State is going to use all his influence to see that the process which has been developing in recent years in Scotland—particularly under this Government—is reversed and that, for a change, instead of industry leaving Scotland, we may see a major project coming to Scotland?
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend will always be enthusiastic in all good causes.

    Thurso Lifeboat (Fire)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the total loss by fire of the Thurso lifeboat in its shed on 10th December, when both fire pumps broke down after operating weakly for a brief period; if he is aware that the fire had not reached the lifeboat when the brigade arrived; that it could have been saved if the fire pumps had been in proper working order; and whether he will hold a public inquiry.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has considered a report by the firemaster on this incident. According to my information, it seems probable that the lifeboat was involved when the fire brigade unit arrived and could not have

    229
    been saved. In view, however, of the further representations which my hon. Friend has made to my right hon. Friend, he has asked Her Majesty's Inspector of Fire Brigades in Scotland to visit Thurso and investigate the matter on the spot.
    As regards the condition of the pumps, my right hon. Friend is assured by the fire authority that action has been taken to ensure that the appliances of the brigade are maintained in good order.
    Sir D. Robertson: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he can assure me that steps have been taken already to repair these inefficient machines which were out of order, because human lives might well be at stake if this defective equipment is allowed to continue in its present state?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend is assured that steps have been taken on those lines.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend do what he can to raise funds in Scotland to replace the lifeboat shed and the lifeboat?
    Mr. Macpherson: I shall gladly consider that.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the case that Thurso raises more money per head of the population than any place in Great Britain—6s. 8d. per annum—for the lifeboat which was destroyed and that there can be no reflection on Thurso in that regard?

    Tay Road Bridge
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now initiate discussions with the local authorities concerned about proposals for a road bridge over the Firth of Tay at Dundee.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: A road bridge over the Tay would be a classified road project and the initiative would lie with the highway authorities concerned. I understand that they are in fact discussing the matter.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that a road bridge at Dundee is required if the fullest value is to be obtained from the new Forth crossing? Will he at least assure the House that he will not rest satisfied until the east of Scotland has a
    230
    modern road system that includes road crossings of both Firths, at Dundee as well as at Edinburgh?
    Mr. Macpherson: We shall never rest satisfied until we achieve perfection.
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Will my hon. Friend realise that not everyone agrees that Dundee is the best place to have a road bridge across the Tay?
    Mr. Strachey: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that now the Government have started building bridges there is great discrimination between them? Will he end that discrimination by building a bridge over the Firth of Tay?
    Mr. Macpherson: As I have said, this is a matter in the first instance for the local authorities concerned.

    Scottish Economic Conference
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reinstitute the Scottish Economic Conference.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend sees no occasion at present for a further Conference.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that there is some feeling in Scotland that the overall economic responsibilities exercised by the Secretary of State on behalf of the House of Commons have been taken over by the House of Fraser?
    Mr. Macpherson: That seems to be rather a different question from the Question on the Order Paper.

    Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent local authorities have availed themselves of the provisions of the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955.
    Lord John Hope: So far sixteen authorities have submitted proposals for road improvement works. In view of the need to limit capital expenditure, no grants are being approved at present.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Will not the Joint Under-Secretary of State consider with his right hon. Friend the desirability of giving effect to the provisions of this Act, which they were most anxious to get

    231
    through the House of Commons, with a view to promoting an expansion in agricultural production? Is there not now a need to expand agricultural production in Scotland?
    Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir, there is, but, as the hon. Member knows very well, that has to be balanced against other things; and that is exactly what is being done.

    Overspill Problem
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement upon the present extent of the overspill problem in Scotland.
    Mr. Nixon Browne: The major Scottish problem arises in Glasgow, where it is estimated that at least 300,000 persons will ultimately have to be rehoused outside the city boundary. Problems on a very much smaller scale may arise in one or two other towns, but this has not yet been fully established.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Museum, Meigle (Guide Book)
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Works when the illustrated brochure explaining the history of the ancient sculptured stones housed in his museum at Meigle, Perthshire, will be available at the museum for purchase by visitors as was promised by his predecessor.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson)—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Molson: I thank my hon. Friends, on both sides of the House, for that welcome.
    The Guide Book should be on sale in about six months. I am aware that one of my predecessors said he hoped to have the book available in 1955, but when we came to look at the question in detail it was thought desirable to prepare a much larger book, including the Early Christian Monuments of Scotland, and this has inevitably taken some time. I am, however, investigating the matter further.
    Captain Duncan: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer? Is
    232
    he aware that this museum is alleged to house the gravestone of Queen Guinevere and is, therefore, of some romantic as well as historic interest?
    Mr. Molson: That is just the kind of matter which requires a good deal of investigation when preparing the guide.
    Mr. Ross: May we be told the cost of this guide?
    Mr. Molson: This larger book is likely to cost 6s. The reason I am investigating the matter further is that it seemed to me that something smaller might be desirable for the ordinary visitor to that small museum.
    Mr. Ross: May we be told the cost to the Government?
    Mr. Molson: I should require notice of that question.

    Consulate General Offices, Nice
    Mr. Teelingasked the Minister of Works (1) whether, since the German Government is about to open a consulate for the first time in Nice because of the increasing industrial development in that area, he will consider letting to them the British Consulate there which is about to be closed;
    (2) for how long Her Majesty's Government have a lease of the Consulate buildings in Nice; what steps he has taken to terminate the agreement; what is the rent; and what will be the cost to this country of maintaining the empty Consulate if the landlord refuses to take it back.
    Mr. Molson: The offices of the Consulate General at Nice are held on a six years' lease from 1st January, 1954. Terms for the surrender of the lease on 15th February, 1957, have been agreed and accepted by the landlord. The question of disposing of our interest to the German Government does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Teeling: While I realise that my right hon. Friend was not in charge of the Department at the time that this decision was made, may I ask whether he does not consider it a worrying matter that the Germans are intending to move into a consulate in Nice when we are moving out and that, with the exception of the Republic of Ireland, we are the

    233
    only country represented on the South Coast of France which has not a representative in this area, which is fast developing industrially?
    Mr. Molson: The question of policy whether the Consulate General should or should not be closed is one for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Sir R. Boothby: Will not my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to moving this Consulate a few miles up the coast to Monte Carlo, which has now become a great centre of the shipping industry and where facilities exist for making money which are not available elsewhere?
    Mr. Molson: I am inclined to think that it would be as well if we stuck to the present arrangement.

    Victoria Tower Gardens (Seats)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Works whether he will place all the seats overlooking the river in the Victoria Tower Gardens on stands similar to those on the Victoria Embankment so that their occupants can see the river.
    Mr. Molson: There are already four raised seats in the Victoria Tower Gardens. It would be expensive to raise all the other riverside seats, and I do not think I should do this at present, but I will keep the matter in mind.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Security
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council (1) to what extent, when appointments on a temporary basis to posts in a sensitive area are being considered by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Department arranges for a security check; and what information is given to the applicant that a check is being made;
    (2) how many persons passed to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research by the Ministry of Labour for appointment in a temporary capacity have been rejected by the Department on security grounds.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): For the great majority of appointments to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research no security check is necessary, but such a check is carried out where the candidate is to be employed in posts in a sensitive area. It is not the practice to inform candidates if only a negative check is carried out. Information is not available to show the particular grounds on which individual candidates have been rejected.
    Mr. Griffiths: In view of the behaviour of the security officers in the past and the fact that in the course of their inquiries they have unnecessarily destroyed the reputation of completely innocent people, surely the Minister realises that men and women who are applying for jobs of this type should know the kind of inquiries which are being made about them. He has admitted that there are such cases.
    Mr. Nicholls: I do not think there is any evidence to justify the sweeping assertion which the hon. Member has just made. As for the list, the hon. Member put the same question to the Minister of Labour and was told that no statistics are kept of applications or rejections.

    Motor Vehicles (Fuel-Saving Devices)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what investigation is being carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research into motor car fitments for saving petrol.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on 29th January, which represents the position as at present known. My noble Friend is, however, discussing with the D.S.I.R. the possibility of convening a meeting of technical experts drawn from industry and elsewhere to consider whether further long-term research would be likely to achieve useful results.
    Mr. Lipton: In view of the extravagant claims which are made by the makers for this curious assortment of gadgets, would it not be in the public interest to have an impartial scientific investigation? Why allow our present difficulties to be made

    235
    the happy hunting ground of a lot of get-rich-quick gadget merchants providing gadgets the value of which is extremely doubtful?
    Mr. Nicholls: I think that, on consideration, the hon. Member will see that my original Answer is very forthcoming along the lines he suggested.
    Mr. Lipton: But what is being done?

  BRITISH ARMY

    Troops, Germany
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that British troops in Germany are being treated in an unfriendly fashion by the Germans; and whether, in view of this behaviour, he will take steps to withdraw our troops from that country.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare): No, Sir. Except for a few isolated incidents, relations between the Germans and our troops are friendly.
    Mr. Shinwell: As the Answer is unsatisfactory and as a great deal more requires to be said about the subject, I hope to have an opportunity later to deal with it.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does the Minister understand my right hon. Friend's Question to refer to the female population of Germany? If so, is it not true that my right hon. Friend is greatly misinformed?
    Mr. Hare: I think there is probably quite a lot in what the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) says.

    R.A.O.C. Troops (Personal Effects)
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the personal gear of the men of the 26th M.L.B.C. of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps was lost when they were sent to Cyprus in November last and has not yet been returned to them; that no officer of the company was prepared to accept any responsibility for this matter, and that no steps were taken to inquire into it; and if he will take steps to inquire into the matter and to compensate the men for the loss of their personal goods.
    Mr. Hare: After being fully equipped, members of this unit were advised to send
    236
    their personal effects home and the necessary facilities to do so were made available. Many of the men did not take advantage of this arrangement and, when their unit was ordered overseas, they were allowed to load personal baggage in excess of the capacity of their kit bags, in the unit's vehicles. These travelled in a separate ship from the men, and because of a change of plan, were unloaded at Malta while the men went to Cyprus. The officer commanding made immediate efforts to locate the baggage, and, as soon as it was traced, arrangements were made for it to be sent home from Malta to await the men's return. So far as I have been able to ascertain, it is still in transit and not lost.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the Secretary of State for War aware that no such advice was given to these men? According to the words of a man who was involved, they were suddenly packed off to Cyprus and told to leave their gear behind, and they have not yet seen it again. Will the Minister agree to compensate the men for the loss of their personal gear if it never turns up—and it has not turned up yet?
    Mr. Hare: I think the hon. Member and I have different information. I am told that the men were warned. I will look into any further information which he cares to give me. As I have pointed out, these effects are not yet lost; they are in transit. I hope to be able to find them before too long. Should they be lost, we should certainly consider the possibility of compensation.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the first principle of war never to be separated from your baggage? When does the Secretary of State hope to reunite the baggage and the men?
    Mr. Hare: I think the hon. Gentleman is right. Those men were advised to send this baggage home.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Brockway.
    Mr. Callaghan: When will the men get this baggage?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. There are men serving in the Army today who are separated from their personal effects. It is a reasonable question to put to the Secretary of State for War—

    237
    which he did not answer; when are they going to get those effects?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Question has had a fair run.
    Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. I asked a question of the Secretary of State for War to which, I am quite sure, the right hon. Gentleman has the answer, and I should be very much obliged if he would give it. When are the effects going to be returned?
    Mr. Speaker: The question which I called the hon. Member to ask has been answered.
    Mr. Callaghan: Very unsatisfactorily.

    Map Reading Exercise, Malta
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for War on whose authority orders were issued for a local exercise in Malta by the Fortress Squadron of the Royal Engineers describing the enemy as "Melita under the command of the notorious leader Mintoffovich," in view of the fact that Melita is the Phoenician name for Malta and the name of the Prime Minister is Mr. Mintoff.
    Mr. Hare: The exercise in map reading was prepared by a junior officer for his troop. The General Officer Commanding, immediately he heard of the matter, sent his personal apologies to Mr. Mintoff, who courteously accepted them in a friendly way.
    Mr. Brockway: Would the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of expressing also, on behalf of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Why not? Would he at least indicate that on this side of the House we very much resent an insult made to the people of Malta and to its Prime Minister?
    Mr. Hare: An apology has been made and has been graciously accepted. I personally would add that it was unfortunate that this indiscretion occurred, and, in fact, this officer bus been dealt with personally by his commanding officer.

  FISHING INDUSTRY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the economics and politics of the fishing in-
  238
  dustry have become so complicated, detailed and extensive in home, foreign and colonial affairs that they need the whole-time attention of a Minister of Cabinet rank devoted solely to these problems unfettered by problems relating to other forms of food and to agriculture; that other realms in the Commonwealth and certain foreign countries have a Minister devoted solely to such problems; and if he will now take steps to have such a Minister appointed in Britain.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I recognise the great importance of the fishing industry. But I believe that the interests of this large industry are best served by the present administrative arrangements.
  Mr. Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister realise that in connection with the fishing industry today the work of the Minister involves the negotiation of international fisheries conventions, attendance at international conventions and the making of authoritative pronouncements, which demand that the Minister should be a whole-time Minister of Cabinet rank? Will he reconsider this matter?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think this is really the best plan. In each Department concerned, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Office, one Parliamentary Under-Secretary has special authority for the fishing industry. There are many important industries, and it would be a mistake to have a separate Cabinet Minister for each industry.
  Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has so little to occupy his time and to justify his salary, would the Prime Minister consider appointing him in charge of the fishing industry?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. John Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no real demand from the fishing industry for a separate Minister?

  TRIPARTITE DECLARATION
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister what consultations were held with President Eisenhower and the French Prime Minister as joint signatories of the Declaration before announcing that the Tripartite Declaration of

  239
  1950 did not now apply to Egypt; and on what date they indicated their concurrence.
  The Prime Minister: Neither I nor my predecessor had any personal discussions on this subject with President Eisenhower or the French Prime Minister. The House will already be aware that tripartite discussions between representatives of the three Governments took place in Washington on 28th and 29th October. On the applicability of the Tripartite Declaration to Egypt, I would refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Answer given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 17th December.
  Mr. Henderson: Have the United States Government at any time given any indication that in their view the 1950 Declaration does not now apply to Egypt?
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will refer to the reply given on 17th December last, he will find that the Minister of State said that the inapplicability of this Declaration was discussed with representatives of the United States and France on 29th October, and that there was general agreement with this view.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that all the original documents about the Tripartite Declaration were published, and of the further fact that the Prime Minister, in a speech to the American Congress last year, explained how we would with the Americans implement the Declaration, and the fact that other Ministers spoke about it later, would it not now be desirable that all the exchanges about the lapsing of the Declaration should be published so that the nation can judge.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that that is at all necessary. The fact is that the Egyptian Government made it quite clear that they were unwilling to accept the implications of the Declaration.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Declaration was not made for the benefit of Egypt, but in order to protect the world from war in the Middle East, is it not desirable that the nation should know why this
  240
  most important agreement was brought to an end?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the Declaration must, if it really is to protect countries, have some regard to the wishes of the countries concerned.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the Egyptian attitude to the Tripartite Declaration was made perfectly clear in 1954, and that, after that, his predecessor as Prime Minister repeatedly declared his support for the Tripartite Declaration?
  The Prime Minister: It is true that this general view on its inapplicability was agreed both by the Americans and the French.

  BRITISH REFUGEES FROM EGYPT (RESETTLEMENT BOARD)
  Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the expulsion of British citizens from Egypt and the seizure of our assets; what help is being provided for those expelled; and what steps are being taken to get compensation from the Egyptian Government.
  Mr. Hunterasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the Government to give adequate compensation for those British subjects who had to leave Egypt as the result of the Suez crisis.
  Captain Pilkingtonasked the Prime Minister what arrangements are being made to assist British refugees from Egypt who have had their businesses, pensions or possessions taken from them by the present Egyptian Government; and what arrangements that Government is making by way of compensation.
  Mr. Remnantasked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will pay to British personnel expelled from Egypt sums equal to those pensions previously paid by the Egyptian Government pending a settlement between the two countries.
  The Prime Minister: I will, with permission, be making a statement covering these points at the end of Questions.
  Mr. Grimond: While waiting for that statement, may I ask the Government if it is their view that these expulsions were

  241
  an illegal act and that the Egyptian Government are liable to compensate us for the losses we have incurred?
  The Prime Minister: I should like, perhaps, to await the text of the statement, but, broadly speaking, we shall certainly hold the Egyptian Government responsible.

  UNITED STATES FORCES, UNITED KINGDOM
  Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Prime Minister what were the details of the agreement entered into respecting the stationing of United States armed forces on British soil; and to what extent that agreement involves the use of Britain as a United States strategic base in the event of a world war in which the United States of America is one of the principal belligerents.
  The Prime Minister: The informal agreement for the stationing of United States forces in this country provides that they will remain so long as, in the opinion of both the United States and the United Kingdom Governments, their presence in the United Kingdom is desirable in the interests of common defence. The use of bases by these forces in an emergency would be a matter of joint decision at the time by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government.
  Mr. Davies: In view of the increased subservience of this Government to the Government of the United States, will not the Prime Minister take the people of our country into his full confidence in anticipation of our being immolated in the interests of American financiers?
  The Prime Minister: I think that is a question couched in language which I could not accept. I think that the working of this agreement, which has been supported by Governments of both parties, is in the interests of the common defence of the free world.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (RESPONSIBILITIES)
  Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister whether those sections of the British Broadcasting Corporation for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible
  242
  and the British Council are among the information services to be co-ordinated by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  The Prime Minister: As I stated on 24th January, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible for the co-ordination of the oversea information services as a whole. These services include sound broadcasting financed by the Grant-in-Aid to the British Broadcasting Corporation External Services and the activities of the British Council. As was made plain by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 30th January, the responsibility of individual Ministers for the information expenditure, policy and output of their Departments remains unchanged; nor, of course, is there any change in the position of the British Broadcasting Corporation under the Charter and the Licence and Agreement.
  Mr. Jay: Can we then have a clear assurance that there will be no political interference by the Chancellor of the Duchy with the B.B.C. or with the British Council?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; of course, I am ready to give that assurance. The functions which he is carrying out are really very similar to those which have been carried out in previous Administrations, and I am sure that they will be very well done. I think it is generally recognised that it is a great advance to have all this work brought together and co-ordinated.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that under previous Administrations Ministers responsible for Government policies of this kind also had substantial other responsibilities, which the Chancellor of the Duchy has not got?
  The Prime Minister: I think at one time it was the Lord Privy Seal.

  THE PILGRIMS' DINNER (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will publish as a White Paper the full text of the speech he delivered at the dinner to the retiring United States Ambassador.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that would be usual. But I was glad of the opportunity to pay tribute to a very distinguished American Ambassador.
  Mr. Hughes: Would the full text of the speech reveal that the Prime Minister apologised to the American Ambassador for misleading him during the Suez crisis, and did he express to the American Ambassador our gratitude to the American Government for keeping us out of a disastrous and expensive war?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member would read the speech, which was fairly fully published, he would see that it bore no such implication.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (WRITTEN ANSWER)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:—
  Mr. BROCKWAY: To ask the Minister of Defence, if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which a portion of a written reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough on 28th January was deleted before transmission for publication in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With permission, I should like to answer Question No. 87.
  I am glad of this opportunity to explain how it was that the Answer circulated in the HANSARD of 28th January, Column 128, was different from the one which was sent direct to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway).
  The text approved by me is the one which appeared in HANSARD. Inadvertently, my office sent the text of an earlier draft to the hon. Member and to the Editor of HANSARD. When the mistake was noticed, my Private Secretary asked the Editor to make the necessary correction, and wrote to the hon. Member informing him of what had been done.
  Owing to my absence in America, it was not possible for me to be consulted.
  I wish to express my regret for any confusion or inconvenience caused.
  Mr. Brockway: I accept that apology at once, but is the Minister aware that the letter sent from his Department to
  244
  me expressing regret was received by me only after I had given Private Notice of this Question. Mr. Speaker had agreed to it, and I had indicated to the right hon. Gentleman's Department that I intended to put the Private Notice Question?
  May I further ask him about the sentence which has been deleted? That stated that the total defence expenditure would be £1,620 million, before taking into account United States aid and German support costs. Is it the fact that that sentence shows that the amount to come from the United States and from German support is £20 million less than had been indicated by the Government, and will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that that discrepancy is not the reason why this sentence has not appeared?
  Mr. Sandys: I think that it would be out of order for me to answer that Question, because the hon. Member himself has on the Order Paper a further Question on precisely that subject.

BRITISH REFUGEES FROM EGYPT (RESETTLEMENT BOARD)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The Government announced on 6th December last that they had decided to make a grant of £100,000 to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society to assist British subjects from Egypt. Since then the Society, with the assistance of other voluntary organisations, has worked extremely hard to deal with pressing personal problems. The Society has performed a most valuable task in difficult and strenuous circumstances, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the Government's appreciation of the way in which voluntary workers have risen to the demands of this emergency.
About 4,000 people have now reached this country from Egypt, and more are still arriving. The operation of assisting these people and enabling them to start their life again will be a large one. The Society has itself taken the view that as a voluntary welfare organisation it should be relieved of the growing responsibility for making payments from Government funds. The Government accept this view, and propose to set up a new body

245
to be known as the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that Lord Colyton has accepted my invitation to serve as Chairman of the Board, and that among the other members will be Lord Listowel, Sir Humphrey Trevelyan and representatives of the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society and the other voluntary organisations. The Board will take over the grant-in-aid from the Exchequer.
The function of the Board will be to co-ordinate all the work at present being done to assist British subjects from Egypt, including the running of the hostels and the giving of financial help; until the Board is ready to assume this responsibility, the Society will continue its present work.
An organisation has also been set up within the Foreign Office to classify claims against the Government of Egypt of persons who suffered loss on their departure. A special section is now in being which is recording information about the assets of British nationals in Egypt affected by the measures taken by the Egyptian Government and about other debts outstanding. Both firms and individuals have been invited to submit information on these matters to the Foreign Office. It is hoped that this can be done expeditiously.
Meanwhile, the Resettlement Board will be authorised to deal with the needs of any British subjects who have come to the United Kingdom as a result of recent events in Egypt and are in need. In helping these people, the Board will deal with each individual case on its merits and, in addition to paying allowances, it will be authorised to meet immediate educational commitments and to make grants or loans in appropriate cases.
In particular, the Board will be authorised to make advances as may be necessary to former pensioners of the Egyptian Government up to the full amount of the pension due until arrangements are made for the Egyptian Government again to discharge its contractual obligations.
Mr. Gaitskell: While welcoming, in general, the new arrangements announced by the Prime Minister, and the appointment of the Resettlement Board, may I ask whether the Government are limiting
246
the amount of money with which they are prepared to assist this organisation to the £100,000 mentioned? The Prime Minister will be aware that that amounts only to £25 a head, even on the basis of the existing 4,000 refugees.
The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has asked that question. The £100,000 was put forward, in the first instance, to assist the Society, and we shall have to see what is necessary to fulfil these obligations in an honourable way.
Mr. Grimond: Does the Prime Minister agree that to discharge these obligations a very much larger sum of money will be necessary? Secondly, can he tell us what is being done for British subjects expelled from Egypt but not coming to this country? Will the Board have authority to deal with them?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will recognise that it is important to maintain these claims against the Egyptian Government, and that will be done. The immediate problem is to meet the needs of these people until those claims, as we hope and believe, are finally satisfied. The question of persons outside the United Kingdom is another matter. I think that there are a very small number of them, but I will look into it and give the hon. Gentleman a reply.
Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend say what will be the total amount of the claims, when they are finally formulated?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that the first thing is to get the registration done, both by firms and by individuals and, meanwhile, to set up an effective organisation to take over the work which has already been so well done by the voluntary Society.
Mr. Hunter: If the Egyptian Government do not meet these claims for compensation, will Her Majesty's Government do so?
The Prime Minister: That is the kind of question which is easy to pose, but I do not want to give an answer which in any way derogates from our right and power, at the appropriate time, to make claims on behalf of the British Government.
Mr. Remnant: Does my right hon. Friend mean, as most of us wish, that he will see that no Egyptian assets will leave this country in the meantime? Is he aware that it will please many people to know that we are not trying to observe Queensberry rules with people who do not recognise them?
The Prime Minister: There will, of course, be claims and counter-claims. The question of Egyptian sterling balances was dealt with by the Financial Secretary on 31st January, in reply to a Question.
Mr. Crossman: Would the Prime Minister agree that, whatever success we may have in getting money from the Egyptian Government, our Government have an absolute responsibility for looking after these people and should not be allowed to have any doubts as to that responsibility because of our hope of getting money from the Egyptian Government? Could he not give an unequivocal assurance that, whatever success we have, we shall look after our subjects?
The Prime Minister: The purpose of the Board is to do precisely that, but I must say again that the first process is to register the claims, both of individuals and of trading companies and, on that basis, to put forward, at the appropriate moment, our claim to the Egyptian Government. That is one purpose. The other is to meet individual needs during the interval.
Mr. H. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend consider the pledge given by the evacuation authority in Port Said, on 1st December, that funds taken out by British subjects in Egyptian pounds would be converted at the official rate? Thousands of pounds have been brought out and, far from their being converted at the official rate, they are being converted at 12s. to the pound, when the official rate was 20s. 6d. at the time. Would my right hon. Friend consider that the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board's first function should be to fulfil this pledge made by Her Majesty's Consul to those being evacuated from Port Said?
The Prime Minister: I will look into that, but I am informed that no such advice was given officially by any of Her Majesty's Ministers or consuls or by any representative. If there are questions of
248
hardship they will, I think, be dealt with by the Board in the ordinary way.
Mr. Steele: The Prime Minister mentioned in his original statement that assistance would be given for educational purposes. Representations have already been made to the Foreign Office. Will it be necessary for those people concerned again to make representations to this Board although particulars of cases to be dealt with have already been sent to the Foreign Office?
The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question. We are arranging that information in the hands of the Foreign Office should be made available to the Board as soon as it begins to do its work.
Mr. Marlowe: Would my right hon. Friend clear up one matter to do with pensioners? Many pensioners of the Egyptian Government have not received any payment from Egypt, of course, since October last. Will the Board have power to pay the arrears which are due to them over these months?
The Prime Minister: As I have said, it will make advances or loans against these claims, but we shall still hold these claims as claims we are entitled to press. Meanwhile we shall make advances against them.
Mr. Janner: While the right hon. Gentleman is considering this very important matter, will he consider, also, the position of Stateless persons and others who have come to this country in consequence of persecution by the Egyptian Government against them because they happen to be of the Jewish race? Will he see that they will have the same kind of consideration?
The Prime Minister: That is another question, of which I was not aware. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would get in touch with me or with one of my colleagues, and we will see whether anything can be done.
Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the pensioners of the Egyptian Government will be able to recover from this fund through the Board even though they are not able to establish conditions of desperate personal hardship?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that we want to use such phrases as "desperate personal hardship" by any means. I think that we must trust to the Board, which has upon it very good representation drawn from people of great experience and knowledge. We shall just have to make this experiment and make what adaptations or alterations in it are necessary as we go along.
Mr. Snow: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not consider the rights of Cypriot and Maltese British subjects to be of exactly the same importance as those of residents from this country?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am very sorry if any such impression was created; there is nothing in what I have said or in the statement I made which could possibly lead to that conclusion. All British subjects are British subjects.
Major Wall: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of these people are of Maltese origin and that quite a number of them wish to emigrate to Australia? Is it within the terms of the Resettlement Board to assist their emigration?
The Prime Minister: I will look into that. I do not see why it could not do that, in association with the ordinary migration authorities.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have a short business statement to make. We hoped that it would be possible to take the Motion
250
relating to the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations at a reasonable hour tomorrow, but as this would now seem unlikely I think it would meet the general convenience of the House if we postponed this Motion until a later date.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

DIVISION No. 53 (CORRECTED FIGURES)
Mr. HUGHES-YOUNG and Mr. HOLMES, who acted as Tellers in Division No. 53 on Monday, 4th February, came to the Table.
Mr. Hughes-Young: We have to report, Sir, that in the Division on Monday, 4th February, on the Motion praying, "That The Milk (Great Britain) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1956, be annulled", we erroneously reported the number of the "Ayes" as 146 instead of 156, which was the correct number.
Mr. Speaker: I direct the Clerk to alter in the Journal the numbers of that Division, the correct figure being, I understand:—Ayes 156, Noes 206.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and that the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply and of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  Army Supplementary Estimate, 1956–57
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £39,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year, including a grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work.

  SCHEDULE

  —

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

  1.Pay, &c., of the Army

  2,740,000

  2,100,000

  2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army, Home Guard and Cadet Forces

  450,000

  *-200,000

  3. War Office

  280,000

  —

  4. Civilians

  4,670,000

  1,600,000

  5. Movements

  14,000,000

  800,000

  6. Supplies, &c.

  1,700,000

  600,000

  7. Stores

  16,650,000

  *-5,000,000

  8. Works, Buildings and Lands

  Cr.2,550,000

  650,000

  9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  310,000

  —

  10. Non-Effective Services

  750,000

  —

  11. Additional Married Quarters

  —

  *-475,000

  Total, Army (Supplementary) 1956–57

  £39,000,000

  £75,000

  *Deficit.

  The Chairman: I have been asked to give some indication of the scope of this debate. Generally, debate on a Supplementary Estimate is restricted to the particulars contained in that Estimate, and cannot deal either with the original grant or the policy for which the original grant was obtained.
  In the present case, Parliamentary authority is sought to meet additional
  252
  expenditure arising from the Suez emergency, and in my view it would be in order if the policy of the Government, so far as it relates to the use of the Army in the Suez emergency, were to be raised. This Ruling does not imply that the whole Suez question and its attendant circumstances can be thrown open. The debate should be confined to the reasons for the Supplementary Estimate and to matters contained in that Estimate.
  For example, an item in the Supplementary Estimate covers the conveyance of troops and stores by sea and air. In this connection, it might be necessary incidentally to refer to the employment of ships and aircraft for this purpose, but it would be out of order to discuss the general rôle of the Navy and Air Force, since this is not covered by the present Supplementary Estimate; still less would it be in order to debate the diplomatic incidents leading to the emergency.
  Mr. George Brown: I am sure that we are all grateful to you. Sir Charles, for the trouble you have taken to give us that guidance.
  As I understand, this was essentially a combined operation. While accepting your general Ruling, I feel that it would be very difficult to discuss the actual Army operation without making some reference both to the part the Navy played in enabling the Army to make the operation and to the part the Air Force played similarly in carrying out the same operation, namely, that of invading—if that is the right word—Egypt. I take it, therefore, that your Ruling does allow us a degree of latitude.
  The Chairman: It may be difficult to separate the employment of the Army from other closely related Services and events, but I am sure that the normal ingenuity of right hon. and hon. Members will not only enable them to keep within order but will help me to confine debate within proper limits when dealing with the Army Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: On that same point, Sir Charles, but confining it to a somewhat narrower issue, may I ask your guidance? In addition to the references to Suez, the provision of ships and aircraft and the like, there are several other items, for example, a reference to additional welfare services for our troops

  253
  in Germany. There is a reference, also, to a very substantial increase in the purchase of stores. There is another item which relates to financial provision for the Arab Legion. Do I understand from you, Sir Charles, that we are entitled to discuss these matters?
  The Chairman: Yes, most certainly. Those are in the Supplementary Estimate.
  3.50 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare): This afternoon, I come to the Committee to ask for a very large sum of money—£39 million. This request is divided into two parts. By far the larger is the £29,800,000 which represents the extra expenditure which has fallen on Army Votes as a result of the Suez emergency. This I will deal with first and the balance of £9 million, arising from other causes, I will explain in detail at a later stage. I therefore come straight to the Suez emergency—that is, the £29,800,000.
  The many hours and days of arduous debate in the House during November and December made it all too clear that the political parties were sharply divided on the decision of Her Majesty's Government to intervene with armed force after the war with Egypt and Israel had started. This strong difference of opinion is obviously just as clear cut today as it was in the weeks before Christmas, to which I have just referred.
  My major task this afternoon, however, is not to debate those differences—indeed, from what you have said, Sir Charles, I would be out of order in doing so—but to explain to the Committee why the Army has had to spend this extra money as a result of the decision that was taken by Her Majesty's Government. This I will now proceed to do.
  Over two-thirds of the extra expenditure on the Suez emergency is accounted for under two Vote heads. More than £5 million is accounted for under Vote I for pay and other emoluments and nearly £17 million on Vote 5 for the movement of personnel and stores. The £5 million for pay and allowances represents the emoluments of the reservists recalled for the emergency and of those Regular soldiers whose engagements expired during the emergency, but who were retained with the Colours until the emergency was over.
  254
  The numbers of reservists recalled and kept in service were, in round figures, 1,050 officers and 24,000 other ranks. The call-up started in the first week of August and was substantially complete within three weeks. The number of Regulars retained with the Colours rose at the rate of about 2,600 a month to a maximum of some 10,000 by the third week in November. In addition, there were about 150 officers on short service engagements whose commissions were extended to run to the end of the emergency.
  On 22nd November, I announced in the House that an immediate start would be made to release the retained Regulars and reservists. Twelve thousand were, in fact, back to civilian life within ten days, which, I think, was very good; and by now all are released except 500. Of these, 350 are retained Regulars who will arrive home from the Far East in a few days' time, on 10th February; and the balance of 150 are temporarily retained in the Army for disciplinary, medical or other reasons.
  I would like to express my thanks—and I am sure that the Committee will join with me in doing so—to the efficiency of the Army staffs in the United Kingdom and all over the world in this major, what I call "back to civvy street," operation. The shipping and the air transport companies, as well as the railways, have played in addition an indispenable part in getting these men home.
  The recall of Army reservists has been the subject of considerable criticism by hon. Members opposite and I will try to summarise these criticisms under three main headings. The emphasis laid on each of the three has varied at different times, but I should like to take the three headings in turn. The first is that there should have been no need to recall reservists at all; there was considerable criticism on those grounds. The second was that only men of Section A of the Regular reserve and those members of the Army Emergency Reserve, Category 1, who had accepted the pre-Proclamation liability should have been recalled; in other words, that no Proclamation should have been issued. Again, there was criticism on those lines. Finally, there were further criticisms on the ground that many of the reservists who were recalled should have been released earlier in the emergency.

  255
  The first criticism, therefore, was whether it was necessary to recall any reservists at all. The reason that we had to call out reservists is, I am fairly sure, known to any hon. Member of the Committee who has taken an interest in Army affairs in the years since the war. The facts have really been the same the whole time. The commitments which the Army has had to meet throughout the world since 1945 have stretched its manpower to the limit. Everyone knows the story of Korea, Malaya, Cyprus, Kenya, and so on.
  We meet these commitments in most cases by putting units at home on very low establishment—that is to say, by giving them only a proportion of the officers and men whom they would require in active operations. When the emergency began, some soldiers were withdrawn from other units and posted to those destined to go to the Mediterranean; but the numbers required to bring an Army corps up to war strength simply could not be found by this means alone.
  I emphasise the words "Army corps", because I should like to point out that those who criticise the call-up of reservists on the ground that the Army is supposed always to have in readiness "fire brigades" which can be rushed to danger spots at a few days' notice, are fairly wide of the mark. This was an operation of a completely different order of magnitude from the sort of colonial emergency such as we experienced in Kenya or British Guiana and for which, in fact, a "fire brigade" was rapidly despatched.
  All the units required for the operation had to be brought to the higher, or war, establishment; and the cross-posting of Regular soldiers achieved something in that direction. The remainder of the gap, however, between lower and higher establishment, had to be made up by reservists. It is for this very purpose that we have Section A of the Regular Reserve, containing Regular soldiers in their first year of Reserve service, and Category I, also of the Army Emergency Reserve, which is composed of men who have accepted liability to go abroad before a proclamation is issued.
  Mr. George Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying
  256
  that Section A of the Army Emergency Reserve is confined only to men in the first year of their Reserve service. The men who are designated from Section B to Section A are in the first year of their service. The 'Section A reservist has a much longer liability than one year.
  Mr. Hare: That is true, but they also contain people who have left the Colours within the last year. About 14,000 of these reservists from these two sections were called up, out of a total of about 27,000 in both categories.
  That leads me to my next point. Why did we not call out Section A of the Regular Reserve and the Army Emergency Reserve Category I en bloc and leave alone the reservists who did not have a standing liability for overseas service? I think that that has puzzled a great number of people. I should like to give the reason, because I think it is important that the Committee should have it.
  Under the Army Reserve Act, Section A of the Reserve, to which 24.000 of the 27,000 belonged, is composed of men who have left the Colours within the last year. In theory, one might think that those would provide a perfect cross-section of the Army by rank, length of service and trade; but in reality they are nothing of the sort. They may be men who have enlisted for three or seven-year engagements or even longer, and whose Colour service happened to have ended in the last 12 months. As individuals they are first-class material, trained Regular soldiers who have not begun to lose the edge of their skills. But the point is that the particular skills which they may represent are, in fact, entirely fortuitous; and there must be in this category too many tradesmen of one type and not enough of another, and so on.
  Our requirements for this operation were enormously varied, ranging from stevedores to petrol specialists, armament artificers to postal orderlies, locomotive crews to printers. That gives some sort of idea of the variety and type of skill we wanted to employ, and that is why, when this selective call-up took place, it was found that only just half of these reservists from Category A and A.E.R. Category I would fit the vacancies which had to be filled.
  We had, therefore, to look beyond them to Section B of the Regular Reserve and

  257
  to Category II of the Army Emergency Reserve: but the call-up as it affected those last two categories was extremely selective. If I give the percentages I think that the Committee will agree with me. Less than 6 per cent. of Section B of the Regular Reserve and only 2½ per cent. of A.E.R. Category II were called out, although the issue of the Proclamation calling out the Reserve gave us power to call up the whole of both sections if need be. I think that those figures of 6 per cent. for Section B and 2½ per cent. for A.E.R. Category II indicate the moderation with which the War Office used its powers, and they show that the call-up was extremely selective and that the minimum number of men required for the task were recalled.
  There were some cases in which the general rule was broken, and some drivers and general duty men in A.E.R. Category I were called up for service while the corresponding men in Section A and A.E.R. Category I were not used. The reason for this is that A.E.R. II contains a number of technical units which have trained together as a whole at annual camps, and they were called up as a whole. The alternative to doing that was to call up the skilled men in those units and to fill the unskilled vacancies with strangers. I think that on the grounds of efficiency and morale it would have been wrong to have adopted this latter alternative and that the right decision was taken.
  As to the final of the three criticisms, that many of the men recalled should have been released earlier in the emergency—
  Mr. G. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that the minimum number of men required was called up. So that we may have some idea, can he tell us the number of men actually deployed in the operation?
  Mr. Hare: I cannot give that offhand. I will see that the point is answered when the debate is summed up.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: It will be too late then.
  Mr. Hare: I was talking about the third type of criticism—that many of these men should have been released earlier in the emergency.
  258
  I think that I have said enough to show that the number called up was kept to the minimum and that the men could only have been released at the cost of bringing their units below the state of readiness which was necessary. As long as the Army was required to keep these units on a war footing, we had to retain every man we had got. Reservists posted to units at home or in Germany would have moved with their units to the Middle East if the operation had developed on a bigger scale. Those who were not destined to go to the Middle East would have been employed with units providing the administrative backing for the force at home. There was no waste of manpower.
  The second large component of the Suez expenditure, and it is by far the largest single heading, is the amount of almost £17 million under Vote 5, which provides for movements.
  Mr. Shinwell: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the call-up to reservists and what he describes as their "speedy release", would he say, from the standpoint of a mobilisation exercise, how long it took to call up these men?
  Mr. Hare: I have said that it took three weeks to call them up. I mentioned that earlier.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that it took three weeks to call up these reservists, in view of the fact that for many years now the War Office has been engaged in conducting mobilisation exercises?
  Mr. Hare: These specialist men had to be called up and the War Office was anxious to see that people were not called up unnecessarily. Much of the complaint from hon. Members opposite has been that they were kept in too long—
  Mr. Mellish: One of the main criticisms is that over the last five years this country has spent £8,000 million on defence matters; yet, when we come to an emergency of this character, judging from what we have heard today, there was no efficient scheme. We are very alarmed that a large part of this expenditure appears not to have been used correctly.
  Mr. Hare: I am trying to show that that is not so, and I hope that the hon.

  259
  Member will allow me to deploy my argument. As I have said, there was no waste of manpower. Immense care was taken to see that men were not called up unnecessarily.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman will now perhaps appreciate the point which was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). He wished to ascertain how many men were actually called up, because we have to relate the number called up to the time it took to call them. If 100,000 men were called up it might take three weeks but if, for example, 24,000 were called up, why should it take three weeks when information has been available to the War Office for years?
  Mr. Hare: I said that 24,000 reservists were called up and 10.000 retained Regulars were kept in the Army.
  I should like now to conic to the second large item of expenditure, that on the movement of personnel and stores during the emergency, and I should like to give the Committee some explanation of it.
  The variety of stores is indicated by the type of specialists which I have just mentioned. It ranged from the stores required for port and railway operation to all the items required to make military government function on an emergency basis, quite apart from the normal requirements of the Army in ammunition, food, clothing and equipment. About £1½ million is accounted for by rail and road movement of men and stores within the United Kingdom and to Germany, and includes the cost of movement of reservists to and from leave.
  The cost of overseas movement, amounting to about £15 million, divides itself into the £4 million required for the conveyance of personnel and £11 million for the conveyance of stores. At the outset of the emergency the normal trooping sea and air charter fleets were diverted to operations and, to keep normal troop movement going in other theatres, it was necessary to charter additional ships and aircraft. There were about 64,000 individual journeys to or from the United Kingdom made in ships or aircraft specially chartered for the purpose. For the movement of tanks, vehicles, ammunition, equipment, stores and supplies for the civil population, 71 merchant vessels
  260
  of various types were requisitioned, 7 commercial L.S.Ts. were specially chartered, and 12 naval L.S.Ts. were reconditioned. Approximately 400,000 tons of stores were moved in these ships and a further 24,000 tons were shipped as normal commercial cargoes.
  The large amount of shipping used for the Suez emergency has been subject to criticism on two main counts—
  Mr. G. Brown: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we are lost in the figures which he is using. I understood he was talking about Vote 5, and the Estimate gives the figure for movement of personnel and stores under this Vote as £14 million. So far, the right hon. Gentleman has given us a figure of £11 million for moving personnel and a figure of £4 million for stores, making £15 million. There is also £1¾ million for movement in Germany, making £17 million and the right hon. Gentleman has used that figure three times. I am sure that this is easy rationalisation but, if the figure under Vote 5 is £17 million, why is it set out here as £14 million?
  Mr. Hare: The trouble is that the amount I am actually asking for is not reflected in the table on the second page of the Estimate. Certain estimates which we made since the previous Estimate budgeted for rather less. Those figures have not been given, and they rather complicate the position. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the figures I am giving are accurate and have been thoroughly checked.
  Mr. Brown: Does this mean that all the figures we are being asked to vote can be quite different from what is set out here but, nevertheless, they add up to £29,800,000?
  Mr. Hare: The difficulty is that in Vote 5 we had assumed that there would be a saving of £2·3 million on the original Estimate. That cannot be shown. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We have not made it. That is why I am asking for the extra money.
  As I was saying, the two major criticisms that have been made about shipping, requisitioning, and so on, were, first, whether all the ships requisitioned were, in fact, required; secondly, it has been suggested that they should not have been kept under requisition as long as they were.
  Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I ask for your help and guidance? The figures before us are not realistic. None of us can be expected to understand them, because the Government Front Bench does not understand them. How can we argue about figures that are not real?
  Mr. Hare: Well—
  Mr. Mellish: Let Sir Charles answer.
  The Chairman: As far as I am concerned—
  Mr. Mellish: Do you understand them, Sir Charles?
  The Chairman: No, I do not have to do so. As far as I am concerned, a supplementary Estimate not exceeding £39 million is being asked for.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: Further to that point of order, Sir Charles. We are being asked to vote a sum not exceeding £14 million under Vote 5 and the Secretary of State for War is asking us to approve £17 million more under Vote 5. Can we do that?
  Mr. Hare: I am not asking that. I am trying to explain actually what was spent. The money I am asking the Committee to approve is contained in the Votes concerned. I am trying to give additional explanations to help the Committee, because the additions and subtractions as shown in the Votes do not—
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: Add up.
  Mr. Hare: I am trying to explain clearly to the Committee what it should know.
  Mr. John Strachey: May I put a suggestion to the Secretary of State for War? Is he not telling us that, apart from the Suez operation, he made a saving? He was, in fact, under-spending on this Vote by about £2½ million, and, therefore, the net amount he wants is £14 million, while there was a gross expenditure of £17 million on the Suez operation.
  Mr. Hare: That is extremely kind of the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, he is clearer than I was at that moment. I accept his explanation with gratitude.
  Mr. Wigg: Before the right hon. Gentleman continues. I confess to being in great difficulty. The Government issued a statement, on 12th July, showing the economies they expected to make on the Estimate for 1956–57. I have a copy before me. The actual saving they expected to make on Vote 5 under movements, was £150,000. Now the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that there was a saving of £3 million, which has to be added to the Estimates, making a total additional charge on the Vote of £14 million and an actual expenditure on Suez of £17 million. How does he square that with the Government statement of 12th July?
  Mr. Hare: I am saying that our estimate was that there would have been a saving of £3 million on the total of Vote 5 compared with the original Estimate. I think the hon. Gentleman understands that.
  Mr. Wigg Mr. Wigg rose—
  Mr. Hare: No, I must get on.
  Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Sir Charles. The Committee has before it the original Estimate totalling £36 million. Another document was obtainable from the Vote Office on 12th July showing an expected saving of £150,000. Now we have a Supplementary Estimate asking, under Vote 5, for an additional sum, after deducting appropriations-in-aid, of £14 million. The Secretary of State tells us now that he has spent £17 million. All of us have a right to an explanation of the different totals as between these three papers.
  The Chairman: I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. Hare: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to go on with my speech, I might be able to help him.
  I was speaking about the two main criticisms on shipping. As long as the Army had to be prepared to launch an operation of this magnitude, it had to have ships loaded and in a state of immediate readiness. With regard to the number of ships involved, which is another criticism, we have to take account of the fact that all the vehicles and unit equipment of the fighting troops and their administrative support had to be conveyed

  263
  to the scene of operations. The initial assault ships had to be specially loaded so that stores, equipment and vehicles for fighting troops could be quickly deployed.
  It must also be remembered that the L.S.T.s were required to carry the tanks and their crews. On the administrative side, we have to remember that Port Said has very inadequate unloading facilities and that the operation might well have involved landing over open beaches. Nor could we count on finding local labour or resources available once we had landed. [Laughter.] That appears obvious to the other side of the Committee. Consequently, the administrative tail of the force which, had the operation developed, would have been stationed along the length of the Canal, had to be self-contained.
  This involved the carriage of all sorts of stores and especially of a very large number of trucks and lorries. All the ships requisitioned were fully loaded and if the operation had developed further, I think that every vehicle would have been needed.
  Apart from the amount spent on pay and movements, the Suez emergency—
  Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what date the ships were loaded?
  Mr. Hare: I cannot give the final dates. They were all loaded in August.
  Hon. Members: In August?
  Mr. Hare: Apart from the amount spent on pay and movements, the Suez emergency occasioned approximately £7 million extra expenditure of which the largest single item is just over £4 million, shown as a loss of appropriations-in-aid. This is due to the fact that ordnance depôts were under such heavy pressure during the emergency that the plans for the disposal of surplus stores got very much in arrears. This £4 million is not a final loss, but the postponement of a receipt to a later year. All the stores involved are still in our possession and will be disposed of in due course, although rather later than had been planned.
  The remainder represents the direct cost of maintaining the troops used during the
  264
  emergency, their food, fuel and supplies, and the provision of extra stores and temporary accommodation. It includes the provision of £200,000 for certain stores, supplies and accommodation made available to the French forces. This deals with a point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) earlier. The value of the stores, which is £80,000, will be recovered this year and provision is made in the Estimate for this. The basis for recovery of the remaining £120,000 for accommodation is still the subject of discussion because the complicated questions arise of what residual value will remain to us of this accommodation. It is not expected that a recovery will be made in the current financial year.
  Before leaving the question of the cost of the Suez emergency, I should like to point out that even had the operation not taken place, the precautionary arrangements announced by the former Prime Minister on 2nd August, which were, I think, approved by the Leader of the Opposition, would, in any case, have necessitated a Supplementary Estimate. For example, had the troops called up for the emergency been stood down on 1st October, the extra cost to Army Votes would already have amounted to about £11 million.
  I now come to the second part of the Supplementary Estimate, which is the £9 million that does not arise out of the Suez emergency. As hon. Members will see from the table in page 2 of the Supplementary Estimate, this £9 million is arrived at by deducting various savings and increased appropriations-in-aid amounting to just over £9 million from increased expenditure of about £18 million shown under the headings 2 to 5.
  The largest single item on the debit side is £10 million for increased deliveries of stores. This is a net figure made up of extra expenditure of £17 million on warlike stores—a term that includes vehicles and electronic equipment—offset by under-expenditure on other types of stores, and by the cost of the stores bought for the Suez emergency, which are included under that head at £1·3 million. The main reason for the over-expenditure on warlike stores is the unexpectedly high rate of delivery of military stores by the motor and electronic industries during the past year.

  265
  The Army began the financial year with unfulfilled orders of more than £90 million and in the course of this year, as part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's programme for saving £100 million when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have made some severe cuts in the orders placed on the Ministry of Supply. But the speed with which firms working under the Ministry of Supply deliver goods has increased because of the smaller demands of he civilian market. Consequently, we have now a large amount of stores which we did not expect to receive until after the beginning of the financial year 1957–58.
  The effect of this has been to outweigh the reductions which we made as part of the £100 million saving. It does not, of course, mean that the savings which we had planned to make on this Vote have disappeared without trace. What has happened will reduce the size of the bill for military stores still outstanding, but it does mean that in the financial year with which we are dealing we have not secured the reductions planned. These increased deliveries account for £9½ million of the overspending on Vote 7.
  Mr. Shinwell: In view of the repeated statements made by the previous Government and the contents of White Papers indicating the desirability of some reduction in defence expenditure, surely it was unwise to allow those firms who had been responsible for the provision of stores to complete deliveries. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do with all the stores that have been delivered? Is he aware of what the War Office has in its possession? Has he an inventory? Can he tell us something about the details of the stores which have been delivered recently?
  Mr. Hare: I have said quite frankly to the Committee that we underestimated the rate of deliveries and that, quite clearly, we shall adjust our future demands as a result of the experience gained.
  The second item to which I would draw the Committee's attention is No. 3, in page 2 of the Estimate. The Council of Voluntary Welfare Work co-ordinates the work of its member associations, which includes bodies such as the Y.M.0 A., Y.W.C.A. and church organi-
  266
  sations, in providing social centres and hostels for the forces and their dependants about 80 places in Germany. They do really outstanding work for the forces' welfare.
  Since 1948, the Council has enjoyed the benefit of a concessional rate of exchange of Deutschmarks 40 to the £ on certain goods and services which they obtain from the Army. In the changed circumstances in Germany this concession had to be withdrawn on 1st September, 1956, and this placed these organisations in great financial difficulty. It has been decided, therefore, to help them and that is the reason for this extra charge.
  There are two reasons for the increase of £238,000 in expenditure on the Trucial Oman Scouts. Until the beginning of this year, the function of this force was essentially an internal security one, and its cost had been entirely borne on the Foreign Office Vote, but it has since been decided that the force should be substantially expanded for the local defence of the area. Because of this, and because the expanded force will be of value for local defence against an external threat as well, the cost in future will be shared between the War Office and the Foreign Office.
  At present, the Arabian Peninsula is one of the most troubled areas in the world. The Trucial Oman Scouts are recruited from the Bedouin and led by British officers. They are a fine fighting force and their expansion will, of course, be an excellent thing.
  Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman will save time by showing that this has nothing to do with the Suez emergency. Would he be good enough to tell us the date on which it was decided to expand the Trucial Oman Force?
  Mr. Hare: I will find that out for the hon. Gentleman and let him know.
  Item 5 in the table includes £5 million for increases in the salaries and wages of civilian employees at home and abroad. Among other things, it reflects the pay increases awarded as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. There is also an increase of £750,000 on Vote 2 in grants to the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. This is due mainly to higher wage rates for the civilian employees of the Associations, and again reflects the higher

  267
  salaries recently introduced in the Civil Service.
  A large item in the total of increased appropriations-in-aid is the £2½ million by which receipts from the Federal German Government exceed the estimate made at the beginning of the financial year. When the original Estimate was prepared, negotiations with the Federal German Government were still in progress and it was not possible to forecast accurately what total assistance, including money carried over from the previous year, we should receive from the German Government in 1956–57.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: When the original Estimate was made, we anticipated a contribution of £50 million from the Germans and subsequently, last June or July, we found that we were to get only £35 million, an adverse amount of £15 million. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that?
  Mr. Hare: These negotiations had not been completed. This £2½ million has been received as a result of arrangements which materialised after the Estimate was framed.
  I have tried to explain to the Committee the main outline of this rather complicated pattern of savings and increased expenditure. I am grateful to the Committee for having listened so patiently, but this is a large sum of money and I wanted to go into some detail. The cost of the Suez emergency could not have been predicted, but I am frankly disappointed—and I would like to make his clear—that I should have to ask, in addition, for this other £9 million which has not arisen from Suez. I had hoped that this year there would have been a saving on Army Votes. These hopes have not materialised for the reasons I have given.
  I know that the majority of hon. Members opposite still disagree with the decision to intervene in Egypt. These differences certainly will not be resolved by this debate; but however much we may differ on the policy and strategy involved in the Port Said operations, I believe that there are certain things about which all of us are on common ground. I refer to the courage, resourcefulness and restraint of the forces which took part, and in this I include the French.
  268
  This was in every sense a combined operation, in which all three Services had a vital part to play. The skill and efficiency with which the two other Services played their part is beyond praise. They were in every sense true brothers in arms.
  Now I come to the Army. All of us can speak with pride of our soldiers. They were well led, and great credit is deserved by their commanders, General Keightley and General Stockwell. These fighting men of all ranks proved themselves gallant, efficient and humane. I say humane, because of the loose talk that there has been in certain quarters. Extreme precautions were taken to minimise Egyptian civilian casualties. Not one bomb was dropped on Port Said. All air strikes were by cannon or rocket and were undertaken at low levels with great accuracy and were very localised. Naval bombardment—
  Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman says that the air strikes were done at low level. Is he aware that the Royal Air Force officer who was recently court-martialled indicated that his instructions were to bomb from 25,000 ft.?
  Mr. Hare: I am talking about Port Said. In the case of Port Said no bombs at all were dropped. Naval bombardment was confined to the beaches and reduced to the minimum in both weight and number of shells. In addition, our tanks made the least possible use of their main armament and relied more or less entirely on machine-gun fire. These precautions—we ought to be absolutely clear about this—certainly endangered the lives of our own troops and delayed the capture of the town of Port Said. But these risks to British lives were willingly accepted.
  I believe that history will show with the utmost clarity that the decision to intervene in Egypt was right. I believe also that the conduct of our forces was in the highest tradition of our national history. Finally—
  Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Sir Charles. I believe you ruled that policy should not enter into our debate. If the Minister persists in his present course, we shall have to reserve the right also to refer to these matters.
  The Chairman: I was about to stop the Minister. I would refer him to what I said at the beginning of the debate. I said that in this connection it might be necessary incidentally to refer to the employment of ships and aircraft for the purpose of conveying troops, but that it would be out of order to discuss the general rôle of the Navy and the Air Force since this is not covered by the Supplementary Estimate, and still less are the diplomatic incidents leading to the emergency.
  Mr. Hare: I beg your pardon, Sir Charles. I stand corrected.
  Mr. Wigg: Further to the point of order. The right hon. Gentleman, whether wittingly or not, has in the course of this debate made the point that this operation was right. Therefore, in all fairness my hon. Friends must surely be allowed to contradict that argument, because we certainly do not believe it.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order—
  The Chairman: I will answer one point of order at a time. I was trying to prevent the Minister continuing on that line, because it: is contrary to the Ruling which I gave.
  Mr. Silverman: I wish to ask you a question, Sir Charles, so that we may understand how far this goes. I understand that what the Committee is discussing is whether the Government should have extra money to cover the things set out in this Estimate and that one of the things covered by the Estimate is the adventure, whatever else it may be called, in Suez. Would it be out of order for the Committee, when considering whether the Government should have the money or not, to consider why the Government wanted it?
  The Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have been here when I gave my original Ruling. I gave it to the Committee, and I am reluctant to do so again.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Might I clarify a matter, Sir Charles? If it was in order to argue that the operation was right, presumably it would be equally in order for us to argue that it was wrong?
  The Chairman: I am now stopping the Minister from continuing that argument.
  Mr. Hare: I am sorry, Sir Charles. I agree that I was out of order in suggesting that the operation was right. I apologise to the Committee for having transgressed the rules of order.
  Having gone into the detail of what the Estimate is about, I now submit it to the Committee and ask for the money referred to in the various Votes.
  Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, I should like to have clarification upon one point.
  Mr. Lipton: It will take a long time.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: My right hon. Friend has repeatedly mentioned troops from Germany. This is a very important point so far as the Paris Agreements are concerned. I wonder whether he can tell me what forces, and how many troops, from the German occupied area were used in the Suez operation.
  Mr. Hare: No force from Germany was used in the operation.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Were only individual troops used?
  Mr. Hare: No force at all from Germany was used in the operation.
  4.36 p.m.
  Mr. John Strachey: The Secretary of State for War has presented us with the bill for the Suez operation. In so doing he has stuck very closely indeed to an exposition of the details of how the money was spent, and has told us very little indeed about what it was spent on; about what we actually got for our money. I shall have something to say about the details of how the money was actually spent. But I think the Committee will also want to look at what it was spent on, at the actual operation; and I hope to say a few things about that and about the preparation for it.
  After all, this is not a small bill. It is a bill for only £29 million on paper so far as Suez is concerned; but, of course, that is not all. As the Secretary of State explained to us, or endeavoured to explain to us, there is a good deal more in actual expenditure. This is the net amount extra for which the War Office

  271
  is asking, and as the War Office has underspent on many of its other Votes, or on the same Vote, the actual gross expenditure on Suez is greater than the net amount shown. We understand that we are not to have an Estimate in respect of the expenditure on the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy because all that expenditure is balanced by under-spending on other things. So the real expenditure on Suez is very considerably greater.
  That is, however, really quite a small point, because the real bill for Suez with which the nation is faced is of course incomparably larger than this. We have, I am afraid, only just begun, even in purely material terms, to face the real bill for Suez, in the dislocation of our economy, the effect of the oil shortage, and the rest—that is something far wider and very different. I say nothing of the issues which we are not to discuss—and I have no intention of discussing them this afternoon—of what one might call the non-material bill for Suez in respect of the position of our country in relation to the United Nations, its alliances and the rest.
  However, I believe that there is one aspect of the effect of Suez on the nonmaterial side at which we ought to look, and that is the effect that it has had on the minds of people in this country in respect of defence. That point was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) just now. People everywhere are saying, "Here we have spent £7,000 million in the last five years. That is no small sum. Yet after all that it has only been found possible in about three months, and with the utmost difficulty, to mount an expeditionary force of about 20,000 men". Not only that; the operation itself has turned out to be something the like of which, it has been universally conceded, this country ought never to undertake again. One now sees in the Press, and above all in the Conservative Press, the question being asked, "What is the good of any defence policy of any kind? Nothing is any good whatever". That is one of the most serious effects of the Suez operation.
  Hon. Members on this side of the Committee do not take the view that the Suez
  272
  operation proves that there is not a suitable and appropriate defence policy for this country. What it does prove is that the defence policy which has been pursued by the Government and its predecessor for the past five years has turned out to be not only grossly excessive, as everybody now seems to admit, but also incredibly ill-adapted to our real defence requirements. It has shown, as it seems to us, that a tremendous amount of rethinking in the defence sphere is necessary. But it has not shown that we must "chuck our hand in" in the matter of defence; that is an entirely wrong conclusion to come to. It has shown the absolute necessity of thinking again, almost from the start, about defence matters. The House will be devoting many hours to that subject during the next few weeks.
  The rest of my speech will largely illustrate that theme. I want to say something about the military landing at Port Said—not that I think that the most important lessons are to be learned from that. I believe that they are to be learned from the preparation of the operation, and I shall come to that point later in my speech. First, I would repeat what the Secretary of State has said, namely, that the more we investigate this matter the more we see that our troops acted with courage, resolution and speed. We shall all have been astonished if they had not done so.
  Secondly—and I have gone into this question as carefully as I can—I would say that our forces certainly all acted, as they were instructed to act, with the greatest possible restraint and humanity. There is not the slightest doubt that the briefings given to all three Services—the Navy in its bombardment; the Royal Air Force in regard to the bombing, and the Army in respect of the landing and the street fighting—were given with meticulous care. Very great trouble was taken and, in the event, our troops showed that, so far as it is possible to wage war with restraint and humanity, they did so. No one questions that fact.
  Having said that, the fact remains that, as a consequence of our action—as anybody knows who has seen even the newsreels of conditions in Port Said—very considerable damage was caused, and there were many casualties. The simple upshot of the matter is that it is quite

  273
  impossible to wage war without causing very great damage and many casualties. The mistake was ever to have made the quite hypocritical suggestion that it was possible to do so. If a force enters another country, bombs its airfields, bombards one of its cities from the sea and makes, not indeed bombing attacks, but repeated air strikes upon that city with cannon fire and rockets, deaths and damage are bound to result.
  I could not follow the Secretary of State's argument that it made such a lot of difference to the people of Port Said that they were attacked by rocket tire instead of by bombs. It does not make very much difference whether one is killed by rocket fire or by bombs. When such operations are carried out and then there is street fighting in a large modern city, and tank fighting at that, with the 20-pounder armament of the Centurion tanks—I cannot agree with the Secretary of State that the 20-pounders were not used fairly freely because the main area of devastation in the Arab town was caused by the fire of 20-pounder tank guns, which are very considerable weapons—a rather considerable mess is caused, and a considerable number of casualties are inflicted. It is not in the least the fault of the troops that that was so; it is the fault of the people who ordered them to commit this act of aggression.
  I now turn to the subject which was discussed in the House last night and which is very relevant to this debate. It refers to the public relations side of the operation. The most dreadful error, from the point of view of our country's good name, was made when it was announced that only 100 Egyptians had been killed in the Port Said operation. I do not know the true figure; I do not think that anybody knows or will ever know. But the Herbert Report—which gives an estimate which certainly does not err on the high side—appears to show that both the number of killed and the number of casualties were about ten times the number originally claimed.
  That was the most dreadful error. Once that had been said—when dozens of foreign correspondents in Port Said knew that it was completely untrue—and when it was repeated, nobody from that moment onwards believed anything else we said. That was the tragedy of the situation. The most dreadful atrocity stories, which are quite untrue, have been
  274
  alleged against us ever since, simply because of the ghastly mistake of even suggesting that an operation against a large city like Port Said could possibly be undertaken with only 100 killed.
  There was another frightful error in the public relations sphere. We seem to be rather bad at this. It was said that the troops had gone on to capture Ismailia, when in fact they had only gone on as far as El Cap. It did not matter, as there was to be a cease-fire any way, but to say that they had gone on to capture Ismailia was a frightful error in public relations, which also helped to make people disbelieve what we were saying.
  I do not lay the blame upon the public relations officers in Cyprus. I have been a public relations officer myself and I know their troubles. The blame lies in the instructions that they were given, and the variations in those instructions. Let us think of the position of the public relations unit in Cyprus. The operation was started last August. When the Secretary of State said that all the ships were loaded last August it seemed to surprise the Committee, but that was when the operation was laid on. We all know that.
  That was "Operation Musketeer" That was the code name given in the headline of the Economist as long ago as 24th November. Nevertheless "Operation Musketeer", for which the ships were loaded last August, as the Secretary of State has reminded us, was not the operation finally carried out, but quite a different one. It was an operation to land at Alexandria and go straight to Cairo and not to the Canal at all. I am not expecting that to be confirmed from the Government Front Bench, but everybody knows that that was the case.
  That is the explanation for those famous leaflets which were issued from Cyprus. Those leaflets were, of course, appropriate to the original "Operation Musketeer", which was quite frankly to overturn Nasser 'by going straight for him. In many respects, although it would have been utterly wrong, it was a much more logical operation than the one carried out. When the public relations people found that they had to provide for an entirely different operation, they used the same old leaflets with which they had started.

  275
  I can see how it happened. If they had been in London, they could have had a new set of leaflets printed. I am guessing, but having been concerned with these things in my day, I think that the public relations people in Cyprus, with hundreds of thousands of leaflets having been churned out on flatbed presses, very elaborately, could not possibly scrap them. They had to use them up. They had to use up the stock. And so these hundreds of leaflets came out. True they were quite inappropriate to the operation then being mounted, which, we were not told, was about intervening between the Israeli and Egyptian troops, safeguarding the Canal, stamping out forest fires and so on. The poor old public relations office in Cyprus was still working on the leaflets designed for the original "Operation Musketeer". There again I do not put the blame on the chaps trying to do the job on the spot. I put the blame on the Government, on the Government then in power—and a very similar Government are in power now.
  I want to return to an operational point and I hope that the hon. Member who replies to the debate will deal with it. We were told a good deal bout helicopters and what a great success they were. They are an interesting development and an interesting arm. But I put this to the Minister of Defence; surely we will get into a good deal of trouble if we think that helicopters are a possible instrument for an airborne assault. My information—and it comes from very distinguished officers on the spot—is that helicopters could not possibly have been used until and unless all opposition on the ground had been destroyed. If there had been one Bofors gun left in operation, they would have been utterly helpless and vulnerable. And once all ground opposition has been destroyed, many aircraft could have been used as well as helicopters.
  What we wanted then were large transport aircraft, Beverleys and similar aircraft. We all know why they were not used—because there are none. That is a very remarkable thing. I know the history of the Beverleys. They date back to long before my day. They were ordered in 1944, before the end of the war. I remember seeing one on Farnborough Airfield in 1951 and thinking that it would be a very valuable aircraft for
  276
  the Army, a real freighter, a real carrier of personnel. It is astonishing that in 1957 they still do not exist. It is not the Army's fault. The fault is the total disinterest of the R.A.F. in anything except fighting aircraft. Other aircraft somehow get no priority and never get made.
  I want to come to a semi-military, semi-political topic. One of the deficiencies in the operation was that our forces did not carry with them any machine of military government to be set up when Port Said had been captured. That was apparently because our Forces expected such willing and ready Egyptian co-operation. It was hinted at by the Secretary of State when he said they could not absolutely depend on getting a ready supply of local labour.
  Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman has inserted the word "absolutely".
  Mr. Strachey: I withdraw the word "absolutely".
  I think that it shows that there was a deep miscalculation. On the whole we seem to have overestimated rather than underestimated the Egyptian power of military resistance, which was very low. What we obviously greatly underestimated was the degree to which there was now political consciousness in Egypt, and the fact that when we invaded their country, they did not, as perhaps was the case in the past, throw over their Government. On this occasion they certainly were not set against their own Government, as undoubtedly they might have been 70 years ago. They did not come over to us and help us to run the city. On the contrary, invasion had exactly the opposite effect and rallied the population to its own Government. Our failure to provide a machine of military government to administer the town when we had captured it was therefore not without significance.
  It will be interesting if we can have an answer to my last point on the actual operation itself. What was the actual purpose of the six-day air bombardment? Was it simply to safeguard the landing of the Army, the military operation, as has been suggested? If it was, one is bound to ask the simple question, "Was your bombing really necessary?", because all the indications show that that could have been done in one, or at most two, nights.

  277
  Was there not something more to it than that? I was very interested in the account, in the Daily Telegraph, of the very responsible military journalist, Lieut.-General Martin. In his notable article on the subject of the whole operation, in the Daily Telegraph on 15th December, he said that the six days' bombing
  "was confidently expected to bring down the Egyptian Government".
  I think that that was the purpose. I detect an old heresy of my old Service, the Royal Air Force, namely, the doctrine of air control; the old inclination of the R.A.F. to believe that it can "go it" alone and do everything on its own. The doctrine of air control is that one can keep control—as the Air Force used to keep control of Iraqi tribes—by means of air action alone.
  I have reason to believe that there was a tendency, at any rate in the Royal Air Force, to apply that doctrine of air control, which is never very attractive but which is absolutely insane when applied to a very large, comparatively developed country like Egypt. That is what was really at the back of that six days' bombardment. The bombardment was laid most scrupulously on the airfields, in the early phase, and on military objectives in the latter phase, so far as could be done. But it should not be doubted that it was the six days' bombing, perhaps above everything else, which made the whole business stink in the nostrils of the world. If it was partly due to that Royal Air Force doctrine of air control, it was an extremely wrong thing to have done.
  Those are the points which I wanted to raise about the operation itself, but I think that there are other more interesting points to raise about the preparations for the operation. When all this began, we used to hear—I have heard it from hon. Members opposite and it appeared in the Press—that we were in for a swift, clear, surgical operation. When we look at the way in which the thing was done, we find that it was not so much like a swift, clean surgical operation as like a film in slow motion. The actual story reveals that the preparation was terribly slaw, cumbersome and heavy.
  The Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the mobilisation of the 3rd Infantry Division began on 4th August last. It did not go
  278
  well, to put it mildly, and I should like to ask one or two questions about that. I do not say that what I am here suggesting is necessarily true, but I should like to know whether these things are true or not; for this is the sort of thing that everyone is saying. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the call-up of reservists. We do not doubt that some reservists had to be called up to man an expeditionary force of this sort. But it is alleged that considerably too many reservists were called up for the military purposes.
  I do not know if it can be true, but it is alleged, for example, that R.A.C. Records called up five men per tank on the basis of their old schedules of tank crews. As many hon. Members opposite will know, that was the number of men required for the older type of tanks. It is alleged that the schedules had not been adjusted far the four-men tank crews needed for the Centurion tanks. Therefore an extra man per tank was called up from the Reserve. That is only an alleged example, but for that and other reasons considerably too many reservists were called up.
  It is further alleged that an order, or ruling, was given—one sees how it may have been given—that if reservists had been called up, when their unit went overseas, they too must go overseas with the unit: because they could not he kept hanging about without any purpose in this country. That meant, as too many were called up—it is definitely alleged—that certain Regulars had to be left behind to make way and create places for the extra reservists who were called up. Were that really so it was very unfortunate.
  Then there is the story of the Pickfords vans. The story is that for some reason nobody could lay hands on tank transporters to take the tanks to the ports of embarkation. In the end the War Office had to call on Pickfords to provide the heavy transporters, and eventually the tanks actually went to the ports of embarkation in plain vans. I do not know if that be true, but it is alleged to be so. I should like to hear it definitely denied, if it is untrue. It is certainly what is being said. I am told that Pickfords did a very workmanlike job taking the tanks to the ports.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: It is a nationalised concern.
  Mr. Strachey: It is, as my right hon. Friend has said, a nationalised concern, but perhaps it was not ideal for this particular purpose.
  There is a more serious point. Is it, or is it not, the case that in the process the change-over of "Operation Musketeer" from the old concept of it to the new—I think it was bound up with that—the 6th Tanks were substituted for the 1st Tanks as the actual unit which should do the assault? At any rate my information is that that was a very unfortunate substitution. I do not think there can be any doubt that it was made. It meant that a unit, which was considerably less prepared for the operation, was at the last minute, and in a good deal of confusion over the actual loadings, substituted to do the job. I agree that in the event the opposition was relatively light and probably the substitution made little difference. But although every mobilisation has difficulties, there seems to have been an undue share of troubles and nonsenses in this case.
  I think that there is something bigger behind it. It seems to me that there was a tremendous amount of over-insurance. Just as we underestimated the political solidarity of the Egyptians, so obviously there was a tremendous overassessment of their military abilities, and therefore a huge over-insurance. Perhaps we shall he told that that was a fault on the right side; that it is always better to over-insure. But from the point of view of those who believe in the operation, over-insurance could prove fatal. It could bring an operation of this sort to nought by sheer delay. From the point of view of the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), for example, I should have thought that over-insurance was one of the worst features of the whole thing.
  Now I come to a military point, that of bases. What have we not sacrificed and spent to retain bases in the world? There were two of them geographically relevant to this operation. There was the base in Cyprus and the base in Libya. When the thing happened, both bases were found to be almost useless. Cyprus was, of course, used to some extent, but 18,000 men were immobilised there. The parachute unit which was actually to undertake the operation was doing police duties in Cyprus and had to be brought back to the United Kingdom for retrain-
  280
  ing before it could be used in the assault. Therefore our retention of Cyprus, far from being an asset, was an enormous liability, on balance, to this operation. We have had to go through all this shame and agony over Cyprus for no military or operational advantage at all.
  The same is true about Libya. From the first we had to say that we would not use Libya for the operation. So those two bases proved totally valueless.
  I suggest that that provides a lesson for the Minister of Defence. Will not the right hon. Gentleman take the line that at any rate this shows one thing if nothing else; that bases to which we cling against the will of the local population are a liability and not an asset from a strictly military point of view? Will not he get out of them for that reason, if for no other? If we have to have such operations—we may have to mount an expeditionary force in the future—let it be done from the United Kingdom, or from bases such as Malta which desire to be a part of the United Kingdom.
  Next there is, of course, the lesson of Suez on the actual structure of the Army itself. Surely it has proved that our Army as it is today, a National Service Army, or as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor called it, a half-and-half Army, half-Regular and half-National Service, is unsuited and inapt for this sort of purpose. There are approximately 375,000 men in the Army, 200,000 of them in the United Kingdom. With the utmost difficulty we produced in three months by partial mobilisation an expeditionary force of 20,000 men. Why is that net product so hopelessly out of proportion to the size of our forces?
  The reason emerges in the Wolfenden Report, and it is that the half-and-half Army—National Service taking up 50 per cent. of the Forces—gives us an Army half of which is all the time under training and the other half of which is doing the training. The amount of actual forces which we can dispose of is tragically small. One of the Army lessons of Suez must be that this type of Army is totally unsuitable to our present needs and that we must undertake the abolition of National Service and the building up of an all-Regular, all-professional, non-National Service Army.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman has drawn a wrong conclusion. The real reason is the Paris Agreements, under which we are not allowed to use any of our forces from Germany. Whether the Paris Agreements should be revised is another matter. I think that they should.
  Mr. Strachey: It is true that we did not withdraw units from Germany, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks into the matter he will find that the 2nd Infantry Division was earmarked as a possible reinforcement for the operation. It is an error to think that the forces in Germany were regarded, or could be regarded, as sacrosanct. That is part of our liability and our commitments. The issue is: how are we to meet them? I am saying that the half-and-half Army is, for the reasons which I have given, becoming less and less suitable for our purposes.
  Now let me anticipate an argument that I have no doubt will be used against us. It is this. If we passionately disprove of the whole operation we ought not to be interested in its military side at all. That is a great mistake. The fact that we think that this expeditionary force of approximately 20,000 men was used for an abominably wrong purpose does not mean that it is not a genuine defence requirement of this country to have the ability to mount such an expeditionary force, if necessary. It is one of our defence requirements.
  We try to fulfil all sorts of defence requirements which are not genuine, and the Minister of Defence will find that he must examine them and that he will have to end them. But to have some sort of force kept, usually in the United Kingdom, or in Germany, and ready to be dispatched, and perhaps a bit more ready than this one was, is a genuine defence requirement. I put it to my hon. Friends who may be sceptical about this that one day we might have to fulfil an obligation under the United Nations, as we did in Korea. This is a defence requirement, and however much we opposed the Suez operation the military lessons of it are very important indeed.
  I can only say in conclusion that I am aware that the lessons which I have sought to draw from the Suez operation are dreadfully negative. But negative
  282
  lessons are sometimes a good deal of use. It reminds me of an old story of the Duke of Wellington which I am rather fond of. A man asked the Duke what he had learned from the Walcheren expedition, in which he had participated as a young man. The Duke replied, "Sir, I learned how not to do it, and that's always something". We have to learn from the Suez disaster—it was a disaster—not only how not to do it, but also what not to do.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: It is a subject for speculation why I caught your eye, Sir Charles, before any of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen on the Government benches sought to intervene in the debate.
  Mr. G. Brown: Not one of them rose.
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg of them not to suppose that I intend to act as a substitute for any of them. There are differences of opinion on the Suez operation and they have been expressed both at home and overseas. There I propose to let that part of the matter rest.
  I will give my reasons for so doing. What emerges from this debate so far as it has gone, and it has not gone very far, is that there is a very strong case indeed for an examination into the condition of the Army and in particular into the administration of the Army by the War Office. That is not a new proposal. Hon. Members may recall that a few years ago some of my hon. Friends and myself asked for an inquiry into National Service. We added that the time was ripe—this was several years ago—for an examination of the Army with a view to its reorganisation. That proposal was rejected by the Government. I beg of the Minister of Defence, whom I congratulate upon his appointment, to give this matter urgent consideration.
  The speech of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War—including the statistical evidence—was no doubt prepared by the officials in the War Office. I have some sympathy for him. Though he must accept responsibility for the speech, nevertheless the statistics and the major part of the speech are the responsibility of his subordinates in the War Office. The crux of the military problem is that in a modern situation it took three weeks to mount a force of the Army

  283
  alone of little more than 20,000 men although, apparently, the Government had prepared some weeks, if not some months, before for an emergency of that sort. That was their own admission.
  I recall that when some years ago—this is not a recent incident—Field Marshal Montgomery, as Deputy Supreme Commander in the West, was arguing for the creation of a strong reserve force capable of being mounted to supplement the Regular Forces on the Continent under N.A.T.O., he made it quite clear that in an emergency to be effective at all a reserve force must be made available in no more than two weeks, otherwise it would be of little value. What is the future of the present Army in a situation such as the Field Marshal envisaged? From the standpoint of many of my hon. Friends, many hon. Members opposite and many people in the country, Suez was a regrettable affair, but it was a minor military adventure, so far as one can conjure up a war situation, alongside the kind of assault which would be required in the event of an aggression in the West. That is what the Government have to answer; not that they failed in this military adventure—that, largely, is a political issue—but that they failed militarily to mount an assault in time to make it effective and at much less expense.
  I do not want to say much more about that issue except again to direct the attention of the Minister of Defence to this vital consideration. How are our forces to be organised, and at what cost in manpower and all the paraphernalia that is required? Are we to organise our defence forces on modern lines, or to retain the conventional pattern, or have a mixture of both? That, of course, is a subject which will emerge in the course of our forthcoming defence debates and a great more will require to be said about it. I feel sure that the Minister of Defence must have learned something this afternoon from the speech of his right hon. Friend.
  I want to refer to one or two matters, not arising from the Suez affair, but from the Supplementary Estimate. The first is a somewhat minor matter, but nevertheless, one of some concern to our troops in Germany. I ventured to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon in the course of which it was
  284
  suggested that our troops were suffering from the unfriendly attitude of the Germans. He denied it. I did not press this at the time, but, as he knows, I advised him that he could secure a copy of an article written by Mr. Noyes Thomas in a well-known Sunday newspaper, in which some serious allegations were made. I observed that after I put my Question this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) suggested that if I was referring to the unfriendly attitude of the female sex I was quite wrong, but I did not have that in mind at all. I ask the Secretary of State for War to make further inquiries into the alleged unfriendly attitude of the Germans.
  Because of the changed situation, the Germans are much more prosperous than they were at the initial occupation. At the initial occupation it was possible for our troops to obtain anything they liked—often without cost—but now the position has changed. The Germans have become prosperous. They have not had to resort to defence expenditure on the scale which this country has borne in recent years. That prosperity is beginning to exhibit itself in a somewhat arrogant or, at any rate, offhand, attitude towards Our troops.
  For example, I understand that it is almost impossible now for our troops to obtain any kind of recreation or welfare outside N.A.A.F.I., or the Army. Formerly they could go out for recreation. There were clubs, night clubs, dances and the like available to them. Serious limitations have been placed upon their freedom and their entertainment. It seems to me that these are matters with which we ought to concern ourselves. We ought to provide all the welfare required for our troops in lieu of what formerly was available to them from German sources.
  I think the time has arrived—perhaps before he departs from the Committee the Minister of Defence will take note of this—when we ought to consider whether we should retain our troops in Germany. I doubt whether they would prove effective, in any case, having regard to the situation which might arise in the event of a modern war—if, unfortunately, that should ever occur. I do not know whether they are ever going to be of any value, but certainly I would

  285
  meet the commitment that is involved in the Paris Agreements, not by retaining four divisions in Germany, but by leaving there an equivalent striking force, which means not exactly two divisions, but perhaps three or four brigades. That would reduce the cost considerably.
  Now I want to refer to what is a much more substantial item—the provision of warlike stores. In the Supplementary Estimate we find that there has been an increase of £17 million, presumably in recent months. Surely that huge item of expenditure is not exclusively attributable to the Suez affair. The right hon. Gentleman in fact said that it was partly due to accelerated deliveries. There is one question which has to be put and which has to be answered, sooner or later. I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman categorically. Does he know what the War Office has in its possession? Has he undertaken an inventory of stores, warlike and otherwise, in the possession of the Army? The Secretary of State has not had very much time, but no doubt he has made some inquiries, for the matter has been raised in the House in recent months. Does he know whether such an inventory exists?
  I recall that some time ago his predecessor said that he thought it would be much too expensive to undertake such an inventory, but surely without having this knowledge it is impossible for the War Office to continue purchasing stores, warlike and otherwise, at great cost. Surely the time has arrived when we ought to know what the War Office has and whether it is essential to continue to issue orders for further goods and to accept deliveries. I do not know whether there is an escape clause in the contracts between the War Office and the manufacturers which would enable the War Office Ito terminate the contracts, but at any rate that should be investigated.
  I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, which has not been answered, about vast quantities of vehicles, tanks, armoured cars and the like which are concentrated in a certain part of Yorkshire. I have received communications from people in the neighbourhood from which I gather that the maintenance cost in manpower and other items is substantial. All these vehicles are left out in the open. I should like to be told by the Secretary of State or his Parliamentary Secretary what is the cost of main-
  286
  tenance. What is the manpower cost? How many people are employed there? What are their duties?
  I should like to know whether all that material—tanks, vehicles and all the rest of it—is ever likely to be used again in any kind of war. If it can be used, let the right hon. Gentleman say so, but if not, why not dispose of it and break the vehicles up? At any rate, there should be no maintenance of material which will never be of any value to the Army in future.
  In the defence debates and when we are discussing the Army, Air and Navy Estimates, hon. Members in all parts of the House will demand a searching inquiry and investigation into the cost of the Services. I am satisfied from my experience at the War Office over a period of years and from my experience at the Ministry of Defence that we are wasting millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money and a substantial amount of manpower. I will not go into detail now, but I shall have a great deal to say about it in the defence debates.
  Meanwhile, apart from the political aspects, my disappointment in the Suez operation is that the Government were incapable of mounting an assault which was effective and that we wasted millions of pounds and the time of many of our skilled men in undertaking this operation. In my judgment the Government stand condemned not because of the operation itself but because of the manner in which it was conducted.
  5.35 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: When I came here this afternoon I had no intention of intervening in the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor had your hon. Friends."] As far as I am concerned, it was quite voluntary. I should like, however, to comment on the speech made for the Opposition by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). A defence policy advanced by an ex-Secretary of State for War based upon giving up all bases from which we could operate successfully anywhere in the Middle East, coupled with the abandonment of the National Service element in our Armed Forces, does not add up to a very practical policy.
  Mr. Strachey: Will the hon. Member permit me to correct him? I said that

  287
  experience had shown that bases which we tried to hold against the will of the inhabitants of the country proved a liability and not an asset. I specifically said that if the people of a base like Malta want to remain part of the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom, that is another matter, but that we should not try to keep bases against the will of the inhabitants, because they turn into liabilities.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not want to get out of order, and it would not be proper for me to take up with the right hon. Gentleman the logical implication of the Opposition's policy of giving Cyprus to the Greeks. That would be out of order. I do not see how we can fulfil any military, naval or air commitments, either under direct treaty or under N.A.T.O. or any other organisation, unless we have some bases from which to operate, nor do I see, purely from the manpower point of view, how we can do without a National Service intake into the Army, Navy and Air Force.
  Turning to the Suez operation itself, I think perhaps there was some force in the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the way in which it was carried out. This is the only criticism I would make of it. By reason of the nature of the emergency, the area in which we had to operate and the circumstances in which the need for action arose, I should have thought that top priority ought perhaps to have been given to speed. I believe that speed was the essential condition to success. It is easy to be wise after the event, but looking back I feel that perhaps too much priority was attached to factors other than speed. Without knowing the whole story and admitting that it is easy to be wise after the event, that is the criticism which I should make.
  Turning to the question of Egyptian casualties, I am not certain what are the motives which prompt the Opposition to make such a song and dance about the actual number of these casualties. Of course, on grounds of humanity, in an operation of that sort, whether we call it an operation of war or a police operation, it is right up to a point to restrict civilian casualties to the minimum. As my right hon. Friend said, we certainly did that. The most specific and precise instructions were not only given but
  288
  carried out, to some extent almost endangering the success of the operation, in order to restrict civilian casualties to the minimum, but I do not think that in the Middle East we have got or are likely to get very much credit for restraint of that sort.
  When we come to assess what was the total figure, I do not see how anybody can possibly give anything more than an approximate answer. Anybody who has had experience of any kind of action knows quite well that immediately after the action has taken place, still less during the time that fighting is going on, it is impossible, with the best will in the world, to give anything like an accurate figure. In the case of the Port Said operation, it was doubly difficult for the simple reason that although there was a cease-fire which the British forces loyally observed, the Egyptians never observed it at all.
  Indeed, I remember reading in some newspaper at the time, though I do not recollect the details very accurately, that there was a case of a patrol of 50 Egyptian troops who went right through the British lines. They were not shot at, because the British troops were observing the cease fire. The Egyptians came, shot up a tank commander and went back again. Due to incredible restraint, which could not have happened in any army but the British, these Egyptians were allowed to come in and to go back because we observed the truce and the Egyptians did not do so.
  There is another point. Nobody on earth could tell then, and nobody on earth can tell now, how many casualties were caused by the initial bombardment, how many during the street fighting after the truce had broken down, and how many by Egyptians shooting up other Egyptians. It is very well-known that arms were liberally distributed to large sections of the civil population of Port Said, and that most of these arms had gone, after we had landed, into what the right hon. Member for Dundee, West called the Arab quarter.
  During this odd twilight period or semi-cease fire, call it what we like, there was a golden opportunity for Egyptians to pay off old scores, and, since a great many Egyptians owe money to a great many other Egyptians, quite a number of Egyptians to whom money was owed

  289
  were shot up in the process. What the total number was I do not think anybody knows. Nobody will ever be able to tell whether the total number was 600, 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000: what proportion was caused by the fighting in the streets, or by the landing, or by Egyptians shooting each other.
  There is only one other thing I want to say. The right hon. Gentleman made some comments about what he called the failure of our public relations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear", but I should not have thought that that kind of criticism came very well from the party opposite, since the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), after her recent visit has given, free, gratis and for nothing, an absolute bonus to all anti-British propaganda in the Middle East.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I am glad that at last we have had reinforcements from the other side. The Government have taken almost as long to mobilise their supporters here as they did for the original expedition, but I was relieved to find that they did not take three weeks, because, although I have a few things to say to the Committee, I have no intention of going on for as long as that.
  I wish to say one thing immediately to the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). Opinion both in this country and among mankind at large would not have focussed itself so much on the question of the actual number of Egyptians killed in Port Said if the spokesman of the British Government had not begun by publishing a figure that was patently untrue, which underlines very heavily the grave moral responsibility for a piece of flippancy which lies on the shoulders of the late Administration. We call it technically the late Administration, though the responsibility for its policy lies still with the great majority of the Members of the present Government.
  We have had the technical form of the Supplementary Estimate, and the speech of the Secretary of State for War brings out clearly the inevitable inadequacy of our finance procedure to show the exact answers to the question in which we are all interested—what the Suez adventure
  290
  cost. Trying to follow the explanation of the Secretary of State for War, if I understand it aright, we have certain figures of increased expenditure for which we have to find the money, some of which relates to Suez and some of which does not. There is some discrimination, although not always very precise discrimination, between what is due to Suez and what is not.
  We then have to notice that on the various Votes a number of miscellaneous savings would have been made, but have been swallowed up in Suez. We therefore have to add to the figure of the Supplementary Estimate the figure of these swallowed-up savings. Later on in the year, when we come to the various resolutions and find out to what extent the process of virement has been used in the Army Votes, we shall have a further indication of the expenditure that has been involved.
  I should have thought that, in view of the importance of the Suez question and of the nation having a proper estimate of its cost, it might have been desirable for the Government to have published a special Paper that would have enabled us to answer more precisely the question: what did this folly and wickedness cost the country? Even though we take the mere figure given in this Estimate, and it is but an imperfect and incomplete Estimate, and but one small part of the whole cost of Suez, we get a figure of very nearly £30 million. We are so used on Supply Days to mentioning these large sums of money that we sometimes forget quite what they mean.
  The Government will be painfully collecting shillings from invalids in prescription charges for six years before they have recouped what was thrown away in a few weeks of incompetence and 48 hours of reckless folly and aggression. The White Paper on Technical Education proposes to spend £70 million in capital equipment for that purpose over five years—one of the most vital pieces of work that any Government in this country will have to do in the next five years. Two and a half years of that is thrown away in this Estimate alone. That is the magnitude of the sums that we are discussing.
  Having made that original point, I now want to take up a few questions of detail. There is one question which the Secretary of State for War told us he could not

  291
  answer then, but which would be answered by his hon. Friend at the end of the debate, and that was extraordinary, because it was a question to which we ought to have had the answer at the beginning. How many men were deployed in this operation? We are being asked to express an opinion on the efficacy and appropriateness of the call-up procedure for this operation. The question has been raised whether more men were not called up than were really required, whether they were not kept hanging about for a longer period than was really necessary.
  If we are to make an informed judgment on that charge that men's time was wasted and that more were called up than were needed, we ought to know how many men, in the event, were actually used, and the Secretary of State ought to have known and ought to have been in a position to tell us that when the question was first asked. I therefore hope that either he or his hon. Friend will give the Committee that information rather earlier than the very last speech in the debate, because it might very well affect the opinions which hon. Members may want to express on the efficacy of the procedure of the call-up. We have had no answers at all to the questions which my right hon. Friend put and which everyone is asking. Why does this process take three weeks, and do the Government really think that it is satisfactory?
  Looking back now at what happened in the assembly of the reservists on this occasion, the Government may be able to give us this, that or the other reason why they took such a time; but are they satisfied that if they had to do it again it would be all right? Once more, are they taking any steps to see that it can be done more rapidly on future occasions? In view of something which the Prime Minister let fall earlier today, it is not entirely hypothetical to talk about future occasions. The Prime Minister assured us that we were lodging claims for compensation against the Egyptian Government, and that, if the Egyptian Government did not admit them, we had both the will and the power to enforce these claims.
  Was that just a piece of Edwardian theatrical bluster, or did it mean anything? If it meant anything, it meant that the Government are actually toying
  292
  with the idea of waging another war on Egypt in order to make Egypt pay for the last one. If they are thinking in those terms—and, if they were, it would be no sillier or more wicked than their previous action—they might, at least, ask themselves if they are really satisfied with the length of time it took them to assemble the force on this occasion.
  I want now to ask a question about Vote 7—Stores. We understand that some of the warlike stores used in this operation were stores which we had had from the United States under the Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement; and that we had had them on the clear undertaking that they would not be used except for the purposes of the Atlantic Alliance or, alternatively, after consultation with the United States Government. We know now, by the admission of the Government, that that explicit undertaking was broken, and the Government gave as an excuse for breaking it the fact that the circumstances were unusual and unexpected.
  One of the reasons, of course, why we get people to enter into solemn agreements is that they will feel bound by them, even when the circumstances are somewhat unusual and unexpected. The question we have to ask the Government for the future is this. Is this to be their standard of morality in regard to agreements which they have signed with their allies? Do the Government take the view that it is quite right to borrow military equipment from an ally under certain express obligations, and then go back on their word? Would they do it again in similar circumstances? I think that our American allies might be interested in the answer to that question, and that our people have a right to know the answer, because, if we are to make that a rule for our conduct, we soon shall not have any allies left.
  Vote 9—Miscellaneous Effective Services—has not yet been referred to. Vote 9A covers, among other things, telegrams, telephones and postage. I mention it, Sir Gordon, in order to make sure that the topic to which I now want to refer shall be in order. In answer to the hon. Member for Windsor, I mentioned that foolish statement that the number of fatal casualties on the other side in Port Said was 100. That was excused by the then Minister of Defence

  293
  on the ground that it was the information which he had received, presumably by one of these means of communication, from the military authorities on the spot.
  If that were so, and if the military authorities on the spot sent a message like that, why on earth did the Minister of Defence publicise it when, if he was in the least in touch with affairs, he must have known that it was wildly untrue? And why was such a message sent at all in the first place? It created abroad the ugly impression that, in the minds of the Government and of some hon. Members opposite, a few hundred dead Egyptians one way or the other did not matter. We have been suffering from that blot on our reputation, for which the late Government were responsible, ever since.
  That was not the only example. On one occasion during those exciting debates on Suez, the House was roused to enthusiasm by a reported message of the surrender of Port Said, a message which, we had to be told on the following day, was also untrue. There was also, as has been referred to by my right hon. Friend, a similar false report about the arrival of troops in Ismailia. It is interesting to note that we have three occasions on which false reports are sent, and on each occasion they are used, at the moment of arrival, in order to get the Government out of a temporary political embarrassment.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not think that the hon. Member wants to be unfair. The then Prime Minister wanted to give the House the most up-to-date information. He said that he had just had a flash—I remember that word very well—from Port Said. He said that according to the latest information which had just come through but which he had not had the time to check in any detail, the Governor of Port Said was negotiating for a cease-fire. That was, at that time, completely accurate. It was not until much later that the Governor of Port Said was superseded and operations were started up. Suppose that the then Prime Minister had withheld that information at that time, would not the party opposite have said that it was being denied the latest and fullest information?
  Mr. Stewart: Most certainly not. Further, we were then told that a ceasefire had been ordered, and by the following day it was clear that that cease-fire
  294
  had not occurred. What I am pointing out—
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he really must not go on making those statements. The cease-fire had been agreed to by the British troops, and was observed by the British troops, and was not broken until—
  Mr. Stewart: No. The hon. Member is muddling up two cease-fires. In the first place, we were given a report of the surrender of Port Said, which was not true. I can well accept that one might, in the course of military operations, sometimes get information which subsequently proves to be inaccurate; but what I say is that in the course of military operations which lasted, in all, for a very short period, we had, on three occasions, three seriously inaccurate messages, each of which was used, at the time it arrived, to get the Government out of temporary political embarrassment.
  It is not a desirable or a creditable thing that military communications—for which, incidentally, the taxpayer has to pay—should have been used for a rather discreditable political purpose. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said in a totally different context, "three times is a lot". It is not a creditable proceeding; and of the whole thing we are obliged to ask: what has been the result of this expenditure? I shall be careful to keep within the rules of order, but let us notice that the process in which we are engaged is the historic process by which the House of Commons, by means of its control over the granting and expenditure of public money, finally makes itself master of the Executive.
  When we are asked to vote moneys, it is important for us to consider whether their expenditure has achieved the result for which they were supposed to be used. Will anybody now say that any result of any advantage either to this country or to mankind was achieved as a result of this adventure? That is especially true with regard to the landing of ground troops, which we are discussing particularly in this Estimate, which occurred after both Israel and Egypt had agreed to a cease-fire, and for which the flimsy

  295
  excuse that they were landed to stop a war cannot possibly be advanced.
  I must not, if I am to remain within the rules of order, pursue that argument any further, but we are, in fact, examining a small part of the bill for an undertaking which was incompetently handled—
  Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan: By whom?
  Mr. Stewart: By the Government—for which there was no moral justification, which has achieved no useful result, and has, indeed, produced the very evil result that, at the moment, while this Government stay in power, any proposal whatever which is made in Britain's name for the improvement of Middle Eastern affairs will be ineffective, because it will be regarded with suspicion by all the parties concerned. It is to that position that we have been reduced as a result of this expenditure.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: On a point of order. Presumably, one will be allowed, if one is lucky enough to catch your eye, Sir Gordon, to refute the hon. Gentleman's argument, and to follow the line which he has initiated?
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I do not think that the hon. Member has been out of order.
  Mr. Stewart: It would be very nice to see some hon. Gentlemen opposite getting up. There has not been a great willingness to defend policy so far.
  The fantastic position in which the Government find themselves is the result of trying to do something in which success would have brought them no credit and in which they have not even achieved success. They are in the ludicrous situation of the couple ridiculed in a famous poem by Robert Browning, the couple who were always going to commit adultery but could never manage to find a time convenient to both of them. They are liable to censure both for what they proposed to do and for their failure to do it. As Browning puts it,
  "And the sin I impute to each frustrate ghost Is—the unlit lamp and the ungirt Join."
  When the Secretary of State for War opened the debate, it was difficult for us,
  296
  serious though the subject is, to refrain from laughter. Centuries ago, when the great classical dramas were staged, it was customary to follow the presentation of a high tragedy by a grotesque and comic epilogue. That is really what we had when the debate began this afternoon. We have had tragedy, and its results are still with us in the shrunken credit of this country, in the irreparable loss of life, in the material and financial losses of which we are beginning to count the reckoning. In the tale of incompetence which my right hon. Friend so well unfolded and in the pathetic failure of the Secretary of State to be able to present a coherent account to the Committee, we have had, perhaps fittingly enough, the comic and grotesque epilogue to the story.
  6.3 p.m.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stuart) has revived some of the least pleasant memories we have in the House of earlier debates. I regret his having done so very much, and I certainly do not wish to add any fuel to the flames.
  Especially in military operations, it is very often easy to say that this, that or the other objective was not achieved, that this, that or the other thing went wrong, and to forget, while saying it, what might have been the consequence of our not having done what we did, despite everything. No one in this Committee, I imagine, would wish to pretend that every single part of the Suez operation went like clockwork from the word "Go." Indeed, I have yet to know of a single example in military history of which that could be said.
  I suppose that when one is fully mobilised and has had several years of training under active service conditions, one tends to reduce the number of mistakes made. We all know that in this particular operation those who were taking part did not have that advantage, if one can use the word "advantage" in that sort of context, and they had to do most of what they did in a considerable hurry.
  Moreover, having no more information about this matter than anyone else who is not a member of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, I should have said

  297
  that there must have been a very substantial change of plan at one stage or another between the initial call-up and the action actually being taken. How are we to know that that change of plan did not make it even more difficult to carry out the type of operation eventually carried out?
  If I am any judge of the matter, I would say that the original conception was a far bigger conception than the one finally carried out. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was it?"] I have no idea what this conception was. All I would say is that if one compares the actual operations which took place with the number of men called up and with the force put to sea or, at any rate, whose equipment was loaded, one must find it very difficult to believe gut there was not a change of plan.
  If such a change occurred, one is surely entitled, at least, to pay credit to those who, nevertheless, had to carry out an operation which, had they known from the initial stages that was the type of operation to be carried out, would have found it rather easier to do than they did. Whatever else we may say about each other in the Chamber, the one thing we ought to be particularly united about is paying tribute to the troops who had to take part in the operation and, particularly, to those commanding the formations. I do not believe that it could have been a very easy task which they had to perform. We know already—we have had frequent references to it—that the risks taken to avoid civilian casualties in Port Said, and in Cairo, for that matter, were perhaps greater to our own side than to anyone else.
  I would say that it would be almost impossible to estimate in advance of the action being taken how long the various phases of the operation were likely to take. Presumably, the plans were drawn up in the light of the best information available. But even that best information. I should have said, could have been only a calculated guess as to what the strength of the Egyptian Air Force was, for example, and how long it would take to neutralise it before the troops went in.
  The hon. Member for Fulham tried to argue that the fact that there were ground troops available had very little to do with the agreement to cease fire by Israel and Egypt. I wonder whether he can be
  298
  right to make that assumption. I can see why he makes it. If he denies it, I will gladly give way.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The point I was making was that our land forces were landed in Egypt after both sides had accepted a cease-fire.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I know that the hon. Gentleman said that, but I wonder very much whether we are not underestimating the risks if we take that view.
  Let us suppose that those troops had not been there. First, is it so likely that the cease-fire would have been agreed to if it had not been that those troops were about to land? Even supposing that that argument were disproved, which I do not think it is, are we absolutely certain that the cease-fire would have been observed—whether in the partial form to which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) referred just now, or properly—had those troops not been on the ground?
  The particular point that the hon. Member is overlooking in the argument he adduces is that the big expense under Vote I of this Supplementary Estimate came about not because the troops landed in Egypt so much as because they were called up and moved to the Middle East area. As long as they were called up, whether they were on Egyptian soil or aboard ship, a great many of the costs under Vote 1 would have arisen anyway.
  It is quite clear from what the Secretary of State had to say to us today that a considerable number of men who were called up never actually took part in operations. The bill that we have to face in Vote 2 is that which covers the whole period from the original call-up in August.
  For those reasons, we ought to be careful not to become obsessed with the actual Suez operation itself so far as the troops who were landed on Egyptian soil were concerned, but to try to see the matter as a whole right from the beginning. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say today that practically all the men have now been demobilised.
  If we look at the thing as a whole, there is some substance for concern about the length of time that the call-up did take. I think we all, especially those of

  299
  us who have had some military experience, are, quite naturally, rather anxious as to whether it went as smoothly as it ought to have done. I would certainly not in any way suggest that hon. Members opposite were not perfectly entitled to ask that question—I am sure that they were. My own feeling is that considering how little practice we have had with the postwar Army in this way, it is surprising that matters went as well as they did, especially when, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, there was, so to speak, selection being made from what in a general mobilisation would have been called up en bloc.
  Hon. Members may say that it is far more difficult to call up large numbers of men than it is to call up small numbers. I am not quite sure that that is not too broad a generalisation to be accurate. I would say that if one knows that one can take a whole block or part of a reserve and call up every man in it simultaneously, at least the awful problem of selection is not present. Selection is a very complicated process, especially when one comes down to the technical arms. My feeling is that three weeks is not an undue period for a partial call-up with a very high element of selection in it.
  For once, perhaps, I really pay a tribute to A.G. Branch. It is not often that I am able to do that. Much as I dislike cross-postings and all the things that go with these matters, I would say that, on the whole, the War Office did a very goad job on this point as a technical problem.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. and gallant Member has been a Regular officer. Has he not yet learned that the G. Branch is not responsible for cross-posting?
  Major Legge-Bourke: I said "A.G. Branch". I doubt whether the hon Member heard that. I think I am accurate in saying that it was the A.G. Branch. I am only too ready to bow to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), because I know that he prides himself as being an expert on these matters, although we may have our own opinion.
  In this debate, it is inevitable that we also have in our minds the question whether the use of Malta for certain parts
  300
  of the operation, and the use of Cyprus for other parts, was the best way of doing these things and whether, in the sort of circumstances that caused the whole operation, we were not perhaps somewhat surprised by the failure to use Cyprus for certain things.
  My right hon. Friend this afternoon has made very clear the difference between the sort of operation we are dealing with under this Vote and the "fire brigade" operation. Here were two countries fighting each other, whatever else the hon. Member for Fulham may like to say about it. Israel and Egypt were at war with each other. They were fighting to, for all we knew, the death, and it seems to me that the one step which no British Government, even if it had been a pacifist Government, could afford to take was the risk of failure to stop those two sides fighting, That was the risk that no one could take who had any sense of responsibility whatever.
  If action had to be taken at all, it had to succeed in stopping that fighting. If the operation is judged on that criterion, at least we can claim some success there. It may be true that the decisive factor in it was not the work which the Army did, but I find it very hard to accept the argument of those who try to disprove that the Army had anything to do with it at all. My belief is that the fact that the British Army, or an Army corps, was available in the Middle East, coupled with the preliminary bombing by the Royal Air Force, was a material factor in bringing the fighting between Israel and Egypt to an abrupt stop.
  Some of the consequences of the risk we took are seen in the Vote—£30 million or more. We all know that that was the last thing that any of us wanted to see money spent on at that particular time. But I do not think that there is anything to be ashamed of, having spent it. I see nothing to be ashamed of, but rather something to be proud of. The fact that knowing it would be an embarrassment to our economy which we could ill afford, knowing perfectly well that it would mean the disruption of a great many private lives, knowing that it would have a material effect on industrial production and knowing all the risks, nevertheless that issue was faced seems to me to have been an honourable thing to do; and

  301
  what, in fact, was achieved, even if all the objectives were not achieved, seems to me to have been an objective well achieved, and those who particularly had to do the task carried out their job under extreme difficulty with the utmost nobility, efficiency and courage, too.
  These matters are all the concern of a country which is not confined in its interests purely to its own territory. I think that whether we had the right or not, we had an obligation. I shall not go back on all the arguments which have been used before, but one obligation which has been greatly overlooked the whole way through the debates ever since August is the obligation to try to ensure that that part of the world where all this happened should not be the scene of a battle between two or any more countries and the fact that that obligation derives from the way back at the end of the First World War from what we inherited from the Turks. Therefore, whether we had the right to do this is, I think, of lesser importance than whether we had a duty to do it. I think we did have a duty to do it, and I think that that duty was performed at tremendous risk with great courage, both politically and militarily.
  If I had any criticism to make of the operation, I would say that the mistake was ever to have mentioned Ismailia and Port Suez in the original objective. I say that because, as one sees when looking hack at some of his writings, Lord Cromer, who probably knew more about Egypt and the problem of holding and looking after the Canal than any Englishman has ever known or ever will know, always said that anyone who wants to hold the whole length of the Canal must have Cairo, too.
  I may be wrong, but I believe that if we had, strangely enough, succeeded in capturing Ismailia and Port Suez, we should by now have had an even more humiliating withdrawal, either from three places as distinct from one or from going into Cairo and completely reoccupying Egypt. There are those who say that that was what we ought to have done—I have heard it said. I do not agree with them, for the reason that if we had done that, it would probably have provided the one possible opportunity for the other Arab States to have attacked Israel. Had that happened, we should have had a far bigger Vote than the present one.
  302
  We might now be at war in the Middle East. That is a matter of opinion, for it is based on hypothesis. One can only weigh up one's own experience in the area and what one knows happened from the facts as reported and given to the House of Commons. I feel that the one fortuitous benefit which came out of the whole operation was that we never did get lsmalia and Port Suez and that what we had was a comparatively small lodgement there to bargain with until, at last, the United Nations woke up to its responsibilities.
  I would say to the Committee, in case hon. Members do not know it, that I happened to be in a fairly interesting position at the time of one of the biggest political crises that Egypt ever had in the middle of the last war and that I have some idea of that country's outlook on these problems. We have made many mistakes in that country. I do not wish to get out of order in the debate and, therefore, will only refer, in passing, to the fact that there are many other things which might have been done, particularly in 1942, in 1945, and again when the Palestine Mandate came up for consideration; also in 1954. But of all ridiculous political pursuits, none is more absurd than that of trying to employ arguments which applied before a certain decision was taken to fit a situation which is completely changed in the light of that decision. What was possible in 1954 was certainly not possible in 1956. Those who try to argue that it was possible made a great mistake.
  I would say, however, that for the future this campaign ought to have taught us a good deal. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War upon his appointment, in particular because he is not a Regular soldier. In my view, no Regular soldier ought ever to be at the War Office in a Ministerial capacity. The job of Ministers at the War Office is to keep the public sweet towards the Army, and I wish my hon. Friend luck in that job. Looking to the future, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that the lessons from this campaign are being studied with the utmost care, particularly in so far as they affect the future of Cyprus and what we want to do militarily in Cyprus in the future.
  My feeling is that this campaign might never have been necessary if we had had

  303
  a permanent lodgment somewhere on the mainland within easy reach, at the most a couple of hours flight, of the Suez peninsula.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Libya.
  Major Legge-Bourke: There are certain treaty obligations which Libya invoked the moment that this crisis broke. If Libya had agreed with us in this project, of course, it might have been a very different story.
  It is absolutely essential that we should have a lodgment on the mainland at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, by agreement if necessary with another State, and I would not rule out the possibility of an agreement with Israel. I learned during the war in that area that we could spend millions of pounds dredging harbours in Cyprus and that they would silt as fast as they were dredged. I hope that we have overcome that difficulty if Cyprus is to be the main base for British troops in the Middle East. My hope is that somehow, somewhere, at some time we shall find a place on the mainland where we can have a permanent garrison. Unless we find such a place, we shall never be able to act quickly enough nor will there be sufficient deterrence against lawlessness breaking out.
  If we had had a base there on the mainland since 1954 we might never have had Israel attacking Egypt, and we might have had a reduction in frontier incidents between Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Israel. There is something about a permanent garrison of British troops, even if it be only a company, which has a sobering effect on people. The hon. Member for Fulham suggested that we had lost all our friends in this area as a result of the Suez operation. I assure him that there is very little basis for that assumption. In fact, one disappointment which was felt by most of the more reliable Arab countries at the time of the crisis was that we had not deposed Nasser in the process. The Arab countries have never trusted Egypt. They have used Egypt, and as a result of certain policies carried out by right hon. and hon. Members opposite—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is getting far from the subject of the debate.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I apologise, Sir Gordon. My remarks are directed to showing the importance of having some foothold on the mainland. If I have been putting forward arguments which are outside the rules of order I will obey your Ruling at once, but the decisions taken long before the present Government came to power were materially contributing to Egypt's leadership of Arab countries which would have been only too glad to turn on her. The hon. Member for Fulham suggested that all Arab sympathy for this country had been lost. I felt that it was only right to attempt to answer that allegation, because the information that I have is that a very considerable element of good will towards this country remains.
  I do not pretend, and I do not believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends pretend, that everything went as well as could have been expected or hoped for. But we say, and I think that we have every right to say, that when the history of this period comes to be written, our action certainly will not be shown to have been dishonourable or that the British Army lacked any of its fine discipline and of its readiness to sacrifice itself to avoid unnecessary casualties among innocent people.
  When we pose the biggest question of all—whether or not the main object was achieved—I believe that history will judge, without any possibility of contradition, that the operation was a success to the extent that it stopped two countries which were tearing each other to pieces from continuing to do so, in circumstances which were likely to lead other countries also to tear each other to pieces.
  Is that dishonourable? Is that disreputable? Is it sufficient cause for some of the behaviour of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in August and September last? I say that it is not. It will always be one of my greatest sources of pride that I was in the House of Commons at a time when we had a Government who were prepared to do what Britain ought to do and had to do and which Britain, despite the sacrifices she had to make, nevertheless did, and, in the process, achieved her primary object.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has delivered a typical speech,

  305
  but he is under some misapprehension. Nobody on this side of the Committee has attacked the troops who took part in this action. Certainly, we associate ourselves with the remark he made about the self-sacrifice and gallantry of the soldiers who had to carry out orders. I would not associate myself with those German critics who wanted British generals in Egypt tried as war criminals, but I think that there would be a good precedent for trying as war criminals some of the more responsible members of the Government. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Irresponsible."]
  I agree with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said about the need for civilians at the War Office. As I looked at the Treasury Bench, during the debate, I asked myself where
  "All, all are gone, the old familiar faces."
  The brigadiers have gone down like ninepins. We have lost four brigadiers, with their military experience, as a result of the Suez crisis, and I am glad to see that the War Office is passing under civilian influence. However, I am not so sure that I am so delighted to see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) as Under-Secretary of State for War. I regard him as one of the villains of the piece. If he was not a soldier, he was the next best thing he was a rebel. He was the leader of the rebels, and it is the irony of fate that he is sitting on the Bench opposite today to defend the expenditure of this considerable sum of money.
  I do not know where it will end. The previous Minister of Defence, in winding up the Suez debate, said that they were proud of this and would do it again. I am afraid that the present Under-Secretary of State for War would do it again. His whole philosophy, his whole point of view, has been to encourage an aggressive military attitude in the Middle East and everywhere else. Whatever the policy of the Government may be, I cannot reconcile the hon. Gentleman's appearance on the Treasury Bench as a sign that we shall have any defence cuts or economy in the Armed Forces. When we look at this Supplementary Estimate that is precisely what we want. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely talked about the economic this and the financial that, and said he was proud of it, but I do not think the economic con-
  306
  sequences of Suez were ever thought about in advance.
  I believe in keeping a very careful eye on Supplementary Estimates. On 17th April last year the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us to understand that in this financial year we would not have a Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman told us that we could look forward to a decrease in defence expenditure. We were told that the military policy of the Government and of the War Office would be conducted with maximum regard to the need for economy.
  When the Suez crisis came along, however, when Nasser shot his bolt from the blue, the right hon. Gentleman forgot all about economy. He saw red, white and blue, and, instead of acting as a restraining influence in the Cabinet, and saying, "If you go into the Suez business you will have a very large increase in public expenditure," the function of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have been to egg on the people who have reckless views on expenditure, instead of protecting the taxpayer. But the Chancellor has not gone the way of the brigadiers, he has not been exiled to the Seychelles, he has arrived at 10, Downing Street.
  I regard the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister, as one of the main causes of this Supplementary Estimate, because he did not warn us of the economic consequences of Suez at the time. There was only one member of the Treasury Bench who talked in terms of economics and asked, "What will this cost?" That was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) who was then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and who promptly resigned, and has just as promptly reappeared as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. If the hon. Member for Preston, North is the Mr. Hyde of this business, he was the Dr. Jekyll, and the Prime Minister has succeeded in bringing Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde into the same Ministry. The then Economic Secretary was so appalled at the consequences of Suez that he resigned, and we have realised that we should have somebody representating the War Office on the Treasury Bench to point out that there is always a bill to be paid for wars, however little they may be.

  307
  This has been pointed out by great experts on the strategy and tactics of war. One question asked by an eminent authority was:
  "…how could anyone have failed to anticipate the blocking of the Canal? That puzzles me. Somebody went wrong somewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 12th December, 1956; Vol. 200. c. 1083.]
  That is the kind of question I might put but I heard it put in another place by Lord Tedder, and I am still waiting to hear somebody saying from the Front Bench opposite, "This was the time when we realised that the Suez Canal would be blocked."
  Yet in all the anticipations, in all the formulations of strategy, none of the brigadiers at the War Office at that time pointed out to the Chancellor, or to the Prime Minister, that, as a result of this warlike activity in Egypt, the Canal would be blocked. In fact, when ultimately the Canal was blocked, the hon. Gentleman who now speaks for the War Office asked, in consternation, whether this was not a breach of the Treaty of 1888; but that was after the event, after the bombing had taken place.
  Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman must at least realise that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), some weeks after my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War asked that question, confirmed his point of view that it was in contravention of the 1888 Treaty.
  Mr. Hughes: I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on everything. I follow his lead on private enterprise homicide, but not on mass homicide. The hon. Member for Preston, North seemed absolutely bewildered because the Suez Canal had been blocked. Yet during the last war there were plans for blocking the Suez Canal which must be on the files of the War Office. In his memoirs, Mr. Harry Hopkins has described how this country had plans for blocking the Canal, but that does not seem to have occurred to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether it entered into the reasoning of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke about going to Cairo? Did it not enter into his calculations that the result of the British Army occupying Egypt would be the blocking of the Suez Canal?
  Mr. Fernyhough: Could my hon. Friend say whether, if we had blocked it, that would have been a breaking of the 1888 Convention?
  Mr. Hughes: That is a matter of international law which my hon. Friend can argue with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely.
  What I have not been able to understand in the whole of the strategic plan which has led to the Supplementary Estimate is why somebody did not present an ordinary estimate of what would be the economic cost if the Suez Canal was blocked. Instead of doing that, we proceeded with the invasion, with the result that we have this huge bill to pay for the Suez war. A number of military experts from different countries have been completely bewildered by the strategy which has resulted in this Supplementary Estimate.
  I have here an interesting article by the military correspondent of the New York Times. He begins by saying,
  "The British-French campaign against Egypt is likely to become a famous case study in the world's military staff colleges."
  I hope that it will.
  "In the six and a half days of actual hostilities, most of the rules in the book were broken. The vital military principle of the objective became obscured. At least two intelligent appraisals proved erroneous."
  I can understand why the soldiers went wrong. If I ever wanted someone to write a child's history of the Suez campaign, I would employ the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely.
  Major Legge-Bourke: In that case, it certainly would be easily understood.
  Mr. Hughes: The trouble about the Suez Canal explanation is that it cannot be easily understood. The hon. and gallant Member is still naive enough to believe that this expedition was incurred for the purpose of separating the combatants. That was only the fifth reason given and it was not until the fourth became out of date that the Foreign Secretary explained that the Suez Canal expedition had been undertaken for the purpose of checkmating and thwarting the Russians. The hon. and gallant Member is hopelessly out of date. Even if he wrote a child's history of the Suez crisis, I do not believe that he would find a child silly enough to believe it.

  309
  I advise hon. Members who have to think in terms of strategy, especially the new occupant of the Treasury Bench, to read the objective criticism by Mr. Hanson Baldwin, of the New York Times. During the Suez crisis the hon. Member for Preston, North went to Paris. He attacked the Americans and he denounced the Americans for threatening us with the Sixth Fleet and for considering the imposition of economic sanctions. If the hon. Member has his way at the War Office we shall not merely be at war with Egypt and the Middle East but we may be at war with the United States of America, too.
  I ask the hon. Member to read in advance the criticism, purely from the military point of view, written by Mr. Hanson Baldwin. It is written as a case study of war as it should not be conducted. However we look upon this expedition, even in terms of money in the Supplementary Estimate, we must come to the conclusion that it has been a complete waste of money. And now the British taxpayer has to pay the bill.
  The last war which we fought in North Africa was a war with which a most famous name is connected—E1 Alamein. It is interesting to compare these two campaigns. The war in North Africa, under Viscount Montgomery, was fought for the purpose of keeping the Germans out of occupation of the Middle East. What is happening today? The Germans are to have an industrial exhibition in Cairo next week and we are out. If General Rommel, wherever he is, is still studying military history he will be laughing at the results that history has brought in its train. Far from it being a victory at E1 Alamein, from the practical point of view—
  Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Your predecessor in the Chair suggested to me when I was dealing with fairly recent post-war history that I was getting out of order. We are now going back to the Battle of E1 Alamein and forward to a trade exhibition in Cairo, neither of which is carried on the Vote.
  The Chairman: I was listening very carefully and I thought that the hon. Gentleman was comparing the E1 Alamein campaign with what happened at Suez. I thought that he was all right.
  Mr. Hughes: I was educating the hon. and gallant Member about the E1 Alamein campaign, Sir Charles. That particular campaign was organised for the purpose of keeping the Germans out of Egypt and the Middle East, and there was a general called Rommel. But I will not proceed any further, Sir Charles, because I was just about to come to my peroration.
  Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend is making a comparison and showing how the E1 Alamein campaign, as a result of political mishandling, resulted in the opposite of what it was intended to achieve. If this campaign was intended to keep the Russians out of Egypt, as the E1 Alamein campaign was intended to keep the Germans out of Egypt, may we not fear that it may have the same untoward results?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not want to bring Russia into this argument, because it is complicated enough already to explain to the hon. and gallant Member.
  In addition to the Supplementary Estimate of £30 million in cash, there are the economic interest consequences. There are the 71 ships which the Secretary of State for War talked about and the calling up of men to the Reserve. All this must be added to the cash, The result, in terms of cash alone, has been a complete disaster. From the point of view of strategy, it is completely inexplicable and from the point of view of keeping our position in the Middle East it has wiped out the traditional strategy of ages. The Under-Secretary of State for War need not go to the War Office and think that he is going to start his old Middle East imperialism all over again. That is over. This £30 million is our share of the bill for the Government having yielded to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  6.47 p.m.
  Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: I am bound to say that I find it difficult to agree with very much of what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said in the course of his speech. There was only one sentence in which I recognised anything that appeared to me to be sound, and that was his opening remark when he was congratulating my hon. Friend who was not an ex-Regular soldier on finding himself at the War Office.

  311
  Apart from the personal grounds on which I welcome very much my hon. Friend's appointment, I think that it has often proved a mistake to appoint ex-Regular soldiers to Service Ministries, because one finds that they are all too often prone to base their opinions on their own experience which is out of date and has almost certainly been acquired in rather a junior rank which has not given then a bird's-eye view of the whole picture. It is much sounder.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform his right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) that he was going to make this unkind personal attack on him.
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: No, Sir. The hon. Member makes a quick debating point, but it does not carry very much weight. He will have in mind the notable example often held up to us of the perfect civilian at the War Office, someone who belonged to neither of our parties. I refer to Lord Haldane at the beginning of the 1914–18 War.
  I want now to turn to the problems of the Supplementary Estimate. Some very wise remarks were made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). He was right when he made the claim that this expenditure was by no means in vain. It is extraordinary that any hon. Member should laugh at such a claim, for we have seen that the expenditure brought fighting to a close. Our intervention at Suez did something else for which I believe we shall be thankful; it awakened the United States to its obligations in the Middle East.
  I see, Sir Charles, that you are looking at me. I listened with care to what was said at the beginning of the debate, and I realise that it is possible to find oneself on thin ice if one delves too deeply into foreign affairs. Consequently, I will return to what was said by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who once had experience at the War Office. The hon. Member made a statement with which no one could disagree when he said that £39 million was a considerable sum. It is indeed, and we ought to examine it most carefully. However, when doing so we should not fall for the easy temptation of picking out all
  312
  the mistakes and gloating over them. Where mistakes have been made, we must look to the future so that our debate will not merely be academic and controversial but will reveal some lessons, and undoubtedly there are lessons to be learnt from the Suez operation.
  However, some hon. Gentlemen opposite, in criticising the Government, have been inclined to draw unfair lessons. One criticism that has been made is that far too many troops were called up and that unduly elaborate preparations were made in view of the forces which were eventually deployed. How can anyone at the start of such an operation know that further reinforcements will not be needed? When the Secretary of State for War was given the duty by the Cabinet of preparing for such an operation, he had to have available reinforcements and surpluses for every move that he planned.
  Mr. Stephen Swingler: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree with his hon. and gallant Friend that the operation which was actually carried out was not that originally planned? Cannot the size of the bill and the number of men called up be explained in terms of a large projected operation which was not carried out rather than by the operation which was eventually carried out?
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Gentleman knows my position as a back bencher. I do not know what the original plan was. It has not been made public.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Might I point out that I made it clear that I was working purely on hypotheses and had no special information?
  Mr. S. Silverman: Unless I misheard the Secretary of State, he said that a good part of the expenditure covered by the Estimate occurred in August. Therefore, it must have been referrable to an earlier plan.
  Mr. Hare: That is right.
  Mr. Swingler: The preparations to make war.
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for helping to

  313
  make the position clear. If the expenditure was incurred in respect of a projected operation in August, that brings one at once to the question of speed and whether there is not a good deal to be learned in this respect.
  Mr. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman began his speech by saying that the expenditure was justified because it achieved its objective of stopping a war. The Secretary of State tells us that a good deal of it was incurred in respect of plans made in August. What war were we trying to stop in August?
  Mr. Hare: I made it clear that Sir Anthony Eden, as Prime Minister, announced on 2nd August that certain precautions had to be taken. The Leader of the Opposition did not disagree with those precautions.
  Mr. Silverman: Those precautions were precautions about the Suez Canal and not about any contemplated war between Israel and Egypt.
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I am in danger of losing the thread of my speech in giving way to hon. Members opposite and to my right hon. Friend discussing a question with which I was not dealing. I was dealing with the actual operation that took place.
  I was putting to the Committee the view that more soldiers were necessarily called up and greater preparations had necessarily to be made than were actually required because it is necessary in war to have something in reserve. Had the then Secretary of State for War prepared merely for the use of the number of men eventually deployed, he would have been running a grave and unforgiveable risk. Therefore, it is unfair to complain unduly that the expenditure was greater than it should have been.
  Turning to the matter of speed, here I am a critic not of the soldiers on the spot or of the officer in command but of the Government, in that they did not ask enough of the soldiers. It is common knowledge to those who have studied military history that when an estimate is required of the time needed to carry out an operation, a prudent general will always pitch his requirement rather high. If he thinks that he can do something in four days a prudent general is likely to say that it will take six days to do it.
  Mr. Ede: Or months.
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: It may well be months. We can all think of occasions when months would be more appropriate than days. But in this case it was a matter of days and not months. I am thinking of the amount of time that the Army required in order to carry out the task that it was set, of starting from Cyprus and Malta in order to reach Suez and deploy its attack. It seems to me that six days was an unnecessarily long time. I do not know what passed between my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) and General Charles Keightley. I do not know if, at any stage after General Keightley had made his estimate of time, my right hon. Friend said, "That is no good; you have to do it 24 hours sooner." If my right hon. Friend had made that requirement of General Keightley, I think that, prudent soldier that he is, he would have found that after all he could speed things up quite a bit.
  The obligation to do so did not rest with him; it was his obligation to be as prudent and as careful as possible. It was the Government's obligation to inspire urgency in the matter. That was the kind of inspiration which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was so wonderfully gifted in creating during the last war. He was so often able to clip a matter of days, weeks or even months off the time-table put before him by the naval or military executives. In that respect there is ground for criticism of the Government.
  I now turn to a point which is purely technical. Was it really necessary that so much of this operation should be mounted from Malta? Could not more of it have been done from Cyprus? Much has been said about the loading of tanks, and it is true that there are no deep water harbours in Cyprus. It is more than ten years since I trundled half way across Europe and a large part of the way across Africa as a passenger in a tank, with my head stuck out of the top, but in those days we learnt to load our tanks into landing craft from shallow rather than deep water. I am not sure that the argument for the need for deep water harbours is cogent. Had it been

  315
  demanded of the soldiers, I believe that they would have been able to load their tanks from Cyprus.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer Brigadier Prior-Palmer rose—
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: My hon. and gallant Friend knows more about tank operations than I do. I look forward to hearing more from him later in the debate.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: My hon. and gallant Friend must remember that the tanks would first have had to be offloaded at Cyprus. Therefore, unless we were prepared to send tanks the whole way in landing craft from Britain to Cyprus, they could not be off-loaded and subsequently loaded into landing craft off the beach.
  Sir W. Anthruther-Gray: What a good point that is. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for making it. For all that, I cannot but think that it would have been possible to keep the tanks in landing craft off the shore of Cyprus and to have kept them well maintained for a good time. In that way we might have saved two very vital days in the conduct of this operation.
  I want to make another point in connection with speed, in this case relating to the conveyance of troops by air rather than by sea, wherever possible. We know that heavy equipment can travel only by sea, but there is much still to be learnt by the Army—and I am sure that the Secretary of State will devote himself to this question in the coming months—in perfecting the carriage by air of brigade groups. It may well be that we should examine the question whether civil air firms can perform this function better than the Royal Air Force. That is a point into which we can delve without controversy—and it is such a bore having to be controversial about so much of what one says with regard to this operation. We should look to the future rather than delve continually into the past.
  The question of looking to the future brings one, in connection with the necessity to maintain a large call-up, to a consideration of the Wolfenden Report, with which my right hon. Friend will deal at a later stage. I am sure that he is already thinking about it, because it has reference to the cost of the manpower
  316
  upon which we are drawing. It expresses the remarkable opinion that if there were a change-over from National Service men to civilians for a large proportion of maintenance work at Army Depots, it would be found that three civilians could do the work of five National Service men. That is recommended quite clearly in paragraph 45 of the Report.
  This proposal has the further advantage that it provides an opportunity of employing ex-Regular soldiers as civilians, and anything that we can do to open up a permanent career with a future in civilian life for our Regular soldiers is of help in stepping up Regular recruitment, and offers the best means of freeing ourselves from the expense of National Service, which is very disturbing to industry. Although it may be very good for the young men who are called up, most people agree that it will be a welcome moment when the Government can announce that National Service is no longer necessary.
  I do not want to trespass further upon the time of the Committee. I have tried to deal with some of the controversies which exist in this matter, and I have repeated my firm conviction that although £39 million is a great deal of money to spend, although mistakes were certainly made and, as in so many human affairs, things turned out differently from what had been hoped, I do not think that the Government are to blame for having made their endeavour. I do not think that the money has been wasted. I believe that future historians may well look back upon the action taken by the former Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, as courageous. As a loyal supporter, I stand up for what the Government did.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), as usual, left the Committee in a rather warm, cosy and jovial mood. He achieved this by the wit and clarity with which he expressed his rather pungent views. I am not going to follow his precedent, because I think that the attention of the Committee and of the country ought to be drawn to the disgraceful retreat of the Carlton Club Cavalry today.
  These people who, when first this incident arose, blew their tinny trumpets,

  317
  waved their pennants and cried far the charge are, with the very honourable and gallant exception of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), conspicuously absent today. They are cowering behind the second line of reserves. There has been nothing to equal it since, during a break-through in the 1914 war, cooks and bakers were called upon to hold the front. I would say that, on balance, those cooks and bakers did a rather better job at holding the front than has been achieved by the second line of reserves which is now trying to protect the front of the party opposite.
  An incidental point arises from all this. We have continually been told bath in the House of Commons and in the country that it is the party opposite, with its large stratum of Regular officers, which is alone really concerned about the welfare, techniques and functions of the Armed Services. But where are they today? We can ignore altogether the basic strategy of Suez and concentrate upon the state of the Army. On this point alone we have material enough for a very close investigation, by all sides of the Committee, into the state of the Armed Forces.
  Let me give three heads. First of all, it is now absolutely clear that our machinery of mobilisation is inadequate for the demand which is likely to fall upon it. Secondly, there is something dangerously and disastrously wrong with the political direction of our military and strategical forces. Thirdly, there is something vastly wrong with the shape, function, scope and organisation of our Army.
  Let me discuss the question of the mobilisation of reserves. We had an interesting excuse put forward by the Minister today. He said that he wished to meet the argument that would be put forward from the Opposition side of the Committee that there should be no need to mobilise reserves in order to carry out a fire-brigade operation. This was not a fire-brigade operation, he said. As the right hon. Gentleman was talking of the mobilisation of the reserves, we must assume that he was talking of the proposed operation of August last and not of what actually took place. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a corps operation.
  318
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) asked him how many people it was proposed to involve in that operation, but he could not give a figure. He said he would give one later in the debate. But if we are talking of a corps operation, we can try to put a figure upon it. At the outside, making allowance for divisional and corps troops, a figure of 30,000 will be pretty sound. Having embodied at the time at home 200,000 men, it was necessary apparently, in order to mobilise about 30,000 men for a potential operation, to call up 25,000 Reserves. When the actual operation took place it was found that the number of Reserves called up far exceeded the number of men put into the field. If that is the state of affairs of the structure and organisation of the Regular Forces and the National Service embodied forces at home, supposedly ready to meet an emergency operation, it is not very satisfactory.
  In debate after debate previous incumbents of the office of Secretary of State for War have said that they were busy and active in re-organising the Forces so that we could embark upon a quick operation, but when the need for it comes they fail. Why should it take three weeks for mobilisation? This point has been touched upon already. The essence of mobilisation is speed. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has pointed out on a previous occasion that in 1914 an expeditionary force much larger than the force mobilised for Suez was not only mobilised but was in the field and fighting in a far shorter time. If that is the rate of progress within the War Office at the moment, we are indeed in a sick state which merits the attention of the Committee.
  When we mobilise Reserves—and I am not accepting the need of their being mobilised on this occasion—the important thing is that when we drag men from civilian life and lump them in the Army we should take every care that their morale is high. What happened on this occasion was a most disgraceful episode. There was very little planning about the call-up, even though it took such a long time to achieve. Technologists were dragged away from their jobs and many agricultural workers from their farms at about harvest time. This was a foreseeable contingency, and the difficulties could

  319
  have been avoided if the plans for mobilisation had been kept up to date at the War Office.
  The men called up suffered a catastrophic drop in the standard of living of their families, and some of them had to wait eight weeks to get the National Service grant on which to support their wives—even then upon a lower standard than they had previously enjoyed. During the eight weeks they had to undergo a process which was rather ignominious for people who had been called up to defend the country. First they had to apply to their units for the grant and then they were referred to the National Assistance Board, and from the National Assistance Board to the Ministry of Pensions. After eight weeks, the National Service grants were finally paid. That is the sort of thing which the War Office will have to look into on a purely technical basis.
  Then there is the confused and ridiculous story about leave. First of all, the Minister assured the House that it was not possible to release any of these men for a single day. A short time afterwards he said, "Maybe we can manage 72 hours' leave." A few days later he managed 7 days' leave. This is an indication that there was no coherent planning going on at the War Office. We carry a very heavy War Office establishment; we have a big and expensive War Office. One of its functions, if we are to be in a state of military preparedness at all, ready to call up forces quickly, is that it should constantly, from week to week, revise the schedules of the men who will have to be called up.
  This is not an exercise to be done with a quill pen and dusty files. It can be done electronically in these days with a use of punched cards and speedy machinery operated by pressing a button. I have had some experience of this machinery in connection with public opinion surveys. There are machines today whereby, if you wanted to locate all the left-handed Methodists in Accrington, you would press a button and the answer would come out of a slot. All these systems should by now be mechanised.
  We should follow up the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee. Not only should we achieve great economy, but it would be possible in the future to
  320
  do the job which we so signally failed to do on this occasion.
  Now let me move on to the actual operation. Many of us are armchair strategists on this side of the Committee, but there are some sedan-chair strategists on Government benches. It is easy to plough back when an operation is finished in order to explain how it could have been better organised and carried out. But this was not a military operation in the sense that soldiers were given a military objective and told to go ahead and attain it. It was a political operation, a restricted one, which the Government sought to attain by military means. Throughout the history of this operation there was a political directive and a military attempt to implement it, with the result that some very hazardous risks were taken and some strategic plans were made which militarily could not be sustained.
  Our new-found military critic, who was very good indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, pointed out that the strategy was quite inadequate. I know that the Egyptian Army did not stand up and fight, but it is no business of the soldier when making his appreciation to assume that the other side is not going to fight or is not going to be there. No sensible soldier, left alone to do the job, would have evolved the tactic of pushing out one long probing finger which was all flanks with hardly any front at all. It would not have been the fault of the generals if the operation had come unstuck; it would have been the fault of the political directors seeking here to obtain a political end by the misuse of an Army and the misuse of armed force. If there had been a struggle—and we have no right to anticipate that there would not be a struggle when planning the operation—there would have been some excessively guilty men opposite, guilty of pushing an Army into a completely ridiculous and untenable position.
  We can draw attention to certain other facets of the military operation. It is now quite clear, we are given to understand, that there was almost a signals breakdown in the early days of operations and that many high priority signals did not reach their destination for at least a day. That was a by-product of a decision to change the attack, possibly through the untenability of Cyprus. There we were asking an Army, which knew that the

  321
  country behind it was deeply divided on this issue, which in itself was not clear and happy in its conscience on this issue, to go into an operation without all the normal services of information which it needed.
  I do not simply mean the services of military information, intelligence appreciation and operational links, but I mean telling the blokes there what they were supposed to be there for. I did not agree with the objective, but from the point of view of the Government this was a terrible failure on their part. They believed in the operation and asked soldiers to fight in it. They should have made quite certain that machinery existed for the supply of information. There is nothing lonelier than a battlefield when one does not know what is happening; it is lonelier still when one does not know why one is there. For about ten days bulletins were not available to the troops telling them not only what was going on on their flanks, but in the world outside—in the rest of the Arab countries, in the United Nations and at home. In those circumstances, I should have thought there was need for express explanation and the supply of information to the troops.
  We asked our troops to undertake a difficult operation. Why is it that every time British troops go into action with allied troops the amenities available to them are inferior to those available to our allies? The French had their bottle of wine on D plus 1. This is not a big point, but the British did not have a N.A.A.F.I. there until D plus 10. Many of the amenities which I think were quite justifiable were not available. Nothing saps a man's faith in the arm in which he is serving more than to see other blokes in a similar arm serving more comfortably.
  In warfare nowadays, particularly in confused circumstances like those of Suez, much depends on sustaining a high level of morale. I used to get sick and tired during the war of the generals who visited us, the Pressmen and the politicians who came to see us, who went back with the old catchline, "The morale of our troops is excellent." The morale of our troops was high during this operation, but it was not as high as it should have been. Again, I am not accepting the purpose of the operation at all; but morale was spoiled
  322
  and practically destroyed by simple organisational failures.
  Another point we are entitled to look at is the scope and nature of the strategy on which our Army is based and the scope and functions of the Army itself. My hon. Friends have already made what I think is one of the most valid points in the debate, that the Cyprus base has now no real function and that the Libyan base is of even less use. There is now practically no reason at all why we should immobilise a large part of our manpower in that part of the world. Originally it was there because of the Tripartite Declaration, but is there now any possible use which it could be called upon to serve? If it is there simply in order to carry the flag—a very difficult operation in view of the way in which we have carried the flag in the last few months—it is exposed and vulnerable.
  I am not going into logistical details, but I think it is now clear that a large, flabby, amorphous National Service Army in which practically one man trains another man, an army spread out with a cumbersome load of commitments, lacks the ability to move when mobilised and is indeed a very difficult arm to mobilise and organise. It is out-of-date and the time has come, not only to readjust our bases, not only to bring an end to National Service, but, because of the need to get rid of National Service, to build up a good Regular Army. This, perhaps, is not the occasion for a major discussion on that point; that occasion will come later. It is not only a question of pay, but also a question of accommodation. It is not only a question of accommodation for soldiers, but also a question of accommodation for their wives and of education for their children.
  I am coming to the conclusion that there is something even deeper that we have to look to. If in a modern democratic state we want to achieve a taut, efficient, professional Army, there has got to be some kind of deep-rooted change in the philosophy of the Army altogether. We all know that the general structure of the Army is rigidly divided on a caste system. There may be avenues of promotion from the lower caste to a higher caste. It is also true that some of those who travel along those avenues become more caste-bound than those who were

  323
  there already. There is the old saying, "All right Jack, I am up the ladder and I will throw the ladder down."
  It is not just a question of creating avenues of opportunity to travel from the lower ranks to non-commissioned ranks and then to commissioned ranks. What was evidenced by the operation in Suez was that a complete readjustment of the internal philosophy of the Army is needed so that this caste system shall be broken down once and for all. It has been evidenced in many ways. I found that I was on the good end of the system all the time I was in the Services, but, unless we manage to change it in a modern democracy, we shall never achieve the Army we need.
  I have left out the basic argument of whether Suez was right or wrong. I believe it was wrong and that it was criminal. I believe it was made even more criminal because, having taken the decision, right hon. Members opposite, with all their much-vaunted experience, did not organise—with all the money they had to spend—the kind of force needed to conduct that operation and, on many occasions, created situations which were almost a betrayal of the soldiers in the field.
  7.28 p.m.
  Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: We are having a full-scale curtain raiser tonight for the Army Estimates and Defence Estimates debates which are to follow in a short time. Therefore, probably there will be a certain amount of repetition, when we come to those debates, of what some of us are saying today.
  I should like to follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) on only one point because, quite frankly, I think that many of his criticisms are valid. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and people in the country were disturbed by certain things which appeared during this crisis, but for the life of me I have never been able to understand the cliches of hon. Members opposite—the hon. Member for Islington, North repeated this towards the end of his speech—alleging that there is a caste system in the Army.
  I was an officer before the last war, long before it was ever considered that all officers should go through the ranks
  324
  first, but in my regiment—the 9th Lancers, a cavalry regiment—there were three, and at one time four, of the finest ranker officers one could have. They had risen from the ranks and were officers in the 9th Lancers long before there was any question of everybody having to pass through the ranks.
  Now we have set up a system whereby every man has to pass through the ranks and has to pass two or three extremely stiff examinations before he is permitted to become an officer. If, under this system, these officers are not democratic and are not leaders of men, we must change the system. What is it we are looking for? We are looking for men who can inspire leadership, affection and discipline. If the officers produced under this system are not capable of doing that, for heaven's sake let us get rid of the system and go back to the old system, which did produce the men we wanted.
  I do not believe that the present system is a failure. I know a little about the selection boards of the War Office and I know that we are producing a very fine type of officer, although I acknowledge that we are short of officers. There are not enough people of the quality and standard required to make first-class officers going into the O.C.T.U.s and to the selection boards. That is a very disturbing feature and one which it will be very difficult indeed to remedy.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North mentioned National Service. Had he not done so I should not have referred to it, because I should have thought that it was out of order. We all wish to see an end to National Service, but, having 'regard to the commitments which we have all over the world, it is difficult to see how it can be done until we get a greater surge of Regular recruiting. I want to see National Service abolished as early as possible, because I believe that it is the ruination of any good regiment. Recruits should be trained up to a certain standard in a depôt, not in a regiment.
  As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, at the moment half the regiment is spending its life training the other half. What he forgot to say was that eventually, before those boys leave, they provide nearly two-thirds of the N.C.O.s of the regiment. It is a shocking thought that they should do this after only 18 months' service, although I must make it

  325
  clear that they do it very well. If the Nationat Service men were taken away the whole regiment would fall to pieces, and the Army would fall to pieces unless we cut down our commitments and then cut down the numbers in the forces. That is another argument which I will not pursue at this juncture, but we might talk about it on the Defence Estimates.
  I am extremely disturbed about the question of the recall of reservists. As I said in an interjection earlier in the debate, I believe that this recall is due to the fact that we adhere to the Paris Agreements and that we have four divisions in Germany which are supposed to be earmarked for the European commitments, and, strictly speaking, may not be used outside Europe. If we have to keep four divisions there, with all the tail which that involves, then it will be necessary to call up reservists in these emergencies.
  I said this when I was at the N.A.T.O. Conference, in Paris—I said it at Question Time, when I was back from that Conference: I am quite certain, having regard to the present situation in Europe and the unlikelihood. to a certain extent, of global war, that the Paris Agreements need serious amendment. We must have the right to use all four of those divisions if we consider it necessary to do so in our own interests, and we must have that right without having first to obtain permission from anybody else. In that way we should avoid the recall of reservists, perhaps not entirely, but to a large extent. I know that specialists have to be called up for a special operation such as the Suez operation.
  In one of his speeches my right hon. Friend used the word "cross-posting." That is a word which sends a shudder through me. If there is a way of destroying the morale of a unit which is going into battle, it is to decide the night before, or three days before, or a week before, to send an enormous influx of people into the regiment wearing another cap badge which they have to remove and put in their pockets before they put on the unit cap badge, which perhaps they have never seen before. I am certain that this is a disease in the War Office and in Army organisation—and it is a disease which by now should have been cured.
  A first-class regimental officer would kick very strongly against men being
  326
  cross-posted either out of or into his unit in this way; but the moment he has been through the Staff College, for some extraordinary reason he forgets all those lessons and seizes on cross-posting as the quickest and easiest answer to his problem. To indulge in a lot of cross-posting is very much easier than thinking out these problems carefully beforehand.
  I know that my right hon. Friend's predecessor frowned very heavily on this method and I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to see that in an emergency such as this we do not have a considerable amount of cross-posting, because it ruins morale both in the regiment which has been milked and in the regiment to which the men have been cross-posted.
  Another point which disturbed me about the call-up of the reservists was that my right hon. Friend said that less than half of them fitted the bill. I know that the intake varies from year to year, but if we had a proper, modern index system, surely it would be the simplest thing in the world to say, "We want X number of men with these qualifications", to press the requisite button and to take the cards which came out of the system with the names of the men required. It is a terrifying admission for my right hon. Friend to say that many people were called up and then it was discovered that only half of them fitted what was wanted.
  Mr. Hare: My hon. and gallant Friend has not understood what I said. In fact, only half of the number were called up; 14,000 were called up out of 24,000.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: It was discovered that of the 24,000 only 14,000 fitted the bill?
  Mr. Hare: Only 14,000 out of the 24,000 fitted the bill and were called up.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In that case, perhaps my criticism is overweighted.
  Perhaps I may make one comment which is slightly out of order. There is a general by the name of Speidel who has been sent to the N.A.T.O. forces. He was Rommel's Chief-of-Staff. If ever we are to learn any of the lessons which we should have been learning in the last ten years, he is the fellow to teach us—to teach us how to cut down on the size of headquarters and how to cut down on the paper and administrative nonsense

  327
  which is taught by our staff college. If we could only get him over here to lecture two or three times to our Staff College we might be able to go through our headquarters organisation and reorganise it on a quicker basis. I shall have some more remarks to make about speed in a few moments.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) asked whether it was necessary for the bombing to have continued for the length of time that it did continue in the Suez operation. I do not think he was posing the question whether the bombing was necessary at all.
  Mr. Strachey: No.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: He was asking whether it should have gone on for so long. All I would say is this: steaming tank-landing craft in any sort of sea is no fun. That is especially the case if the sea gets rough. Steaming at eight knots in those circumstances, which is nearly the maximum speed for the vessles at sea, is no fun at all. Malta is a thousand miles from Port Said. At eight knots maximum it would take a good ten days to get there. Nobody could have made the craft go quicker.
  Intelligence information was that there were a large number—I do not know the exact number—of the latest Russian fighters on Egyptian airfields and a considerable number of what they called Valiant-type Russian bombers. We did not know at that time that these had no pilots. It is not very usual to see a lot of aeroplanes lying about which have no pilots. In fact, the pilots had not arrived, but we were not to know that. It was, therefore, vital, during the steaming time of that invasion fleet from Malta to Port Said, that not a single bomber or fighter should be capable of taking off from those airfields, otherwise the invasion fleet would have been a sitting target. I think that that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  As for the mounting and speed of the operation, I must say that I was disappointed, although quite frankly, as an ex-Regular soldier, I was not surprised. It has been the same ever since I first joined the Army, longer ago than I care to remember. Anybody who tried to do things just a little bit quicker than somebody else was always suspect. It was said, "That chap is not sound." I have
  328
  experienced it myself so often, and it is one of the inherent diseases of the Army.
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should say to those who get out the syllabus of the Staff College teaching of the future that they really must get rid of some of their antiquated ideas of how long it takes to move troops from A to B or to mobilise troops. It is vital that the whole thing should be thought out again. If my right hon. Friend cannot find people already there with the brains to work it out quickly, then let him find them from somewhere else, because they exist. It was not until General Alanbrooke took over the direction of our forces in this country that people who think and work quickly were given a chance, some of the dead wood was cut away and we started to get on. We are going back to that same thing, to the idea of the sound fellow who writes out a sort of Staff College appreciation and takes five and a half hours to do it, at the end of which time he is the only person who understands what he has written.
  Having seen and done that in my own experience, having given orders by microphone, from a few written notes, for an entire brigade to go into battle, I know that it can be done, and I have shown how it is capable of being done, I am not trying to boast, but merely to make the point. We have got to understand that speed is essential in all these things, and if we are to have what is called a fire brigade, I often wonder what the firemen of this country—the people who come sliding down the pole—think about it, because they know what speed is. Let these people take a lesson from the fire brigades and see how quickly they can get cracking. But this fire brigade idea is quite useless unless the force can be mounted and moved at a far greater speed than anything that has happened in the recent crisis.
  I think it is probably agreed now on all sides of the Committee that, for various reasons, such as the hydrogen bomb, the danger of global war and the threat of an attack across the Elbe in Europe have receded a little at present, if for no other reason than what is happening in Poland and Hungary, which have made it much more unlikely. What chief-of-staff sitting in the Kremlin would relish the idea of making a large-scale

  329
  attack on Europe with his lines of communication running through Poland and Czechoslovakia?
  The fact is that we have put a cork—and somebody else has helped us to do it—into the bottle. Our northern flank over the Pole is fairly well looked after; I dare say that my right hon. Friend knows what the details are. What happens? The obvious thing is that an attacker would go round the south flank, which is wide open. Somebody in a high position in N.A.T.O. said to me that there was only one obstacle between the Caucasus and the Atlantic via Africa—the Nile, and the Russians are already over it.
  We had better think quick and act quickly. That is the situation. I feel now—and I am giving my own views for the first time, for I have not spoken about it in all the rancour and heat—that it is a major strategical and political problem. The southern flank was wide open, and the Russians were busy getting round it. What were all those fighters, bombers and tanks doing out there? It was clear to anybody what it was all about, but now the United Nations has gone in and has taken over in that area. Let us hope that the cork will be put in that bottle as soon as possible, because we have to watch our vital interests in that area just as much as any other country; in fact, far more so.
  Having said that about the centre and flanks, the requirements are twofold. There is the very limited cold war operation which can be carried out on a jeep basis, which means that nothing heavier can be used than can be carried in jeeps and trailers, and which can deal with that sort of situation. We have had it with the Kikuyu in Kenya and in Malaya, and in that sort of operation, and the whole of such a force can be carried or transported by air to a man. Whether we have anything like a brigade moved on the jeep basis I do not know, but, on the question of air transport, I see that people in the R.A.F. particularly, are asking that there should be a much enlarged Transport Command, with fleets of transport aircraft under the R.A.F.
  I wonder whether they are right. What are these machines to do all the time they are not being used; stay on the ground and do nothing? It does not seem to me to be a very economical way of doing the job. Why is it not possible
  330
  to use the same principle that applied for many years to shipping? Why could we not ordain that certain private enterprise charter companies and some of the corporations should have a percentage of their aircraft capable of being converted at a moment's notice to troop-carrying aircraft, and charter them for the job, so that they would be performing useful tasks during the time they were not needed for operations, rather than have a vast fleet of transport aircraft sitting on the ground and doing nothing for a very large part of the time?
  That is one aspect of this problem. The other is the mounting of a Korea or Suez operation, in which tanks and guns are only secondary. It really is crying for the moon to imagine that Beverleys, or any other kind of aircraft, have been invented which could possibly carry a brigade of Centurion tanks or 25-pounder guns by air. We still have to take them by sea, because we cannot carry Centurion tanks in any large numbers by air.
  Mr. Douglas Glover: We could take a few 25-pounder guns, but not Centurion tanks.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Yes, we could take a few guns, but we would have to take a lot of ammunition, because these guns fire 100 rounds an hour and they require a lot of ammunition.
  We have to be able to transport such forces as these again at a moment's notice, but we are limited by the speed of the slowest ship and the distance to the area of operations. It is, therefore, in my view, absurd to hold the whole of our strategic reserve in Britain, because it would take far too long to get it out to any likely area of hostilities. We have got to have, as we always have had, our forward bases, which are capable of dealing with this sort of situation. I am disappointed that in Cyprus, that forward base, we have not yet, 2½ years after evacuating the Suez Canal Zone, got facilities for loading ships and tanks. I hope that some very serious thinking is taking place about that.
  Vote 8 of the Estimate concerns moneys spent on works and buildings and lands. It really is time that someone took in hand this matter of barrack accommodation in this country. We look forward to seeing many of our troops coming back, especially from Germany.

  331
  What a shock they will have, after the barracks in which they have been living over there, when they see such hutted camps as Caterick, which I visited as a member of the Estimates Committee. I do not think that it would be an extravagance to spend quite a lot of money on those camps, and to step up the organisation and machinery for providing what is needed. All this to-ing and fro-ing, contracts, estimates, agreements, putting it off for six months because it cannot be added up correctly, shows no urgency at all about the problem.
  It would be invidious to quote any particular headquarters—I bear them no ill will—but I ask my right hon. Friend why, when the best and most beautiful type of barrack accommodation is eventually built, it is always headquarters that gets it? I say that it is the fighting troops, the men who are prepared to go out and risk their lives who should have the most comfortable accommodation, and let headquarters, who sit behind, come next.
  In his remarks about the announcement made by the then Prime Minister of the reported surrender of Port Said, the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) really has not got his facts quite clear. It has been incontrovertibly shown that the then Governor of Port Said did, in fact, agree to a cease-fire and to surrender terms. Having done so, he got a telephone call, presumably from Cairo. He was whistled back to Cairo, and was replaced by someone else who immediately went back on the terms. Therefore, the Government cannot be blamed, because on the afternoon or evening that the then Prime Minister gave the House the report that had just come over the wire, it had actually happened. Next morning, of course, the news was different. But the then Prime Minister would have been criticised had he not made that announcement. As it happened, the disparity did not last as long as it might have done. We got the cease-fire and the surrender within the next 24 hours. Therefore. I do not think that that is a valid point of criticism.
  I wish my right hon. Friend luck in his office, and I congratulate his able assistant, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery), on his promotion, but I do hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that someone needs to
  332
  go through that War Office, through staff duties and mobilisation plans, like an east wind. Let him see whether something cannot be done to speed things up, and to prevent a recurrence of the rather disturbing mistakes which were made in both the mobilisation plan and other things during the recent crisis.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: It is not a very profitable operation to start one's thinking, as it were, on 5th October and to jog backwards. It is more profitable to think back to 27th July, when the then Prime Minister came to this House and told us that the Suez Canal had been seized. There was no doubt that on that Friday morning and on the following Monday, there was, on both sides of the House, the idea that the problem could be solved by force. There were cheers from both sides at the suggestion that it might be necessary to use force.
  On 31st July, we had a debate on defence, in the course of which I said that, on the issue of the use of force, I had had an overwhelming desire to go out of the House and be sick when I heard those cheers on both sides. In my judgment, the possibility of finding a solution of the Suez situation by force was never a starter. I do not say that only now, on 5th February; I said it on 31st July. I noticed with some interest that the spiritual leader of the Under-Secretary of State also became converted to this point of view. On 5th December, the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) said:
  "The fact remains that when this crisis came we had no plan, no ships, no aeroplanes and no men available in sufficient quantities to hit quickly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 1307.]
  On 2nd August, the Prime Minister ordered mobilisation. It was such a step, Mr. Bowles, which precipitated the First World War. The mobilisation of the resources of a major Power for warlike action is a step of the utmost seriousness. At that time, we had exactly two tank-landing ships. This is no mystery which I have culled from the American Press. If hon. Members care to ask at the Vote Office for a copy of the Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates, they will find that the number of tank-landing ships available then was exactly two.

  333
  I have a fair memory, and I remember that in the Fifth Volume of the History of the Last War, written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), there is described the Anzio operation—about equal in size to Suez. The right hon. Gentleman describes how that was held up from the early days of 1944 until April, 1944, by a battle to get tank-landing ships away from the Overlord operation which was being mounted. The right hon. Gentleman wrote that the Anzio operation needed 88 tank landing ships—we had two. What in the world was the good of talking about force?
  I go further. I have never believed that, in the Middle East, force can do the job. As a very young man, when I served in the occupation of Constantinople after the First World War, and subsequently served for a number of years in Iraq during the Arab revolts, I saw the efforts then made to establish the rule of law by force. It could not be done then—it cannot be done now.
  Of course, the oil in the Middle East was, and is, absolutely vital to us. Of course, we could not afford to see Nasser with his knife across our jugular vein. But there were only two ways then, and there are only two ways now; either force—by having a man along every yard of the Suez Canal, and by having a man at every yard along the pipelines—or good will.
  The Government, in their blind folly, in their devotion to an outworn creed, have tried force and have failed. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) is absolutely right in what he says, and why the prestige of this country is low. We tried to use force, and it did not work. Until we can restore our national reputation for truth, honest dealing and respect for the other man we are out of the Middle East. We shall, of course, go through very hard times economically, but, much worse, we shall go through a very hard time spiritually. The country knows that in its name a great wrong was committed. Until that is purged, times will indeed be hard for us.
  The wisest thing I have heard about Suez and the Middle East was not said in the House of Commons or in any of the popular journals. I suggest that hon. Members take the trouble to obtain the
  334
  October number of the "News Letter" of the Church Missionary Society and read what is said by Canon Max Warren. I have never met him in my life, though I have written to him recently and asked him if he would have a meal with me. There is a man who understands what is happening. There is a man who knows that, as a result of a proud people being asked to cover three thousand years in thirty, Islam is in a ferment.
  Colonel Nasser is not a cause: he is a symptom. If we got rid of him, would things improve? If Sir Anthony Eden had succeeded in knocking Nasser off his perch, would the person who followed Nasser have been any better? Hon. Gentleman who have had the opportunity of travelling in the Middle East, who have had the chance to read the philosophy of that area and to study its languages, should learn the very simple lesson that at present there is no basis for Western democracy as we understand it. The choice is between authoritarian régimes based upon the army and chaos.
  Today, hon. Gentlemen speak in terms of great respect of Kemal Ataturk. There was a time when we tried to knock down Kemal Ataturk. The spiritual forefathers of hon. Gentlemen opposite tried to knock Kemal Ataturk off his perch in 1922, and they failed. All they did was to make him stronger. There is no choice. Time and time again, when one succeeds in knocking the Middle East dictator sideways, what follows?—burning, disruption and chaos. Is it any accident that a couple of days before the balloon went up, when I was in Egypt, I noticed with very great interest that the only internal security measure which was obvious was that an Egyptian soldier or policeman was on guard at every petrol pump? Why?—because only a short time before, in 1952, Cairo had been burned. Not so very long ago, some two or three years ago, when the Turks wanted to demonstrate against Greece, what did they do?—they burned Istanbul. That kind of thing has been going on all over the Middle East for the past thirty years. What Sir Anthony Eden did, with the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in trying to use force at the beginning of August was fatal.
  One of my hon. Friends has underlined the fact that hon. Members opposite pride themselves on the superiority of their military thinking. Let us look at an

  335
  example of it, and, may I hasten to say, the fault does not lie exclusively with one party; it cannot, because the results of things which are done in matters of defence, whether good or bad, do not become obvious for a considerable time. Therefore, in any consideration from a practical point of view of the mobilisation plan, it is not only hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite but my hon. Friends too who were in charge of Service Departments who are, for good or ill, involved.
  The Labour Government had the wisdom to restore the category A Reserve. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman did not thoroughly understand the history of the Class A Reserve. The number has always been very small. I am not asking him to tell me about it now; I will try to tell him, and he can tell me whether I am right or wrong. I believe I know the number, because it has been published, of those used in Korea, of those used in 1921, 1927 and 1936, the three occasions between the wars when Section A was called up. Some 3,000 or 4,000 men were involved, just enough to top up the battery. These men had enlisted on Regular engagement and on the expiration of their Colour service, they accepted a financial inducement—in the case of a private soldier 1s. 6d. a day, I think—and who in return accepted liability for recall without Proclamation, the notice of recall merely being sent through the post and the soldier returns without delay to the Colours.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) restored this provision in, I think, 1949, the War Office went one stage further and asked for powers in that 1949 Act to designate men in the first year of their Class B Reserve service, that is to say men who had been Regular soldiers and who did their Reserve service with the liability to recall only by Proclamation. To those Class B reservists whom the War Office might want, it said, "We designate you as a Class A reservist". Hon. Members should note particularly that those men were designated in the first year of their Reserve service only.
  It was obvious that when the former Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, came to the House of Commons on 2nd August and said that he was going to call
  336
  up the whole of the Reserve, in order to get a small number of men, something had gone wrong. It was perfectly clear what it was: the record offices which had designated men in the first year of their service had failed to notice the passage of time. Therefore, when a considerable number of specialists were wanted, the War Office could not designate them. Sir Anthony Eden said that legislation would be required in order to put this right. Subsequently, on 20th November, I asked the Secretary of State for War about what he was going to do, to which he gave no real reply; and the Government today have nothing to offer us, which is a little disappointing.
  The Committee should notice what are the effects. I will ask hon. Members to turn to a typewritten document which is published at three-monthly intervals by the Vote Office, wherein they will find that we have somewhere in the region of 170,000 Army Emergency reservists and somewhere in the region of 100,000 Class B reservists, in all about 270,000 reservists. In order to get these additional Class A men which the Government by their neglect had failed to designate, there was a Proclamation calling up the whole of the Reserve.
  What was the effect? Hon. Gentlemen talk about what the civilian thinks of the Army, but what would any man think of the Army who, on August Bank Holiday, when thinking of taking his wife away for a holiday, found a notice put through the front door ordering him to be recalled, and without his having had even the advantage of the 1s. 6d. a day or having had the opportunity to volunteer? Men suddenly found the notices and, with the notices, there went rumour. Uncertainty and doubt was spread over the maximum number of people in order to get the minimum result.
  That is not all. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor called up the whole of the Class B Army Emergency Reserve, categories 1 and 2, and Class A Reserve, the men with one-man businesses wrote to their Members of Parliament, men whose wives were ill sent in doctors' certificates, and the employers of men doing special jobs wrote in too. There was an absolute muddle, because the Army's mobilisation plan was fundamentally wrong and was not designed to deal with this situation at all.

  337
  We congratulate ourselves on progress. Hon. Members should go to the Library and borrow the first volume of the "History of the First World War" and see what our grandfathers did. In fourteen days, we put over the other side of the Channel 120,000 horses; we mobilised six divisions, 60 per cent. of which had reservists. Although they did not start to go to France until 9th August, they made contact with the Germans at first light on 22nd August, that is to say in 14 days. Here we have a mobilisation plan at fantastic cost—because, of course, the true cost is not represented in this Supplementary Estimate. It is a fantastic cost. Even now, after nearly two months, we do not have the answer.
  Again, I should have liked to have heard further from the right hon. Gentleman, although I realise the difficulties and that I might be anticipating his Estimates speech. The Minister of Defence has been to America and we hear stories that we are to have rockets. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this will lessen his problem? There is only a certain number of electronic engineers in the country. If the right hon. Gentleman calls them up into the Army now—not because of the Army's original sin, not because the Army has more stupid men than there are in the House of Commons or in industry—where does he think his electronic engineers will be? I will tell him—they will be peeling potatoes in the officers' mess. It is even money in the Army whether the square peg gets into a round hole or the round peg gets into a square hole.
  The system as such is quite archaic. I say it because I have worked in it in a very humble capacity. Let the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many record offices there are. How many of them have modern punch card systems installed? None of them. I can understand that a generation ago there were considerable arguments against the introduction of modern labour-saving devices—there were considerable arguments because of the danger of bombing; but that is no longer true. Indeed, it becomes an absolute necessity that if there is to be an efficient mobilisation system, the Army must set about the civilianisation and the mechanisation of its record services.
  338
  Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman one simple fact of the enormous advantage enjoyed by the Russians over ourselves. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) and I visited Russian units when we were on the Parliamentary delegation to the Soviet Union. One of the things we discovered was that there was no documentation in the Soviet Union, no long tail concerned with welfare or with records. The Russians deal with it in a quite different way. If the right hon. Gentleman finds that on a given day he needs the services of a red-haired man, 5 ft. 3 in. tall and with two thumbs on each hand, modern punch card methods of control exist whereby he could find the man in 24 hours if he exists. In fact, however, men go into the Army and the right hon. Gentleman has no more idea than the man in the moon where to find the men he wants for the Royal Armoured Corps or the men he wants for the Pioneer Corps, because he is absolutely and completely lost. I should like tonight to have a categorical assurance that the undertaking given by Sir Anthony Eden, when he persuaded the House to accept without question the call-up of the reserves on 2nd August, will be implemented: namely, that we are to have a legislative overhaul of the Reserve Forces Act.
  The muddle is not confined to men. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham drew attention to the fact that the Americans complained about the misuse of offshore equipment. Let me say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who from time to time in bursts of anti-American feeling say to the Americans, "Ah, well, take your supplies back", that the American offshore equipment goes very far.
  Everyone was thrilled, was he not, when the helicopters took in the Marine Commandos on 6th November, but were hon. Members opposite who signed that little anti-American Motion aware that every single helicopter that went in was supplied under the American Offshore Agreement? How many Hunters out of the roughly 1,000 we have got are American offshore equipment? One-half of them. How many Centurions? What about the Valiant bomber? Would there be a Valiant bomber had it not been for American computers? Let hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of always coming here in blather, go to the Library and find this out for themselves, as they can

  339
  quite easily do. Let them turn to the Defence White Papers for 1954, 1955 and 1956 and make a list of the American offshore equipment.
  As my hon. Friend said, quite rightly, and as I have tried to say on previous occasions, if hon. Members opposite object to the Offshore Agreement, why did they not object when the Americans gave us the equipment instead of when we are required to carry out our part of the bargain?
  Why did we misuse that equipment? I asked the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) when he was Minister of Defence. Do hon. Members remember he answer that he gave me on 14th November? He said. "We have no control over the equipment." He used the words, "It is all muddled up." Was it muddled up because he was stupid? Not at all. The truth is that, as with men, so with stores and equipment. Right throughout the three Fighting Services nobody knows what we have got. Nobody knows where it is.
  Do hon. Members ever stop to realise what the organisational consequences must be in peacetime of the application of a Churchillian doctrine? In the first year, nothing at all; in the second year, just a little; and in the third year, all we want. We started re-arming in 1951. We are now in 1957. All over the world great ordnance depots are chock-a-block with hundreds of millions of pounds of equipment which will never be used. The right hon. Gentleman's Estimates, when he comes next month to present them, will be for millions and millions of pounds and his Vote A will be chocked up with thousands and thousands of men keeping the rust off equipment which will never be used and the whereabouts of which neither he nor his advisers know.
  Again, therefore, I say that what is needed are modern systems of accounting. I have asked my American friends how they do it. I said, "How do you manage to have this infinite variety of ultra-modern equipment and how can you keep check of it?" They say, "Well, we do. We have introduced electronic machines. If Mr. Wilson, the Secretary of Defence, wants to know how much equipment we have got, however small and trivial it may be, and where it is, by our punch-card system we can give
  340
  him an answer in 24 hours. "We, of course, have not even begun to think about it.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing is a bit of a villain here. I say this in a kindly way with the word "villain" in inverted commas. He comes here and he keeps talking about cross-posting. This anathema about cross-posting, if I may be forgiven for saying so, applies to the hon. and gallant Member, but it never applied to me, because having joined the 9th Lancers he is justifiably proud of it and he hates the intruder—not personally, but he does not want the odd 12th Lancer when he turns up or the 15th/19th Hussars. But this feeling about cross-posting never applied to the other ranks.
  For more than 25 or 30 years there has been a Corps of Cavalry, and at every back-end there was cross-posting between overseas and home of other ranks between units of the Corps of Cavalry. In the old Regular Army, any soldier could be cross-posted within the terms of his engagement. Whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman or myself is right is a matter not for dispute but of establishing the facts.
  I assure the hon. and gallant Member that modern wars cannot be fought on the tribal system. That day has gone. One of the things that we must face up to—I know that the hon. and gallant Member and his hon. Friends opposite will kick—is that we ought to have a Corps of Infantry. The Secretary of State has got to come to this. If he thinks otherwise, let me tell him what he does. In June, a battalion of the Guards was stationed in Port Said; I gave the detailed example in the debate of 31st July. A crack battalion was right in the shop window, with a strength of about 300 or 400. Again, all over the world and all over this country, there are dozens of regiments at half strength.
  The House of Commons has to face the fact that if we are going to contract the Army—whether we do it deliberately because we want to cut down National Service or for some other reason—the result is just the same. We have to bring our manpower and equipment under control, and these are very precious items. They must be used to the best advantage. At present, the thing that prevents equipment and manpower in the Army from

  341
  being used to the best advantage is tradition. "It was never done before." That is the simple fact.
  I have always seen the difficulties of getting rid of National Service, and I have indicated some of the things that should be done, but at present, of course, the prospects are not very good. We have had a new bill for a pay increase of £70 million. I know that eight or nine months is a short period over which to judge, but we can begin to do the sums. This again has a great deal to do with what happened in Suez and arises out of the rate of prolongation of the three-year engagement. Last July that rate was 5·1 per cent. and last week it was 4·9 per cent. I asked a Question last week and received a Written Answer on Friday about the total number of man-years recruited in 1956 and in 1954 and 1955. The Government at present are recruiting fewer man-years, even after the pay increase than we recruited in 1950, and that is not all the story.
  When we exclude National Service liability, the picture is even grimmer. It is true that, as one would expect, there has been a sharp rise in prolongation by men extending service on long engagement, but that, of course, means nothing. that is one of the most dispiriting things of all. They are "once only" men. When engagements are extended under the impulse of pay, the men who do that cannot do it again the next year. The increase that we have obtained in the third category this year is nothing like as sharp as one would expect if this policy was going to succeed. Certainly in the first three categories it has produced little or no result.
  As to the fourth category, we shall see in a little while. Here I must put my judgment in the matter against the judgment of others. My mind goes back to a similar debate to this when the three-year engagement was first introduced. There was some elation at the time and a great Press campaign. The War Office has learned better since. There was elation about recruiting figures but, of course, they were not sustained; and I suggest that they will not be sustained now because of another consequence of Suez.
  The Regular soldier is a human being and expects to be treated fairly. One of the things which put a permanent brake on internal recruiting was the "freeze"
  342
  in 1950. It had to be done, of course, and I supported that action at the time of Korea, but the memory of that remains. It was not forgotten. The fact that the freeze lasts only three months is neither here nor there. The fact is that the Regular soldier, at the end of his engagement, without being asked, is chopped off in his stride and kept in the Service.
  Here we are faced with the effect or the three-year engagement. The controversy which I carried on with the right hon. Member for Carshalton is now almost dead. He is out of office and the matter is now settled, except that the country is now left with the consequences of the three-year engagement. I am absolutely certain that there is no easy way out. I have said over and over again, and I say it again now, that I do not believe that the solution lies within the grasp of any one party. I would say that even if I were sure that the answer existed in the minds of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I say it because the country is not military-minded. It is not interested in military matters, and if a solution has to be found which is to be acceptable not only to the House of Commons but to the people of the country as a whole, it must be put across in a united way.
  The question whether we get rid of National Service or not, and the question whether we find a solution to our defence problems, do not depend on debates in the House of Commons. That is the position we have now reached. The Votes, the Amendments and our words have comparatively little effect upon what young men do. The question of our ability to get rid of National Service depends upon whether young men are willing to go to the recruiting offices and sign their names and whether those already serving are willing to extend their service. All the trends combine to show that they are not, and nothing that has been done in the last six months has made the situation any better.
  I do further. Every time there is any premature throwing of hats in the air about a reduction in the length of engagements, we dissuade some people from taking on engagement. The only trick which paid off was the introduction of a differential. That persuaded a considerable number of men to undertake a three-year engagement. If there was any doubt about that last July, there

  343
  can be none now. I am sure that the Secretary of State for War, even in the limited time he has spent at the War Office, will have appreciated that the three-year engagement is not a true Regular engagement at all. It is tied up with National Service. If we get rid of National Service the three-year engagement will go, except for a very small percentage of men. Whoever we may think is responsible for this state of affairs, it is absolutely clear that there is a national responsibility resting upon all of us to find a way out.
  If there is one thing that is sure to lead to national bankruptcy, not only economically but militarily, it is to imagine that we have a greater defence than we have. In other words, if the country continues to measure the success of its defence effort by the size of the bill, then Suez will not be the last trouble spot by any means. Indeed, I could give a list of other spots which I think are hotting up. One of them I believe is blowing up in the Yemen. What is happening there is directly related to what has happened to our loss of prestige over Suez. I do not want to encourage the enemies of the country, and, therefore. I do not propose to give a list of places which are potential hot spots.
  Last Sunday I saw that illiterate paper the Sunday Express. The heading read, "Sandys brings it off." I do not think that the simple fact of the visit of the Minister of Defence to Washington has solved our defence problem. There is no short-cut with defence problems. There are no simple solutions. What we can do in the House of Commons is to have honest debates in which we do not shirk the facts; honest debates in which we try, for example, to understand why the mobilisation plan did not work. We can pool our ideas, and try to see how we can persuade people to think that a military career is worth while. Anything short of that method of approach will lead to national disaster.
  I am no optimist about the future, no optimist at all. If I had to advise my daughters I would say to them, "You go. You will find happier and more worth-while lives abroad." Personally I would sooner stay, but that is what I would say to young people. There is only one optimistic note I can strike, one
  344
  positive, pleasant thing which gives some hope for the future. It seems to me that the year 1956 proved both to us and to the Russians that in the modern world force does not pay. If we have learned that lesson and can apply it and by so doing give an example of the application of that lesson, then the £39 million which we are asked to vote tonight may not be entirely wasted.
  8.31 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan: I will not follow what was said by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), although I enjoyed his speech enormously, as I always do enjoy his speeches. It does not mean that I agree with all of it, but the hon. Gentleman was right in saying, as have other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, that there are things in War Office administration which are far from right and which need to be put right as quickly as possible. I say that in the broadest sense. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to take this debate seriously, as I am sure he will, because not only his opponents but his friends are very anxious on these points.
  I am one of those who believe that Sir Anthony Eden did the most courageous and brave thing in modern history. I believe that we stoppsed a large war, very possibly a world war, and for that reason alone I think that his action was entirely justified and that this country was justified in backing him. Never in the history of military operations of any country has it happened that the troops concerned, in great danger to themselves, have been strictly instructed to cause the least possible damage and the least casualties to the enemy that they can manage. Never was I more proud of my country than when that order was issued, and I think that the world at large is beginning to see the bravery and the courage of it.
  What some right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem to have neglected to mention so far in this debate, and I have heard most of it, is the evidence of the Russian menace that was found when we went into Egypt. [An HON. MEMBER: "We did not find it."] We found it, and there is no doubt that our courageous action in going into Egypt cut right across the Russian plans. The area in which

  345
  the Israelis conquered, and the Egyptians ran away from them, was stocked with modern equipment on a colossal scale, and not for fun. The idea that it was put there for peaceable purposes is ludicrous.
  We stopped its use by our action, I am convinced, and I am also convinced that had Israel and Egypt gone on fighting the other Arab States would have come in, and the whole Middle East would have gone up in flames. That has been said before by many people more capable of saying it than I am, but I believe it sincerely. I repeat that the action of Sir Anthony Eden was the bravest action taken in modern times, and that the orders given to the troops were unique in the history of modern military operations. I hope that some hon. Members who have disparaged their country in sonic of their remarks will think again.
  Mr. G. Brown: If I may interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, will he tell us which hon. Members he thinks have disparaged their country, and when?
  Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) is the first in my mind, and I am glad that so many hon. Members opposite have contradicted the right hon. Lady in saying that our troops behaved horribly and callously.
  Mr. Brown: When did the right hon. Lady say that?
  Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: It was perfectly obvious to everybody—
  Mr. Brown: Clearly, the hon. and gallant Member has given no warning to the right hon. Lady that it was she that he had in mind. If he wants to traduce her character, he must do better than make unsupported assertions. I have no knowledge that the right hon. Lady ever said what he now attributes to her. Will the hon. and gallant Member either produce the evidence or be, as I know he is, man enough to withdraw the charge until he can?
  Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: The evidence has been in the Press. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good right hon. and hon. Gentlemen saying, "No."
  Mr. Brown: Quote it.
  Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: I have quoted two of the words and I cannot remember the third that the right hon. Lady used about our action there. But I will not rub it in, because the right hon. Lady is not present and I do not think that it would be fair to her.
  Mr. Strachey: Then why does the hon. and gallant Gentleman bring it up?
  Mr. Brown: It is disgraceful.
  Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: There is nothing disgraceful in telling the truth.
  Mr. Brown: I deny that it is the truth. I deny that the right hon. Lady said that. I admit that certain organs of the Press have smeared her, but I deny that it is the truth. Can the hon. and gallant Member prove it?
  Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: I can only quote the Press. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his hands and head at me; I can only quote the Press.
  Hon. Members: Quote it.
  Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: I have quoted the Press and if I have wronged the right hon. Lady in not speaking the truth, I will, naturally, apologise.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: I am not withdrawing anything that I have said.
  I want to say one more thing. The bill with which we are presented today—that is what we are discussing—consisting largely of expenses incurred in Suez, would have been far greater, and on a colossal scale, if we had not taken the action that we did. Therefore, hard as it is to accept the Supplementary Estimate, which we must accept, I think we can be grateful that it is not the size that it would have been if a full-fledged war had taken place.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) should have used the excuse that Sir Anthony Eden was quite justified in taking the action he did in relation to Egypt because of the arms from Russia which were found there. If that argument is to be used to justify Sir Anthony, I hope that everyone will remember that

  347
  the Russians will be able to use that argument to justify what they did in Hungary, because they say that they found a sort of counter-revolutionary plot which, if it had not been quashed, would have led to the downfall of Hungary.
  It is a very dangerous argument to say that we have the right to invade a country merely because we have some suspicions that some people are engaged in activities of which we do not necessarily approve. I would hope that we would be very careful how we use that argument in order that we do not give other Powers some justification for the unjustifiable acts which they have committed against nations who want to enjoy liberty and peace.
  Furthermore, it is no good our praising the Hungarians if we deny the Egyptians similar rights. The Egyptians have a right to live their own lives, to govern their own country, to be free of military force from foreign nations just as much as have the Hungarians, and there is not a man or woman in the House of Commons who does not uphold the Hungarians right to freedom, to lead their own lives and to govern themselves without Russian troops being upon their soil. We cannot argue truthfully, honestly and sincerely on behalf of those oppressed by the Russians if we try to justify our unjustifiable action towards Egypt.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Frank Bowles): I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not take that argument any further.
  Mr. Fernyhough: I am sorry if I am transgressing the rules, but I have sat here all day and it has seemed that everybody has said almost all he wanted to do and many aspects of foreign affairs far wider than these Estimates have been dealt with. I merely thought that I should be allowed the freedom that every other speaker so far has had.
  The debate has been very revealing. We have had sonic real conversions. I was delighted to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) now having doubts about the wisdom of the Paris Agreements and our having stationed four divisions in Europe and being concerned about the costs of all that. He must realise that we cannot get rid of conscription here while we are committed to stationing four divisions in Germany for forty-four years, for it is
  348
  unlikely that we shall obtain sufficient recruits to fulfil postings in this country and postings under the Paris Agreements as well as the many other commitments that we have.
  Another revealing statement by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that we should ask General Speidel to advise us on how to run our Army. General Speidel is the big name in the German forces which we are supposed to have defeated. So it is suggested that the victors should seek the advice of the vanquished on how to run their Army. This is not a very pleasant reflection upon the men at the War Office who are supposed to have won the last war.
  It will not be possible to get rid of National Service as long as we need an Army the size of our present one, no matter what we provide in wages and conditions. Given full employment, I do not believe there are sufficient men in the country who are prepared to exchange employment in industry for Service life.
  If the policy which the Government are pursuing is allowed to continue and unemployment grows, we may get the required recruits for the Army, but the Government should not under-estimate the other consequences. Over the last six years we have spent £10,000 million for the sole purpose of keeping Communism at bay. If the Government's economic policy is successful and they get all the unemployment they want and all the recruits for the armed forces which they require, do not let them think that they will have achieved the paradise which they seek, for then we shall find growing internally the very forces which we are seeking to oppose externally with the great military machine which we are building up.
  Every country has the same problem. It is to the credit of the intelligence of men and women everywhere that no country in the world—America, Russia, France, Belgium; it does not matter which—can man its armed forces by volunteers; each one has to compel men to enter the forces. That is to be welcomed in this age, because it means that people are becoming more enlightened, and the more people become enlightened the world over the less likely will be the need for armies.
  The hon. and gallant Member thought that the £39 million covered by the

  349
  Supplementary Estimate was a comparatively small price to pay for what we had accomplished in Suez. But £39 million is not all that we have paid. What about the lost trade? Does anybody believe that the people of the Middle East are now clamouring for our goods? As has been indicated, the Russians have a fair there now, and the Germans are also to have one. The Middle East countries will not buy their goods from Britain, who tried to bully and dragoon them; they will buy them largely from countries from which they think they will get the most assistance and which show towards them the greatest amount of friendliness.
  What about the loss of prestige? Is that not to be included in the Bill? And what about the loss of lives, and the unemployment and under-employment which has arisen here as a direct result of this adventure? What about the fact that the £ has been endangered, so that the Chancellor has had to borrow money from here, there and everywhere in order to prop it up? These are all part of the price which has had to be paid for the Suez adventure. It is not sufficient to pretend that all that it has cost us is £39 million.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give us some indication of how much is fact and how much fiction in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). We have a right to know whether preparations were made as early as 4th August to invade Egypt and capture Alexandria in order to depose Nasser. We have never been given this story before. This is another addition to the many chapters of explanations which have been given as to our reasons for going into Suez. We are entitled to know whether it was the original intention of the Government to invade Egypt, capture Alexandria and depose Nasser by brute force. notwithstanding anything that Israel might subsequently have done.
  There are two other items which I should mention. The first is the question of the Arab Legion. I am glad to see that the grant to the Legion is down by £500,000 in the Supplementary Estimate. I should like to know how the Government can justify having made any subsidy, grant, gift or anything else to the Arab Legion during the last two
  350
  years. We have been told for months and even years that there was hostility towards us in this quarter, and that we had no friends there. Such a subsidy may have been justifiable in previous years, but during the last three years we have certainly not been justified in pouring money into the Arab Legion—a sum of money which makes the losses sustained in the groundnuts experiment in Africa appear like chicken-feed. What have we got out of it? We have a right to know whether this will be stopped.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Surely, the hon. Gentleman realises that the subsidy to the Arab Legion was paid under the Treaty with Jordan. I may be slightly mistaken about the date, but I have the impression that it was negotiated by the hon. Gentleman's Government when they were in power.
  Mr. Fernyhough: I think that we have been paying towards the Arab Legion, in one way or another, for the past twenty-five years, I am not trying to defend the Government of my party. All I say is that the situation in the Middle East changed immediately the present Government came into office in 1951. As the situation worsened, it seemed folly to pour money into the coffers of those most likely to oppose our interests, but that is what we have done.
  The other point I want to make is about the daily rates of overseas allowances. For many years our forces stationed in Germany did not receive overseas allowances because, when they were there as an army of occupation, they were able to demand from the Germans certain concessions; but those concessions ceased immediately Germany became an independent nation. In consequence, the standard of living of our forces was made much worse.
  For two years I have been trying to state the case for those men serving overseas who are accompanied by their families, and whose position has been worsened. This year Germany has been made a foreign posting for the purpose of overseas allowances. The allowance given to a general is 9s. 3d. a day if he is accompanied by his family, and 6s. 6d. a day if he is not. An increased daily allowance is given right down the ranks—brigadier, lieutenant-colonel, major, captain, warrant officer and sergeant—if

  351
  they are accompanied by their families. But the corporals and privates—the lads right at the bottom—get 1s. 6d. a day unaccompanied and 1s. 6d. a day if accompanied.
  How does the War Office justify denying to the ordinary ranker any further increment when he is accompanied by his family? Does the private's wife get her goods cheaper than the wife of any other member of the Forces? Is she able to buy clothes for her children at a cheaper rate? Do shoes cost her less? Is it cheaper for her to go to the pictures, the theatre or whatever form of amusement she may wish to enjoy? How does the War Office justify giving to all the others an additional allowance, when accompanied by their families, yet denying it to the ordinary private and the corporal?
  I was told, in answer to a Question, that the cost of giving an additional allowance to corporals and privates would be a miserable £30,000 a year, but the expenditure of that £30,000 would remove a genuine and legitimate grievance felt by the lowest-paid men in the Forces. I hope that the Under-Secretary will persuade his right hon. Friend to look into that matter again and that this discrimination will be removed. The man right at the bottom is entitled to treatment similar to that granted to the man at the top. Until that equal treatment is given, the Minister can rest assured that, as far as I am concerned, he will get no peace.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. John Hall: It has been my pleasure on previous occasions to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). I listen to him with the greatest respect and attention, because I believe he speaks with some sincerity. If there is anything in the point which he has just raised about the overseas allowance for other ranks. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into it and will, if necesary, put it right.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulty of recruitment under conditions of full employment, and especially asked whether we were able to dispense with National Service. I agree with him that it is very difficult to recruit men into the Regular Army in sufficient numbers today to be able to dispense with National Service and to depend entirely upon a Regular Army. It might remain difficult
  352
  all the time the present Government are in power, because our policies will maintain the fullest possible employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have not a pool of unemployment—[An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, in the furniture industry."]—on which we can draw.
  I have listened to the debate with great interest, although it seemed at times to be a debate upon foreign affairs and upon any other subject except the Supplementary Estimate. Let me come back to the Supplementary Estimate. I am not surprised at the size of it. I do not think that the whole of the cost is entirely reflected in this Estimate, which is not large enough to cover the whole cost We must consider the precautions that were taken in August, the preparations, that were agreed to and supported by the Opposition at that time. We remember the partial mobilisation. The hon. and unofficially gallant Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred to it as a very grave measure of mobilisation of all the resources of the nation, and recalled how, in the past, such mobilisation had been the prelude to world war.
  This was not the complete mobilisation of the nation's resources but a partial mobilisation, and, even so, it was very expensive. We must remember the mass of chartered shipping that was lying around in the harbours and rivers of this country week after week, fully loaded, and the deterioration of stores that must have gone on during that time. We must consider all the damage and wastage, and, indeed, the pilfering on a very large scale, apparently, of War Department stores.
  Hon. Members have criticised the mobilisation procedure. There is a great deal in what they have said. We have to consider all these things and consider, too, that this was not a fire-brigade operation, but a corps operation. I have always thought that a corps was nearer 45,000 troops than the 30,000 mentioned by a military expert opposite. I believe that the operation covered even more than a corps. It was a very large-scale operation indeed. It does not surprise me that the bill is as big as it is. What is surprising is that it is as small as it is.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member's right hon. Friend said that only 24,000 men were called up. None of us is very clear about that.
  Mr. John Hare: I made it clear that 24,000 reservists and 10,000 Regulars were retained.
  Mr. Hall: I was referring to all the forces.
  Taking the operation in isolation, as a military operation, it is surprising, in a way, that it did not cost more. Taking it against the background of an annual expenditure of more than £1,600 million a year, I am surprised that we had to spend so much more in addition to mount an operation of this kind. I find it very difficult to understand why we had to take so many emergency measures and call up these reservists in the numbers we did to mount an operation which, if we had been able to take it in our stride, we should have found very much easier.
  I find myself agreeing with something which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) said earlier. He said that out of the recent operation had come at least three things.
  Mr. Harold Lever: Could the hon. Member help me in my confusion? I understood that in his preamble he was expressing surprise that the operation cost so little, but as I understood his subsequent remarks he was expressing astonishment that it cost anything at all. Could he clear that up, so that the confusion in my mind may be eliminated?
  Mr. Hall: I realise that there is confusion in the mind of the hon. Member, as he has only just come into the Chamber and, perhaps, has not got the background.
  I might be able to clarify it in this way. I tried to make clear that, taking the operation as an isolated operation, and ignoring any other background, perhaps the bill might have been regarded as small. I then went on to say that, taking it against the background of the expenditure we had to face year after year for several years, it is surprising that the bill had to be so large. I hope that I have made the point clear to the hon. Member.
  I was about to refer to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Islington, North, in which he said that we must have a very searching examination of the whole of our mobilisation organisation and also a searching examination of the organisation of the Army as a whole. On
  354
  the Army Estimates last year I had the opportunity of moving an Amendment in which I asked for a committee of investigation into the whole of the organisation of the Army. A number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite were good enough to support me on that occasion. They included the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). When he got to his feet and supported me I examined what I had said with some anxiety, because I could not understand what I had done to merit his support.
  There was a great deal to be said for an examination of Army organisation then, and very much earlier than last year. Had we been able to streamline the Army and reorganise it in a rather different fashion, we might have entered the recent operation in much more favourable conditions. At that time, and previously, I pleaded for a considerably smaller, highly-trained and highly mobile Regular Army. To get that kind of Army we have to see that it is very mobile and we have to have aircraft to lift it. In addition, we cannot afford to keep four divisions, to which the hon. Member for Jarrow referred, isolated and made untouchable in Europe. We have to regard those four divisions as reserves.
  Mr. G. Brown Mr. G. Brown indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hall: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) shakes his head.
  Mr. Brown: There is a contradiction between the two statements. The four divisions which we are under obligation by the Paris Agreements to keep in N.A.T.O. forces are not by any means untouchable. That was specifically provided against in the Paris Agreements.
  Mr. Hall: I appreciate that, but in some curious way they have always been regarded as having to be retained there. We have great difficulty in getting them away for other operations, although the French took their divisions away for their operations in North Africa.
  I think that Europe is a good place in which to employ the Reserve, for it provides a good training ground, better than we could command in this country, restricted as we are for open areas. From that point of view I see no difficulty in maintaining those divisions in Europe, but we must treat them as our Reserve

  355
  and be able to draw on them for any operation of this kind in which we may be unfortunate enough to be involved in the future.
  It is, however, no good drawing on those divisions if at least one or two of them are not in the highest state of readiness, able to mobilise in 24 to 48 hours and in a position to be lifted quickly. The only way in which we can be successful today is for our forces to be able to move quickly. We are small militarily and do not command the vast manpower resources and industrial power to fight large-scale war. If we are to maintain our position as a Power and to intervene successfully in any disputes which affect our vital interests in any part of the world, we must be able to move very quickly, and to hit very hard, and to do that we must have divisions always in a high state of readiness with highly trained people, and we must be able to move it by air.
  That brings me to the air operation in Suez, as far as I can understand how it happened. It is not easy—and we appreciate the reasons—to obtain all the information we should like about the military operations in Suez. Perhaps it will come out as the reports are presented. If my information is correct, when we launched the operation on Suez and decided to put in a para-battalion drop, we dropped only half a battalion at a time. It may be—although I should find this hard to believe—that we thought that half a battalion was sufficient for the first para-drop, but what I very much suspect is that we had insufficient planes to do more than that. If, after the vast expenditure through the military Estimates over several years, we are unable to command sufficient planes to drop more than half a battalion at one time in an operation of this kind, then there is something radically wrong with the air transport organisation which backs our Army.
  I know that there are many difficulties in the way of developing an adequate Transport Command. We cannot have a vast fleet of specialised planes doing nothing for a long time, we hope for ever, all the time getting out of date, with trained personnel available to fly and maintain them—and all waiting in case
  356
  one day they are wanted to move a large force.
  There is an alternative, and even that has its difficulties. It is to have a certain number of planes which are used for cargo-carrying and passenger-carrying by civil airlines, but which are designed to be readily adaptable for military purposes and which can be switched very quickly for a military operation, if need be. Even then, I very much doubt whether there is sufficient civilian use for the number of planes which we should require to lift a division with its stores, even if we accept that we cannot lift very heavy stores by plane. We certainly cannot take tanks. although we can take 25-pounders and equipment of that weight.
  Nevertheless, even allowing for the shortage of planes, I was surprised to find that the original para-battalion drop was not followed by some airborne or what are called nowadays air-portable troops in support. Hour after hour, almost day after day, I waited expecting to hear that troops were landing by plane in support of the original air drop. I must confess, however, that I was not altogether surprised because I had spoken on these matters from time to time and I had realised that we were extremely short of planes, and that such planes as we had, for instance, the Beverley, were not up to date and ought to be replaced by something far better.
  The reorganisation of our military forces, the type of planes they are to have and the size of the force which we ought to be able to lift by air—all these are matters which need careful and serious scrutiny and consideration. This includes our old friend the tail. I cannot even guess the number of times I have heard the phrase, "We must comb the tail". We have combed out and combed out until it is practically threadbare in many respects. Still, we must face the fact that there are certain essentials which it is difficult to comb out if we expect our troops to have a high standard of welfare in the field.
  One hon. Member who referred to the Russian organisation pointed out that the Russians had no second echelon and did not have any comforts or the support of a welfare organisation such as we have in our own Army. That is one of the

  357
  difficulties that both the American and our own forces have to contend with. Our forces, and, still more, those of the Americans, are used to a very high standard of comfort in the field. When they are able to be withdrawn from the fighting line into a rest area, they expect to find the N.A.A.F.I., concerts, and all sorts of comforts.
  These involve a great deal of transport, and a great deal of tonnage in stores, and things of that kind add to the size and length of the tail. If we are to fight troops with a much more primitive standard of living, who are accustomed to much harder living conditions, we must accept that we must live under the same hard conditions, if we are to cut down the tail, but that is riot to say that there are not many other ways of cutting it down.
  There is the Wolfenden Report, which we shall no doubt debate on the Army Estimates. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) mentioned, it referred to the need and importance of civilianising military installations at home. I think that that is the ideal at which we have got to aim, but it is not as easy as it sounds on paper. First, in an era of full employment, it is not easy to get civilians to take these places; and, secondly, so many of our military installations are in very isolated places, where it is very difficult to get civilians to work, unless we can provide them with houses and amenities of that kind. It is not very easy, and it will cost a great deal more. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head, but one of the problems which face most military installations in the difficulty of getting civilian staff is that they are unable to pay wages which compete successfully with the conflicting claims of other industries.
  Mr. Strachey: This is a very interesting point which the hon. Member has raised. He has just quoted the Wolfenden Committee's Report, which says that the Committee was assured by the Treasury quite definitely that it was the Treasury's view that it was cheaper, in spite of much higher wages, because it was so much more efficient. I thought that that was one of the most striking things in the Report.
  Mr. Hall: I hope that, despite the fact that we have to pay higher wages, there
  358
  will be greater economies overall, but one has to acknowledge that initially it may possibly cost us more, as, indeed, initially, in providing a smaller but more mobile Army, we have to find a lot of money for providing the means of making it mobile.
  I now want to make a point on the subject raised by many hon. Members in the debate—that of mobilisation. I have always been of the opinion that the mobilisation procedure in this country was clumsy, and that the Reserve Army organisation, from which it drew its reserves, was chaotic. I think that the reserve organisation as it exists now was originally formed for a quite different purpose to the one which it is now expected to fulfil or is likely to fulfil in the future.
  A number of men were called up in the last emergency who, in my view, should not have been called up at all. I very narrowly escaped it myself. Only a few months earlier, I had resigned from the appointment which I held in the Army Emergency Reserve, and my successor in that appointment was, in fact, called up, and found himself in Cyprus almost before he had wakened up to the fact. There are many people who were called up who should not have been, and it has been suggested that one reason for that was that the records offices were not sufficiently mechanised and that they had not got enough of the accounting machines which produce results at the touch of a button.
  That may or may not be so, but I do not think that we can accuse the War Office of being too old-fashioned in its methods, or of refusing to use such accounting machines as the Hollerith and the Power-Samas. I remember that, during the war, the War Office started to use the mechanical accounting machines in very large measure, and did develop them very considerably thereafter.
  The hon. Member for Dudley, who said that the War Office did not know what it had or where it had it, was not quite accurate. In any case, we could easily put that right. All we have to do is to introduce the hon. Member into the War Office, because he knows where everything is and everything it has. I always think that that is a very great tribute to

  359
  the efficiency of the military section of our Library, which the hon. Member peruses with such interest.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: But he had a good record in the war.
  Mr. Hall: I was not in any way making a personal aspersion on the hon. Member. I should not dream of doing so.
  One thing does emerge from this talk of machines. I am credibly informed by the people supplying the machines that the Egyptian Army was mobilised by Hollerith. It did not seem to do them much good.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing, referring to Vote 8, spoke about barracks. There is an increase in Part I of that Vote. I know that there are many good reasons for curtailing our expenditure on buildings, and so on, but I think that that is a greaty pity. Among the great problems of recruiting is not only pay—that is only one aspect—but such things as accommodation, married quarters, the type of leave, some of the petty restrictions, the separation from family which is almost inseparable from Army life. All those things count when it comes to a man deciding whether or not to join the Army.
  One of the factors is the standard of the buildings and of the married quarters provided. There are many fine examples throughout the country of recently-built barracks and married quarters, but there are far too few of them, and. whatever the economic position, it is a great pity that we should cut down on that type of work when we know that it is essential, if we are to reduce the size of our fighting force, to do everything we can to encourage recruitment into the Regular Army so as to dispense, as soon as possible, with the need for National Service men.
  I should, perhaps, make one other reference in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing, who said that it was unfortunate that when new buildings were erected they were nearly always for headquarters and not for battle troops. If that is so, I have not noticed it. In my little experience of recent years, that is a great departure from the days when I, among others,
  360
  served under Field Marshal Montgomery, because then everything went to the troops, and headquarters got what was left. That may be carrying things a bit to extremes, but it is the right attitude to adopt, and I hope that it will be adopted now.
  I turn to the position of Cyprus as a base. About two years ago—or whenever it was that we had the debates about leaving Suez—I was among those who looked on that proposition with some disfavour. I remember being told then that Cyprus was a quite adequate and suitable alternative base. I do not claim to be anything but an amateur soldier in these matters, but it would seem to me that Cyprus has not turned out very well in this last effort.
  We were told that we could not mount the operation from Cyprus. It had to be mounted from Malta, six or seven days' sailing away, because it was not possible to accumulate the fleet of ships off Cyprus. There was not a good enough deep water harbour for them. It is true, my naval friends tell me, that at that time of year it would not have been possible for the landing craft to have been left in the roads off the coast of Cyprus without considerable danger. If one cannot mount an operation from Cyprus without a deep water port, as was discussed in our debates two years ago. when are we to have a deep water port there? Are we to have one at all?
  If we are not to have a deep-water port, is Cyprus of any great value to us as a military base of the kind we envisaged originally? It may be that we have changed our ideas as to how we intend to use Cyprus as a base; it may be that our conception is different from that of two years ago, but it would be interesting if we knew something about the possibe future use of Cyprus as a base. If it cannot be used as a satisfactory alternative to the one we have lost, I find it hard to understand the value of hanging on to it as desperately as we are.
  Turning again to the Supplementary Estimates, to which I have tried to keep as much as possible, I do not want to express any views about the reasons one went into the operation, about the way it was conducted, or about anything else at this stage. All I would say is that the one great value that this Supplementary Estimate has for us is that the operation, and

  361
  the bill for it, has forced us, I think, to take a much more realistic view of our defence organisation. It will, perhaps, hasten the day when we can really get down to streamlining our forces, to producing the type of defence force we really want for the kind of war that we may have to fight, rather than the kind of force which is prepared for a war that we shall never have to fight.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I believe that many of my hon. Friends will agree with me when I say that the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) to which we have just listened was an extremely interesting and very thoughtful one, which has, I think, helped us considerably not only in discussing the Estimates but also in our future talks on matters of defence generally. I would agree entirely with him that perhaps Suez and all that followed it has done one good thing in making us all once again think about the whole matter of defence costs and defence policy. There may be good economies which will come from our discussions.
  Having said that, I must add that that is the only good thing which could possibly be said to have come out of Suez. When we look back a little and realise, first, that we have no Canal, second, that we have no oil. third, that we have fewer friends in the Middle East than we have ever had before, fourth, that Russia is stronger than she has ever been, and fifth, that we are in this awful plight, of which we are only beginning to count the cost, I can readily understand that hon. Gentleman opposite have been thoroughly ashamed to talk about the Estimates. Conservative Members have been noticeable for their absence, and we all know that some of them have had to be brought down here to speak in support of the Secretary of State for War and the policy of the Government.
  To those of us who heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, what a remarkable performance it was. I must say that we are all looking forward to the speech which is to be made tonight by the Parliamentary Secretary. He led the Suez group and, of course, one can say that he is primarily responsible for much of the costs included in the Supplementary Estimate. I will say this to him—he is not here, but I hope somebody
  362
  will tell him—that he cannot put up a worse show than did his Secretary of State. Quite frankly, no borough treasurer would have been retained in his job if he had presented his accounts in the way the present Secretary of State did.
  First of all, some of the figures here he did not himself understand, and if he does not understand them, it is surely a little difficult for us. I tried to follow what he was saying, but I gave up half way through his speech, which lasted half an hour. Tomorrow morning, I think he will have to have a row with someone in his office about his brief. I may have misunderstood him, and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong; here is a golden chance for him to do so, and I hope he has found out something about the figures. Do I understand that on Vote 7, overspending on warlike stores of £17 million, £9 million of that figure was a blunder by his Department with regard to assessing deliveries of certain goods which had been ordered on contract? The right hon. Gentleman talked about a £100 million cut which the Treasury had ordered, and then, when his Department made the reductions, it forgot this amount and then the £9 million had to come back afterwards.
  Mr. John Hare: The hon. Member must have given up listening before then. It was £10 million, I explained, which had been delivered, in addition to what was expected, owing to the extra deliveries from the motor trade and the electronic trade.
  Mr. Mellish: The House will realise why I might well have given up listening.
  Goods arrived to the tune of £10 million which were not expected. It is an incredible story and was said very glibly in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech; but later on, when we are told that there has been overspending of, say, £3 or £4 million on the Health Service, watch the performance of hon. Members opposite! Warlike stores to the extent of £10 million actually arrived but nobody knew they were coming. Had everybody forgotten about it? It is a shocking story. Suez or not, nobody on the Government side ought to be pleased about the way that these accounts have been presented.

  363
  The figure of £14 million on Vote 5 is not the right figure. It ought to be in the region of £17 million. I do not understand accounts when one is supposed to imagine that a figure one sees should not be there but should be another figure because something which is not explained cannot be explained, although, nevertheless, one has to understand it. The total figure, I assume, is right. I have not taken the trouble to add it all up. After last night and the mistake in the Division Lobby, we realise that the Tories cannot add up. Having seen the Estimate, I can well believe it.
  When the Parliamentary Secretary comes to make the brilliant speech that we all expect of him, I should like him to answer this. When the Government, since 1951, have spent over £8,000 million on defence, why is it necessary to have to purchase another £7 million worth of equipment at the time of this not very large adventure, this not very wholesale mobilisation arrangement and not really a major war? Was there not already enough of what one would regard as essential warlike stores in stock over the years? One would have thought that with the size of Army we have been maintaining, for an adventure of this size we should not have to incur accounts of this character. We are entitled to a lot more explanation than we had in a couple of lines from the Secretary of State for War in explaining the £17 million and dismissing it in a few words. We are entitled to a much better explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies in defence of the Estimate.
  I want to say a word on the question of defence costs as a whole. I am one of those who believes, with many of my hon. Friends, that it is simply being glib to say that defence can be cut by a certain figure without giving substantial reasons to explain how it can best be done. I do not agree that anyone can say "We will cut the Army by £200 million, or the Navy by £100 million, and so on" as easily as that. Before we talk about cutting defence, we have to recognise that it is wrapped up with foreign policy and we have to decide what our foreign policy is to be. We have to decide where our commitments will be, the size of our Army, and so on.
  364
  Having said that, however, when the test came, as it did in Suez—and I deprecate the fact that there was this test—I frankly do not believe that we got the value for money that we had a right to expect. What was the size of the operation? Twenty-four thousand men were called up in addition to those we already had in the Armed Forces. It took three weeks to call them up. Every Member of Parliament who knows anything about this knows of some of the blunders. I could tell story after story of stevedores who were called up and put into the infantry and of men who were called up and put into stevedore units. I do not know what went wrong with Records.
  In any case, I assume that we had been planning this thing for some time. We knew something of the problems in the Middle East. Certainly, the Parliamentary Secretary had been planning it for a long while. It looks as if he and his group had a great influence on the Government, because we see where he has landed himself. The only trouble is that instead of putting the leader of the group at the front they have given that position to one of the minor members of the group. The answer is that next time a group of rebels starts up it is better to play a minor rôle because the good jobs do not go to the leaders.
  Mr. David Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the speeches which the Financial Secretary to the War Office made in the House, he also made a speech at a European conference in Vienna and in the presence of the representatives of fifteen other nations in Strasbourg on 9th January?
  Mr. Mellish: Knowing the Financial Secretary to the War Office, I would say that he could pretty well say anything that suited the occasion. I admit, however, that he has been consistent on the back benches on the subject of the Middle East. He had better be consistent tonight. We do not expect constant efficiency from the Front Benches opposite, but when a back-bencher comes to occupy the Front Bench we expect to have at least one speech from him consistent with what he has been saying as a back-bencher.
  Because we on this side of the Committee attack the Government on the

  365
  subject of Suez, we have been described by the Press as an unpatriotic party and as anxious to kick our own people around. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I ask the Committee to make a note of that assent. The vast majority of those of us who are on this side of the Committee have just as good a war record as anybody opposite, and we happen to love our country just as much as hon. Members opposite do. I think that we love our country in the right way in the sense of loving things that are important to it rather than some other more material things.
  I do not think that we needed Suez to prove that a British soldier is five times as good as an Egyptian, three times as good as an American and twice as good as a Russian. We could have told hon. Members opposite that without the Suez adventure. It should be borne in mind that criticisms made by my right hon. and hon. Friends are directed against the policy of this Government which resulted in our young soldiers going into a conflict in which I do not think they should ever have been involved. We have every right to criticise the Government and we shall go on doing so.
  Suez, at least, may bring this much good. It may mean discussion of the whole of our defence cost and policy. It may well mean that we shall be able to streamline our forces and have many more civilians doing the jobs which soldiers now do with a result that if war ever comes again, in contrast with the present occasion we shall have value for our money.
  9.33 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I should like to remind the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that it is not only the Press and the public of the country that have, criticised his party over this issue. I would remind him of the very severe criticism which European Socialists brought against the Socialist Party and, from my personal knowledge, not only the French.
  Mr. Bence: Who were the others?
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: A few minutes ago, there was a rather heated interchange between the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for
  366
  Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan).
  Mr. Ellis Smith: My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) is coming in. Be careful.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I am glad to see the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) taking her seat, because I wish to refer to some statements which she is alleged to have made. Before I do so, I should like to make it plain to her, because she was not here at the time, that I should never have mentioned this but for what happened a few moments ago.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire was challenged by the right hon. Member for Belper to mention somebody who had brought dishonour or discredit—I do not remember the precise words but something of that nature—on this country. Rather hesitantly, he replied, mentioning the right hon. Lady. This caused considerable heat on the Opposition Front Bench and elsewhere, and the right hon. Member for Belper sprang once more to his feet and asked for further evidence.
  Mr. G. Brown: Any evidence, some evidence.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire, naturally, had not a file of newspapers at his disposal, but I went to the Library. Without putting more into this little incident than it should necessarily carry. I ask the right hon. Member for Belper to read the newspapers in the Library for 24th January. 1957, and particularly, in some newspapers for 26th January, the eight questions which were asked by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington and the eight answers which were given by Sir Edwin Herbert. I have no intention of reading them out.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman one question? If he looks at all the answers given to me by Sir Edwin Herbert he will find that he has not denied one of my allegations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, of those eight question which I put to Sir Edwin Herbert, none has been denied. Furthermore, I was prepared to face him,

  367
  but he was afraid to face me. Sir Edwin Herbert came on the B.B.C. in a film instead of in person.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order, order. It would be better if we confined ourselves to the Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is entitled to have her own row with the hon. and gallant Gentleman—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not so gallant."]—but he is going for me. He has said, rightly, that I challenged the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) to produce the evidence for the attack he made on my right hon. Friend in her absence. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was unable to do so. Now the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) has taken it upon himself to say that he has been to the Library and found the evidence. Am I not entitled, Sir Gordon, to ask him to produce the evidence which he alleges he has found?
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I merely said—
  Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has run away.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: —that I would not read those particular newspapers which are all available in the Library. If the right hon. Gentleman will go to the Library and cast his eye over those newspapers, dated 24th and 26th January, he will find what he is looking for.
  Mr. Brown: Just a smear.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has got a little heated over this matter.
  Mr. Brown: Disgraceful.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The right hon. Gentleman was attacking, in the most uncalled-for manner, my hon. and gallant Friend—
  Mr. Brown: Withdraw or substantiate.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: There is nothing to withdraw.
  Mr. Brown: Substantiate or withdraw.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I should now like to return to the Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. Brown: There is no evidence at all. Withdraw.
  Dr. Summerskill: May I ask for your guidance, Sir Gordon? If an hon. and gallant Member makes a statement here in which my motives are impugned, may I not demand an answer?
  The Deputy-Chairman: Personal explanations can be made at the proper time, but not in the middle of a debate.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I will now return to the Supplementary Estimate under debate, Sir Gordon. In paragraph 1 (d) of the Explanation there is mention of Trucial Oman Scouts, and in the course of his reply I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War to enlarge a little on this force, for which the financial responsibility is now being shared between the Foreign Office and the War Office.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opened his speech by saying that he had been to the Library and had found a lot of things to quote against my right hon. Friend. Then he said he would leave that subject. After making the smear, the insult and the innuendo, the hon. and gallant Gentleman runs away. I think we are entitled to hear the result of his researches.
  The Deputy-Chairman: No, we must get on with the debate.
  Mr. Pannell: He is merely cowardly, I take it.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, I will tell him afterwards.
  Hon. Members: Now.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If the Committee is very insistent—
  Mr. Percy Daines: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. The hon. and gallant Gentleman now says that he will tell my hon. Friend afterwards, which means, if it means anything at all, that he is sustaining the allegations and innuendoes made by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan). Surely my right hon. Friend is entitled to have the substance of the hon. and gallant Member's research produced here and now, not afterwards.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Would it be right Sir Gordon, to say that neither the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) nor the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), or my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), figures in the Supplementary Estimate?
  The Deputy-Chairman: We must return to the Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. Brown: It really is disgraceful.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: As I was saying, the share of the cost of this force is now to be equally divided between the Foreign Office and the War Office. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether this force of Trucial Oman Scouts—who, by reason of their name, one would assume that their sphere of action would be restricted to the Trucial coast, the district of Oman and thereabouts—can be transferred elsewhere, for instance, to the Yemen area, where so much trouble is taking place at present?
  With reference to the situation on the Aden Protectorate border, can we be told, at the same time, what is to be the composition of these additional troops, which are, so far as one can judge from the newspapers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which ones?") Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to assume that all newspapers are as unreliable as their own particular newspaper. I can assure them that is not so.
  May we be told whether these forces on the Aden-Yemen border, although they are at present commanded by a senior R.A.F. officer, are to be composed of infantry, the R.A.F. Regiment and these levies, or whether there is an intention of altering the composition of this force?
  I should like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to a criticism, which has been fairly widespread since the action in the Port Said area, that many of the troops taking part were kept very much in the dark for information. It was apparent from those whom I have spoken to that wireless broadcasts could not be heard because sets were not available in sufficient numbers; and, secondly, that newspapers—the right sort of newspapers—of an up-to-date nature, were not readily available for the units
  370
  taking part. If that criticism is justified it is a matter which should be looked into from the point of view of the troops' welfare.
  Under Vote 1 (N) there is a revised estimate of bounties amounting to just over £1 million. I should like to know what those bounties were. I should not have thought that an emergency of this nature would have involved the payment of bounties to troops.
  Vote 4 (C) refers to the employment of civilians at regimental units, and an increase of nearly £3 million is shown. One can understand increased figures in respect of civilians under all the headings in that Vote, but it seems extraordinary that regimental units should require more civilians to the extent that the increase in that case is nearly three times as much as that for any other item under the Vote. I feel that that needs some explanation.
  With regard to Vote 8 and Vote 11 (A), it is a great pity that the reconstruction of barracks and the building of married quarters should have suffered this year when the Government have once more attained a total of more than 300,000 houses built. It seems odd that we should not have managed to build as many married quarters as we set out to do and that our barrack building is behind-hand to the extent of roughly £1 million.
  Many hon. Members opposite have for some time talked about a reduction in National Service, and 18 months seems to be the most popular period. I hope that the Government will resist this move with all their power. We should have the worst of all worlds if we tried to reduce National Service to an impracticable length of time whereby much effort would be wasted by Regular soldiers in training men who were in the Service for a comparatively short time. The target should be the complete abolition of National Service. I know full well the many difficulties that entails, but I hope the Government will bear that in mind and, when the time comes, avoid unsatisfactory half-way houses and go all the way.
  9.49 p.m.
  Mr. George Brown: The only point I shall make about the last speech to which we have listened, and I make it sincerely after reflection and in no

  371
  heat, is that it was, as I think the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) will realise on reflection, below his standard of gallantry, which was a notable and outstanding one in a war in which there was great individual gallantry. It is below the standard which he has set himself in the past to engage, with newspapers or anybody else, in the game of smearing the character of a public personality unless he is certain that the character deserves it and that the evidence that he possesses justifies the tremendous step of smearing that character. As was well said by a more eloquent person than I long ago, to take away a person's character is the worst thing that one can do.
  I have had the full treatment myself, when it suited the Press to give it to me. I have been smeared and have lived to be able to look back upon the things which were said then and the events which have occurred since. I say to the hon. and gallant Member, as I would say to the hon. and gallant Member for East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) if he were here. that I intervened on behalf of my right hon. Friend, and in her absence, not because I am particularly concerned about what she said—she can stand up for herself in that respect—but because the smearing of democratic representatives is the easiest way to destroy democracy. It was done in Germany. I ask the hon. and gallant Member to realise and reflect that as he really had no evidence he ought not to have made the smear.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: There was no intention on my part to smear. What happened—and I must repeat it at the risk of being tedious—was that the right hon. Gentleman himself challenged my hon. and gallant Friend, and I merely came to his aid in producing some of the evidence that was asked for. The right hon. Gentleman contends that it is not evidence. That is his opinion, and he is entitled to it, but other people consider that it is adequate evidence.
  Mr. Brown: There is no point in my arguing. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman does rise to the level upon which I chose to place him, that is his business and not mine. He has produced no evidence; has quoted no statement or newspaper; has produced nothing that my
  372
  right hon. Friend can deny—nothing that a newspaper or anyone else can be asked to prove. He has merely alleged that if we looked at a pile of unnamed newspapers of a certain date we might find something. If he does not realise that that is not evidence,. I am sorry. I am sure that in the darkness of this night he will know that to be so.
  We have had an interesting but curious debate—a debate which began with a speech by the Secretary of State in which he chose to deal, not unwisely, with the figures that were in the Supplementary Estimate rather than with what the Estimate represented in the way of a policy and its execution. The fact that the figures in the Estimate with which he chose to deal turned out to be wholly inaccurate was clearly not his fault, but it interfered somewhat with the efficient and happy discharge of his task which, before this, we had come to expect of him.
  Subsequent to that, we have had a debate in which, among hon. Members opposite. there has clearly been something akin to the industrial troubles we have heard of at Briggs. There has been a stay-out on the part of the bulk of the Members of the Conservative Party. who normally represent themselves as the party which is more interested than most in defence. This stay-out has been led—as my hon. Friend who so often foresees what I am attempting to say reminds me—by the shop stewards. For half the time even the Whips have not been here. The Conservative Party has been represented practically throughout the debate by six, seven or eight Members, with each successive speaker coming in to make his little speech and to depart, making sure that the Division did not come at a time inconvenient to the party opposite, in the light of what it has put on its weekly notice.
  I refer to that fact because, if it were possible for my words to be heard outside, I think that the public should know that, having engaged in what turned out to be the dreadful tragedy and fiasco of Suez—leaving out the question whether or not the operation was justified—and having involved us in the expenditure of a vast sum of money, material, men and resources, the total of which we do not yet know, when the time came to inquire how it happened to be so costly and to be such a fiasco no more than seven or

  373
  eight Members opposite at a time were prepared to sit in the Chamber, let alone take part in the inquiry. For my part, I cannot expect to do more for the moment than to repeat, to repoint, the arguments deployed in what, I think, everybody who heard it would agree was an unusually and quite exceptionally high-level speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). It was a very thoughtful speech which I hope will be answered in detail by the Under-Secretary who is, as it were, to face his maiden over from the other side tonight.
  I must say that, having seen the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence last night make a ten-minute speech after midnight, when he had nothing more to do than repeat what had been said by other Ministers before, I am surprised that he did not take on the task of defending the policy of the Government in which he has chosen to accept the office of Minister of Defence rather than turn it over to an Under-Secretary.
  Out of the Minister's speech there came just three questions to which I will return at intervals during mine. I hope also that the Under-Secretary will return to them. The first of the questions is the military cost of the Suez adventure. The Estimate we are asked to vote tonight is £29·8 million on account of Suez. Clearly, that is not the cost: that is not the military cost of Suez. The Minister told us that there were other savings which would have been made but for Suez. If one spends money that would otherwise have been saved, equally that is expenditure because one is spending the money. The figure is considerably more than £29·8 million even though, because of this accounting arrangement, we have to vote only £29·8 million tonight.
  I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us what is in fact the military cost of Suez. The present Prime Minister tried his hand some time ago at £50 million. Is £50 million the amount, of which £20·2 million is being found from savings, virement and in other ways, or what is the figure? We really ought to know so that the public does not believe that it is only the £29·8 million which we are voting tonight.
  One thing which came out of the Minister's speech is that the £100 million worth
  374
  of savings earlier this year, for which the Government and the present Prime Minister took so much credit, really were, as we suggested, quite phoney. What the Secretary of State proved was that, Suez apart, the War Office was ignoring the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he then was—the Prime Minister as he is now—and was in fact spending more money and collecting more trucks, lorries and vehicles of all kinds than, said the Secretary of State, we expected or knew. There was no credit squeeze there, no cut at all in expenditure. The War Office was behaving in its own particular way.
  This Estimate is part of the cost of Suez. Clearly, it is not the whole cost, even if the figure were right. There are other costs, as have been said. There are. of course, the losses of the 24,000 men who were called up for five months. As some are still there, they will have been called up for six months or more. They have had their own personal losses. no matter what was done to help them.
  There is the economic disorganisation. The Secretary of State talked about the large number of ships. A very large number of ships were chartered. I have been told of 20 ships chartered that were loaded with stores at the end of July or the beginning of August and then left in Barry Roads for three months at a cost of £50,000 a week and, as far as I can say, they never got out of it at all. That is just one instance; there may be many more like that.
  Also, of course, there is the effect on our exports. The present Chancellor confirmed that when he was President of the Board of Trade. This is all part of the bill for Suez. It is a much bigger bill than the one we are dealing with tonight. There is the effect on production in our factories, on short-time and on the unemployment, which many of us know to exist today. All this is part of the bill for Suez.
  I state this merely in order that Government supporters should not ease their consciences by thinking that if they stay away from the debate and then vote £29 million they are voting the entire cost of Suez. That is not so. Nor is the economic and financial position alone the whole of the bill. There are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West said, the international political

  375
  consequences which are part of the international political bill that we have to pay.
  Many people got very angry when Mr. Dulles made his infelicitous, inept and rather unhappy remark about Tommy Atkins and the French poilu flanking an American doughboy in the Middle East, and they did not like it. The real point, whether we like it or not, is that people are thinking like that and that some of them are clumsy enough to say it. These things are being thought, and it is no use blocking our ears to them. They are also part of the real bill for Suez.
  Perhaps Government supporters would care to read what Mr. Hansen Baldwin said. I will not trouble the Committee by quoting it, but it appeared in the New York Times, on the subject of the American attitude to the disasters, as he calls them, in Suez on 10th December, 1956. Here is a man who is by no means anti-British and who is not seeking to be unfriendly to us but is trying to set out what he calls "the famous case-study" in which, in the course of 6i days' actual hostilities, all the rules of the book were broken. Hon. Members will then get some idea of the price that we have to pay on that side of the bill for Suez in loss of influence and reputation elsewhere in the world.
  It is no use our snarling about this or refusing to recognise it. People and Governments overseas regard the whole operation and the policy behind it as a political disaster and the conduct of it as a military disaster. I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
  It is not only people overseas who have rubbed it in about our loss of political prestige. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) is to commend the Estimate to the Committee tonight and ask the Committee to pay for the Suez operation. His Prime Minister and his Minister have said that we were right to do it. What does the hon. Gentleman say? I am all for becoming a junior Minister, and I do not think that being a junior Minister is at all comparable with being the general manager of a firm. Like the hon. Gentleman, I would be glad to become one; but there ought to be a limit.
  376
  The hon. Gentleman is going to wind up after his Minister has said we were right. The hon. Gentleman might perhaps like to refresh his memory over his own words which, for greater accuracy, as they say, I will read to him. He was speaking in Paris. We get awful lectures read to us if any of us go abroad and criticise our country. The hon. Gentleman went to Paris and, so the Daily Telegraph of 26th November told us, was loudly cheered by one hundred Frenchmen who had the misfortune to listen to him. The report said:
  "Britain, he said, must refuse to obey United Nations instructions to leave Egypt.
  A spectre of defeat and humiliation hung over Britain and France as a result of the 'disastrous decision to cease fire in Egypt'."
  Tonight he is to ask the Committee to endorse the decision that created defeat and humiliation. Does the hon. Gentleman now stand for the point of view of the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)? Has the hon. Member for Handsworth taken over the point of view for which the Under-Secretary of State for War stood on 26th November?
  Nor was that all. The hon. Gentleman had a good day on 26th November. He went on to talk about America and said:
  "I am speaking of an allied threat, the threat of the United States Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and the threat of American economic sanctions."
  Does the hon. Gentleman still think that? Is the hon. Gentleman tonight asking us to vote £30 million and to endorse a policy which brought down upon us the threat of action by the United States Sixth Fleet and sanctions by the United States Government? There is a lot more I could read. Not content with saying that, he went on to say that we must refuse to obey the United Nations order and added:
  "Some say we have a choice between capitulation and dishonour, but if we choose dishonour we shall get capitulation as well."
  This Government show what the Under-Secretary calls dishonour and, in choosing what he calls dishonour, they show what he calls capitulation.
  That has been read all over the world. It has been read by the Under-Secretary who now serves in the Government. He was selected by his father-in-law, the Prime Minister, after he made that speech. Anybody in the world is entitled

  377
  to draw the conclusion from that that he was selected with the full knowledge in the mind of the Prime Minister that that was his view about what we had done. Is that so? Has he capitulated? I will not use the word dishonour, but has he capitulated? Does he no longer believe it? If he does believe it, we have the Minister of Defence with us. He can, of course, always intervene. May I ask if that is the view of the Minister for Defence and of the Government?
  If the hon. Gentleman is asking us to vote £30 million and to endorse the operation without having capitulated, then his criticism, his denunciation of the Government, rests and the Government in his view show dishonour. They cannot wish this off on to Sir Anthony Eden. One of the slightly unpleasant things about this matter is the way that everyone who was here with him when he was Prime Minister in this operation is hoping that, with his unhappy departure from our scene, somehow people will think that he takes all the dishonour and the unpleasantness with him. It is not true and cannot be done. If the hon. Gentleman believes now what he said on 26th November, let him be man enough to get up and say, "I still believe it." Then we shall have to have a word with the Prime Minister about where we go from there.
  There is the new President of the Board of Trade. I see him variously described in the newspapers. He is always "Sir something," but the particular description changes. He laid down the conditions under which we ought to obey the decision of the United Nations. None of those conditions did, in fact, come to pass. but he gaily goes on accepting office in a Government which is asking all of us to pay the bill for an adventure which ended in capitulation as they think it—in dishonour as they think it—and without any of the conditions they were so busy laying down at the time.
  Tonight. we examine in particular the military bill and what we got for it. Let me repeat: this is on top of the £7,500 million which seven Conservative Ministers of Defence between them have managed to spend in five years—the present Prime Minister, the present Foreign Secretary, Sir Walter Monckton, Field Marshal Alexander, the right hon.
  378
  Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head), who is not here, among them. Seven of them in five years have spent £7,500 million. As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said in a speech which appealed to me enormously, when we went to mount a limited war operation of this kind we had to find £50 million on top of that and to go to enormous trouble to provide 20,000,30,000 or 40,000 men for the operation. The Minister did not know the exact figure. It is a pretty disgraceful commentary on the five years of stewardship which we have had.
  The present Minister of Defence is being built up now; his friends in the newspapers are very busy. I wish him luck, because whatever he does in the time ahead of him will be useful to us if he goes about it in the right way. I wish him luck, but I am bound to say that, whatever he does, and however good he is, he will only be trying desperately in a few months to make up for five years of inglorious stewardship by those who had the job before him.
  Let me ask three more detailed questions on points which I do not understand. I do not expect the answers tonight; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will write to me or answer Questions on the subject. I am still not clear how the cost for the Navy and the Air Force is covered in these Estimates. We are not to have any Navy or Air Force Estimates for Suez. There is a curious reduction in appropriation-in-aid, and I did not understand the Secretary of State's explanation of it. Indeed, I have a feeling that somewhere hidden here must be some of the cost of mounting the naval and air part of what the Secretary of State said was a combined operation. I should like to know more about that.
  Nor do I understand the business about the warlike stores. There is a note in the Explanatory Memorandum on page 2 which says that we are voting £10 million for an increase in warlike stores outside the Suez emergency. That would leave £7 million of the Estimate to be attributed to the Suez emergency. But the Secretary of State said they shot off only £1·7 million of warlike stores in the Suez emergency. I am not clear what they did with the other £5·3 million. Did they hide it, bury it or drop it in the sea? It must

  379
  be somewhere. As we are not voting a sum for that outside Suez, presumably it is in the Suez operation.
  I do not want to bother the right hon. Gentleman to tell me about that tonight because I think—and certainly I hope—he has bigger fish to fry. I certainly do not want him to answer that question and to leave the others unanswered, but I am giving him notice that I should like to be told about these matters at some point.
  As my right hon. Friend so rightly said, the main issue before us is not the details of the figures, important as they are. The main issue before us is what we have got for the expenditure of resources and manpower which we undertook. I should like the Committee to be clear about what was involved. This is the bill for less than one week's bombing and two days' fighting. Do not let us assume that this is the bill for a long, active operation; we were two days fighting and previously we had been one week bombing.
  Major Legge-Bourke: And for a call-up since August.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. and gallant Gentleman answers the point like a flash; the men have been mobilised for five months.
  At the end of it, we failed to get, for whatever reasons we may like to attribute to it, any specific military objective that we set out to get. and I commend to the Ministers, who were not here at the time, the very realistic and, I thought, illuminating speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), in which he said "Thank God, we did not get our objectives." The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, "If only we had got our objectives, by golly, what a mess we would be in now. If we had gone all the way to Suez, we would have had to go to Alexandria or occupy Cairo, and then, presumably, we would have committed four divisions."
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows what he is saying, and he has said, "I think it was very silly to incorporate these objectives. As it happened, it was better that we were stopped short of Ismailia and Suez." I commend that to the Ministers. That was not what they were after. They were not after being stopped
  380
  two days down the Canal short of Ismailia. They were, in fact, for Ismailia and Suez, and they did not get them, so that it was a failure.
  We blocked the Canal, we lost the oil, and we did, in fact, end up—and in saying this I get no pleasure, because there is such a tremendous desire on the Government side to believe that if one criticises an operation, one is either enjoying it or glad to do it. I have never seen such a proprietorial interest in patriotism as instinctively exists over there. I quote this because I think that, if we do not realise it, accept it and drink the bitterness of it, we will not work out the reasons for it, and we may want to mount a good offensive in a good cause at some other time.
  This ended in utter and complete failure. I am against the whole concept. I think it was morally wrong and insupportable, and that it ought never to have been mounted, and so I did not want it to succeed in that sense, but neither did I want us to exhibit failure to the world. I did not rejoice because I was against that particular objective, that expedition. that adventure. I do not want the world to see, or to draw the conclusion, that we cannot any longer mount, even in a good cause, an expedition of this kind.
  I resent the conclusions that are drawn from this. I resent the thought in the world, to which Hanson Baldwin and others are giving vent, that we can no longer do it, not because I never perhaps want to see us go it alone, although I do not rule that out, in some of these operations, but because I want other people to regard us as competent to play our part and take up our end of the treaty obligations that we have. This failure, unless clearly we have accepted it and got down to putting it right, will cause many people to doubt very much our ability ever to play our part. I do not believe that impotence allied to evil desire makes a lesser crime. The evil desire may be wrong, but if one is impotent to carry it out, that is a double crime. One might be attacked on both grounds at once, or one at a time, and I commend that to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  There are, I think, both abroad—and I have talked about that—and at home—and my right hon. Friend referred to it—very grave dangers in these conclusions being drawn from the mounting of this

  381
  operation. There are grave dangers at home, because it is equally dangerous, as my right hon. Friend said so well, for people at home to draw the conclusion from Suez that we can no longer play a relevant or an effective part in the business of defending the West, as it is dangerous for people abroad to draw the same conclusion.
  Next, we get at home a move away from the requirements of defence, and all this nonsense in the Sunday Press and in the weekday Press seeking to build up the right hon. Gentleman as the miracle worker in Washington. He knows that it is nonsense. It may be he is hoping that I will prove to have put my neck out too far. I will risk that. He knows that what was in the papers at the weekend and since about the cuts he will make in defence is nonsense. He knows that the time is nonsense, and so are the sums.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys)The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys) rose—
  Mr. Brown: Let me finish. But he also knows that one of the tragedies is that everbody wants to believe that it is not nonsense because, partly, of the atmosphere that has grown up since this Suez fiasco that it is not worth doing anyway.
  Mr. Sandys: All I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I have myself, not once but twice—when I left for Washington and on my return—made a statement to the effect that I must warn people that these astronomical figures of cuts were really outside the realms of reality. I said that they belonged better to the geophysical year.
  Mr. Brown: I had such fears that, unless the right hon. Gentleman could be provoked into saying that here—
  Mr. E. Partridge: Untrue.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member had better be careful. The right hon. Gentleman can make a comment at London Airport in a short interview, which then passes; but he has been back two days, made one speech here, answered one Question here, and has taken no steps to put it on the record here. I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to join me tonight on the record in this House. That
  382
  is one point which will not be available for the defence debate next week. The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) should understand that there is rather more to this game than sometimes appears on the surface.
  Let me now go on to discuss in the few minutes remaining to me some of the aspects of the operation. Let me start by making this clear. There is no disposition, as my right hon. Friend said. in any way to suggest other than that our troops, our naval personnel and our airmen did a first-class job, as we always know that they do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, we did not need Suez to tell us how good were our chaps in the field.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): What about Warrington?
  Mr. Brown: Had the hon. Gentleman been in earlier he would have known that the question of what my right hon. Friend did or did not say has already been extensively canvassed and answered. That is the tragedy—that when hon. Members stay outside the Chamber they do not know what goes on in debate, nor do they know that neither of the hon. Members who made the attack this afternoon had any evidence to support the attack. If the new Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is now calling out "What about Warrington?" has any evidence that his hon. Friends did not possess, I will give way for him to produce it. It appears that he has none, either. If he has no evidence, he should keep quiet.
  I repeat, we do not in any way do other than praise the competence, the courage, the humanity and the chivalry of our troops over there—[Interruption.] Our troops are our friends, our relatives. This kind of smear is so easy to utter. I hope that what I have said will be accepted as honest, coming from me. [Interruption.] How often is it that it is the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who are not gallant. The officer and the gentleman, when I say I am honest, sneers and laughs. I say I have as much right to be taken as honest as he has.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Not after what has been said.
  Mr. Brown: Sir Charles, I shall not ask for your protection when the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls out that I have no right to be called honest; but I do ask the Committee to note that that is some indication of the way the hon. and gallant Gentleman approaches his political opponents.
  Our troops did magnificently, of course, but let us not hide behind Tommy Atkins and pretend that we did not have casualties. Of course we did. Eyewitness after eye-witness has spoken to this, and they have been well-disposed eye-witnesses. I have here the account given in The Times of 22nd November, but I will not read it, for the sake of time. There was a crushing blunder, and many people thought it could hardly be true, and were disturbed and unhappy because we persisted in it. All we are doing at this stage is to ask the Committee to realise that a crushing blunder of that kind does immeasureable harm to our good name and destroys a belief in us which we can ill afford to lose.
  As for the commanders and planners, I do not myself feel that I can go as far in commending them as I have done with regard to the troops. They must expect to be judged by results, and the results of the operation raise many questions. There was the time taken to raise the force for the operation. There was, as my right hon. Friend put it—I hope this will be dealt with by the hon. Gentleman in a few minutes—on the one hand the mis-appreciation or over-appreciation of the military strength we had to meet, and, on the other hand, the under-appreciation of the political strength and political reactions.
  In paragraph 7 of his Report. Sir Edwin Herbert says:
  "By the 3rd November it had become evident that the preliminary operations referred to above"—
  that is to say, the bombing—
  "were not having the desired effect upon the Egyptian Government and in consequence the landing at Port Said was proceeded with.
  That is the nearest anybody has come to saying that we really went in and bombed in order to bring about the downfall of Nasser and only put the sea-borne landing in when that did not come about. That is the only meaning which one can attach to those words. No hon. Member opposite has admitted that.
  384
  It is that miscalculation, I think, that in large measure sent the whole thing as wrong as it did go. One cannot avoid the impression that the politicians—[Interruption.] The ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), is making from the third bench above the Gangway the speech he never made when Secretary of State. One has a feeling that what really went wrong was that the politicians interfered far too often and at far too many stages in the conduct of this operation. I mean here the political masters; I mean the people the present Prime Minister once called the "extinct volcanoes." They changed the objectives many times, and they changed the whole method of the campaign several times. The air drop was advanced. There is good reason to think that the marine support was held back, and the whole business of the campaign, instead of being left to those who were doing their best to carry it out, was severely interfered with by the Government for political reasons.
  The real deficiencies are to be laid at the Government's door. They did not in the past year carry out the policy which they laid down in the White Paper on Defence at the beginning of last year. They did not make our strategic reserve fully mobile and fully equipped to carry out this operation, as they promised in paragraph 7 they would. They did not reinforce the Middle East except in Cyprus and Libya, where they turned the men into policemen and made them of no use for the operation for which they were supposed to be there. They did arrange that the Parachute Brigade should be short of training, short of equipment, short of parachutes and should have to come back here before it could go into action in the operation. They did not provide the Beverley freighters that they said they were going to provide nearly a year ago. They did move the men of the Armoured Division by air to the Middle East and then left them sitting in Malta and Cyprus for a fortnight while their equipment caught them up by sea.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: How else should they have done it?
  Mr. Brown: They should have had the freighters and the transport planes as they said they would.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: To carry Centurions?
  Mr. Brown: They had ample time to get the Centurion tanks there. This thing began in August and the operation was not mounted till October. They had ample time for that. They did, in fact, fall down on all the things that they said a year ago they would do. They interfered with the operation at every stage. The operation itself was ill-conceived. It was for a morally insupportable cause, was badly mounted, badly carried out, was a fiasco and a failure, and it is that which the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] Hon. Members opposite by their interruptions will only reduce the time at the disposal of the Under-Secretary of State for War. It is that for which the Under-Secretary, in the absence of his right hon. Friend, must eat dirt tonight.
  The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrevv): Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to move a reduction in the Vote?
  Mr. Brown: As you please, Sir Charles. I understood that it was your wish that I should move it just before Eleven o'clock tonight in order not to inconvenience the Under-Secretary in his reply.
  The Chairman: So long as the hon. Gentleman gives time for the reduction to be moved, two or three minutes before eleven o'clock.
  10.32 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I group my replies w the points which have been raised in the debate under three main heads.
  I propose to deal, first, with the human side, with the problems that have arisen in connection with the recall of the reservists. I will try next to deal with the different points which have been made about movements and supplies, requisitioning of ships and the use of air transport. Finally, I shall try to answer some of the points which have been made about the planning and fulfilment of Operation "Musketeer".
  For this part of my remarks I must ask for the especial indulgence of the
  386
  Committee. The responsibility for the planning and direction of operations lies with the Ministry of Defence, while the fulfilment of those operations depends on the Admiralty and the Air Ministry just as much as on the War Office. While, therefore, I shall try to give the Committee as much information as I can about the course of Operation "Musketeer", I cannot speak with the same Departmental competence about that as perhaps I can on those subjects which fall more exclusively within the competence of the Army Council.
  I think the Committee will also appreciate that I shall not be able to reply to the more political points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are, after all, debating an Army Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) had some fun at my expense with the speech which I made in Paris the other day. I will reply to him in words which were used before and which, I think, will serve the purpose well enough—
  "What I have said I have said. I withdraw nothing. I qualify nothing. But neither shall I repeat anything tonight."
  This is, in a sense, a slightly ironic situation in which I find myself. Looking back through copies of HANSARD, I find that on, I think, 13th November, speaking from his place below the Gangway, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. North (Mr. J. Amery) raised a number of questions about the operation. I did not think that I would be answering him quite so soon.
  "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way"
  the psalmist said. At any rate, I am beginning to understand the remark which one of the doormen made to me on entering the War Office the other day. He turned to me and he said, "Sir, this place has been the grave of many reputations."
  The right hon. Member for Belper and, I think, the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), at an earlier stage of the debate, asked what was the total number of men used in the operation. Of British forces, 77,000 is about the nearest figure that I can get. This is not merely soldiers who were serving in Port Said, but goes back to the administrative build-up in the United Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Army alone?"]

  387
  The Army alone, is my understanding of the figure, although I am subject to correction on that point. The right hon. Member for Belper asked what was the total cost of the operation. He will forgive me if my arithmetic is not strong enough to do the sum myself. I have made inquiries and I have not got the answer yet.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) asked a question about National Service grants. We have found that the system of National Service grants, which works well enough for National Service men, is too slow where reservists are concerned in an emergency. We are, therefore, taking steps to shorten the delay between the application for the grant and its payment. What will happen now is that any recalled reservist of the rank of corporal or below, and who is a married man, can apply for a National Service grant, and from the moment of his application he receives an advance of two guineas a week for four weeks.
  This can be used instead of a National Service grant while the investigation is proceeding. In either case, whether investigation shows that he is entitled to a National Service grant or not, the advance on the marriage allowance has to be paid back at the rate of 10s. 6d. a week, I think, over 16 weeks, if I have done the arithmetic right.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Does this apply only to married men? Does not the need for a National Service grant sometimes arise in the case of the widowed mother of an unmarried man?
  Mr. Amery: I will look into the point.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North also asked why we had done nothing to explain to the reservists who had been recalled, and to other troops, the emergency and the need for their being recalled. We did have a number of lectures and a pamphlet was issued which set out the case reasonably clearly. Nevertheless—I will not go into it because it has been a matter of controversy and. as I said earlier, I do not want to touch on the policy aspect—certain questions remain. Did our system of reserves justify itself in this emergency? Did their call-up work smoothly, or, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and, I think, the hon. Member for
  388
  Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) also, suggested, was it too slow?
  The recall of reservists began in the first week of August and the great majority of those recalled were absorbed into their posts within three weeks. Three weeks is, of course, a long time in an emergency, I agree. The Committee must remember, however, that no preparation, no plan for intervention in Egypt, existed when Nasser took the Canal in July. A new order of battle had therefore to be drawn up, and in some cases even new units had to be formed. Inevitably, this took some days.
  In fact, the speed with which reservists can be absorbed in an emergency depends mainly on whether an order of battle exists, consisting of units in which each reservist has his pre-ordained and assigned place. We estimate that had such an order of battle existed, reservists could have been absorbed in seven or ten days instead of three weeks, that is. about four days for the call-up to take place and four days for medical examination and so on.
  It must be remembered, in any case, that the recall and absorption of the reservists was only one of the preparations which had to be improvised to meet a wholly new situation. Many other factors had to go forward at the same time. Ships had to be prepared, aircraft chartered and landing craft reconditioned. The reconditioning of landing craft and the preparation of ships took up longer than the absorption of reservists. I do not think that we can say that in this emergency a period of three weeks in any way retarded the mounting of the operation.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) asked why no preparations had been made for military government in Port Said. I do not know whether he has happy memories of Amgot, but we had a civil affairs organisation under the command of General Hinde, who had great experience of the Suez Canal Zone. The right hon. Member for Dundee, West and the hon. Member for Fulham spoke to some extent about the difficulties of assessing casualties and criticised some of the declarations made on the subject from this side of the Committee in the past. The hon. Member for Fulham called our attitude

  389
  a piece of flippancy and a ghastly mistake.
  In the history of military operations, nothing is more striking than the immense difficulty experienced on the morrow of military operations in assessing the civilian casualties or indeed the military casualties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) was telling me the other day that when the forces with which he served came out of Dunkirk their assessment of casualties suffered was five time as much as the number proved to be. It is very difficult to assess figures of that kind.
  One thing is certain. Our troops showed—and it has been recognised by right hon. and hon. Members opposite—the greatest humanity, and, certainly, it was General Keightley's opinion that if tougher tactics had been employed Port Said would have fallen several hours sooner. We can all congratulate ourselves on the figures of losses sustained on our own side—only seven killed, five died of wounds and 63 wounded, which, in an operation of this size, is a great credit to the command.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee. West asked about the news that Ismailia had been captured. I understand that this came from a French Press Agency report and that there was no truth in it. The hon. Member for Fulham said that Sir Anthony Eden had misled the House of Commons. The hon. Member gave the impression that he had misled it deliberately in announcing the cease-fire at Port Said. I have looked at the point very carefully. The story is rather dramatic. When our forces were parachuted into Port Said, the first thing they did was to cut the telephone wires. It was thought that they had cut them all. but there had been an oversight. An underwater cable from Port Said to Alexandria was still working. The Governor of Port Said was prepared to capitulate, but instructions came in this roundabout way from Alexandria and made him change his mind. That is the explanation of the story.
  I have also been asked whether it is accurate that several ships had not finished loading by the end of August. Nearly all our ships had finished loading by then, but not all. Generally speaking, the operation was mounted by the end of the first week in September, which is a
  390
  considerable feat when we think that it was mounted for an operation which was to take place 3,000 miles from the United Kingdom. I am glad to be able to say that there is no truth in the rumour which the right hon. Member for Dundee, West heard, that the 6th Tanks, substituted for the 1st Tanks, were untrained; I am informed that they were as well trained as the troops for which they were substituted.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Islington, North whether American weapons had been used in the operation. I am informed that no American weapons were used, other than those which we had paid for in dollars. Some equipment which had been obtained under mutual defence aid was used, but no weapons.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee. West suggested that the War Office had used Pickford's vans to move the tanks. I am not sure that he was very far wrong about that. I am not very good at distinctions, but we regularly use Pickford's transporters, which give excellent service. This form of transport has been used for a long time in the United Kingdom. We have a certain number of tank transporters. but we have found that Pickford's give extremely good service. If this debate were taking place on commercial television I have no doubt that they would be very pleased.
  The question remains whether the movement of personnel and stores upon so great a scale was really necessary. Did we over-insure? I think it was Napoleon who said that in war moral considerations make up three-quarters of the game. Certainly, I would have thought that there was little reason to believe that the Egyptian Army would fight very hard for the Nasser régime. All the same, military planning must be based upon material factors, and the equipment of the Egyptian Army was substantial even if its morale was not very steady.
  Egypt's regular forces numbered four divisions, and we knew that they had 100 heavy and 300 medium tanks, and a good deal of modern equipment, such as self-propelled guns and even rocket launchers. They were also well supplied with fighter and bomber aircraft of modern types. It was always doubtful whether the Egyptians would know how to handle this large quantity of modern equipment, but there was good reason to believe that

  391
  the Soviets were planning to provide the Egyptian Army and Air Force with technicians and volunteer pilots. Some of the technicians had already arrived in the Canal Zone and in Cairo, and others were expected at quite an early date.
  In preparing for an intervention which might or might not take place over a long period of months, with the large number of Egyptian arms and modern equipment involved, we could not be sure that that equipment would not be used against us by trained men. It is important, too, to remember that when our preparations were made no allowance was made for the possibility that Israel might engage a part of the Egyptian forces. It was always assumed that if we had to meet them we should meet the whole of the Egyptian Army.
  It may well be that the morale of the Egyptian Army would have disintegrated altogether had we pushed on beyond Port Said. At the same time, the Committee should remember that the bulk of the Egyptian armour—their tanks—was never engaged. Had their morale held the main engagement would have still been ahead of us, had we gone on. In the circumstances, I do not think that it can be seriously maintained that we over-insured. To have moved fewer forces when there was always the possibility that the Egyptians would be stiffened by Soviet technicians might have been to run into a very difficult and dangerous position.
  There is one other aspect of the matter upon which I should like to comment briefly. There was always a danger that an Anglo-French intervention in Egypt would have serious repercussions in other Arab countries, leading to the sabotage of British interests.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: We told you that.
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Member says that his party told us that. I was about to tell him that—as the Committee knows—that happened in Syria. We were concerned that nothing of the kind should happen in the oil-bearing region of the Persian Gulf. The Estimate for movements includes the cost of bringing our forces in the Persian Gulf up to three battalions and those at Aden up to two. No serious incident occurred in either of those regions at the time, and there is no doubt that the presence of British
  392
  troops contributed to the maintenance of stability in both.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper asked the date of the decision when the War Office accepted partial liability for the Trucial Oman Scouts. The answer is that it was at the end of February. I would say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) that the Trucial Oman Scouts are now under the headquarters of the British forces in the Arabian Peninsula and, therefore, are liable for some service outside their immediate territory.
  I come now to the operation itself, on which a certain amount of comment has been made. The first major criticism has been that we were not prepared to act at once, at the drop of the hat, within a few days of Nasser's action in seizing the Canal. Quite frankly, there is no complete answer to this criticism. Our whole strategic preoccupation in the Middle East up to July had been how to protect the region against possible attack from the north.
  The so-called redeployment of our forces from the Canal Zone three years ago to Cyprus, Libya and Jordan was primarily aimed at providing the Bagdad Pact Powers with essential air support. As far as our local obligations were concerned, we had made plans to defend Jordan under the Anglo-Jordan Treaty and had sought American co-operation for the enforcement of the Tripartite Guarantee. No preparations, however, had been made for operations against Egypt. These could, therefore, not be improvised overnight.
  It might be said that the Government should have recognised the Egyptian danger and revised their plans accordingly, but I do not think that it lies in the mouths of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to make this particular criticism. I followed the Egyptian question closely, and I am well aware what line they have adopted throughout.
  As for those of my hon. and right hon. Friends—I almost said "those of us"—who warned against the Egyptian danger in the past, I think that their main contention was frankly recognised by Sir Anthony Eden, in his speech on 1st November, when he said that" the policy of conciliation "of Egypt" was taken to dangerous limits."

  393
  The question has been asked why the operation was mounted from Malta. The prospect of a clash with Egypt had raised important strategic considerations. The Jordan Government were, clearly, unlikely to co-operate with us against their Egyptian allies. The Libyan Government were bound to be sensitive to the thought of taking sides against another Arab Power. Any operation, therefore, would have to be based on Cyprus arid Malta.
  It is important to remember that Cyprus had always been considered as a headquarters and an air base, and not as a base for sea-borne operations. At any rate, there had been no great pressure from our side for the construction of the deep-water harbour at Famagusta. The Committee must remember that the harbour facilities in Malta are excellent while those in Cyprus are quite inadequate for an assault convoy of the size we are discussing, more particularly for embarking armour and L.V.Ts.
  Moreover, General Keightley could not tell when his intervention would be necessary. The initiative was not in his hands. He had already waited through September and October. Winter was coming on. The weather might have broken at any time.
  Mr. Harry Randall: He was waiting for what?
  Mr. Amery: He was there in case the crisis, which had been foreseen developing from July, should come to a head, Of course, if the initiative had lain with us, if we had been taking the initiative, or if there had been collusion with Israel, the assault convoy could easily have sailed from Malta to Cyprus and waited there before going in. That is not the course which matters took. Operation "Musketeer" was launched as a reaction to totally unforeseen circumstances. It is, therefore, very difficult to maintain that it would have been possible, let alone wise, to mount the assault from the inadequate roads of Cyprus.
  The period of occupation of Port Said was extremely trying for the staff and
  the troops concerned. They had to be prepared not only to maintain themselves there, but also to prepare for either advance or withdrawal according to the way events occurred. There were frequent breaches of the cease-fire on the part of the Egyptians, involving the fatal ambush of one British officer and the abduction and murder of another. I think that the whole Committee will agree that all ranks of the Army in Port Said deserve the highest praise for the restraint with which they discharged their duties, for the smooth transfer of responsibility to the United Nations Police Force and for the efficiency with which they carried out what is always for a soldier the hardest and most disagreeable of manoeuvres—the withdrawal.
  I should also like to pay a wholehearted tribute to our French comrades-in-arms in Operation "Musketeer" General Keightley and his task force commanders report that British and French staffs were fully integrated and worked together in complete harmony. We have heard nothing but admiration in all three British Services for the efficiency and excellent fighting qualities of our French allies.
  In presenting this Estimate to the Committee we are fortified by the recollection that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in his speech on 2nd August gave his approval to the military preparations which were then announced. Whatever differences may since have developed on the use to which our forces were put, there will, I hope, be agreement that it was wise to make preparations and wise to make them on this scale. It is in that spirit that I commend this Estimate to the Committee.
  Mr. G. Brown: As a token of our condemnation of this operation, I beg to move, That Item Vote 5, Movements, be reduced by £100.
  Question put, That Item Vote 5, Movements, be reduced by £100:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 247, Noes 309.

  Division No. 54.]

  AYES

  [10.57 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. w.

  Baird, J.

  Benson, G.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Balfour, A.

  Beswick, F.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Bacon, Mix Alloe

  Bonn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Boardman, H.

  Holmes, Horace

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Price, J. T, (Westhoughton)

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester. S. W.)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Bowie, F. G.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Probert, A. R.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Braddock, Mrs. Ellzabeth

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Randall, H. E.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Rankin, John

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Reeves, J.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Reid, William

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)

  Rhodes, H.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Carmlohael, J.

  Janner, B.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Cattle, Mrs. B. A.

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

  Ross, William

  Champion, A. J.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Royle, C.

  Chapman, W. D.

  jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & st. Pncs, S.)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Clunie, J.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Short, E. W.

  Coldrlck, W.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Cove, W. G.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Cronin, J. D.

  Kenyon, C.

  Snow, J. W.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Daines, P.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Steele, T.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Deer, G.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Logan, D. C.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Swingler, S. T.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Dye, S.

  MoGhee, H. G.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  McGovrn, J.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Edeiman, M.

  Mcinnes, J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  MoLeavy, Frank

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Thornton, E.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Timmons, J.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Mahon, Simon

  Tomney, F.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Malialieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Flenburgh, W.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Finch, H. J.

  Mason, Roy

  Viant, S. P.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Weitzman, D.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Messer, Sir F.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Caitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Monslow, W.

  West D. C.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Gordon Walker. Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mort, D. L.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Moyle, A.

  Wigg, George

  Crenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Grey, C. F.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  Willey, Frederick

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Grimond, J.

  Oram, A. E.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Hale, Leslie

  Orbach, M.

  WiHiIams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Oswald, T.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Owen, W. J.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hannan, W.

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.

  Healey, Denis

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Woof, R. E.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Parker, J.

  yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Harbison, Miss M.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Paton, John

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Peart, T. F.

  Holman, P.

  Pentland, N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

  396

  397

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Finlay, Graeme

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

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Fort, R.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Foster, John

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton;

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

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

  Arbuthnot, John

  Freeth, D. K.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ashton, H.

  Gamer-Evans, E. H.

  Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Atkins, H. E.

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswiok)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Glover, D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Godber, J. S.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Balniel, Lord

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Barber, Anthony

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Barlow, Sir John

  Gower, H. R.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Barter, John

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Mackie, J. H. (Gallcway)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Green, A.

  Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Gurden, Harold

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Bldgood, J. C.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maddan, Martin

  Bishop, F. P.

  Black, C. W.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastte)

  Body, R. F.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Boothby, Sir Robert

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

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. j. A.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow. E.)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harvle-Watt, Sir George

  Marshall, Douglas

  Braine, B. R.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mathew, R.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Maude, Angus

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

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hicks-Beach, Ma). W. W.

  Mawby, R. L.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Bryan, P.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hope, Lord John

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hornby, R. P.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Campbell, Sir David

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Carr, Robert

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Neave, Airey

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Howard, John (Test)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Chichester-Clark, R.

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

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'oh)

  Cole, Norman

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Nugent, C. R. H.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

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

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Ormsby-Core, Rt. Hon. W. D.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hyde, Montgomery

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

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Osborne, C.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Page, R. G.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Partridge, E.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Davidson, viscountess

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Pitman, I. J.

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Pott, H. P.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. McA.

  Kaberry, D.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Keegan, D.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Kerr, H. W.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Kimball, M.

  Ralkes, Sir Victor

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Duthie. W. S.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Ecoles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Redmayne, M.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Fell, A.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Robertson, Sir David

  398

  399

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Storey, S.

  Viokers, Miss J. H.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Rodger, John (Sevenoaks)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard

  Sumner w. D. M. (Orpington)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C.

  Russell, R, S.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

  Sohofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Teellng, W.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Temple, J. M.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Sharpies, R. C.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Shepherd, William

  Thomas, P.J. M. (Conway)

  Webbe, Sir H.

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

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Thompson, Lt. Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Wills, C. (Bridgwater)

  Speir, R. M.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Tllney, John (Wavertree)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwloh, W.)

  Tweedsmulr, Lady

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Mr. Heath and Mr. Oakshott

  Stoddart-Scott Col. M.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Original Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £39,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year, including a grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1957, the sum of £39,000.000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Powell.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands Antilles) Order, 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 22nd November.—[Mr. Powell.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

HOUSING, MANCHESTER (LAND)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
11.11 p.m.
Mr. W. Griffiths: The subject to which I wish to refer this evening arises from the very serious shortage of land available to the Manchester Corporation to carry through its housing programme. Unfortunately, not only in Manchester but throughout Britain there is still a con-

401
siderable housing shortage. Even in 1957, there are still far too many of our fellow countrymen housed in the most deplorable surroundings.
I have the privilege and honour of representing that part of the City of Manchester which contains the business and commercial centre, the great commercial houses, many of Manchester's most glittering and fashionable shops, cinemas and theatres. But behind this facade the electors of the Exchange Division live, and they are among those far too many, not only in the City of Manchester but in the country, who have to endure the most appalling housing conditions.
Mr. L. M. Lever: And in the Ardwick division, too.
Mr. W. Griffiths: I do not think that there is a single street in this constituency or, as my hon. Friend reminds me, in many other parts of the city, where one could go without meeting over and over again tenants who complain of leaking roofs, damp walls, doors which will not properly close, chimneys which have become so decayed and worn that coal fires will not draw properly—an unrelieved picture of gloom and misery which all right-thinking people should wish to change at the earliest possible moment. The idea of baths and hot water is, for very many of my constituents and other citizens of Manchester, no more than a gloomy joke.
It is ironic in the present situation, when we have full employment, when so many people can afford greater amenities in their lives, that as a by-product of their residence in these squalid circumstances people are told, for instance, in houses which are gas lit, that it is impossible to have electricity installed because at some unstated time these houses are to be demolished.
The Medical Officer of Health for the City of Manchester says that at present there are 62,000 unfit houses in the city. My calculation is that that means that about one-quarter of the citizens of Manchester are housed in deplorable circumstances, in conditions which the medical officer describes as unfit, a description which, so far as I know, has never been challenged by any reputable authority.
402
Moreover, this section of the community hungry for houses takes no account of the housing needs of families in lodgings or of the natural growth of population.
I may mention, in passing, that I have been making some calculations as to the effect of the Rent Bill on some of my constituents who live in these deplorable conditions. I know of a street in the constituency—and I am sure it is typical of many others in the city—where houses are let at an inclusive rent of 11s. per week. They are squalid, insanitary houses, yet tenants of those houses will, under the terms of the Bill now before the House, if it becomes an Act, be called upon to pay 19s. per week for that appalling accommodation.
Even in these squalid slums they are being called upon—or will be called upon—to pay more than any reasonable person could consider a fit and proper rent. Manchester Corporation's house-building record has been fair, bearing in mind the post-war difficulties. The number of houses completed rose steadily in the immediate post-war years while the larger sites were available for building purposes. By 1953, the completions had reached 2,630 annually and it was confidently expected by the Corporation that that figure would rise to 3,000 a year by 1957 if sites were available; but, in fact, owing to a shortage of sites, the number of completions dropped. In 1955, the number completed was 1,934, and, last year, it was 1,368. This year it is estimated, although I think that the estimate is somewhat optimistic, that the Corporation will build 1,650.
Now let me list Manchester's housing needs. It is not disputed, so far as I know. At any rate, this is a list agreed by the Corporation without dissent. In October, 1953, the medical officer estimated that, having regard to the housing needs of the city, it was necessary to provide further accommodation amounting to 88,700 houses; and that total is made up as follows: replacement of houses unfit for human habitation, and incapable of being made fit, 68,000, although that figure has been reduced by premises completed since that date, namely, 6,000; houses required to meet the natural growth of population between October, 1953, and 1st July, 1971, 7,700.

403
That figure, incidentally, was obtained on the authority of the Registrar-General, and takes into account dispersal of people, while the provision of separate houses required for families living in lodgings was put at 13,000. That gives the grand total, which I have already mentioned, of 88,700.
Since that estimate was prepared, in 1953, the Corporation has completed about 6,000 dwellings, and the estimate of needs can be reduced by that extent. Now there is the programme designed to deal with that problem, as approved by the Corporation, and envisaged as commencing from 1955. On the assumption that land would be available for a building rate of 3,000 houses a year, the Corporation put forward a plan to build, between 1955 and 1960, 17,000 dwellings, and then, from 1st July, 1961, to July, 1971, a further 31,500, making a total of 48,500.
The House should remember that this figure, even if reached by 1971, would still leave in the City of Manchester, or the medical officer's own estimates. 20,000 houses regarded as unfit now—already unfit—and which would be in an even more deplorable condition by 1971. To meet this building programme, the Corporation envisaged sites being available between 1955 and 1960, for 5,688 dwellings; and hon. Members opposite are always pressing Manchester to make the most use of its land sites. Between 1961 and 1st July, 1971, the figure was given as 6,636, which gives a total of 12,324.
But those who live in areas designated for slum clearance know that one of the difficulties holding up such clearance is the inability of a local authority to find alternative accommodation for people displaced before physical demolition begins. The Corporation therefore estimated that sites available outside the city would provide for 7,212 dwellings between 1955 and 1960, and 8,369 between 1961 and July, 1971; giving a total in this case of 15,581, on sites agreed with surrounding local authorities.
When these figures are studied in the OFFICIAL REPORT it will be seen that they reveal, between the sites available and the programme of the Manchester Corporation of 3,000, a site deficiency
404
of 20,595 houses. Even if sites had been found for these, we would still in 1971 have 20,000 unfit houses. There, in the shortage of sites, is the heart of the matter and what we want to know from the Minister is where can our people go? Do the Government accept the urgency of the matter? Clearly, they have been made aware of it by my hon. Friends and by the Manchester Members on the other side of the House over and over again.
The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Defence, on 5th June. 1956, in answering a Question which I put to him, said that he was
"… well aware of Manchester's serious housing shortage. Apart from the slum areas, the city will before long run out of land …within and around its boundaries."
He went on to speak of the failure of the Manchester Corporation and surrounding local authorities to agree, but said:
"In view of this prolonged deadlock, I am now considering what action should be taken; and I will make a further statement in due course."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT. 5th June, 1956; Vol. 553, c. 401
On 26th June, I asked him whether he had any statement to make, and the right hon. Gentleman said he had nothing to add and that he was still hoping for local authorities to come to an agreement. I then gave notice that I proposed to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
On 30th October, 1956, several hon. Members representing Manchester constituencies again questioned the right hon. Gentleman who was then Minister of Housing and Local Government, and he said:
"I hope to make a statement shortly".
When he was faced with supplementary questions he went on to say:
"I have been to Manchester and the various areas all around.… I have really explored this matter very fully. … We have now reached the point where I think it is right for the Government to state their view on the whole problem."—[OFFicint. REPORT, 30th October, 1956; Vol. 558, cc. 1228–9]
Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman was fully aware of the situation, as, indeed, was his predecessor, who is now the Prime Minister. There is no excuse for the Government delaying any longer meeting the demands of the Manchester Corporation. When the right hon. Gentleman

405
said that he thought it was right for the Government to state their view of the problem, I think so, too: so do my hon. Friends who represent the City of Manchester, and so do the people of Manchester.
However, that was nearly four months ago. This has gone on long enough. The Minister should be prepared to tell the House tonight whether he will agree to Manchester being given permission to exploit a site outside the city of sufficient size to meet the problem. We have argued. In his Department he will see an immense amount of information, correspondence and memoranda about Lymm and Mobberley.
Seeing the unassailable case that Manchester has put forward, recognising as he does, coming from another great Lancashire city, the housing needs of our great industrial conurbations, I hope that he will not allow the political country-side people to keep their broad acres for a privileged section of the community and deny the great masses of the City of Manchester the right of decent housing conditions. If the right hon. Gentleman will not give the City of Manchester some land, such as at Lymm or Mobberley, where a proper. balanced development can be carried through, let him tell the House tonight what is his message to the home-hungry people of Manchester and their sorely-tried and frustrated city councillors.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.
Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I put two questions to him? First, to ask him why Manchester has made a worse showing than any other city in Britain in housing its people since the war—
Mr. Griffiths: Nonsense.
Air Commodore Harvey: —and, secondly, why he has not paid tribute to the adjacent authorities, who have at least made an attempt to house some of the overspill from Manchester in recent years?
Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member should betray his ignorance so completely. The house-building record of the Manchester Corporation compares very favourably with that of any city of similar size.
Air Commodore Harvey: No.
Mr. Griffiths: Secondly, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member of the figure, released the other day, showing that Manchester's rents for municipal tenants are the lowest in Great Britain.
11.26 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) on the first part of his well-read speech and, in the latter part of his speech, in injecting practically all he knows how to do by inserting malice, greed and hate into the end of his rather indifferent oration.
The object of the hon. Member's speech can be simply and plainly stated. It is the same object as Manchester's, indeed, the hon. Member admitted it in the tail end of his oration. It is to grab Lymm, in Cheshire, for building purposes. I should like to say how this will affect Cheshire and, indeed, how Cheshire wants to do all that it can to contribute towards this difficult problem that faces Manchester.
The Cheshire County Council and the people of that county, as we all do, have every sympathy with the thousands of unfortunate people who are living in bad housing conditions in Manchester. Indeed, to prove that and to enforc it, if hon. Members opposite can take this in, they have contributed their share to the problem of providing homes for these people by producing an excellent county development plan to help to house them. What is more, this excellent county development plan was approved—and, I think, admired, too—by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government.
What concerns Cheshire, and, indeed, what should concern both sides of this House, is that the houses required for these poor people should be built in the right places, and not the wrong places. If we go on destroying good

407
agricultural land at the rate we are now doing, we shall only be building houses for the people to starve in.
Mr. Griffiths: Nonsense.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Let us consider Lymm, the area referred to by the hon. Member. This contains, without exception, the finest agricultural land in Cheshire and, probably, the whole of the country. Why does Manchester want it? Why will they—[Interruption.] Let hon. Members opposite keep their adenoids quiet. Why does Manchester—
Mr. Hugh Delargy: Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member to read every word of his speech?
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I am not reading it.
Mr. Speaker: I did not think that the hon. and gallant Member was reading his speech.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: The hon. Member can go away and play marbles in the cellars, or wherever he spends most of his days.
Why does Manchester not want the excellent alternative sites offered by Cheshire? It is the same old story. The reason that it wants Lymm is that Manchester wants to grab this land, which is adjacent to the city, away from Cheshire. Indeed, all over Cheshire this operation is known as the "Manchester grab".
Mr. L. M. Lever: Nonsense.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: The next reason is that, like all the best agricultural land, this site for building purposes fulfils four excellent requirements. First, it presents little difficulty in clearance. Secondly, it is reasonably level. Thirdly, it is well sited. Fourthly, it is well drained. In other words, for some of the planners, I regret to say, only the best land is good enough and agriculture can go to the devil.
When minds have been made up as to what area is to be offered to Manchester for this building purpose, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to carry out at least three simple principles. The first has been mentioned frequently on both sides of the House. It is that not
408
one acre of good agricultural land should be destroyed for building purposes where other land of less agricultural value is available. The second principle is that Manchester should be made to develop its own sites properly first, before taking other people's sites. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), with his notably fertile brain, has already noted, my point is that where land is so valuable we should try to adopt a policy of building upwards instead of sprawling outwards and destroying valuable agricultural land.
The House should make no mistake. This case is being regarded as a test case in the county. If Manchester succeeds in grabbing Lymm, it is no good ever again trying to say that we intend to prevent good agricultural land being destroyed for building purposes. The Conservative Party, unlike the party opposite, always works out and carries out a long-term policy in the best interests of the country.
Mr. L. M. Lever Mr. L. M. Lever rose—
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Sit down. The hon. Member should go away and play marbles. or play patience.
We all know that the building of houses quickly at whatever cost bears on the next Election, but the loss of good agricultural land will bear on the next generation.
11.32 p.m.
Mr. L. M. Lever: I shall be brief, because we are all waiting the Minister's reply with avidity.
I want to refute as strongly as I can the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) that Manchester is anxious to grab any part of Cheshire at all. Manchester has been most conciliatory in its negotiations with Cheshire, and it will continue to be so.
I also refute the suggestion that this is a political party matter. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill), the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) and the hon. Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary), all Tory Members, are at one with us on this side of

409
the House in their anxiety to obtain for Manchester a solution of this very urgent and vexed question of housing sites.
We have been promised an early reply by the Minister. We cannot wait any longer. The matter is most urgent. Thousands of decent, hard-working citizens in the City of Manchester are very anxious to get new homes. Until these sites are released, or we hear from the Government how Manchester is to secure sites, we shall not do justice to a large section of the population who have languished far too long in the rotten housing conditions in which they live.
I appeal to the Minister to realise that this matter will not brook further delay. I remind him that all hon. Members opposite who represent Manchester constituencies and all Manchester Members on this side of the House are unanimously anxious to achieve an early solution of the problem.
11.35 p.m
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): As a Liverpool man I always thought that Manchester men were gentlemen, but I am not so sure now. Three years ago I thought that I had escaped from the horrors of overspill, but the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) reminded me very forcibly tonight that that is not the case.
There are one or two things which I should like to say very briefly, because I have not much time. First, I should like to confirm some of the broad statements made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange. It is quite true that the housing situation in Manchester is very serious. There are in the city about 200,000 houses, and at least 68,000, or about one-third, are classified as unfit. It is also true that, three or four years ago, Manchester was building at the rate of about 2,600 houses a year. Since then the number has dropped—not because of subsidy changes or changes in the rate of interest—to about 1,500 a year. That is due primarily to the shortage of sites both within and outside Manchester.
It is quite clear to Manchester Members of Parliament that Manchester's problem will never be solved in the long-term until that Corporation is able
410
to build extensively outside its own boundaries. In saying that I am allowing for the fact that in the heart of Manchester there are probably about 60,000 slum dwellings which have to come down. But, as has been said, the people who live in those dwellings have to be housed elsewhere before those properties can be demolished. Therefore, the question is: where is Manchester to build so that it can rehouse its people?
It has been said by hon. Members opposite that the contention of the Manchester Corporation is that it still needs one large scheme under its own control if it is to solve the problem over the years. The hon. Member has referred to Manchester's desire to build what amounts to a new town in Lymm—a proposition which is heatedly opposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), for reasons which, one has to admit, are in themselves very good reasons indeed.
Manchester applied for planning permission to carry out this project in 1953, and it was turned down then by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—who was then the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It was rejected primarily on the ground that it was wrong to allow such fertile land to be built on until all the various alternatives had been fully explored. I have not the time at my disposal to go through many of the alternatives which the Manchester Corporation has been looking at during the last two years, but I think that even the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange will agree that some progress is being made in Lancashire, at places like Middleton and Heywood.
At Middleton, work is going on upon the construction of about 3,000 houses and at Heywood, although work has not yet begun, it is hoped to begin very soon. In Cheshire, at Hyde, sites for 4,000 houses are reasonably well assured in the near future. At other places, such as Whitefield, in Lancashire, and Maccles-field, in Cheshire, there has been cooperation between the two county councils and the Manchester Corporation but objections have been raised by the local authorities, and at the moment those schemes are frustrated. Even so, in spite of all those alternatives, my right hon. Friend recognises that Manchester

411
still desires to embark upon one of these major schemes either in Lancashire or in Cheshire.
As has already been said, my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Defence devoted a great deal of time to this problem. He went to Manchester and talked to representatives of Manchester Corporation, and also to county council representatives.
Mr. L. M. Lever: And promised a decision.
Mr. Bevins: And promised a decision, but, as matters turned out, he was moved from his last assignment to a rather more important one before a decision could be taken.
My right hon. Friend the present Minister is fully seized of the problem, although he is new to it. I can give the House the assurance that my right hon. Friend has been giving his attention to
412
this problem. The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange demanded that I should say tonight whether the Government will give their blessing to the Lymm project. He was being a little guileful in asking that, because he has been informed that my right hon. Friend is meeting a deputation from the Manchester Corporation in about a fortnight's time. When he does so he will discuss with the representatives of the Corporation all the implications of this and other proposals affecting overspill.
Whatever decision my right hon. Friend may come to I am quite certain that it will be one which will take account of the very many factors which are involved—a decision which will be in the interests of the nation and, I hope, in the interests of Manchester as well.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Cyprus (Local Leave)
  Cyprus (Local Leave)
  Vessels (Disposal)
  Vessels (Disposal)
  MINISTERS (PRIVATE INTERESTS)
  MINISTERS (PRIVATE INTERESTS)
  MIDDLE EAST (PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S PROPOSALS)
  MIDDLE EAST (PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S PROPOSALS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Industrial Development, Scotland
  Industrial Development, Scotland
  Exports to U.S.S.R.
  Exports to U.S.S.R.
  Knitwear Firm, Hawick
  Knitwear Firm, Hawick
  Dagenham
  Dagenham
  Motor Vehicle Industry (Foreign Competition)
  Motor Vehicle Industry (Foreign Competition)
  Invergordon
  Invergordon
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Entertainments Duty (Review)
  Entertainments Duty (Review)
  Premium Savings Bonds (Cost of Administration)
  Premium Savings Bonds (Cost of Administration)
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Invisible Exports
  Invisible Exports
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Local Authorities (Housing Programmes)
  Local Authorities (Housing Programmes)
  Project, Treweryn
  Project, Treweryn
  Office Premises, Holborn and St. Pancras
  Office Premises, Holborn and St. Pancras
EMPLOYMENT
  Messrs. Briggs (Strike)
  Messrs. Briggs (Strike)
  Aircraft Factory, Blackpool (Redundancy)
  Aircraft Factory, Blackpool (Redundancy)
  Engineering Industries, Richmond and Kingston
  Engineering Industries, Richmond and Kingston
  Hungarian Refugees (Agriculture and Horticulture)
  Hungarian Refugees (Agriculture and Horticulture)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Kashmir (United Nations Discussions)
  Kashmir (United Nations Discussions)
  Migration
  Migration
  Commonwealth Co-operation
  Commonwealth Co-operation
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Fuel Oil
  Fuel Oil
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Tuberculosis Allowances
  Tuberculosis Allowances
  Mental and Psychiatric Hospitals (Service Patients)
  Mental and Psychiatric Hospitals (Service Patients)
  BRITISH-PROTECTED STATES, PERSIAN GULF
  BRITISH-PROTECTED STATES, PERSIAN GULF
  HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS (JAPANESE REQUEST)
  HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS (JAPANESE REQUEST)
  BAHRAINI PRISONERS, ST. HELENA
  BAHRAINI PRISONERS, ST. HELENA
SCOTLAND
  Forth Road Bridge
  Forth Road Bridge

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

HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM had given Notice of his intention to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred, that before authorising the discontinuance of the services of trolley vehicles they should satisfy themselves that—

(a) the substitution of motor omnibuses for trolley vehicles will be to the advantage of the travelling public;

(b)any financial advantages resulting from the substitution will be passed on to the local travelling public; and

(c)suitable financial arrangements will be made by the Maidstone Company for satisfying the claims of the local authorities.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House has many 'matters of great import to discuss in a moment, and therefore I will not detain your Lordships for any length of time. I would mention, however, that this Bill would, if passed, transfer the undertaking of the Hastings Tramways Company to Maidstone and District Motor Services, Limited, and would authorise discontinuance of the trolley vehicles. It is being petitioned against by the Corporation of Hastings, and, I believe, also of Bexhill. I would add only that an all-Party committee of citizens has been formed in Hastings, officially representing the political Parties of the town, and that committee, on January 26, passed unanimously a resolution to this effect:
"That…the proposals of the Hastings Tramways Bill are—

(a) opposed to the overwhelming demand of the local public;

412

(b)designed to abolish, without justification, the electric trolley bus service. which is most suitable for this hilly seaside town, and to deprive the Corporation of ids quinquennial option to purchase the Hastings Tramways undertaking; and

(c) contrary to the national interest, which demands the minimum use of oil and the maximum use of electric power."

The meeting, therefore, requested that the Bill be turned down.
My Lords, I know that the House does not believe that matters of this kind can be threshed out in the full Chamber, and therefore after consultation I have ventured to put down the instruction which appears on the Order Paper. I feel sure that justice will be done by the Select Committee, and I therefore express the confident hope that even if the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, the battle of Hastings will not be lost on the playing fields of Westminster. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, matters of the House are not for me, but he will notice that his Motion on the Order Paper is prefaced by the words:
"In the event of the Bill being read a second time."
Therefore, with the noble Lord's agreement, I will now put to the House the Question, That the Bill be now read a second time, and will then put the noble Lord's Motion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I now put to the House that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, be agreed to.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred, that before authorising the discontinuance of the services of trolley vehicles they should satisfy themselves that—

(a) the substitution of motor omnibuses for trolley vehicles will be to the advantage of the travelling public;

(b) any financial advantages resulting from the substitution will be passed on to the local travelling public; and

(c) suitable financial arrangements will be made by the Maidstone Company for satisfying the claims of the local authorities.—(Lord Pakenham.)

LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, before the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, are decided by the House, I should like to say a few words. Although what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has suggested is a somewhat unusual course, it has, of course, many precedents. But, at the same time—and I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, will correct me if I am wrong—it is an unusual procedure in the case of an opposed Bill. Where such directions are given to a Committee, they are usually of a rather general nature, expressing the hope that the Committee "will have due regard to" the preservation of agricultural land, or the amenities of a national park, or something of that sort. The directions proposed by the noble Lord are of a different type. They deal with the matters which will be argued fully before the Select Committee, and the local authorities will then be given ample opportunity of putting their representations in great detail. In my view we should not attempt to prejudice the case without having all the facts before us, May I, therefore, before I sit down, say a few words about the proposed directions?
The first one is, I suppose, harmless enough; but, to put it succinctly, is it not a case of "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs"? It is exactly what the Select Committee will be assembled to decide: whether the substitution of motor omnibuses will be to the advantage of the travelling public or not. I have sat on a number of Select Committees, including that on the Gateshead Tramways Bill, which was almost identical to this case. We of course heard evidence from all the interested parties. With regard to proposal (b), I think this matter is much better left to the discretion of the traffic commissioners, who normally decide these things. Such a direction might prejudice the negotiations between the omnibus company and the local authorities, as well as once again tying the hands of the Select Committee. Direction (c) is extremely vague and, I imagine, refers to the poles supporting the overhead lines of the trolley buses. As it is drafted, it seems to direct that all claims should be settled, whether they are just or not, Surely all these points are Committee matters, My view is that these directions are unnecessary and undesirable, and I hope that the House will not support them.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, it is, of course, the case that, as a general rule, the House is reluctant to give instructions to Select Committees, and I think that this is one of those cases where it is best that the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, should be left to be dealt with by Petition against the Bill, in the ordinary way, as I understand from him is going to happen. As these are matters which it is very difficult to decide on the Floor of the House, and which are much better dealt with when evidence is given before the Select Committee. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his instructions.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, without wishing to accept or reject any views, either on the merits of the Bill or on the principles at stake, may I say, in view of what has just been said by the Lord Chairman of Committees, that I do not wish to press the instructions further this afternoon.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REGISTRATION OF OPTICIANS
2.44 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are proposing to introduce legislation in the present Session providing for the Registration of Opticians. as unanimously recommended by the Crook Committee in 1952 (Cmd. 8531).]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the principle of legislation for this purpose was fully accepted, but its introduction is dependent on Parliamentary time and is, therefore, I fear, unlikely during the present Session.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for his answer, nay I ask whether he is aware that the Bill will be quite non-controversial and of considerable public benefit? May I ask the noble Earl whether or not in fact it has been drafted?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am not quite sure about the last point—I will let the noble Lord know—but the fact that it is non-controversial is generally accepted and will be taken into account when the time-table for the next Session is drawn up.

SECURITY OF ULSTER T.A. ESTABLISHMENTS
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who, under the new defence organisation, is responsible for the security of Territorial Army Establishments in Northern Ireland, and why the new barracks at Dungannon, County Tyrone, which was recently blown up, was apparently unguarded despite the fact that it had been named as a target, as shown by captured I.R.A. documents.]
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, in all parts of the United Kingdom the civil police are primarily responsible for the protection of Territorial Army centres in peace time. Northern Ireland is no exception to this rule, and since the start of the current series of incidents, the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been providing guards, so far as their resources permit, on Territorial Army centres and other public buildings in Northern Ireland. They have been assisted by the Army.
The attack on the new Territorial Army centre at Dungannon, County Tyrone, on January 18, took place after the departure of the builders, who were still working on the building, and before the arrival of the night guard of Ulster Special Constabulary. Because of their many commitments the Police and the Army had to risk this gap in time during which the building was virtually unoccupied. I should emphasise that Dungannon Territorial Army Centre was only one of about fifty targets that had been mentioned in I.R.A. documents, and there were, of course, other possible targets of equal importance. I am glad to be able to assure your Lordships that co-operation between the Royal Ulster
416
Constabulary and the Army is very close indeed and at all times conducted with a great measure of mutual confidence.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord for his Answer.

COST OF ELECTRICITY CONSULTATIVE COUNCILS
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total cost (including staff, office accommodation, travelling expenses, etc.) of the consultative councils operative in conjunction with the area electricity boards for the nearest twelve months for which the figures are available.]
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, the total cost of the twelve electricity consultative councils in England and Wales for the year ended March 31, 1956, was £32,169. This sum covers staff salaries, travelling and other incidental expenses; accommodation is provided by the area electricity boards, generally without charge. In addition, each chairman of a consultative council is paid a salary of £750 in his capacity both as chairman and as an ex-officio part-time member of the area board concerned. Other council members are unpaid. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the work performed by the members of electricity consultative councils who, by their public spirit and endeavour, are helping to give electricity consumers good value for their money.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for that information.

EGYPT: COMPENSATION FOR EXPELLED BRITONS
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the following Question, of which I have given private notice: Are Her Majesty's Government now able to make a statement on the position of British subjects evicted from Egypt?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I hope to make the statement to which the noble Lord's question refers at about four o'clock this afternoon.
LORD KILLEARN: I thank the noble Marquess.

DENTISTS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to dentists and other dental workers with such corrections and improvements as may be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 1a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Ghana Independence Bill through its remaining stages.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Before the Motion is put, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he can give the House any indication when the remaining stages of this Bill will be taken?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We hope to finish the Committee stage this afternoon. The further stages will of course depend on the Business to-day.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: It would be quite wrong to anticipate whether or not the Bill will pass without amendment, but I do not know whether it would be proper to ask if the noble Marquess will indicate, assuming it is passed without amendment, when the Third Reading will be taken.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If there were no amendment, then all the stages would be taken this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—PROCTDURE ON REPORT STAGE OF BILLS
The Committee considered the practice under which, when a Bill has been reported from a Committee of the Whole House without amendment, the motion for the report to be received is made forthwith. The Committee noted that there were sometime; cases in which, even if no amendment had been made in Committee, it would be to the general advantage if the report was not immediately received bit was postponed to a later date on which amendments could be made to the Bill. The Committee therefore recommend that the House should alter its practice accordingly in appropriate cases.
No amendment of the Standing Orders would be necessary, but an alteration would have to be made in the "Companion to the Standing Orders."
2.—CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
The Committee considered the question of the constitution of the Committee for Privileges. At present, "all the Lords who have been or shall be present this Session" are appointed to the Committee at the beginning of each Session but the Committee cannot sit in a peerage case unless three Lords of Appeal are present. It seems to the Procedure Committee that a committee consisting of all the members of the House is not a really suitable tribunal.
The Committee therefore recommend to the House that, for the future, there should be appointed at the beginning of every Session a Committee for Privileges consisting of sixteen named Lords together with any four Lords of Appeal.
Standing Order No. 65 would have to be amended accordingly.
3.—INTERVAL BETWEEN QUESTIONS ON A DIVISION
It was suggested to the Committee that the present interval of three minutes before the doors are locked, which is prescribed by Standing Order No. 46, was not long enough to enable Peers to reach the House from all parts of the building. The Committee agree, and recommend that the Standing Order should be amended so as to substitute "four minutes" for "three minutes", in both places where those words occur in the second paragraph of the Standing Order.
4.—QUORUM ON DIVISIONS
The Committee considered the question whether the quorum prescribed by Standing Order No. 50 should apply to all divisions and not only to divisions on Bills. It seems to the Committee desirable that this change should be made.
The Committee therefore recommend that Standing Order No. 50 be amended by leaving out in the first line the words upon any stage of a Bill".
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: I beg to move that the Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, the Committee on Procedure made four recommendations. The first relates to the practice under which, when a Bill has been reported from a Committee of the Whole House without amendment, the Motion for the Report is made always immediately. That is sometimes inconvenient, because quite often it is agreed by both sides of the House that an Amendment to the Bill is desirable. If the Report is received at once, then it leaves it to the Third Reading for any Amendment to be made, and that is inconvenient, because the Amendment has not been before the House before. Moreover, it may transpire that the Bill needs further amendment, and in such circumstances there is no opportunity to do it. Therefore what the Committee suggest is that in these exceptional cases there is no need for the Motion "That the Report be now received" to be moved immediately. The Minister need not move it, and then the Bill will go to another day and there will be a Report stage on which any desired Amendments can be proposed.
The second recommendation deals with the Committee for Privileges. At present, all the Lords who have been or shall be present during the session are appointed to the Committee at the beginning of the Session, but in a Peerage case the Committee cannot sit unless three Lords of Appeal are present. It seems to the Procedure Committee that a Committee consisting of all the members of the House is not a very practical Committee, and the suggestion is that the Committee should consist of sixteen named Lords and any four Lords of Appeal, but that in Peerage cases, as now, three Lords of Appeal must always be present. The Committee therefore recommend to the House that, in future, at the beginning of every Session the Committee for Privileges shall be constituted with sixteen named Lords and any four Lords of Appeal.
420
The third recommendation has to deal with the interval putting the Question and taking a Division. Some of the Committee rooms upstairs, notably those belonging to another place, are a long way from this Chamber, and it has been found that even some of the most happily mobile Members of this House, when they hear that a Division has been called, however much they hurry, even if they run like a hare, are not able to reach here in time. What the Committee suggest is that the interval should be four minutes, instead of three minutes as it is at present. Unfortunately, even four minutes will not be long enough for some of us, but one has to strike a balance; and the Committee suggest that we should try this alteration.
The last recommendation has to do with the quorum on Divisions. At present, the quorum has to be thirty, but only on any stage of a Bill. The Corn-mince suggest that it is not really proper that a Division on any Motion—and some Motions are very important—should be taken when there are not thirty Members to vote. The Committee therefore suggest that an Amendment be made in the Standing Orders so that in all Divisions there must be thirty Lords present before a decision is taken. I beg to move that these recommendations be agreed to.
Moved, That the recommendations be agreed to.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords. I rise merely to say that we on this side of the House associate ourselves entirely with the recommendations of the Committee. There are two only to which I think I need refer. One is the introduction of a separate Report stage. I have always thought it a little embarrassing for an Opposition, where there was no Amendment on the Committee stage that they should be deprived of one stage in the proceedings of the Bill. It has been perhaps an encouragement to a recalcitrant Minister not to accept any Amendment at all, in the hope of getting his Bill through. I say that quite impartially, irrespective of the Party which is in charge of the Bill. If this amendment of the Procedure is accepted, there will no longer be that inducement to Ministers; they will be quite free to accept an Amendment without the fear that they will thereby prolong the proceedings by one stage.

421
The only other point concerns the time allowed for Divisions. As the noble Marquess, I know, realises as much as anybody in this House, the average age Pf this House is rising. This is one symptom of the rise in the average age and therefore a reduction in mobility. I feel that, if we go on as we are, four minutes is not the limit. Many of us are getting older. We shall not be able to reach the Division Lobby even in four minutes. Maybe the Procedure Committee will have to come along next year, or the year after, and ask for five or six minutes. At any rate, we are prepared to try the four minutes, and see how we get on. I think the other two recommendations of the Procedure Committee are quite unexceptionable, and we on this side approve them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if I may say so, I entirely agree with what the Lord Chairman and Lord Silkin have said with regard to the first item in the Report of the Committee on Procedure. I have always thought it not a good plan that, where the Committee stage has been passed without amendment we should proceed direct to Report stage, because we all know that there are occasions when matters have to be referred back to the Government: points have been raised on Committee stage, and everybody knows that in due course Amendments are to be made. If they are left to the Third Reading that is bad from every point of view. The Third Reading is really meant to be for a general discussion on the Bill, in the light of what has passed on Committee and Report stage. If lit becomes merely another Committee stage, then that is lost; and it is undignified, I think, for the House, and unsatisfactory from every point of view. Therefore, I believe that this quite simple proposal of the Procedural Committee will tend to eliminate a growing evil.
I do not think that I want to say anything about the other items. I am sure that four minutes will be better than three, for the purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has mentioned, and the other two items are, as he said, unexceptionable. The only other thing I
422
would say is that if the House agrees to the Report, as I hope it will, there will be, I understand, some consequential Amendments to Standing Orders, and I would propose to put down a Motion to that effect next week.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the Lord Chairman what arrangements, if any, are Lo be made to inform noble Lords who are upstairs in Committee rooms that a Division is taking place here. Four minutes is, of course, better than three, and perhaps five minutes might be better still. In fact, until somebody comes along the passage to a rather remote Committee room, we do not know that there is a Division; then I am afraid that four minutes is not very much better than three.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, with the permission of the House, 'may I say that I am glad that the noble Lord has mentioned that point, because it would be of great help if noble Lords who know that they are going to be some way off when a Division is likely to be called, would inform the Messengers, so that the best possible arrangements can be made to inform those noble Lords. There is no Division Bell which can be rung in the Commons' Committee rooms upstairs to inform your Lordships, but if noble Lords let the Messengers know, they will do the best they can.
LORD FARINGDON: By the leave of the House, may I suggest that perhaps a Division bell with a different tone, or something of that sort, might be installed? I have myself left word with the Messengers, who have done their best to inform me; but it takes them some minutes to get to the Committee room where one happens to be.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: I believe it would be quite expensive to do that, arid. I rather doubt whether Members of another place would like another bell added. That might be rather confusing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Lord Ailwyn be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GHANA INDEPENDENCE BILL
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Perth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 3:
Consequential modifications with respect to development schemes, etc.
3.—.(l) No scheme shall be made on or after the appointed day under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 to 1955, wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana.
(2) Any scheme in force under the said Acts immediately before the appointed day which was made solely for the benefit of Ghana or any part thereof shall cease to have effect on that day without prejudice to the making of payments in pursuance of that scheme on or after that day in respect of any period falling before that day; and, so far as practicable, no part of any sums paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of any other scheme made under those Acts before that day shall be employed in respect of any period falling on or after that day for the benefit of Ghana.
(3) Nothing in the two foregoing subsections shall restrict the making of, or the employment of sums paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of, any scheme under the said Acts with respect to a body established for the joint benefit of Ghana and one or more of the following territories, that is to say, the Federation or any Region of Nigeria. Sierra Leone and the Gambia, in a case where Ghana has undertaken to bear a reasonable share of the cost of the scheme.
(4) Without prejudice to the continuance of any operations commenced by the Colonial Development Corporation in any part of Ghana before the appointed day, as from that day the expression "colonial territories" in the Overseas Resources Development Acts, 1948 to 1956, shall not include Ghana or any part thereof.
Debate resumed on an Amendment moved by Lord Ogmore on Thursday last, to omit subsection (4) of Clause 3.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): It has been thought convenient, as there is a legal aspect to this Amendment, that I might deal as shortly and clearly as I can with the matters that arise on this point. May I just remind your Lordships of the position that obtained when the debate was adjourned on Thursday? I think it can be summed up in this way. First, all sides of the House had welcomed the undertaking which my noble friend Lord Home gave on behalf of the Government, that we would make a comprehensive review of the United Kingdom rôle in the development of new, independent Commonwealth countries, and that this review would cover the form which any service or other facilities might take, including any possibility of adapting those facilities which already existed for this purpose. The Committee will find my noble friend's account of this in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201 (No. 27), columns 355 and 356, and your Lordships will appreciate and, I think, did appreciate, the necessity of having the whole subject considered.
Second, while the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, spoke in favour of retaining Clause 3 there remained, despite the arguments advanced by the Government, a strong feeling on the part of other speakers, both from the Opposition side and from this side of the House, that the clause was open to criticism. I will not attempt to restate the nature of the criticisms that were made, which I am sure are familiar to your Lordships.
Third, my noble friend Lord Home, made it quite clear that the Government adhered to their decision, that until the review to which I have referred had been concluded and decisions arising from it had been made, the policy embodied in the clause must stand. On the other hand, if and when it were decided to make any changes in policy, those changes would, as far as necessary, be given effect through appropriate legislation.
As a result of this situation the suggestion was made by my noble friend Lord Swinton, and endorsed on behalf of the Opposition by noble Lords opposite, that it would meet with the approval

425
of this House if the Government were to withdraw the clause, on the understanding that, until the review to which I refer had been completed and decisions taken in the light of that review, the results which it was intended to achieve through the enactment of Clause 3 would instead be attained through administrative action. Your Lordships will find my noble friend's proposal at Column 366. It was my understanding—I believe I have correctly interpreted the varied expressions of opinion that were made—that this suggestion was designed to avoid the inclusion of essentially negative provisions in a Bill with the great positive purpose of creating an independent Ghana. At the same time, this suggestion was designed to avoid prejudicing the decision that would be made by the Government and no doubt debated by your Lordships' House on the wide issue after the general review.
This was a suggestion which, though it had not previously recommended itself to my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the eloquence of noble Lords persuaded us should be further examined, and accordingly my noble friend Lord Home undertook to examine it further, although I should stress that he made clear that he might not be able to do anything else but report that the clause must stand. 13efore I go into it further, may I emphasise that we in the Government entirely recognise the sincerity and depth of feeling of the arguments that have been adduced against the clause, even though we do not agree with them? I am not going to put this on a matter of the time-table. Although I think everyone in the House appreciates the difficulty of the time-table, it might be surmounted by certain measures if everything were agreed upon. But I do not want to put it in that way; I only want to remind your Lordships that I think we are all desirous that this matter should be got through in order that the date, which means so much to Ghana, should not be affected in any way.
I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Swinton that we have given this matter the most serious consideration. I have considered, with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, the legal aspects. Apart from that we have tried to find some method by which effect: might be given to the suggestion made by my noble friend.
426
Knowing the legal origin of my noble friend Lord Swinton, although it is overlaid now by many years of public service, I hope that he will believe I am doing him the justice of trying to present the matter as clearly and objectively as I can. I should also like to deal with doubts that my noble friend Lord Rennell had on other aspects of the matter.
The legal background starts, I think, with the Colonial Development Act, 1940. That enabled schemes to be made for promoting the development of any Colony; and in the Act of 1940 "Colony" was so defined as to exclude Colonies possessing responsible government. This is one of the difficulties in considering this matter. That limitation was repealed by the Act of 1950, and for the purpose of these Acts, therefore, "Colony" has the meaning given it by Section 13 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, as amended by Section 11 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, namely:
"Any part of Her Majesty's Dominions outside the British Isles with the exception of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa."
In other words, for the purpose of the Act of 1950 a grant under the Colonial Development Act cannot be made for the benefit of Dominions under the Statute of Westminster.
Then one comes to the Overseas Development Resources Act, 1948, which set up the Colonial Development Corporation for securing development in colonial territories. By Section 19 of that Act your Lordships will see that it applies to territories to which the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, applied—I emphasise that the word used is "territory" with its geographical connotation—at the time of the passing of the Act of 1943. So that there is no distinction between the territories to which grants can be made under the Act of 1940 and those in which the Colonial Development Coroporations may operate. Your Lordships will appreciate that I have just picked up the point that at the commencement of that Act of 1948 Ghana had not responsible government. My noble friend Lord Rennell may have had in mind the fact that there is no provision comparable to Clause 3 in the Ceylon Independence Act, 1947. If the noble Lord had that in mind, may I just remind him of the date—it was 1947, before the repeal of the provision which I have mentioned.

427
There was therefore no need for a provision in 1947 because as I have mentioned, "Colony" in the Act of 1940 meant a Colony not possessing responsible government; but this restriction has now disappeared.
LORD RENNELL: Does that mean that Ceylon was included in the provision of the Colonial Development Act, 1940, and that India was also included, because those countries were not specifically excluded?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In 1947, Ceylon had responsible government and therefore automatically moved into the exception to the 1940 Act which excluded from Colonial Development operation those territories which had responsible government.
LORD RENNELL: What of India?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe the position would be the same, but I thought the noble Lord had Ceylon in mind.
LORD RENNELL: That was so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was for that reason that I thought the point should be verified. That is the explanation. My noble friend Lord Rennell also said, during the Committee stage (I believe at column 369 of the OFFICIAL REPORT [Vol. 201, No. 27]), that there was no need for Clause 3 (1) because of the definitions of "Colony" in Clause 4. On that subject, may I point out to the noble Lord that Clause 4 is subject to the words he will find in line 3:
"in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day…"
It is thus clear that, apart from Clause 3, Ghana would be included for the purposes of Acts passed before the appointed day. The noble Lord will find that that is borne out by the proviso to Section I which deals with certain aspects of the matter. If I may say so with the very greatest respect, the reason why I feel that the noble Lord was wrong on that point is because all that Clause 4 says is that a "colony" in any Act passed on or after the appointed day is not to include Ghana. It is quite clear that unless Clause 3 is kept in the Bill these Acts will apply to Ghana.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I now come to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Swinton. It has been suggested, with regard to the Colonial Development Corporation, that if Clause 3 (4) were dropped it would still be possible for the Secretary of State to give a direction under Section 9 of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, that would have the effect of excluding Ghana. This is where the legal troubles begin. Section 9 is deceptively wide at first sight, and I appreciate the noble Earl's view. It says that the responsible Minister
"may, after consultation with the Corporation, give to them directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance of their functions in relation to matters appearing to him to concern the public interest…"
With his great and varied experience in the war, my noble friend Lord Swinton no doubt had in mind the many things which were done under similar provisions; and that was a point which I considered. I believe however, that, when he has considered the matter, the noble Earl will agree with me that, in order to be valid and effective, general directions can, as a matter of principle be given only within the framework of an Act and not so as to restrict or reduce that framework. That is the difficulty which my right honourable and learned friend and I have found.
It is difficult to believe that Parliament ever intended that this power should be exercised in such a way as to impose a rigid restriction on the class of territories entitled to benefit under the Act, and therefore the first point is that, despite the width of the words, there would be a real difficulty on the vires of any direction—because, as I say, it is not within the framework of the Act. Quite apart from this, it would seem, in principle, undesirable to delete subsection (4) if in fact it was intended that the object of that subsection should be attained by means of administrative direction. It would not help, as I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, an argument on the vires if that were the course that had been taken. I hope that I have not wearied the House too much, but I wanted

429
my noble friend to appreciate that I had given the fullest consideration to this point.
LORD SALTER: May I put a question to the noble and learned Viscount upon what he has just said? I fully follow his argument that a general direction quite as wide as that which was proposed by the noble Earl. Lord Swinton, would encounter the difficulties to which he has referred. But is it not the case that it would still be possible for the Government, to stop particular projects, exercising their administrative discretion—not doing it as to 100 par cent. of all cases that might be raised, but doing it in fact to project after project, and influenced in their decision, to some extent, by a policy declaration already made: that they thought that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it was right and proper that a territory which had acquired this status should acquire creditworthiness and raise by other means any money needed?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Naturally we have given great consideration to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Salter has raised. I would remind him that we are here dealing ex hypothesi with territory that has become independent; and the difficulty of exercising what is, in effect. normal Treasury control across the line of an independent Dominion is. I think, very great indeed; and the personal difficulty in which a Minister would be put in those circumstances is infinitely increased. I ask my noble friend to consider the point—his administrative experience is much greater than mine—abut I should have thought that it was an almost intolerable burden to put on a Minister in these circumstances. I very much doubt whether an attempt to exercise ordinary Treasury control across the bounds of independence is really a practicable matter.
I am afraid that what I have said will come as a disappointment to the noble Lords who put forward this proposal in so constructive and helpful a spirit. But I have to say, having given it all the consideration we can, that we have come to the conclusion that we cannot adopt it; and I trust that your Lordships will accept what I have said on this point. In these circumstances, may I urge one consideration upon your Lordships?
430
Although some of your Lordships may be disappointed at this outcome, they will see that the retention of the clause does not conflict with the purpose behind the alternative proposal put forward by my noble friends and supported by noble Lords opposite. I wish to say again that the Government abide by their undertaking to implement whatever decisions may be reached for a general review, including the introduction of any legislation which may be found necessary for that purpose.
Therefore, I would ask your Lordships not to let us give the impression that we feel that our good relations with Ghana and other emergent territories are going to be damaged by a clause which does those very things which your Lordships would have been prepared to accept if they had been done by administrative action. Let us, instead, put our confidence in the good will and understanding of the Ghana Government who will, from the Record of the Proceedings in this House, be able to see how much good will exists towards them in this House, as well as the reasons why the clause is being adopted. In view of the consideration we have given, and the difficulties we have found, I ask your Lordships to allow Clause 3 to stand part of the Bill.
3.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Not only those of us who were responsible for the Amendment but many others of your Lordships in other parts of the House will be gravely disappointed with the terms of the comment which has just been made by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. II is true that an agreement was reached between myself and my colleagues, on this side of the House, and certain noble Lords opposite, who hold strong views, that there would be an arrangement under which for such period as dated from the passing of the Act up to any conclusions of the Dominion Conference which you are proposing to hold, you could do by administrative action what the clause is designed for.
But that was not really the original case put forward in moving the Amendment. It goes much wider. We were grateful to those noble Lords opposite who, I think, had similar views to our own, to find amongst them a compromise at the moment which would enable the

431
Bill to go back to another place for reconsideration—that would be established by having an Amendment to the Bill—and avoid something upon which we felt very strongly indeed: the starting off of what ought to be the great, bright future of Ghana with a sorry spot of this kind. We are exceedingly sorry to note that, apparently upon completely legalistic grounds, the Government take this attitude. I repeat that they seem to be doing so on completely legalistic grounds. It seems to us that the Government, in considering these matters and the form the relevant legislation should take, have been greatly lacking in their examination of matters that might be expected to arise. To have a measure now presented to us with so great a danger of harmful effects in Ghana is indeed most regrettable.
There is an article in The Times to-day which I hope all noble Lords have read and which supports to the full from West Africa the arguments put forward from both sides of your Lordships' House last week. What we were greatly concerned about was that the Government are, by a special piece of legislation, putting Clause 3 into a Bill which is to grant independence for the first time to an African native territory. They are drafting special new legislation to go into an instrument by which they are proposing to give independence for the first time to a native African territory, and they take all the sugar off the gift by putting this into the Bill. I should have thought that there would have been some imagination left somewhere in the ranks of the Government which would have produced what was going to be necessary for the assistance of a territory of this kind, and that there would be no cause for a dispute such as we have now.
I really am greatly disappointed. I have in mind what the leaders of Ghana may think. They will. I am sure, want to enshrine the beginning of their independence granted by the United Kingdom, the centre of the Commonwealth, with a great deal of ceremony, with a great deal of loyalty and with hopes in all hearts of building it on a sure foundation. The document will be specially prepared, no doubt, upon a piece of parchment. But the instrument enshrining that independence will take away many of the rights of assistance to a great new territory, the
432
first African native territory, and one which for the past five years has been one of the greatest contributors to the stability of the sterling area by the manner in which the people there have administered their industrial and financial affairs. I very much regret this, and before going into a detailed discussion of the clause as a whole the Committee should have an opportunity of expressing their view.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I think the Committee will appreciate that the Government have given deep, sincere and sympathetic consideration to the project which I advanced on the last occasion. Indeed, from what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, I think it is plain that if this had been legally possible, it was a course which the Government would have been ready to accept and which the whole Committee would gladly have endorsed. Certainly we are all grateful 'to the noble and learned Viscount for having put so clearly and fully to-day the arguments which have weighed with the Government. I think that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition was less than fair to the Government when he said that now, at the last moment, this hopeful solution was turned down on purely legalistic grounds. Of course, it may be said that although my solution, if I may venture so to call it, was put forward only on the last occasion that we debated this subject, the Government discuss all these things with their legal advisers beforehand and ought not to have been taken by surprise; but I do not think that we ought to press that point. Certainly it was a novel suggestion, and the Government have given it full consideration.
I do not think it is reasonable to say that it has been turned down on purely legalistic grounds, as if that were a sort of excuse that could be got round. As I understand it, the position is really this: if my noble friend the Secretary of State purported to give a direction of the kind that we all hoped last time he would be able to give he would be doing something ultra vires and illegal, and what would happen would be that he would be taken to court and the court would be bound to hold that he had no power to do this. Therefore, his order would be set aside. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was very

433
kind about my legal experience fifty years ago or more, but I certainly am not going to set myself up—I do not think anybody in this country would—and say that if, after careful consideration, the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown find that a thing is illegal and the Secretary of State has no power to do it, we should not accept their finding, Frankly, that is a situation which we have to accept.
Nor do I think it would be reasonable, and certainly I should not like to do it, to advise a Secretary of State that he should, so to speak, "get round" the fact that he does not possess dispensing or excluding power, by saying, in nine cases out of ten, "I turn down that particular proposition." I am sure, and I ask the Committee to accept this from one who has had a good deal of experience in dealing with cases of this sort, that that would put any Secretary of State in an impossible position. He would not be turning things down on merits; he would be turning them down by a side wind. All the views which my noble friend the Secretary of State advanced last time about an open declaration that he was not going to give any permission—which I do not accept—would be present on this occasion, and they would lead to the most hopeless misunderstanding. I am glad that we have had this debate, because it has shown the general consensus of opinion on what you: Lordships would like to do. This short debate will be read and appreciated by the people of Ghana as well as by the people here and will show the people of Ghana that we have tried to arrive at what I believe would be a fair compromise—namely, that we should hold our hands and, pending this inquiry as to the future of the finances of these emergent territories, no action should be taken.
For my part, I think we have to accept this position. I would only say to my noble friend the Secretary of State—and I am sure that he would be ready to give your Lordships an assurance on this point—that this is all the more reason for pressing on rapidly and aggressively with the inquiry into what ought to be the whole system of finance. I do not think that it requires an Imperial or Commonwealth Conference; that takes a long time to assemble. I am sure that a great deal could be done by the
434
exchange of telegrams. May I venture to suggest that everybody might agree to have a practical working party constituted, of Commonwealth representatives and representatives of the financial corporations who are dealing with these issues, to work out a practical plan which could be submitted to our Government and to all the Commonwealth Governments. We might get rapid action in that way and an agreement which would produce a new plan for getting the best out of the existing organisations, adapting them and combining them to meet any propositions which would help these emergent territories. I believe that that could be done rapidly, and that it would be clearly understood in Ghana, after this debate, that that was all that could be done. Then the Government could come back and pass as rapidly as possible an agreed measure which would give us all that we want.
3.38 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the trouble which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has taken in disentangling what is, frankly a complicated situation. He has produced what is, for me, a new fact: that at the time of the passing of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, India and Ceylon were not then excluded and were only excluded thereafter, and at that time the Act could have been made applicable to India and Ceylon, too. I must accept entirely what the noble and learned Viscount and the other advisers of the Government have said on this subject.
I remain disappointed, naturally, by the outcome, and I remain equally disappointed by the terms of the drafting of Clause 3. Whether or not the same effect could have been produced by other means, it is drafted in an extremely gauche and somewhat discourteous manner. I believe that if the information which had been collected by the noble and learned Viscount and his legal advisers had been taken earlier, the terms of the drafting of Clause 3 might have been substantially different from what they are and might have occasioned less turmoil and trouble than the clause undoubtedly has done.
I would not wish to do anything which would in any way jeopardise the coming into force of the Ghana Independence

435
Bill at the appropriate time or in any way to risk delay in the drafting of the Order in Council which the Secretary of State has promised will be drafted and presented in the near future, but I hope that the remarks which the Secretary of State for Commonwealth relations made in the course of the Committee stage debate about using existing machinery and existing services so far as possible, may be carried into effect and made use of pending the time when a new set-up and new legislation is enacted to enable these emergent territories to be properly financed.
3.40 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I should like to offer a few comments on the new arguments that have been put before us to-day. I have heard, with great regret, that the Government feel that they must keep this clause in the Bill. Of course, I accept without question the whole of the legal argument that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor put before us; it would be impertinent of me to do otherwise. In fact I entertain no doubt in my own mind as to the absolute correctness of his argument, and I accept, as a conclusion from that, that the particular proposal made when we met last Thursday by my noble friend Lord Swinton is not really practicable; that is, a general direction that until a certain time there should be no acceptance of any scheme for Ghana under the Colonial Development Corporation.
But I wonder whether that necessarily carries the further conclusion that the clause must be retained. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor this. Is it not the case that, consistently with his argument, it would be possible, by administrative action, to prevent any particular loan project from going through; possible for the Corporation itself to stop it; possible for the Government to stop it; and possible for the Government to give warning to the Corporation that they would stop it, so as to prevent a great deal of preliminary work from being engaged on it?
Secondly, if that is true, as I suggest it is, would it not be possible for the Government to state their general attitude and principles, with which I entirely agree: namely, that the normal position for a country which has acquired the status that Ghana will have should be
436
to establish its own credit-worthiness and borrow by other means? Having stated that principle, would it not be perfectly proper to exercise discretion on a particular project, taking into account all considerations; not only the intrinsic prospects of the particular project, but also the fact that the territory which is asking for the loan is a Ghana territory and not a colonial territory? What I suggest is, not to adopt the precise solution that my noble friend Lord Swinton suggested before, but (a) to drop the clause; (b) to make a declaration of what the Government understand to be the natural consequences of the acquisition of Ghana's new status; and (c) that, with that declaration in mind, both for Ghana and for ourselves, the different projects as they come along, should be watched, and not agreed to under exactly the same criteria as would apply if the same project had been put forward in respect of a colonial territory?
I suggest that that is legally possible; that it is quite consistent with the argument of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack; and that it is highly desirable that it should be done, for reasons that I will come to in a moment. I fully agree with the Lord Chancellor that that imposes a difficult administrative decision upon Ministers at the time; and unless there were strong reasons for retaining discretion, I agree with the advantages of a statutory provision which would deprive the Government of that discretion. But is there not, in the prospect ahead of us, a considerable reason for saying that there should be some discretion in the Government of the day, at least until the time which may follow the inquiry which the noble Earl has promised us, when adequate alternative machinery will be immediately available?
I would ask your Lordships to look forward to the possibilities of the next few years. Ghana, and other countries, like Malaya, which may acquire a similar status, should expect to borrow their own money by other methods. But can we rely upon that being possible immediately this Act comes into force, or the relevant Act for other territories? Can we anticipate exactly how urgent or important it may be, perhaps before any satisfactory alternative method or mechanism is in being, that we should be able, in a particular case, to exercise a discretion in

437
favour of allowing a loan to go through? Can we anticipate what are the possible alternative sources of capital from abroad for that Ghana territory, and exactly how politically desirable or undesirable it may be that they should have recourse to those alternative sources? I am not sure. Can we anticipate exactly how delicate may be the negotiations that we may be engaged in at the time in regard to relationship of the Ghana territory to the Commonwealth generally and to the sterling area, bearing in mind the importance to the whole of the sterling area and its dollar position of the cocoa earnings of West Africa and the rubber and tin earnings of Malaya?
I do not say that that situation will arise. I do not say that, except in the case of necessity, the Colonial Development Corporation should be used for territories of this kind. But is it wise that, by a statutory provision, the Government should tie their hands? In the twenty years or so that I have been connected with Westminster, this is, I think, the first time that I have ever urged the Executive to take or retain more power under current legislation than they themselves wanted to have. But here I suggest that, until alternative methods are ready and known to be ready, this limited discretion might usefully be retained. Except for what I admit to be the administratively difficult but, as I think, in the circumstances, necessary task which would fall on Ministers at the time, I cannot see any decisive reason why the Government should ask us to tie their hands. If I find a friend in great distress calling upon me for assistance, I do not think it is a very good answer to him to say: "I am sorry; I would have run to your assistance, but my hands have been tied", if he knows, and I know that he knows, that my hands have been tied at my own urgent request.
3.49 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, on the Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend Lord Rennell and I raised this question—and I must apologise to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment on Thursday last that I was unavoidably prevented from being here. To-day I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said, and I think we must accept the legal position as he has outlined
438
it. The point that struck me as being of importance is that raised by my noble friend Lord Swinton, when he said it was tremendously important that the review which has been promised by the Government should be held at once and that there should be no delay. I think that what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said is true: there is a great deal of psychology in this; and I believe the drafting of Clause 3 is unfortunate from a psychological point of view. I believe that those responsible for the administration world, in similar circumstances, probably draft this clause differently.
As the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said, there is an article in The Times to-day which shows that Ghana is puzzled and apparently distressed at the outcome of the drafting of the present Bill. They say that the provisions of Clause 3 came as a surprise to them. Accepting what the Government say, and stressing what my noble friend Lord Swinton said as to the urgency of the review, would ask the Government whether they could come a little further towards those who feel as I do and wish to support them, because I sincerely hope that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will feel able not to call a Division in the House. If he does, I think the Government will obtain a substantial majority, and little will have been achieved. The psychological point mentioned by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, comes into play here. We want to send this Bill off with the best start. There has been a most useful and wide discussion. The Government have said that they would like to do what the majority of the House wish to do, but that they are unable to do so from a legal point of view. Could the Government give any sort of indication of how long they think this review will take? Will it be a matter of days, weeks or months? If we could get some general indication it would help us, because until this review has taken place, the Government policy must continue, and the position is open and unsatisfactory to many of us, even though we accept it this afternoon.
The second point I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider is this. They have indicated that they wish to do as the majority of the House have expressed a view: they wish to give help

439
to these emergent territories. They wish to forge a new instrument which will enable that to be done. For that purpose, the review is to be held. Would the Government consider penning an official Dispatch from Her Majesty's Government to the Prime Minister-designate of Ghana so that, at the time of the inauguration of the celebrations of complete independence, the Ghana Government will have an official Dispatch from Her Majesty's Government expressing the general wish and intentions which we understand from the debate to-day are in the mind of the Government? If those two things could happen, we might go some way to overcoming the psychological prejudice about which the Leader of the Opposition spoke. I hope that the Government will say that they will consider those matters, and I will give them my support.
3.54 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: As I have taken part in this debate at its various stages. I feel that I should not be doing right unless I said to-day what I feel after hearing the reasons given by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I need hardly say that I share the bitter disappointment which many of us feel that the Government have felt it necessary to adopt this attitude. I should not have the impertinence for a moment to do other than accept completely what has been said by the Lord Chancellor. Let us agree that he completely demolished the suggestion made by the noble Earl. Lord Swinton. But that was only, to my mind, a side issue in this debate, and I am still left with my difficulty, which was that I cannot possibly see the need for Clause 3 in this Bill at all. That has nothing to do with the suggestion made by the noble Earl. Lord Swinton.
To my mind, this clause deals with a matter which is quite extraneous to the purpose of the Bill, and it is expressed with singular infelicity. That point has already been stressed. I speak as a mere administrator, who does not pretend to know anything about the law, but I do know how often what an administrator calls "common sense" is, from the point of view of dealing with humanity, preferable to the law, however logical and
440
correct the law may be. The Lord Chancellor said, if I quote him correctly, that it would be wrong for Treasury control to cut across independence. I confess it may be my own lack of sense, but I cannot really see how apposite that can be. If a big business, operating, shall we say, in West Africa—one of those big businesses which do operate there—were to decide, on a project put up to it, that they did not feel justified in going into partnership with the Government, or whatever it might be, and therefore that they would not proceed with the project, surely that would not be cutting across the independence of the country. They are dealing with their own funds, and they are dealing with a decision as to whether or not they will use them in that particular way.
I have been a member of the Board of the Colonial Development Corporation, and I know how they work. I know that in questions of any doubt the wishes of the Secretary of State have always to be considered—and quite rightly so—and that suggestions may be made by the Secretary of State as to whether or not a project is a good one. The Board can always say, without anybody rightly objecting, that they cannot agree to provide funds for a certain purpose. All these facts seem to me to show that those are questions which have nothing whatever to do with this Bill, and I am left still a completely unregenerate opponent of Clause 3. I do not wish in any way—I should be the last person to wish to do so—to delay the passage of this Bill. But what is stopping it? Supposing there is strong opposition to this clause, and supposing there is a reasonable conviction on the part of the majority of this House that the clause is extraneous to the purposes of the Bill, what would be delaying the passage of the Bill? Nothing but the determination of the Government not to accept that view. That is what would be the cause of the delay. It would not be the people, like myself, who are expressing their own sincere and honest conviction that this is a lamentable clause.
I suggest that all that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, urged the Government to hurry on with doing would meet with full support from me and from others who think as I do. That again has nothing to do, if I may respectfully say so, with what we are discussing. That

441
urgency can be used even if we delete Clause 3. There would be all the more reason for it, but the two things are not tied up together. The retention of Clause 3 is a positive hindrance to the urgency of such a consideration, and will prejudice the position which, to my mind, need never have been prejudiced and, I would sincerely hope, still will not be prejudiced. Therefore, I remain an unregenerate opponent of Clause 3.
3.59 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD: May I venture to say a word in support of the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton? Being entirely uninstructed in the law, I, of course, accept the legal opinion that has been given to us. I may he failing through lack of intelligence, but I fail to understand how the legal situation makes it necessary to have in the Bill subsection (4) of Clause 3. I do not like Clause 3 as a whole, but I particularly dislike subsection (4). I should be extremely grateful if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, or any other noble Lord who may be speaking for the Government later, would say whether the dropping of subsection (4) of Clause 3 would create any kind of legal difficulty.
LORD OGMORE: I think the upshot of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lore. Chancellor said this afternoon was very much what was said last week: that is to say that, if Clause 3 is not included in this Bill, the Colonial Development Corporation can, if it and the Ghana Government so desire, operate in Ghana. That is what the speech of the Lord Chancellor amounted to, so far as I understood it; and on both sides we were already agreed upon that.
The new point the Lord Chancellor has introduced is this answer to the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. That is the new ground, as I understand it, to-day. Of course we on this side were prepared to compromise on the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, but, if no compromise is possible, then of course we return to our original ground and we press our point on that ground. I was not quite clear—I say this for future record—why India was brought into this, because, so far as I am aware, India never was a Colony; it never came under the Colonial
442
Development and Welfare Acts or under the Overseas Resources Development Acts. I may be a little confused, because the Lord Chancellor had his back to me when he spoke of India, but, so far as I am aware, India has no relation whatsoever to this matter, and never has had.
THE LORD CHANCELIOR: To be quite frank with the noble Lord—I am sorry that he did not hear—I said I was quite sure about Ceylon. I think he will agree about that. I explained that, but I told my noble friend that I had not actually checked the position of India before independence with the wording of the Act.
LORD OGMORE: I am glad that we have cleared up the point about India, because that may be a little confusing; and often eminent jurists such as the Lord Chancellor are quoted. This is a very difficult matter, as he has indicated, and we do not want any misunderstanding to come in. Of course, naturally we accept what he says on the legal position. We should not think of doing otherwise. So we come back now to where we were before the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, spoke last Thursday. Perhaps we can go on from there and realise that no compromise is possible.
The article in The Times, to which my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has referred, indicates two things. The first is, as I have often mentioned to your Lordships in this House, that colonial affairs debates in this House receive wide publicity in colonial territories and are widely quoted. The House has, of course, justifiably and justly, a very high reputation in colonial affairs. The fact that we do not see colonial affairs reported at great length in the English papers does not mean that they are not quoted at great length in colonial papers; and often they are. I have no doubt that, as The Times to-day says, in Ghana great interest is being taken in our speeches here on Second Reading and on Committee stage, and that they are looking forward with anticipation to our debate to-day. They are also looking forward, no doubt, to the fact that in our debate to-day we shall grant them what they want: that is to say, that this clause shall be deleted from the Bill. Ghana reactions are, as I have been told, quite apart from this article

443
in The Times, very unfavourable to the retention of this clause.
I should like to ask whoever is going to reply, either the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, a few questions. First of all, was this subsection (4) of Clause 3 in the Bill when the Ghana Ministers saw the draft of this Bill? Were they consulted about this subsection before the Bill was printed in this country? What are their feelings upon it? My information is that they never saw this clause at all; that the draft Bill as presented to them did not include this clause, the whole clause—and certainly not subsection (4); that they were not consulted about it, and that the first the Ghana Ministers knew of it was when they saw the Bill as printed in this country. Have the Ghana Government made any representations to Her Majesty's Government, either by Despatch or otherwise, with reference to Clause 3 (4)? Those are very important matters upon which, in my view, the Committee should have accurate information before it comes to the vote, if a vote is taken; and unless we get satisfactory assurances, we shall certainly desire to take a vote.
Another point upon which I should like information from the Government (I have put this question to them twice already, but I have not yet had an answer) is the question of providing fresh capital for existing enterprises. Will it be possible, under the provisions of subsection (4), for fresh capital to be obtained from the Colonial Development Corporation for enterprises which are already authorised, whether started or not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I have verified the point. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I should have remembered it. "Colonial", in the Interpretation Act, is defined as expressly excluding India. So the noble Lord is right. I am very sorry that I did not remember it at the time.
LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor. I think it is important to clear up that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely agree.
LORD OGMORE: I thank the noble and learned Viscount.
444
I have been heartened by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Milverton and Lord Hemingford. I think they are both right. What they say, in effect, and what the noble Lord, Lord Salter, has already said, is: "Why not leave this matter to the Colonial Development Corporation?" The Board of the Corporation are sensible people. They have now had years of experience. They are doing well. They are making money. They are not by any means a "soft touch", as it is called. They are business men, pretty difficult to deal with, quite frankly; but, still, they are looking after money and so on, and they have the right to take what precautions they think fit. Why not leave it to them? What is the objection to leaving it to the Colonial Development Corporation? They well know the views expressed in this House both by the Government, by Back Benchers on the other side, and by eminent noble Lords on the other side, and also by noble Lords on these Benches. So why not leave it to them? We are always told these days that more opportunity should be given to initiative, to freedom of choice; that people should be allowed to employ as they think fit the talents which the Almighty has given them and the resources available to them from other sources. Why not do so here? What is the objection? Why do we not trust the Corporation and allow them to carry on the job which has been given to them by successive Governments?
There is one point about which I must warn your Lordships, and it is very serious: it is the one touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Salter. Supposing these emergent territories, particularly Ghana, Malaya and Nigeria, walk out of the sterling area, as they are quite entitled to do, what is going to happen then? How are we going to maintain our standards of living if they do not support us? As your Lordships know perfectly well, we could never have maintained anything like our present standard of living without the assistance of Malaya, the Gold Coast and Nigeria. For a considerable time, from rubber alone, quite apart from tin, Malaya earned more foreign currency than the whole British export trade. What is going to happen if they walk out? I am happy to say that up to now there is no likelihood of that. They are quite content to stay in. They realise the advantages and

445
they want to retain the bonds of friendship and ties of affection they have with us. But this sort of thing is not going to encourage them to do what we want them to do: to remain in the sterling area.
I have taken the advice offered, and I have not commented upon the other subsections of this clause. But if the Government does not withdraw this subsection we will go on to debate those at a later stage this afternoon. I will read to your Lordships the language in those subsections—the harsh and unconscionable way in which these countries are going to be treated. I think you will agree that, from our point of view, it is very dangerous language to use, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said last week when he referred to the language in which this clause is expressed. My Lords, I regret to say it, but I must say it: I believe that the Government are killing the Colonial Development Corporation, not only by this means —because the various emergent territories will be treated the same way as Ghana—but also by now saying that the Colonial Development Corporation cannot finance projects in colonial territories if the territories can get their finance from any other source. This is the death knell of the Corporation.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not think the noble Lord should say that without its being met straight away. We are not saying that. We are saying that we shall look at the whole question with a perfectly open mind and review the whole matter of the channelling of investment to independent Commonwealth countries, including emergent Commonwealth countries.
LORD OGMORE: I am very confused about this matter, because I said this on Second Reading and it was never denied by the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said just now was that the Government were trying to kill the Colonial Development Corporation's power to give money to colonial territories. This is not a colonial territory. There has never been anything said by the Government about restriction in regard to colonial territories.
LORD OGMORE: The n able Marquess is not aware of what happens in the Government of which he is a mem-
446
ber. I said the Government were killing the Corporation in two ways: first, so far as emergent territories were concerned, by this clause; and secondly, by the fact that they told the Corporation—and if they have not told them I shall be very glad to hear -it and I stand to be corrected, but I did make this statement on Second Reading and it was not corrected—that they are not to give finance for projects in colonial territories if the colonial territories can get their finance elsewhere. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to withdraw; and I shall be very glad to hear I am wrong. My Lords, we shall press this matter to a Division.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, might I refer to the Colonial Development Report, 1955, which says that the C.D.C. stands by to help essential capital development for which finance is not otherwise available?
LORD OGMORE: Yes, but that does not exhaust their whole field. If they stand by where finance is not otherwise available they must stand by where finance is available. If they are going to undertake only the sort of project for which no me can get finance, they will never make a profit and they cannot continue to operate. Under the Overseas Resources Development Act they have a statutory duty to make both ends meet year by year, which means they must have some good bargains to carry the bad bargains.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to wind up this afternoon, because we have had long debates on Second Reading, in the Committee last week and again to-day. Before I deal with the various points raised by noble Lords I should like to try to answer the questions put specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He first of all asked whether this particular clause was in the Bill when it was shown in the first instance to the Government of Ghana. The answer is that when the Bill went out first it was not in it, and the reason is because the Bill at that time was dealing with policy and policy was under discussion. The text of the clause was telegraphed out before the Bill was published.
The next question the noble Lord asked was whether there has been any reaction

447
from the Government in the Gold Coast to the whole question of the rôle of the C.D.C. To that I would say that there has been to-day a memorandum on the question generally of how we can help Ghana once it is independent. I have not had time really to study this, but it is full of considerations of the sort which are most important and necessary for us when we make the review which has been promised. The last question he asked was whether there can be fresh capital introduced on existing projects, and the answer to that is that it is certainly not ruled out if a project so demands it.
My Lords, I greatly hope that we are not going to divide to-day. I recognise the great disappointment there has been to many noble Lords by the legal opinion that has been given. But I think that the various arguments advanced that the clause should be dropped did not give sufficient force to the legal opinion, which was that, on the basis of the alternative which was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and which the Opposition said they would be prepared to accept, we have been told that it is not possible and that Clause 3 is necessary. I. for one, should certainly not wish to differ from the weight of opinion we have had.
LORD FARINGDON: Might I ask the noble Earl a question? I fully accept and understand, I think, the legal objections; but those legal objections surely are applicable only to the compromise suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, supported by one or two other noble Lords and accepted by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. These legal objections surely do not hold for those of us who wish to have the clause omitted completely in order that the C.D.C. should continue to act. I am not at all taken with the compromise; I do not like it at all; I think it is a horrid, roundabout way of doing something which the clause does, and I am sure the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor is right when he says it is of dubious legality and that the clause is the right way. But it is doing what I do not want to do and what other noble Lords do not want to do. We do not want the compromise because basically it intends to do, in another way, what we dislike.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I understand the noble Lord's point, and I think that if we took the whole thing out the legal problem would not arise. But we all agreed the other day that we would try for the compromise and find to-day, unhappily, as we have told your Lordships, that it would not work. What we feel very much is that we should not decide this issue of what is the best machinery, and so forth, for Commonwealth development by a side door. We do not rule out the use of any machinery, but we feel that it should be considered objectively and not just happen by chance through one piece of machinery slipping through and others not being considered.
Before I touch a little further on the question of the review, I think it is useful to recall what your Lordships have gained. They have focused attention on the economic development of the Commonwealth and emergent nations and given the review a real sense of urgency. The question of whether lending by the Government, as opposed to lending by the capital markets of the world, is the more appropriate will receive the most careful weighing up, as will that of what is the best machinery for this purpose. In connection with that, we have had the most helpful comments on machinery from Lord Swinton, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and others. As we have, on the whole, in the Commonwealth a shortage of capital for investment—Commonwealth countries are all, with the exception of ourselves, capital importing countries—I think that the way we can best help the emergent nations at the present time is through services and kindred facilities.
It may be useful here, perhaps, to take a look at some of these, for so often the cry from the Commonwealth and the emergent nations is for expertise and technical assistance. Naturally, when that arises, there comes to my mind the services of the Colonial Office itself, its great general experience, its network of professional advisory bodies, and its specialised knowledge arising from all that is involved in analysing and finding finance for Colonial Development plans. Other Government Departments also greatly help, such as the Ministries of Health or Agriculture. Then there are semi-public bodies, such as the Inter-University Council and Medical Research

449
Council, or, in a rather different category, the Trades Union Congress and the Federation of British Industries. And lastly there is private enterprise, with its huge range of industrial, commercial and scientific experts. Here is a field where Commonwealth countries too can assist, for they often have specialised knowledge of problems which affect their own countries. Throughout the world the cry is for technicians, and bodies such as U.N.O. and its various Specialised Agencies or the World Bank call on us to contribute personnel. While this is right and proper, it may also be that the Commonwealth itself can, and should, do more to organise assistance for its own members. Having said so much, I must say one word of warning: we do not want machinery for machinery's sake; and on the whole the existing system works pretty well. None the less, the subject merits review and we have promised that we will give it this review.
In that review, alongside all the other possible machineries that I have outlined, there will, of course, be considered what part, if any, should be played by the Colonial Development Corporation. The last thing that we should want is for Ghana or for other new nations which are shortly to come to independence to think that, having seen their ship of State triumphantly launched, we are no longer interested in the way it sails; and to the extent that Clause 3 may give that appearance, we much regret it. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, and, as other noble Lords have said, when the people in Ghana read of this debate they will see how often we from this side, as well as other noble Lords, have reiterated our intention to help. Indeed, we are most anxious that the voyage should be a continuing success and, in so far as we can, to provide a fair wind, if Ghana cares to seek our advice and guidance on any economic or other matter we will do all that we can to help. We want Ghana to know that our hope is to remain her partner through bad times and good, and that our sincerest wish is that her times should be good.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We have had a very long discussion, both to-day and on a previous occasion, and we on this side of the House are grateful for
450
the great trouble that the Government have taken to reply to our arguments. But perhaps it would be as well, at the end of this long discussion, if I were to venture to remind the Committee of the terms of the Amendment which we have submitted. It is to omit subsection (4) of Clause 3 of the Bill. I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to read subsection (4), because it shows the limited objective that we have in mind at this moment. Subsection (4) reads as follows:
" Without prejudice to the continuance of any operations commenced by the Colonial Development Corporation in any part of Ghana before the appointed day, as from that day the expression 'colonial territories' in the Overseas Resources Development Acts, 1948 to 1956, shall not include Ghana or any part thereof."
What we are asking the House to do is not to exclude Ghana from any future scheme which the Colonial Development Corporation may wish, with the agreement of those concerned in Ghana, to start in that country.
I think that all your Lordships, whether upon this side of the Committee or the other, have accepted the legal arguments advanced with such cogency by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. It is perfectly clear that the objective which we have in mind cannot he obtained by means of an instruction given by the Secretary of State to the Colonial Development Corporation, which was the original suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I think we must all accept that that suggestion is of no value from the point of view of this purpose. But there are other ways of achieving the same purpose. They have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who was himself for many years a member of the Board of the Colonial Development Corporation, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Salter.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said that the Corporation respects the wishes of the Secretary of State, and surely a "gentlemen's agreement" between the Corporation and the Secretary of State would be quite sufficient—a "gentlemen's agreement" that the Corporation would not go into Ghana until the inquiry which the Government have promised had taken place and until the results were known. We are anxious that the inquiry should go forward, and that its conclusions should

451
be reached and made available at the earliest possible moment. Of course, the results of the inquiry may be either that the Colonial Development Corporation should be used in independent territories, or that capital will be available from other sources. But if the first decision is reached, then what your Lordships will be doing by passing this clause in the Bill, will be to make it necessary for the Government to pass amending legislation before the Colonial Development Corporation can go into Ghana. All we want to do is to keep the door open, not to prejudice what happens eventually.
We are not suggesting that the results of this inquiry into Commonwealth development should be prejudiced by saying that the Colonial Development Corporation must go in. Far from that, all we want is the door left open, so that the Colonial Development Corporation may go in without amending legislation which would have to be accepted by Parliament here if the inquiry resulted in a recommendation in that sense. Under the other method suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Salter, who, after all, has immense administrative experience, Her Majesty's Government have control over the sanction of loans; and that is an administrative method that might be used. But I cannot help feeling that the method
of the gentlemen's agreement, suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is one that would be more satisfactory in the circumstances.
All we are asking Her Majesty's Government to do in this Amendment is to leave the door open, so that until this general inquiry has produced recommendations which will enable these emergent territories to raise the capital they want, either through the Colonial Development Corporation or in other ways, the position should not be prejudiced by prohibiting by law, by statute, the entry of /the Colonial Development Corporation into this territory. A precedent of this kind would, of course, have to be followed in the case of Malaya, which will become independent in August of next year, and in the case of the West Indies and other areas at present dependent which, in the very near future, will become self-governing members of the Commonwealth. So I very much hope that on the merits of this Amendment alone (we shall deal with the clause later on) Her Majesty's Government will accept the views which have been expressed on both sides of the House.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Archibald, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Attlee, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Mathers, L.

Bessborough, E.

Crook, L.

Milverton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Moyne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Listowel, E.

Geddes, L.

Raglan, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Greenhill, L.

Reith, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Hemingford, L.

Strabolgi. L. [Teller.]

Hall, V.

Lawson, L.

Winster, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Perth, E.

Aberdare, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Selkirk, E.

Amulree, L.

Swinton, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Exeter, M.

Woolton, E.

Cawley, L.

Reading, M.

Chesham, L.

Willingdon, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Falmouth, V.

Coleraine, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Furness, V.

Congleton, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Croft, L.

Gosford, E.

Hailsham, V.

Dinevor, L.

Home, E.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Dormer, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Soulbury, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Morley, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Thurso, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Gifford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Newall, L.

Glentanar, L.

Hylton, L.

Remnant, L.

Glyn, L.

Jessel, L.

Rockley, L.

Grantchester, L.

Leconfield, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grenfell, L.

Lloyd, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gretton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Gridley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Hampton, L.

Merthyr, L.

Teviot, L.

Harris, L.

Meston, L.

Waleran, L.

Hore-Belisha, L.

Moynihan, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

House resumed.

EGYPT: COMPENSATION FOR EXPELLED BRITONS
4.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think your Lordships will forgive me if I interrupt the Business of the House in order to make a statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The statement runs as follows:
"The Government announced on December 6 last that it had decided to make a grant of £1 00,000 to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid. Society to assist British subjects from Egypt. Since then the Society, with the assistance of other voluntary organisations, has worked extremely hard to deal with pressing personal problems. The Society has performed a most valuable task in difficult and strenuous circumstances and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the Government's appreciation of the way in which voluntary workers have risen to the demands of this emergency.
"About four thousand people have now reached this country from Egypt and more are still arriving. The operation of assisting these people and enabling them to start their life again will be a large one. The Society has itself taken the view that as a voluntary welfare organisation it should be relieved of the growing responsibility for making payments from Government funds. The Government accepts this view, and proposes to set up a new body to be known as the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has accepted an invitation to serve as Chairman of the Board, and that among the other Members will be
454
the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, Sir Humphrey Trevelyan and representatives of the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society and the other voluntary organisations. The Board will take over the grant-in-aid front the Exchequer.
"The function of the Board will be to co-ordinate all the work at present being done to assist British subjects from Egypt, including the running of the hostels and the giving of financial help; until the Board is ready to assume this responsibility, the Society will continue its present work.
"An organisation has also been set up within the Foreign Office to classify claims against the Government of Egypt of persons who suffered loss on their departure. A special section is now in being which is recording information about the assets of British nationals in Egypt affected by the measure taken by the Egyptian Government and about other debts outstanding. Both firms and individuals have been invited to submit information on these matters to the Foreign Office. It is hoped that this can be done expeditiously.
" Meanwhile, the Resettlement Board will be authorised to deal with the needs of any British subjects who have come to the United Kingdom as a result of recent events in Egypt and are in need. In helping these people, the Board will deal with each individual case on its merits and, in addition to paying allowances, they will be authorised to meet immediate educational commitments and to make grants or loans in appropriate cases.
"In particular, the Board will be authorised to make advances as may be necessary to former pensioners of the Egyptian. Government up to the full amount of the pension due until arrangements are made for the Egyptian Government again to discharge its contractual obligations."
4.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, for giving us this statement. We welcome the appointment of the new Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board which is mentioned in the statement. There is a matter about which we are specially anxious. In view of the size of the problem, we wonder whether we can be assured, in the first place, that the Government accept (I hope they do) full responsibility for advancing sufficient money to ensure that none of these Anglo-Egyptian people who have been evicted and who are British citizens shall be allowed to suffer any hardship as a result. That is the first point. The second point, which was referred to briefly in the statement, is the importance of securing at the earliest possible moment a comprehensive statement from Egypt as to what is proposed to be done with regard to the release of the assets of the British citizens who have themselves been evicted. If we could have a little assurance upon that matter we should be very glad.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Viscount that the whole purpose of this scheme is to avoid hardship. That will be the aim which will be in the minds, I am certain, of the new Resettlement Board.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: With all the funds necessary?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, I think that if the noble Viscount will look at the statement he will see that it is the full intention of the Government to provide the funds for that purpose. I should say, in passing, that the residue of the £100,000 which was originally given as a grant-in-aid to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society will be transferred to the new body. There was a certain amount, I understand, of other money which was subscribed from private sources to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society. That, of course, will continue to be administered by the Society in the exercise of its ordinary functions. The noble Viscount raised a wider point as to Egyptian obligations to us.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The release of assets.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It seems to me that the first thing to be done is to establish the amount of the claims against the Egyptian Government. As I explained in the statement which I have made the Government are setting up machinery under the Foreign Office for that purpose. It should then be possible to formulate further policy which does not, I hope, absolve the Egyptian Government from its clear responsibilities.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: May I ask whether this will include British citizens who normally live in Malta, as well as those who live in this country?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Lord that British citizens wherever they are will be treated in the same way.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, arising out of the Government statement, I hope I shall be in order if I raise one or two subsidiary points. The first is: when will the new Board get to work? I notice no reference in the statement to the use of Egyptian Government funds. I presume that that has been left out intentionally for the moment. The next point relates to moral responsibility—for which I pressed when I spoke some days ago. That is not covered in the statement. I refer, of course, to the moral responsibility of the British Government. Is that omission intentional? My last point is a rather more detailed one. What is to happen with regard to these people who have had deposits in British banks in Cairo—of which there are many? All these have been seized. I presume that that is the sort of point with which the new Board will deal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the first point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, asked a question related to the time when the new organisation would begin to function. I was told by my noble friend Lord Colyton just now that they have already set up an office and are beginning their work at once. I think that all the other questions which the noble Lord has put are covered by the answer which I have already given to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough.
LORD KILLEARN: I thank the noble Marquess.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, said, I understand that some of these refugees have assets in this country, including investments in War Loan which they obtained during the war when specially requested to do so, but they are not allowed to touch this War Loan and securities because they are in blocked sterling accounts. I wonder whether that could be looked into.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I understand that this particular point is already before the Government and that they are looking into it as a matter of urgency.

GHANA INDEPENDENCE BILL
4.52 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to delete Clause 3. The noble Lord said: I do not intend to delay your Lordships for any length of time on this Amendment, because many of the points have already come out on the previous Amendment, but there are one or two things I should like to say. My first point is that this clause is not necessary at al. Your Lordships will remember that on Thursday last, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, interrupted me, as of course, he had a perfect right to do, and asked an important question of the Minister of State. The noble Earl said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201 (No. 27), Col. 3.49]:
" I think it is rather important to get this point clear in our minds. If no provision were put into this Bill (and I do not say that this clause applies to it), if the law is left as it stands to-day, could or could not any money from the Colonial Development Fund be applied to full self-governing territory? "
And the noble Earl, Lord Home, replied:
" My Lords, if I may intervene, the answer is that it could not."
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am afraid that I misled the noble Earl on that occasion. I was referring only to the Statute of Westminster. I thought he had put his question in a different way and misunderstood him. I am extremely sorry.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I explained this matter in my remarks on the previous Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: I have been somewhat confused, because the noble and learned Viscount was obviously dealing with the position under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act and I could not understand when he said the same position arose under that Act as under the Overseas Resources Development Act—in other words, if no Amendment was made in this Bill then monies under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act could be applied to Ghana. I take it that that is right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to weary your Lordships, but my noble friend will remember how the difficulty arose. The 1940 Act originally contained an exception for territories with responsible government. That Act was repealed in 1950. What has made the position more difficult, I think, is that the third Act comes in between, in 1948; but that is the sequence and that is what I tried to explain to-day.
LORD OGMORE: I understood the noble and learned Viscount, but I could not relate what he said to what the Secretary of State said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend was referring to the Statute of Westminster.
THE EARL OF HOME: I misinterpreted the noble Earl's question, I am afraid.
LORD OGMORE: We now know where we stand. Unless this clause is in the Bill, then money can be applied under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. That makes the argument under my first head no longer apposite. Apparently it is necessary; therefore, I fall back on this consideration: if it is necessary, is it desirable? That is the ground upon which we shall now fight our battle.
I suggest that this clause is highly undesirable on two grounds: first of all, because the wording is churlish in the extreme. We owe a great deal to colonial territories like Malaya and the Gold Coast, who helped us during the war and again after the war, with our economic and other difficulties. We have had invaluable assistance from them with regard to foreign currency and with raw materials for our economy. Realising all that, as I am sure your Lordships will, I would ask the Committee to consider the wording of this clause and the sort of

459
language that is used. Subsection (1) says
"No scheme shall be made on or after the appointed day under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1944) to 1955, wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana."
That is a blunt slash in the face, as it were. The clause goes on to say:
" Any scheme in force under the said Acts immediately before the appointed day which was made solely for the benefit of Ghana or any part thereof shall cease to have effect on that day without prejudice to the making of payments in pursuance of that scheme on or after that day in respect of any period falling before that day; and, so far as practicable, no part of any sums paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of any other scheme made under those Acts before that day shall be employed in respect of any period falling on or after that day for the benefit of Ghana."
The next subsection says that where there are one or more territories enjoying assistance in a joint scheme, it applies to Ghana only
"…in a case where Ghana has undertaken to bear a reasonable share of the cost of the scheme."
In my opinion, this is the sort of language used to a defaulting debtor, not the sort of language to use to a country which is embarking on independence with all our good wishes. I do not think that any noble Lord who looked at this matter from an objective point of view could regard that sort of language as the language we should wish to see in a Bill of this kind.
I know that the Government do not wish to insult Ghana—I do not suggest for one moment that they would. We know perfectly well that they do not wish to do so; but it is strong language for them to use. Why use this churlish language? Why not take this clause back and look at it again, even at this late stage, and bring it back with wording which is more to the point and which would not give the people of Ghana, and the people of West Africa, the impression that we regard them as defaulting debtors. I expect that soon we shall have other Bills dealing with other emergent territories. Is this the sort of language which is going to be used in all of them, because if it is, I cannot feel that we are going to retain their interest and their affection. If I were a citizen of Ghana or Malaya, and I saw this sort of language used towards me. I should feel most hurt and bitter. In
460
this case, too—although I am not quite so certain about these earlier subsections as I was about subsection (4)—I believe that they were not put to the Government of Ghana, and that the first indication the Ministers there had was when they saw the Bill printed.
The second ground upon which I base the Amendment is this. Even if, as we have now heard from the Lord Chancellor, Ghana would be entitled to benefit from assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts if this clause were not included, why should we not give Ghana the benefit of any assistance they may get under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts for the remainder of their period? Remember that, when the last Colonial Development and Welfare Act was passed—in fact, when all those Acts were passed—Ghana was a colonial territory and, therefore, was entitled to benefits from them. Why cut off the benefit now? Why not allow Ghana to have the benefit which, under those Acts, she was entitled to, and which our Government and the Government opposite intended her to have? I cannot see any immorality in that, and I cannot see that there should be any financial or other difficulties.
Here is a colonial territory which comes within the scope and purview of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. Certain sums were granted to Ghana for her purposes. Why not allow her to enjoy them, and to have any benefit that there may be from the Acts that we have in force until new legislation is passed? That will not be possible under this Bill as it stands, because it says that from the appointed day (which is March 6):
"No scheme shall be made…wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana,"
even though it was contemplated, when the last Colonial Development and Welfare Act was passed, that Ghana (then the Gold Coast) would be entitled to benefit under the Act. I would say that if we did that we should be truly throwing our bread on the waters, and we should get back one hundredfold from Ghana what we give her. We all know that the West Africans are delightful and generous-hearted people. They have their faults, as we all have, but lack of generosity is not one of them. They are a generous people, and West Africans, of

461
all people, are most inclined to respond to a generous gesture. I suggest that we should leave this clause out of the Bill and allow schemes to be made for Ghana under the Act and allow them to have the benefit of that Act. I would say, also, that that should apply to other emergent territories for which legislation will be coming before the House when they achieve independence.
I think that the Bill as it stands represents a narrow-minded attitude—a "Treasury" attitude. I cannot believe that the Colonial Office or the noble Earl, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, really agrees with this attitude. As I say, it is a narrow-minded, "Treasury" attitude which will yield nothing but brambles and thistles. The Treasury have taken the point of view of a small-time bookkeeper, and this attitude is a dangerous one when we are dealing with Commonwealth relations. I think the inability of Ministers on the other side to put the matter in its proper perspective is blameworthy, and we shall certainly press the Amendment to a Division unless we get a satisfactory answer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD HEMINGFORD: I should like to speak in favour of this Amendment and to say how deeply disappointed I have been at failing to understand any reason why the Government have seen fit to insert this clause in the Bill. I have listened to the debates, and I have heard certain points made which have seemed to me utterly unconvincing. We have been reminded that Ghana is about to achieve independence and that nothing must be done in any way to infringe that independence. But we do not need to go beyond these shores in imagination to think of a sovereign nation which is not ashamed to receive economic assistance from another sovereign nation. It has never been suggested that our receiving economic assistance from overseas has been in any way to our shame. I fail to see why there should be any kind of argument to the effect that Ghana, because she is about to receive political independence, must not be offered economic assistance.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Perhaps I might make this point. Nobody said that Ghana should not receive assistance at the proper time, in the proper way.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I realise that what the noble Earl says is true. Nevertheless, it is a fact that Clause 3 of this Bill excludes the Colonial Development Corporation from giving economic assistance in Ghana, and it is to that that I take exception. The fact that words have or have not been spoken seems to me of little moment compared with the fact that is to follow the implementation of this clause.
Another suggestion that has been made—not by Ministers of the Crown, I am glad to say—is that the British taxpayer has had many burdens to bear, and it is hard that he should have to continue to bear burdens for a child that is about to become adult. We all know that the services of the Colonial Development Corporation are not the "doling out" of money. We also know—but I think perhaps it needs to be said—that the operations of the Colonial Development Corporation, as it is at present administered, are of advantage not only to overseas territories but to this country itself. Therefore, I shall feel bound to go into the Division Lobby with noble Lords opposite, and, I hope with noble Lords on this side: first, because it seems to me to be to the advantage of the Gold Coast and of this courtly that the operations of the Colonial Development Corporation should continue in that country; and secondly, because I believe that, as this recurring problem of how to assist emergent territories comes up, we must make quite sure that the Colonial Development Corporation is able, by the maintenance and expansion of its services overseas, to attract and to keep highly-skilled staff, men of great and varied technical abilities, men of close knowledge of the countries in which they operate. It seems to me that this clause is to the detriment, not only of Ghana, but also of this country and, indeed, all other countries in the Commonwealth.
5.10 p.m.
LORD SALTER: May I add just two or three words? I myself greatly regret the decision of the Government, both about subsection (4) of Clause 3 and about Clause 3 as a whole. I think the

463
Government would have been wise to drop the whole clause. I am not going to argue that question, on which I have spoken before, but I should like to say this: I did not vote in the last Division, and I do not propose to vote in this Division—for this reason. I hoped that those who thought as I did would do their utmost to persuade the Government on whom the main responsibility rests. We have failed. Had we succeeded, I do not think there would have been a real timetable difficulty. Things would have gone through quickly, with the co-operation announced last time by the Opposition, which I am sure would have been followed by a similar co-operation in another place. But, as the Government have taken this line, I feel that in the circumstances, if your Lordships were to pass the Amendment against the Government, a real timetable difficulty would arise. It is for that reason that I am taking a course which I very much dislike to take, and which may be said to be illogical, that of having first tried to persuade the Government what I think would be the wise course but, having failed to persuade them, refraining from voting against them in the Division Lobby.
LORD MILVERTON: I do not wish to weary the House at this stage by repeating what I have already said more than once in the various stages of this debate. Nevertheless, I think it desirable to declare that I personally, while holding the same views as the noble Lord, Lord Salter, do not carry them to the same extent; nor do I feel any moral impulse not to record my vote, if there is a Division, in the Lobby. I feel so strongly against the inclusion of this clause, and I am so completely unconvinced by everything I have heard from the Government, that I consider it a moral duty to use what experience I have and to express my feeling that they are pursuing a wrong policy.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Earl, Lord Perth, replies, I should like to say a word or two. I have listened to this debate with an open mind, because I could not believe that the Government had not a good reason for putting in Clause 3. The noble Earl has said on a number of occasions that it is not the intention of the Government to withhold financial assistance from Ghana, and so
464
I am completely at a loss to understand why Clause 3 is put in. If the noble Earl would help me in my own personal dilemma, I should be greatly obliged. There must be some reason other than those which have been put forward hitherto. It is not the legal reasons. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would be the first to admit that there is no legal reason that would compel a Government to put in Clause 3. What are the true reasons for putting in a clause which the noble Earl has said on more than one occasion does not really mean what it says? As it stands, it says that no help will be given. That is the ordinary, common, plain meaning of those words. He then says that it does not mean that help will not be given. Will he please explain then what is the purpose of Clause 3?
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, the intention to move for the deletion of Clause 3, not because it is not necessary but on the ground that it is not desirable. The noble Lord then gave us, as I understand it, two main reasons. One was the wording, and on that he asked us whether there would not be time perhaps to undertake some redrafting. I think the idea of redrafting must be ruled out. There is just not time. But when he asks us whether, when other similar Bills come before your Lordships' House, we will take care to have a look at the wording of any clause that would cover the same points as are covered in this, my answer is that we will certainly look at the drafting.
LORD OGMORE: I am very much obliged for what the noble Earl has said. I take it that the noble Earl agrees that these are most inappropriate and churlish words.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I was just coming to that point. Many noble Lords have criticised the wording as chilly—and, indeed, as worse than that, although I do not remember many of the epithets that have been used. I would make one or two observations, which I hope may put things in a somewhat warmer light. I think that it is a question of how one reads the first subsection.

465
It is quite true that you can start off by saying. "No scheme shall be made wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana "; and that sounds very shocking. But if you read the words of subsection (1):
"No scheme shall be made on or after the appointed day under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts…wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana"—
and that is the right emphasis—then I think it is somewhat different—in fact I am quite sure it is. It is in that use of the words and that emphasis that it has been understood by the people in Ghana—namely, that once they have left the status of the Colony, once they have become an independent nation, then it is both natural and right that the Colonial Development Fund should not be available for them.
At the same time, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made an appeal as to whether we should not make available to them whatever might be due to them from the past from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds. There are two points to make there. The first is that since 1955 the Gold Coast has not been a party to these Funds, in the sense that they have had no allocations. On the other hand, there is one scheme, a very important scheme, the development of Kumasi Technical College, for which no less than £350,000 was allocated. There we do exercise—I will not call it generosity, but we have clone the natural thing which one would expect under those conditions; namely, that, while they have been debarred from receiving out of the Colonial Development and Welfare Funds, they will have the money allocated from another source; so that what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me is, in fact, being done.
The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, said that he felt there was nothing shameful in getting help from other Governments. I am not going to argue that aspect, but surely we all feel much happier if we do not get gifts or other aid from our friends, but can rather stand on our own feet. The noble Lord also asked—and here I would also take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—just what we are going to do. He said that at one moment we say we cannot help the people of Ghana, and that the next moment we say we will help them if need arises. The answer
466
is that we have said in these clauses that we will not help them under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. Whether we can and will help them, whether they have the need of such help in the next few months, remains to be seen; but we have said once—and we repeat it—that those questions can be looked at ad hoc; at that time we can decide what may be the best method of help, if help is indeed needed.
In my view, to suggest or to assume that Ghana is in great need of help is not doing Ghana any service. She is at the moment about to launch out on her own. She has great wealth. She has cocoa, which, if I may so put it, is an international currency. I think that her credit will surely be found to be such that, if she wants any assistance for capital schemes, she will be able to get it. Our feeling, as has been expressed so many times, is that this clause must stand, but that, if people draw from it the inference that we do not wish Ghana well, or that we want to do her some harm, that is the wrong inference. We want to do all we can in every way possible to help Ghana.
5.21 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: There is one comment I should like to make. I am quite sure that the Government want to help Ghana—we have never denied that. What we say is that they are appearing to the people of Ghana, and to the world outside, as if they do not want to help them; that they are trying to do everything they can not to help them. We are better friends of the Government than they realise, and we want them to show a better face to the world than they are doing. What we have heard makes this Amendment all the more desirable. This is really an Alice in Wonderland situation which has been deployed by the Government. Not since Alice drank from the bottle has there been anything so extraordinary as this.
The Government say that it is essential to have this clause because, if we do riot, we might be able to help Ghana under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. There is only one allocation to Ghana under the most recent Act, and that is the sum of £350,000. Then want Ghana to have the £350,000, and they put in this clause to make sure that Ghana cannot have the £350.000 under the Act where it was voted. Yet

467
they are going to give them the £350,000 from another fund or in some other way. Really! that seems to me to be absolutely childish. It appears to be standing ourselves, the Bill and everything else, on our heads. Here we are, putting into this Bill what we on this side—and many noble Lords on the other side, too, judging by the speeches that have been made—regard as a most maladroit clause, in most inappropriate and harmful language. The net result of this clause can be only that £350,000 which might have gone to Ghana under this clause is not going under this clause but is going under something else. It is the only reason for this clause. I suggest to your Lordships that there is every reason why we should vote for this Amendment and not allow the Government to make the fools of themselves that they are now proposing to make.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with:
THE EARL OF HOME: Although what the noble Lord says is accurate, I do not think he quite appreciates the position. I am sure noble Lords would like to understand the real position. The £350,000 that we are to give for this very desirable scheme in Ghana would come from the Commonwealth Relations Office Vote in exactly the same way as it would come in respect of any other independent Commonwealth country. The reason it comes from the Commonwealth Relations Office Vote in this country is that, before the appointed day, Ghana has been a Colony. Now that she is going to be a completely independent Commonwealth country, we must deal with her as such.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 25; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Mathers, L.

Attlee, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Crook, L.

Moyne, L.

Listowel, E.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Greenhill, L.

Raglan, L.

Hemingford, L.

Reith, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Archibald, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Furness, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Goschen, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Hailsham, V.

Gridley, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Hampton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Soulbury, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reading, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Hylton, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Gosford, E.

Aberdare, L.

Mancroft, L.

Home, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Morley, E.

Amulree, L.

Merthyr, L.

Onslow, E [Teller]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Moynihan, L.

Perth, E.

Cawley, L.

Newall, L

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chesham, L.

Remnant, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Rockley, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Coleraine, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinton, E.

Congleton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Digby, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Dormer, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we have now come to the final stage of the Ghana Independence Bill, after most extensive debates in another place and in your Lordships' House, and I hope that the people of Ghana, as a result of these debates, will know how seriously concerned is the United Kingdom Parliament with their future and with their prosperity. Legal draftsmanship sometimes leads us

469
into strange language, but I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, recognised that the Government's one concern is that Ghana should prosper and that we should be closely associated with Ghana in her future. And, indeed, our only desire is to place Ghana in the same position as ourselves and the other free members of this great Commonwealth association of nations. So, my Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I know there is in your Lordships' House no controversy whatever about the purpose of the Bill, which is to give to Ghana independence so that we may enjoy partnership with her within the Commonwealth. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Home.)
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as it was impossible for me to be here on the Second Reading of the Bill, I should like briefly to add my good wishes to the people of Ghana in achieving her independence. I particularly wish to do that because in the past. I dealt with the Gold Coast as Secretary of State for the Colonies and as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and I had my headquarters in the Gold Coast itself as Minister Resident in West Africa during two critical years of the war. There is no doubt that this Bill will carry with it to Ghana the good wishes and the good will of everybody in this country. Of that the new Prime Minister will be assured. I think his most important task will be to ensure that he achieves the same measure of confidence and good will among all the people of Ghana, and particularly the people in the Northern Territories and in Ashanti.
The people of Ashanti have a long history of which they are proud, and loyalties to which they are devoted. The Ashanti Stool, which many people have wrongly thought of as a sort of coronation throne, is nothing of the sort; no one ever sits upon it. That golden stool represents in a symbolic way the soul of the Ashanti people. I remember when I was Colonial Secretary, I think it was in 1932 or 1933, giving back to Ashanti their Confederation. The chiefs in Ashanti had never met since the deposition of Prempeh, I believe at the end of the nineteenth century. At any rate it
470
was a very long time before. And yet, when the great assembly took place and all those chiefs and sub-chiefs in Ashanti, led by the Asantehene, entered their great open place of meeting, every single chief and sub-chief knew his place. They are very proud of that and there is great loyalty.
I remember the first time I met the Asantehene in the war he said to me, "You will always be remembered in this country because you gave us back our Confederation." I said to him, "Has that made the Ashanti a united people?", and he said, "To-clay, not yet; tomorrow, quite." I think it is tremendously important that that great loyalty of the Ashanti people to their own traditions, to their own history and to their own chiefs, should merge itself, as in this great Empire so many lesser loyalties have merged, in the greatest loyalty of all: in a common loyalty to this new community of Ghana. I am very glad that the Secretary of State has had the opportunity in the last few days of consulting on the spot with the Ministry in the Gold Coast and with the leaders in Ashanti. He will have been able to judge better than any of us what is practicable.
I wonder myself whether it might not be possible, whether it might not perhaps be the best solution, that a Second Chamber should be introduced, although I know it is not always easy to man completely in these new territories a single Chamber. I know, too, from the days when I was in the Government, that the Report of Mr. Justice Coussey's commission was against a Second Chamber. I asked Mr. Justice Coussey, one of the wisest Africans I have ever known, why he was against a Second Chamber, and he said this: "It is because I think the chiefs have got to play an essential part, and if they are to play that part it is much more important that they should play that part in the House of Commons, as it were—in the Chamber where policy and action are originated." It may therefore well be that something in the nature of a Second Chamber would be the solution. But, whatever it is, forms do not matter half as much as the spirit; and if the new Government of the Gold Coast goes to all its people with sincerity and courage, and showing clearly that they are not the Government of a section or a

471
Party, but at the start they seek to represent the whole of this new State, then they will have the things that eternally belong unto their peace.
5.41 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on this side have fought hard on Clause 3 and we do not retract anything we have said on the Amendments. But, of course, we are fully in sympathy with the broad object of the Bill—namely,
"to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by the Gold Coast of fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth of Nations."
We wish Ghana well, and we wish also that her future may be a happy and prosperous one. Of course, she has many problems to solve, but we trust that both the Government and the Opposition will deal with these problems in the spirit of good fellowship and of good will, remembering that upon their own shoulders now, whether they are in Government or in Opposition, will rest the future of their country. We speed this Bill on its way, and we trust that this day, March 6, the appointed day, may indeed be a red-letter one, always, for Ghana.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE (FEES) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL [H.L.]
5.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, on the Motion that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill may I make a suggestion to the noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the House—I can assure him that I do so more in sorrow than in anger? This is the third occasion upon which we shall detain your Lordships late to discuss the Committee stage of this Bill. I make no complaint whatsoever about the reason for this. The Business that has detained
472
your Lordships upon other occasions has been of vital importance to some people, just as this Bill is vitally important to others. I would ask the noble Earl whether he will discuss with the noble Marquess who leads the House and my noble friend who leads Her Majesty's Opposition the prospect of engaging your Lordships longer than two days a week in attempting to get through Government Business. The people who suffer are the Opposition. I know there are schools of thought which would rather have your Lordships' House as a rubber stamp, although I would not make that accusation against the noble Earl, the Deputy Leader of the House. But if the Opposition are to play their part in a democratic assembly, and if your Lordships' House is to fulfil its function as a Revising Chamber, it must be given adequate time, within reasonable hours, to do so.
I want to ask whether the noble Earl will consult with those I have mentioned. Your Lordships will see that there are heavy days before your Lordships' House. You have only to look at the forthcoming Business on the Order Paper to see the highly controversial measures that will have to go through a Committee stage in your Lordships' House, to realise that it will be impossible, within the reasonable limit of your Lordships' time, to get through this Business by sitting for two days on Government Business, on one day from half past two to seven or seven-thirty, and upon the other from three o'clock to seven or seven-thirty. My suggestion is that we consider the advisability of meeting upon another day during the next few weeks, thus preventing the Opposition from having to curtail their activities. I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships to sit rather late this evening. If the noble Earl, Lord Home, will consider my suggestion, I am sure that we on this side of the House shall be most grateful to him.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a suggestion and has asked only that I should consider it, which I certainly will do. As we look at the programme to come, it is true that we have some complex legislation in front of us; and we shall certainly bear that in mind. He said that the Opposition are the first to suffer. That is true. I will certainly undertake to consider his suggestion, if he will realise that sometimes Governments suffer, too.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I said that the Opposition suffered only because of our sparsity of numbers, and because such a heavy burden falls upon so small a number. I am grateful to the noble Earl, I knew he would meet my inquiry in the spirit in which it was made.
On Question. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 3:
Payments by Agency to makers of British films
3.—(1) The Board of Trade shall by regulations (made by statutory instrument) provide for the making by the Agency to, or for the benefit of, makers of British films of such payments as may be determined by or under the regulations.
(2) Regulations under this section may—

(a) define the classes of British films in respect of which payment may be made;

(b) specify the rate of the payments or the method by which they are to be calculated and provide for different rates of payment or different methods of calculation in relation to different classes of films;

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b):
" provided that any regulations under this paragraph shall provide that the maximum rate of payment so specified in relation to any class of film shall not be made to or for the benefit of makers of films who, by virtue of arrangements made with the approval of the Treasury under the Exchange Control Act, 1947, or otherwise, have the opportunity of utilising foreign currency or employing foreign actors and actresses to a greater extent than the makers of other films in the same class in respect of which payments may be made under this section and foreign currency' has the meaning assigned to that expression by the said Act of 1947; "
The noble Lord said: We now come to what I consider to be the most important Amendment in the Marshalled List, but may I tell the Committee straight away that I do not intend to press it to a Division. I put it down to obtain from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is in charge of the Bill, some expression of Government opinion upon the great problem that is facing the film industry, especially upon the production side.
This clause deals with those who shall receive this levy. In the previous clause we decided how it should be collected. The object of this levy, as its name is
474
supposed to imply, is to give to the producer of British films a suns amounting, us the first year to £3 ¾ million and, later, to anything between £2 million and £5 million in any one year. The reason for this levy is that the British producer cannot exist and cannot be kept in existence by his home market. That has been realised by successive Governments since the War. The reason was clearly stated during the Second Reading debate by my noble friend Lord Archibald. The British home market is 15 per cent. of the world market but American-produced films have, in America, a home market representing 65 per cent. of the world market. The remaining 20 per cent. is spread over other countries. The British producer, therefore, cannot hope to compete in the world market with the profit which he gets from his home market. It was realised by successive Governments that the production side of the British film industry was of great importance, not only because of the entertainment value at home; not only for the reason that it employed a fair number of people, and not only because it could be a valuable export, but because it could show, throughout the world, the British way of life. That was the reason for the action of successive Governments in establishing a quota for exhibition on home screens. It was the reason for the foundation of the Film Finance Corporation and the Eady levy.
I think it is as well, therefore, to examine briefly how the British producer is going to fare under this Bill in the conditions that exist to-day. The Government of the day decided upon a definition of a "British film" for the purpose of the 30 per cent. exhibition quota on cinema screens; and when the Eady levy came into existence the same definition was used for that levy—a vastly different purpose. A clause in this Bill continues for a further ten years the definition of a British film as in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948; and it may seem rather strange when I tell your Lordships that it is possible for a film designated and registered as a British film to have not one individual working in the United Kingdom employed in its production.
The object of the Amendment is to draw attention to the very grave and unfair difficulties facing what I might call the all-British producer. Through the

475
passage of time there has been built up in this country a system of Anglo-American producers. That has happened because of the arrangement made in 1950, under what is known as the Johnson Agreement, whereby American films can come into this country without paying any duty. I ask your Lordships to mark this fact: they are on no quota whatsoever, and they show to the extent of 70 per cent. on the screens of this country—I make no complaint whatsoever about that.
Under the Memorandum of Agreement of 1950 between the Government of the United Kingdom and the motion picture industry of America, the American industry is allowed to take out of this country 17 million dollars a year. The balance of its earnings from the exhibition of films in this country has to be retained here for use in this country for diverse purposes. It is known to-day as "unremittable sterling." It can, however, turn into dollars£17 million worth of dollars to go to the United States of America. The unremittable sterling is used for the production of films in this country. The dollars which are remitted from this country to America are used, quite frankly, to the disadvantage of the British producer—for this reason: an American film made in this country can rank, first of all, as a British film for levy; then it can go to the United States of America, and none of the earnings in America from that film have to come back to this country. That is the position that has arisen. There the British producer is at a great disadvantage.
As I have tried to explain to your Lordships, the one hope for the survival of the British film producer is to export. He must get into the markets of the world. He cannot expect any great increase in his home market. He starts off with the great disadvantage that, if he wishes to engage international American stars for his picture, he has to go to the Bank of England for dollars, whereas if an Anglo-American company in this country make a British picture, the dollars for that purpose can be found from the remittances of the earnings in America.
Perhaps the best way I can explain this to your Lordships is to give an example. To be registered as a British film for quota purposes, a film must be technically produced by a British company but can
476
be wholly financed by American money. On Second Reading, I brought up the case of what I said was an American film, when I offered a modest protest about a certain poster; and I was then under the impression that the film which the poster advertised, Zarak, was an American film. I learned, to my astonishment, that it was a British film, produced with American money by, technically, a British company in this country. That film has already been shown in the United States, and all the dollars earned by its showing there remain in the United States. I am informed that if, when that film is shown in this country, its box-office receipts reach the optimistic estimates of its makers, it will take out of the levy anything up to £100,000. I do not know whether any of your Lordships has seen the film. I have not, but I have seen excerpts from it on television, and by no stretch of imagination would I say that it depicted the British way of life. The chief stars of that film were paid in dollars.
Another film which is going to be made by a technically British concern will be filmed in Ceylon. I doubt whether any part of it will be made in this country. The chief star will be an American and, I am informed, will receive a quarter of a million dollars for payment. And that film will be shown in this country as a British film. It will rank for levy, and immediately it gets out of this country it will sail through the world as an American film. There is a clause in the 1950 agreement that, technically, a "British" film must employ either 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. British labour; but two stars of foreign birth are allowed and their payments can be taken out of that. That may enable these companies—in fact, it does enable them—to employ American stars. They need not go through the ordinary channels of the Bank of England for their dollars. While the agreement states that the salaries of all artistes, as well as the payment for labour, is to be either 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the film cost, it does not say that they must be paid in sterling. And these American stars require payment in dollars.
I do not quarrel with any of this, but what I do quarrel with—and, I submit, on good grounds—is the fact that the British

477
producer cannot do the same thing. If the British producer produces a film and wants au international star, an American star, and that international star says, "I require payment in dollars ", the producer has to go to the Bank of England. And the Bank of England do not like giving dollars. Yet the other company, technically British, all their production costs guaranteed by an American circuit, have a resource in unremitted dollar earnings—dollar earrings that they do not have to remit back to this country—to pay to these stars. Successive Governments have said that the British film production industry must stand on its own feet, and if that is anything other than a pious expression, surely this industry should be enabled to stand on level terms with its competitors. There is no doubt that the American film is the chief competitor of the film made by the British producer.
May I make it perfectly clear, beyond any argument whatsoever, that I am not averse to the making of American films in this country? It brings valuable currency to this country; it employs Britishers in this country. I do not object for one instant to the showing of an American film in this country—indeed, we should never have any cinemas if there were not American films. I should like to see London the centre of the film-producing of the world. But while the object of this levy, and the avowed object of successive British Governments, is to encourage the British British producer, it may well be, if we go on as we are going on, that in the last analysis the only producers of films left in this country will be the producers of the British films that are financed by America. Why is that allowed?
I hope I am making myself clear. I do not want any of the advantages that the American-financed British company enjoy at the present time taken away. But what I do want to ensure, if possible, is that the British producer who is not financed by American money, who has not built up reserves in America of dollars to pay these stars, shall not be at a disadvantage. I trust that I have made that clear. You may say: "Why cannot the British producer hire American stars". In the first instance, if they insist—and they do insist—on being paid in dollars, the British producer has to go to the Bank of England and if the Bank
478
of England say: "No"—as they invariably do—
LORD JESSEL: Surely not.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am told that that is so.
LORD JESSEL: What about the case of the Palladium?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad that the noble Lord has raised that point. I am going to deal with it in a minute. The only way in which the British producer can get the necessary dollars in America to pay an American star who wants payment in dollars is to sell his distribution rights to an American circuit, so that the American circuit will be enabled to make—if they can—profits out of exhibition in America. But a hard bargain is always driven in such cases, because the American circuit know that the British producer is in a quandary. He must have the star, and the bargain is usually such a hard one, from his point of view, that it is not worth entering into.
A question in this connection is asked by one trade paper, a copy of which came into my possession this afternoon. It says:
" Treasury policy allows transfer of payments of royalties on all literary, artistic, dramatic and musical material."
It does not include films. The article continues:
"Under this ruling Val Parnell can bring in Danny Kaye as a top-liner at the Palladium paying him in pounds which can be converted into dollars. TV is allowed to spend what it likes in dollars—though doubtless places a self-regulatory quota on its exuberance. (Latest published figures show that between July, 1955, and March, 1956, they did spend three million dollars.)"
That was the amount spent on the import of American material. Now what the paper asks is: why should precious currency go out like this? It mentions a name, the name of Mr. John Davis, and asks why Mr. John Davis should
"not be allowed to employ Danny Kaye in a film—a project which could reasonably he expected to earn far more dollars than would be expended upon it?"
I hope the noble Lord will give us the Government's answer to this question.
One last word, because I have explained the point as well as I am able. When I was in Hollywood, I discussed with film producers why British films did not get on so well in America. One

479
day I said to a big producer of American films, "What do you think of the British actor?" He said, "The British actor, as a character actor, is the finest in the world; but the British cinema actor cannot make love; and that is "Box Office' in the United States and the rest of America." I am not saying whether I believe that this is true or not, but the British film industry has found that international stars are necessary to break into the American market, as they must, if they are to survive the future. I would repeat, in case your Lordships have not quite understood, that I do not want to do anything that will prevent American films from coming into this country, or American money from coming into this country. All I ask is that the British maker of films shall have precisely the same advantages as the British-American maker of films. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, at end insert ("provided that any regulations under this paragraph shall provide that the maximum rate of payment so specified in relation to any class of film shall not be made to or for the benefit of makers of films who, by virtue of arrangements made with the approval of the Treasury under the Exchange Control Act, 1947, or otherwise, have the opportunity of utilising foreign currency or employing foreign actors and actresses to a greater extent than the makers of other films in the same class in respect of which payments may be made under this section and foreign currency' has the meaning assigned to that expression by the said Act of 1947;").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.):
6.12 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I do not think that I would go quite so far as my noble friend and say that this is the most important Amendment we have to consider, but I certainly would agree that it is probably the most complex that we have before us this evening. It deals with a matter on which it would be difficult to find unanimity. I know that there is not unanimity on this matter even within the ranks of the British film producers. I am going to say a few words about the Amendment, because I feel that if I do not, my silence is likely to be misinterpreted. The situation is more complicated than that described by my noble friend, and that was complicated enough. When I come to look at the terms of the Amendment, I find myself in considerable difficulty. If my noble friend will permit me to say so, he appears to me to have
480
created a new offence in law—I am no lawyer and the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, will correct me if I am wrong—the offence of having a better opportunity than someone else. At some time or another we all have an opportunity of committing a crime. Providing we do not avail ourselves of it, no punishment can fall upon us. But, speaking strictly within the terms of this Amendment, it seems to me that the producer who is deemed to have better opportunities for certain things than others is to be penalised, whether he uses the opportunity or not.
Let us look to see who it is who might be deemed to have this greater opportunity of employing American talent in films. Looking at the structure of the industry, we naturally look first at the two giants. I am sorry if I have to name companies; I do not like doing that, but I do not think that the situation can be made clear if I do not. I particularly do not like doing it because it may savour of advertising. I am told that my noble friend's reference to a certain film was worth something like £100.000 in advertising value. I do not want to hand out gratuitous prizes of that kind, and I will take the names of companies rather than the names of films. Warner Brothers of America are well known to have a laree interest in the Associated British Picture Corporation and the managing director is an American. On the surface one would say that there is an American association which ought to give Associated British an ample opportunity, greater than that of the small people, perhaps, of getting American talent. When we come to the other giant, the Rank Organisation, we find that 20th Century Fox of America have a large interest in the Gaumont Company, and the Rank Organisation are well known to have some affiliation with Universal Pictures of America. It would seem, therefore, that they would be in an advantageous position to get American talent. But, by that strange contrariness which sometimes seems to operate in the film industry, they do not use so much American talent, and in fact seem to find it difficult to get American talent.
On the other hand, there are film producing companies, which do not come within my noble friend's definition of technical British companies, but which

481
are actual British companies, set up by British people and using British finance, which are using a higher percentage of American talent—and they have no particular or special opportunities. There is a company called Romulus—and I believe that there is also one called Remus, but I am not sure—who have made a number of outstanding British films. They are a British company, with British people and British money; yet they use a lot of American talent. Why? Because they use the process that my noble friend has described. They get a subject which they think is worth a film and which will be of much more value if it has an American star. So they approach an American distributor and make a deal for the distribution of the film in America. The American distributor advances the dollars to pay for the American star, or star and director, whichever it may be. It is true that the British producing company have to surrender a share of the profits arising from American distribution, but it is a matter of bargaining, and obviously they will not surrender a bigger share than they think is worth while to give up in order to get American talent in the film and increase its profitability throughout the world. In a deal of that kind, it would not mean that none of the earnings of the film in America come back to this country. A share of [he American earnings will be retained by the American distributor who has taken the risk of putting up money in advance, but the remainder of the profits will come back to this country.
Let me give a hypothetical illustration which I think will show something of the complexity of this matter. Let us assume that a British company who set out to make a British film are in the unique, almost unheard of, position of having enough money of their own to finance the making of the film, so that they do not make a distribution contract before production, as is usually the case. They finish file, film and then it is their job to show it to British and American distributors to see who will offer the best deal. If the best deal conies from a British company, then the film is British in every particular. But if the best deal comes from an American company, is the film less British because it is now going to
482
be distributed by an American company? If that American company says to the producer: "We are quite willing, now that we have taken the film, to advance you 75 per cent. of its negative cost against the receipts from distribution, and it will make it easier for you to make your next film," then does that American association make the film less British, and subject to discrimination in any respect, so far as British law is concerned?
Take another example. There is a British production company which has been in continuous production in this country for over twenty years and has made some of the best of British films. It has at one time or another had its own distribution, been distributed through an American company, been distributed through a British company and has to-day gone hack to distributing through the American company. But the nature of its production has been consistent. It is entirely British in its set-up and in its attributes, and it has recently been described as being "as British as a bowler hat". Under the terms of this Amendment, as its products are being distributed by an American company, it comes into the category, presumably, of having greater opportunities than some other British producers to get American talent. Its films are no less British than they have ever been, and I think it would be absurd to try and make out differently.
I give one final example. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth referred to the company which made the film whose poster he did not like, and from the excerpts he has seen of the film he does not think it shows the British way of life. I think we have all seen films made by purely British companies whose representation of the British way of life left a great deal to be desired. But the same company—it is no secret that this is operated by two Americans who have been resident in this country for some six years and are consistent makers of films—made "Cockleshell Heroes", which was as British a film and as good a representation of the British way of life, of British character and heroism, as anything that could be made by a purely British producer. Their films are not made entirely with American money—here I would correct my noble friend—and the earnings from their films in America are not wholly left in that country. So that, even in their case, the

483
verdict, so far as his charge is concerned, at least, would have to be "Not proven".
My final point is this. Under the Anglo-American Film Agreement we restrict the American companies to the remittance of 17 million dollars. They are not only permitted, but were originally encouraged, to make films here with their unremittable sterling. I think it would be rather unworthy if we were to say: "You cannot remit your money. You may make films with it. We shall be glad to have these films count as British for quota purposes, but they will be regarded as 'second-class citizens' for certain other purposes." I do not think that that is a fair and proper method. All I am arguing is that if we start to discriminate I just do not know where we can draw the line, because the different categories, classes, terms of appearance, and so on, are so infinite in their variety.
I think there is only one test. I can think of only one category of film which I should like to see excluded. In the past occassionally we have had the situation where an established American producer, working in Hollywood, having, in effect, got the whole set-up for a film—script, cast, director and so on—decides that that film could be better made in England, and he, so to speak, puts the package under his arm and brings it over here and a technically British company is supposed to make that film. That is really an American film being made on location here. But it may be possible for it just to "get in under the wire" and qualify as a quota film. It should not in all cases qualify as a quota film.
I have recently had my attention drawn to the decision of the Board of Trade a few years ago, which was upheld by the courts, in the case of a film called "Monsoon", where it was held that, because the arrangements for the making of the film had been carried out other than in this country and other than by a British company, the technical making of the film by a technically British company did not bring it within the category. It may be that the exceptional case I speak of, where it is really an American film being made on location, could be covered by the operation of the decision embodied in the "Monsoon" case. If there is any doubt about that, then if a formula could be found, either legislative or administrative, to exclude such a film both from
484
quota and from Eady participation, I should say that that is about the one case where discrimination would be justified. But, taking it by and large, my view is that the complexities of the situation are so great that discrimination would create more difficulties than it would do good.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to raise one point that was made by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I have listened with great interest to his argument, but there was one matter that he raised with which I am afraid I cannot agree, if I understood him aright; that is, when he said that he thought that British films should, for the best part, portray the British way of life.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not intend to say that. I said that one of the prime reasons why successive Governments always wanted to keep alive the British film producing industry was because it did portray the British way of life.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry if I misunderstood my noble friend, and I am grateful to him for his explanation, because this is a kind of parochialism that I am afraid I cannot agree with. We had that argument on the Television Bill, when I think it was suggested that all television programmes should be thoroughly British. Without wishing to go over the ground again, I should like to say that the aim of British film producers should be to make good films, whether they are about the British way of life, the French way of life or the Eskimo way of life. If they can keep that end in view, then I think they will have much more success than they have had in the past. One of the best British films that the British film industry has ever made was "The Third Man". That certainly did not portray the British way of life, but, nevertheless, it was a first-class film.
LORD MANCROFT: I think the Committee will have gathered by now that this is a difficult and complicated subject. We have had three interesting speeches from noble Lords opposite, none of whom wholly agrees with the other. That only typifies how many and how divergent are the views held on this subject. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has indicated that he does not intend to press this Amendment, because

485
I think it would hardly be suitable for inclusion in a Bill like this. He has made it quite clear that he merely wished to take this opportunity of ventilating a difficult subject, upon which he clearly feels strongly and upon which others feel equally strongly in divergent ways.
I may say that I do not disagree with many of the remarks of the noble Lord. This is not a problem of black and white and one cannot always draw a clear line, I think probably that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has the right solution when he says that if you depart from this principle and attempt to discriminate it is difficult to know where to draw the line. That is the real problem. We naturally want to preserve many of the virtues emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was right when he mentioned "The Third Man" which is probably the best film that many of us have seen since the war, as being the perfect example of the current scheme working well.
I do not deny for one moment that many of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised are, on the face of them, a little difficult to justify. In a flexible scheme like this, there must inevitably be some lack of consistency and sonic lack of logic. I am going to suggest to the House that, with all its faults, the present scheme is probably the best, without suggesting for one moment that what the noble Lord has said is wholly wrong. If we were to take his view, we should be producing a whole new principle in the Government's policy towards film production in this country. The 1938 and 1948 Cinematograph Films Acts expressly make provision for some foreign participation in British quota films. Broadly speaking, 75 to 80 per cent. of the labour costs (excluding one or two, as the case may be, foreign directors or actors) must be in respect of British labour, and the studio used, if any, must be within Her Majesty's Dominions. The terms of the Anglo-American Film Agreement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred, provide specified uses, including film production, for the earnings from American films which could not, under the terms of the agreement, be remitted to the United States. I think the noble Lord's tongue betrayed him at one moment. It was
486
17 million dollars which could be remitted and not £17 million worth of dollars.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I meant 17 million dollars can be converted, which means about £6 million.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord made a slip of the tongue. I quite agree with the noble Lord. We have always realised that the British film industry must look to the export markets for additional earnings. It is for that reason that I welcomed wholeheartedly in my Second Reading remarks the decision of the Rank Organisation to set up their own distributing organisation in the United States. The noble Lord also produced the argument about a small market compared with that of the Americans. The argument that our market is a smaller one than that of the United States could, I suppose, be applied to the whole range of British industry. Nevertheless, we have been pretty successful in many of those markets, and have more incentive than ever.
The present voluntary British Film Production Fund, the Eady levy, which has been operated for five years by the industry itself, admits as participants films which qualify as British registered quota films. It is this flexibility which has allowed such a rich diversity of material to be used in the making of films in the United Kingdom—those films to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has referred, and which my noble friend Lord Westwood remarked en Second Reading had been made in collaboration with American companies, and are so much welcomed by exhibitors in fulfilling their quotas. If the British filmgoer were to be deprived of those, I think it would prove to be a real hardship. Why, then, should we think it necessary or desirable to impose a very difficult discrimination of the sort which the noble Lord has been advocating in his remarks? Film making is a creative occupation and, I suggest, must be allowed greater freedom than other trades.
As the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, have suggested, these hard and fast rules would, I think, end in chaos and disaster. We have hitherto sought to provide minimum requirements about the British content of a British film. Those requirements may not be wholly justifiable in logic, but

487
they have worked well. They have allowed a high level of productive activity and employment for our actors, technicians and directors, and have provided films of remarkably high entertainment level for the picturegoer. Again, I say it is not a hard and fast rule, but if we depart from this, and if we start to draw the line as we know the noble Lord wants, we might get to more logical waters, but probably more difficult ones.
The noble Lord will find himself in trouble with the British film actors, having informed your Lordships that, in the opinion of some, they cannot make love. I am quite certain that the noble Lord will find angry deputations from the Film Actors' Federation calling on him in the next forty-eight hours. He may or may not be right. But I think he will agree that the present system has not worked too badly and, unless he can produce an alternative system a great deal more promising than the one he has put before us, we would do best to go on with the existing one.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Before my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth replies, I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether he will consider the point I made, about the rather exceptional case of the film which is made here, and which may be technically British, but which it is apparent to everyone is really an American film made here on location. I am not asking that the noble Earl should reply now, but I ask him to consider whether, if no formula can be found to meet the difficulty, it cannot be done by a word from the Board of Trade to the Motion Picture Producers' Association of America, pointing out to them the impropriety of a film of that kind making application for a benefit under the production levy. I think that might be an effective method of dealing with the trouble. As I said, it is a complicated matter, and I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend was aiming at in his Amendment. If I appeared to controvert it, it was because I saw the difficulties and not because I was deficient in sympathy.
LORD MANCROFT: I had made a note of what the noble Lord said. I was not wholly concerned with the deficiencies of it, but to see if we could do something about it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not in difficulties: difficulties are here to be overcome. I made it abundantly clear that I had to find some words to put on the Order Paper in order to raise this matter at all. I could have moved to leave out the whole clause. I can find quite an easy definition, and it is this: that some regard should be paid to the film, the foreign earnings of which have to come back to this country. This is the only industry in this country that has to bring its foreign earnings back here. Surely, in the availability of dollars, the British producer should not be placed at a disadvantage with any other producer. All I have been asking, all the way through my argument, is that the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, or the Government, or the Board of Trade, or whoever it is, should give this matter some consideration. This is operating, and it has a "snowball" effect. After all, the noble Lord is not so hidebound to believe that what was a good thing in 1950, is necessarily equally good in 1957 or 1958. The world goes on.
I want the noble Lord to take into consideration this fact: the British film producer is doing a real job for this country; yet the more he does it—the more he exports—the greater is his disadvantage, because more foreign earnings have to come back to this country, whereas his competitor does not have to return the earnings to this country. Why should the British film producer be practically the only individual who cannot have dollar availability? My noble friend put his finger on the problem in the first sentence he used, when he said, "What I want is equality of opportunity for everyone." I am not going to continue the matter now, because the Amendment has served the purpose I intended, and with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw it and leave the matter for the Government and the film industry to consider.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Regulations under this section shall not be made save after consultation with such bodies as appear to the Board of Trade to be representative of makers and exhibitors of British films."
The noble Lord said: I shall not say more than two words upon this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft,

489
and I have argued this particular point about four times, and I do not intend to bore your Lordships with another dissertation upon it. I will await the Amendment which he has promised to put down at another stage of the Bill to see what it looks like before I return to this particular subject. if noble Lords will prefer, I will not move the Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: I should prefer the noble Lord to move it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will move it and then see what the noble Lord has to say, in view of my conciliatory attitude over this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: I asked the noble Lord to move the Amendment only to give me an opportunity of replying and still being in order. The Amendment which he refers to is already in draft I shall be happy to show him a copy of the draft the moment the House rises. He asked that he should be shown it to see what it looks like. I assure him he will see that it looks very pretty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Nothing that the noble Lord ever does or has any connection with is other than pretty. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
6.42 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
Power of Agency and their officers to obtain information
".—(1) The Agency shall have power, for the purpose of enabling it to perform its functions under this part of this Act, by notice in writing served on a maker of British films, to require him—

(a) to furnish to such person as may be specified in the notice such return or other information relevant to his entitlement to receive levy payments as may be specified;

(b) to keep such records relevant to his entitlement to receive levy payments as may be so specified;

and any member, officer, servant or agent of the Agency may at all reasonable hours enter any premises occupied for the purposes of
490
his business by a maker of British alms and may require him or any person employed by him in connection with the business to produce for examination by such member, officer, servant or agent of the Agency such books or other documents relating to the business of the maker of British films and relevant to his entitlement to receive levy payments as may be reasonably specified.
(2) If any person on or to whom a notice or requisition is duly served or made under the foregoing subsection fails to comply with the notice or requisition, he shall, sinless he proves that he had reasonable excuse for the failure, be guilty of an offence under this subsection and he liable, on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
(3) If any person in purported compliance with the requirements of a notice under subsection (1) of this section to furnish returns or other information makes a statement, or furnishes a document, which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement, or furnishes a document, which is false in a material particular he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such a fine.
(4) Any offence under this section may be tried by a court having jurisdiction either in the country or place in which the offence was actually committed or in any county or place in which the alleged offender resides or carries on business."
The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will be good enough to turn to Clause 4, you will see that the Customs and Excise, who have the task of collecting this levy, are given some very wide powers to see that the accounting of the people who have to pay the levy is in proper order and that whit they gain from their collection is the right amount. The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, speaking, if he will permit me to say so, so ably for the first time in a debate of this kind, said it was Government policy—at least, he could not have said it was not Government policy—that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." This Amendment seeks to insert a clause, in precisely similar terms to Clause 4, to give the Agency the same powers and the same right of investigation and search in respect of the claims made upon them for payments out of the Fund, as are given to the Customs and Excise to see that their job is done correctly. I cannot for the life of me see anything wrong with a principle like that. There may be one thing wrong with my Amendment. Perhaps it would have been strictly correct to include with

491
producers, renters and distributors. If the noble Lord likes to alter it at the next stage, I shall not mind. That is the simple purpose of this Amendment. Why should the Customs and Excise have all these powers to see that they collect the right amount, and the Agency have no powers at all to see that they distribute to the correct beneficiaries the money that is collected? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is quite right in saying that his Amendment is simple, but it really is not at all a nice one. Let us look for a minute, if you Lordships will be good enough, at what the noble Lord is seeking to do. I believe he is really putting down this Amendment to "pull the Government's leg". I do not believe that he honestly has it deeply at heart. What this Amendment does is this. It gives the Agency the power to require makers of British films to furnish returns and information and to keep such records as are necessary to show their entitlement to receive payments out of the proceeds of the levy; and it also gives power to the Agency to enter premises and require the production of books for the same purpose. Failure to comply with such requirements and the provision of false information are made criminal offences.
I cannot think it is necessary or desirable to give such wide and important powers to the Agency, and I do not really believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on reflection, would wish to add such powers to the Statute Book and give them to a statutory body of this kind. There is one important reason why it is quite unnecessary. The regulations, which we have frequently discussed, to be made under Clause 3 of the Bill, will provide that no maker of a British film shall be entitled to a payment out of the proceeds of the levy unless he has supported his claim with such evidence as the Agency may require. That is the situation. The film producer cannot come to the Agency and say, "I want money for my new film." The Agency will turn round and say, "I want to see your books, your budget and your prospects", and the film producer is not
492
in a position to turn round and say, "Oh no, you cannot", because he will not get the money unless he provides the information which the Agency wants. If he does not provide all the information which is required, he will not get what he wants. Most of the information he desires is set out in the noble Lord's Amendment which seeks to impose penalties if the information is not provided.
LORD STRABOLGI: Can that information be checked?
LORD MANCROFT: If the Agency is not satisfied with the information, it will not give the money. It can check it up hill and down dale. The Agency can take any steps it likes before producing the money to satisfy itself that it is a good case.
LORD STRABOLGI: Has the Agency the right to check the books under Clause 3 (2) (c)?
LORD MANCROFT: The Agency has the right to refuse the money unless it is satisfied that a proper case is made out for the money. If it thinks that it is necessary to check certain books or look at certain accounts before allowing the money, then certainly it can do it. But no criminal offence is involved. That is the difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to "sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander" over the question of entertainments duty and the Customs and Excise. That is not an accurate parallel. The noble Lord has talked about the powers which are accorded, under Clause 4, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, has already referred, to the Customs and Excise in the collection of the levy. These powers, however, march with the powers for the collection of entertainments duty. They do not amount to the widening of the number of people enjoying powers of this sort. Apparently we shall get between us exactly the same result. Information which the noble Lord wants to be compulsorily produced will be produced voluntarily, because the money will not be forthcoming unless those who are to provide it are satisfied of all the things which he has put in his Amendment. I am sure that on reflection the noble Lord would much rather it were done

493
that way than by the creation of a new power. No money would be forthcoming unless the information required by the Agency were also forthcoming.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I want to take only a moment on this matter. From what I know of British producers, there is no reluctance on their part to provide all the information that may be required of them. This is a fairly simple matter. The producer now has to produce to the Board of Trade full and complete information about the costs of production of his film, broken down over a number of categories, and I think I am right in saying that the statutory declaration he makes before he gels his film registered for quota must provide that information in a complete form. After the film is made and is shown in the cinemas, the distributor of the film is really responsible for building up the data with regard to film hire on which the Agency, presumably, will calculate the payments to be made to the film. The Amendment, I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth said, does not include the renter, but no doubt the Agency (and on this I should like the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft) would require not only the producer but the distributor of the film to provide evidence of whatever was needed. I take it that if they were not satisfied they would say they wanted it investigated by a chartered accountant and have his certificate as to its accuracy, and that would be the line of procedure. I am completely at one with my noble friend that the Agency should be in a position to get all the necessary information for its purposes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If have the noble Lord's categorical assurance that the Agency will not part with any money until it is perfectly satisfied with the validity of the claims made, and that it has powers under this Bill to make all proper searches, I shall be satisfied. I do not say that the producers of films who are going to be the beneficiaries under this Bill are any less honest than the exhibitors who have to pay the money, but it has come to light in the operation of this levy on a voluntary basis that there have been malpractices. I know of one that has been publicised in a printed document. It is the contract which some renters insist producers shall
494
sign whereby the levy goes is effect to the distributor and the producer is not the direct beneficiary. This Fund is for the benefit of British producers. Will the noble Lord tell me whether there are powers whereby, if the Agency have their suspicions that these things are done, they can call for the books and make an investigation, and unless they are given all the information they want they will withhold the levy? I am coming back now to one of the things I clearly stated to the noble Lord. Such are the tortuous ways of some of these things that this Agency would have been well advised to have had upon it a representative of the producers and a representative of the distributors, so that it should be advised—I think I used the expression at the time I was arguing this point—of all the "tricks of the trade."
Then there is the dual booking, where a programme is booked. Although under the 1948 Act the renter is supposed to apportion the rent as between, it may be, a first and a second feature film, it has been known that the British film is carried on the back of an American second feature film, but the renter has so put the story over that the British film, which has not contributed so much to the box office as the American film, is assumed to have earned more, so that it qualifies for the levy. These are some of the things which happen. If the noble Lord will give me his assurance that these things will be looked after and will not slip through, then I have no desire to put this Amendment on the Statute Book; but I want the noble Lord's assurance. Can he give it?
LORD MANCROFT: I am firmly under the impression that the Board of Trade consider the powers they propose give sufficient safeguard and avoid the creation of further offences. I cannot give that assurance without checking my information. The Board of Trade are, with all due respect, a cynical and tough body of men and women, and l do not believe they would say that unless they were satisfied. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment in consideration of the promise I give him that I will make certain I have my facts right before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I feel we are at one in our desire on this matter. I was not trying to pull the

495
Government's leg. I have tried many things but I have not tried to pull its leg. I will withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Power of Commissioners of Customs and Excise and their officers to obtain information
4.—(1) The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall have power, for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this Part of this Act, by notice in writing served on an exhibitor, to require him—

(a) to furnish to such person as may be specified in the notice such returns or other information as may be so specified;

(b) to keep such records as may be so specified;

and any officer of theirs may at all reasonable hours enter any premises occupied for the purposes of his business by an exhibitor and may require him or any person employed by him in connection with his business to produce for examination by the officer such books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify.
6.55 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "information" to insert "relevant to his liability to levy". The noble Lord said: I hope the noble Lord will do something for me here, because subsection (1) of Clause 4 seems to me to be a 100 per cent. snoopers' charter. Remember that this clause gives or seeks to give, or should give, the Customs and Excise the right to collect the levy from the exhibitor. These are the powers it gives: the Customs and Excise may serve a notice in writing on an exhibitor to require him:

"(a) to furnish to such person as may be specified in the notice such returns or other information as may be so specified;

(b) to keep such records as may be so specified;

and any officer of theirs may at all reasonable hours enter any premises occupied for the purposes of his business by an exhibitor and may require him or any person employed by him in connection with his business to produce for examination by the officer such books and other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify"
and if he does not do it he can be fined £100. All these Amendments of mine, Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25, have as their object to see that the officer can do all these things only so long as he is seeking information relevant to the exhibitor's liability to pay levy.
According to the clause as it stands, however, the Customs and Excise may demand documents and accounts about his ice cream sales, his chocolate sales, his sweet sales, and, I should almost think, without much stretch of imagination, if the man's wife is a co-director, the marriage certificate. Surely the noble Lord does not want those powers. All he wants is for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have powers as far as they are relevant to the collection of this levy, and for no other purpose. But this clause does not say so. It relates to anything. The powers are wide. I am at one with the noble Lord in wishing to give the Customs and Excise sufficient powers to collect the proper amount of the levy, but, as I have said, this is a snoopers' charter; the officer can do anything. It is no good for the noble Lord to shake his head. This officer can do anything.
I should like to consider all these Amendments, Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25. The first one is to insert "relevant to his liability to levy". That applies to line 6, line 8 and line 13. On page 4, in line 14, I seek to put in the word "reasonable". I think that is perfectly all right. It is at the end of the first subsection:
"…to produce for examination by the officer such books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify."
I should have thought that was a most reasonable thing, to ask. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, after ("information") insert ("relevant to his liability to levy").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD ARCHIBALD: As I have down an Amendment which is on the same point as that of my noble friend, for the convenience of the Committee may I say a word in support of his Amendment? That will enable me to leave mine unmoved when we come to it. I think the point at issue here is one which the Government should reasonably accept in some form or another. The really alarming words in the Bill as it stands are, to my mind, those at the end of Clause 4 (1) which have just been quoted by my noble friend: that the officer may demand the production of
"such books or other documents relating to 'the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify."
No doubt it is intended that the officer should specify only such documents and

497
books as are relevant to the payment of the levy, but the Bill does not say so. As the Bill is drawn, there is no doubt that the officer, if he were an awkward, difficult officer, wanting to make things as troublesome as possible, could, as my noble friend has said, ask for the books relative to chocolate, cigarette and ice-cream sales, those relative to the revenue from advertising on the screen, and to any ancillary business carried on by the exhibitor. I am sure that is not the intention. It would be a simple matter to put in a few words, such as those suggested by my noble friend, or as suggested in my own Amendment, to make it quite clear that it should be a restricted field of inquiry and not a general "fishing" inquiry that is to be carried out by the officer. The exact form of words should not be difficult to find. I hope that on this occasion we shall not simply be told that it is the intention, but that it will, in fact, be put in the Bill.
LORD JESSEL: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in his four Amendments, and also the Amendment of Lord Archibald. The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here to-day, and who, as your Lordships know, has had at least twelve years' practical experience as an exhibitor, has asked me to say that he has had experience of Customs and Excise officials who have entered cinemas in order to check records concerning entertainments duty and have demanded to see and to examine the staff wages book and the private ledgers of the company. I understand from Lord Westwood that these matters were subsequently brought to the notice of a superior officer and instructions were given to these inspectors that they should examine only such books and records as applied to the collection of entertainments duty, and that there has been no further trouble in this respect. Of course, the same considerations will apply in connection with the levy. I suggest that this clause is far too wide, and I trust that the Amendments will be accepted.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: It would be convenient to deal with Amendment No. 22 and the Amendments down to No. 26 together, as the two noble Lords opposite have already suggested, because they are. rather on the same point. In
498
reply, may I point out that the powers given by Clause 4 may be exercised only for the purpose of enabling the Commissioners of Customs and Excise properly to perform their functions under part I of the Bill I should like to refer your Lordships to the words which appear early in subsection (1):
"for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this Part of this Act."
That is the safeguard; and it is, I think, the answer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. These Amendments seek to restrict still further the powers given to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, but their effect might well be to make the exercise of the powers difficult, particularly in those cases in which their exercise is most necessary. The addition of any of these limitations might make it possible for a person determined to avoid payment of the levy to refuse to make returns, or to produce books, on the ground that such returns or hooks were not relevant to his liability to levy or were unreasonably required. Without the making of the return or the production of the books, it would be virtually impossible to disprove this contention. I believe that is a strong point, because if these Amendments were to be accepted it would make the task of the Customs and Excise officers difficult, if not almost impossible; and as I have pointed out. I believe that in the two lines hat I have read there are already ample safeguards to meet the point raised by noble Lords.
Lastly, I should like to refer to the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that the Customs officials are already empowered in this way in regard to the collection of entertainments duty. This is not a new power. It is given to them under Section 2 of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916. Clearly, it would be somewhat impracticable for a Customs official to have power to inspect the same or similar records for one purpose and yet not be able to do so for the other purpose. In both cases, the information required is the same, and if these Amendments were to be accepted, one would certainly feel that a somewhat anomalous situation had arisen. I hope, therefore, in view of what I have said, and in view of the safeguards I have pointed out to him, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: Before the noble Lord leaves the point, may I say that I find it difficult to follow his reasoning. It may be all right, but the plain question I should like to ask is this. Would the records of a cinema in regard to the sale of ice-cream, chocolate, and things of that kind, come within the purview of the examination of Customs and Excise men? Would they be able to demand their production? That is the point we wish to clear up. I think it admits of a plain and straightforward answer.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I think the reply to that is: not on the face of it. Not being a lawyer, I would ask the noble Lord not to press me further at the moment on that particular point.
LORD BURDEN: That makes us most cautious in regard to the matter. Broadly speaking, the reply of the noble Lord means that he is doubtful and that the Customs and Excise man might, by virtue of what he thinks to be right, do what we do not think he ought to do.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I must confess to being deeply disappointed at the reply which we have just heard from the Government. I am bound to say that I thought the reply lacking in substance and not what we had a right to expect. It is perfectly true that in subsection (1) the Commissioners' power is limited to that "for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this part of the Bill" and to require certain things. But the noble Lord will see that it goes on to say that any officer of theirs may enter premises and demand certain books. There is no interpretation of that limitation, and it is doubtful whether it could be argued that a limitation which is expressed with regard to the powers of the Commissioners can be taken administratively to apply to the definition of the powers of officers. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, of occasions when officers have demanded books which, clearly, were outside the purpose of their inspection. All that we are asking is that the books which they have power to examine should be books that are relevant to the purpose of their examination. No reason has been given to show that these Amendments would in any way hamper the officers in the performance of their duty. There has been not a single argument, but simply
500
a blank statement that these Amendments would hamper them. In what way would they hamper the officers? The exhibitor could not refuse to produce his books. He would be open to process of law if he did so.
LORD MANCROFT: I am advised that if the Amendments were inserted in the Bill, he would be in that position.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, he would not.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am saying simply that the books and documents which the officer may demand must be relevant to the calculation of payment of the levy. It should not cover books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business and not to the payment of levy. If the officer specified books which have nothing to do with the levy it would be wholly unreasonable but at present we have no guarantee that he will not do so.
LORD MANCROFT: Who is to decide?
LORD ARCHIBALD: I do not think it would be difficult to leave the decision with the Customs and Excise man.
LORD MANCROFT: If he cannot see the books, how can he decide?
LORD ARCHIBALD: If he asks to see the private ledger or the wages book, clearly that is not relevant to the levy.
LORD MANCROFT: But he should not ask.
LORD ARCHIBALD: But he can ask. Under the Bill it is open to argument whether he has the right to ask for books relevant to the sale of cigarettes, chocolates and ice cream, the private ledger and the wages book—books having nothing to do with the matter.
LORD MANCROFT: But there he is on quite the wrong track. Subsection (1) says:
"The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall have power, for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this Part of this Act …"
Clearly, the Commissioners have no right to ask for what was referred to as "marriage lines," for that would not be part of their duty. Nor could they ask for anything else which would not enable them to perform their duties. There

501
comes the problem of the borderline case —the book which the cinema man says is not really necessary for the performance of the Customs and Excise Officer's duty and which the officer says is necessary. Unless the officer can see the book, how can he tell whether it is or not? The Bill lays on him the stern duty to keep within the bounds of his proper function, but unless he can see the book he cannot judge it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The clause does not say that at all. It says—these are the words on which the noble Lord relies:
"The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall have power, for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this Part of this Act, by notice in writing served on an exhibitor, to require him—

(a) to furnish to such person as may be specified in the notice such returns or other information as may be so specified;

(b) to keep such records as may be so specified; "

and then it goes on—and mark the wording:
"and any officer of theirs may at all reasonable hours enter any premises occupied for the purposes of his business by an exhibitor and may require him or any person employed by him in connection with his business to produce for examination by the officer such books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify."
In my view any interpretation gives the Customs and Excise power to serve notice in writing requiring the exhibitor to furnish such returns or other information —and any officer can do all these other things. All I seek to put in the Bill is that any search of that kind shall be relevant to the purpose of the Bill and no other purpose, such as the exhibitor's liability to pay the rent.
LORD BURDEN: Perhaps the noble Lord can answer both our points.
LORD MANCROFT: We are at one in that clearly we do not want officers prying here and there. I do not think this clause gives them any such power. I believe the two lines which we have discussed reflect down to the point which the noble Lord has made. If not, they clearly should do so, and if the noble Lord is worried on that point, I am perfectly prepared, since we are it one in what we are trying to do, to get the lawyers to look at the noble Lord's point and to make certain that the first two lines of subsection (1) do
502
reflect on to the last line, and make certain that the Customs and Excise have not the power to look at "marriage lines." I believe that they have not and that this particular clause confines them; but if I am wrong we must put it right. I will not at this stage force it upon noble Lords. If we can draft it more clearly to meet the point that he has now made, we will certainly do so; but I hope that the noble Lord can see the logic of my argument, not the legal aspect of it. If there is any doubt in the course of investigations, then unless someone has power to look at all the books it is impossible to whether or not there are any grounds for doubt. That is why I quarrel with the Amendment. If, by redrafting, we can meet the noble Lord's point we will certainly do so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad that the noble Lord has conceded the point. I only want what he wants. I will therefore withdraw my Amendment now, and perhaps we can have discussions when he has had consultations with his legal advisers. If I am not satisfied with what the noble Lord then intends to do, I will put down an Amendment on the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I will accept the noble Lord's offer and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of the offer which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has made, with the Committee's permission I not move Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25, but perhaps when the noble Lord is looking at the point I have just raised he will take into consideration my Amendment No. 25, relating to the words,
"such books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as Me officer may specify."
I believe those words are as important as the others. With the Committee's permission, I will not move either this or the other Amendments I have mentioned.
7.20 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD had an Amendment on the Marshalled List to add to subsection (1):
"and which are relevant to the calculation of the amount of the levy due to be paid by the exhibitor or to the payment thereof."
The noble Lord said: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said, I do not move this Amendment, but reserve the right to return to the point at a later stage.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Accounts and audit]:
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved in subsection (3) (b) to leave out "and Auditors". The noble Lord said: I rise to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend. It is a drafting Amendment. The Bill, as at present drafted, describes one of the bodies from amongst whose members the auditors of the Agency's accounts may be appointed, as "the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors". This title is incorrect and should be:" The Society of Incorporated Accountants". This Amendment makes the necessary correction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, leave out ("and Auditors").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation of Part 1]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had an Amendment on the Marshalled List to add to the clause:
"(3) in this Part of the Act the expression ' Government films' means—

(a) films of which the earnings become payable either wholly or partially to a Government Department whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; and

(b) films originally produced by or for a Government Department notwithstanding that the right to receive the earnings of the same shall have become vested either wholly or partially in some other person or company; and

(c) any film which has been made by or on behalf of a Department of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of the Government of any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is part of the interpretation of a previous Amendment. The noble Lord has given me his assurance that the points dealt with are covered, and that there is no intention that the films to which this Amendment relates will rank for levy. Therefore it is not worth while my moving the Amendment. With your Lordships'
504
permission, I propose to adopt the course of not moving the Amendment.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Expenses and receipts of Commissioners of Customs and Excise and Board of Trade
9. Any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in collecting the levy imposed by virtue of this Part of this Act and any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under section six of this Act in making loans to the Agency shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, and any sum retained by the said Commissioners out of the proceeds of the said levy or received by the Board by way of repayment of, or payment of interest on, loans made under the said section six shall be paid into the Exchequer.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out "retained by the said Commissioners out of the proceeds of the said levy or". The noble Lord said: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is feeling in a more generous mood to-night than he did when I previously argued an Amendment similar to this. Clause 9 of the Bill deals with expenses and receipts of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and the Board of Trade. Under Clause 9, the Board of Trade may receive money back in payment of loans that they may at any time make to this Agency. That is quite in order. They may have to make loans and it is in order that they should be paid back. What I object to once again is that:
"Any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in collecting the levy imposed by virtue of this Part of this Act…"
shall be retained by the said Commissioners out of the proceeds of the levy before the money is paid out. This really, I think, is iniquitous.
We learnt when we debated this point before, that £18,000 approximately is going to be the cost to the Customs and Excise of collecting this levy. Frankly, I think we have come to the state where industry now has to pay for tax collection and P.A.Y.E. It is a tremendous burden. There is no political point in this. Successive Governments have sought to get this levy changed from a voluntary to a statutory levy, for the purpose of underpinning—I could almost say "subsidising" but I will not, because I know what an aversion noble Lords opposite have to that hateful term; but, in fact,

505
it is nothing but a hidden subsidy—the production of British films. And the Departments concerned are going to collect some £18,000, or less than one half of one per cent., for their services. I should have thought that the Government could make a gesture in this connection and say nothing about the cost. I do not suppose that this collection will be done by the same people as those who collect entertainments tax. Why do not they charge for their services? I am not going to say much more about this now: I am simply going to ask Lord Mancroft whether he has had a change of heart about it, while satisfying myself by just formally moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, Leave out ("retained by the said Commissioners out of the proceeds of the said levy or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)>
LORD MANCROFT: The time is getting late and I will not argue again on the same lines that the point was argued upon two or three days ago. The point, briefly, is that since the levy is intended to operate as a film industry measure, rather than as a subsidy—that is where the noble Lord and I pant company—it seems to us appropriate that any expenses incurred in the running of it should be met out of the levy rather than out of the general revenue. That is the long and short of it. The noble Lord makes the sum £18,000, but I make it about £15,000. It is a small sum. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. I brought to the notice of the Board of Trade the remarks made by the noble Lord when we first debated this matter. All I can promise to-day is to bring them again to the Board's notice on this particular point. We have not had time to discuss it in any detail because we have been pressed on other matters relating to the Bill. I cannot accept the Amendment nor can I hold out any promise except that I will make certain that the matter is carefully discussed with my advisers before the next stage of the Bill is reached.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask how the accuracy of the figure can be disputed? This cause gives the Customs and Excise carte blanche—a
506
blank cheque. We have heard that it is their usual practice to charge less than a half of one per cent. The noble Lord says it is £15,000. I have not troubled to work it out; I have heard noble friends behind me murmuring certain figures. I suppose there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Customs and Excise from saying "£50,000". In what document is the amount going to be disclosed—the amount they have charged for collection? And by what process does Parliament dispute the fairness of it? Can the noble Lord tell me or does he want to give the Customs and Excise a blank cheque to charge this fund with any sum they think fit to charge? I can understand that the Board of Trade should charge interest on their loans, but how are we going to cheek the amount deducted by the Customs and Excise for the amount of the levy?
LORD MANCROFT: I should like to confirm this point, but my impression is that the Agency, having to produce their accounts to Parliament, must disclose the figures and so open their accounts to public scrutiny. I think that that must be so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Do the Agency have to produce their accounts to Parliament?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes. Clause 7 says:
"The Agency shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts, and shall prepare in respect of each financial year of the Agency a statement of accounts in such form as the Board of Trade, with the approval of the Treasury may direct, being a form conforming with the best commercial standards."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The "best commercial standards" have to make a note of payments, so we may take it that if the noble Lord's persuasive powers with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade are not strong enough, that is where we shall see them. But I think it would be a nice gesture on the part of the Board of Trade to say that these expenses shall come out of the public funds. However, I withdraw my Amendment, so that perhaps between now and the next stage the noble Lord will provide me with an answer.
LORD MANCROFT: May I draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (5) of Clause 7 which says:
"The Board of Trade shall lay a copy of every such report before Parliament."
There it is in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Extension of time within which, and purposes for which, loans may be made by Corporation
10.—(1) For paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section one of the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949 (which, as amended by the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1954, empowers the National Film Finance Corporation to make, during the eight years beginning with the passing of the first-mentioned Act, loans to be employed in financing the production or distribution of cinematograph films to persons who, in the judgment of the Corporation, while having reasonable expectations of being able to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films on a commercially successful basis, are not for the time being in a position otherwise to obtain adequate financial facilities for the purpose on reasonable terms from an appropriate source) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
"(b) to make, during the period of eighteen years beginning with the passing of this Act, loans to be employed in financing the production or distribution of cinematograph films to persons who, in the judgment of the Corporation, have reasonable expectations of being able to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films on a commercially successful basis".
7.32 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: Although I will be as brief as possible in moving this Amendment, I shall have to take a little time to develop my argument because I regard this Amendment as dealing with an important point of principle in the Bill. Coming up in the train this morning, I was reading the delightful Portraits from Memory of Bertrand Russell—or should I say, in your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Russell? Describing the eccentricities of the Cambridge dons of his young days, he writes of one who, whenever a new proposal was brought up at the University, would say, "When a measure of this kind is suggested, I ask myself two questions: Has the old system worked badly? Is the new system likely to work better? I see no reason
508
to answer either question in the affirmative, and I shall therefore vote against the proposal." That is not an attitude of mind which I would normally share. I may say, I hope without offence, that it is an attitude more often found on the other side of the House. But when I come to deal with Clause 10 of the Bill I am bound to say that I find myself in considerable sympathy with the attitude of the Cambridge don. Actually, the Amendment is the new clause and the onus is really on the Government to justify the new clause, rather than on us to oppose it.
May I remind your Lordships of the background? The Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949, which was agreed broadly by both sides, here and in another place, was introduced for the specific purpose of providing finance for British film producers who were unable to find finance elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was responsible for piloting the Bill through your Lordships' House, and I have just been reading it up. I find that on that occasion he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 160, col. 423]:
"It is not the intention of this Bill to provide finance for the large producing companies, but for the independent or free-lance producer who is not directly linked with exhibiting circuits."
He went on to say:
"…loans may be made only to qualified borrowers who are not able to obtain adequate finance from alternative lenders."
So that, for the last eight years, the National Film Finance Corporation have been limited to lending money to prospective film producers who could not find alternative sources.
Like the Cambridge don, I am entitled to ask: Has that system worked badly? If it has not worked badly, can the Government spokesman give us any solid reason for changing it? At that time, the argument was that public money should be put at risk in this field only if there were no other method available of keeping British film production going. If by no other means could a sufficient volume of British films be maintained, then in that situation, and only in that situation, should public money be put at risk. Now we have a complete change in attitude, and the National Film Finance Corporation are to be allowed, presumably, to lend to any producer they think

509
fit. They will be able to lend to the big integrated combines, to the Anglo-American companies, or to the British producer who is self-financed. Surely we are entitled to some solid reason for this change.
What is wrong with the old system? In what way has it broken down? Until we have heard the Government case for making this change, it is difficult to develop the argument for my Amendment, because what I am saying in effect is: Tell us why you want this amendment in existing legislation, so that we may find out whether your reasons are valid. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, he dealt very slightly with this matter in his Second Reading speech and we are still waiting to hear the Government's justification for this amendment of the Cinematograph Finance (Special Loans) Act. When we have heard that, it twill be possible to say if they have a good ease. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I think this Amendment has been prompted by certain anxieties in the noble Lord's mind which have come through his remarks. In form, the noble Lord's Amendment is misconceived, as its effect would be to bring to an end on March 9 the loan-making power of the National Film Finance Corporation. However, I understand that it is not the noble Lord's intention to bring this power to an end but to prevent the extension of the Corporation's powers to the lending of money other than to film makers who cannot obtain capital elsewhere.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Would the noble Lord explain why my Amendment would bring those powers to an end? My Amendment seeks to delete subsection (1), not to amend or leave out subsection (2), which extends those powers from eight to eighteen years.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I am advised that the noble Lord's Amendment, as it is drafted, would bring the Corporation's powers to an end. Perhaps I can go into that point more fully in a moment. I understand, however, as I say, that it is not the intention of the
510
noble Lord to bring those powers of the Corporation to an end, but to prevent the extension of the Corporation's powers to lend money otherwise than to film makers who cannot obtain capital elsewhere. The intention of Clause 10, as at present drafted, is to enable the National Film Finance Corporation to accept propositions for films which seem likely to be commercially successful, and not to refuse such propositions because the applicant for the loan can obtain financial consideration elsewhere. The clause should be considered together with Clause 11, which makes it clear that the Corporation should in future so conduct their business as to seek to save further losses of their loan capital; or to put it another way, to prevent erosion into capital. That is an important point which I would particularly draw to the noble Lord's attention.
The principal Act which defines the loan-making powers of the Corporation is perhaps somewhat difficult, in that it defines a person eligible for the loan as being at once in a position to make a film on a commercially successful basis, but not in a position to obtain finance for such a venture. The Corporation have thus virtually been forced to accept only those propositions which do not commend themselves to other finance houses. It is now proposed that they shall be able to accept any application which seems to them likely to be commercially successful. But the terms upon which they are prepared to make loans are considered by some film-makers to be quite onerous, so there seems little likelihood that financially strong organisations which can readily obtain accommodation elsewhere will seek their services. I think that touches on the point which the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, made in his Second Reading speech: that the resources of the Corporation can be absorbed by one large organisation.
Especially in view of this latter point, I cannot accept the contention of the noble Lord that such financially strong organisations as have been mentioned might absorb the Corporation's loan-making capital, to the detriment of the smaller producers. I think that is what has been going through the noble Lord's mind. These smaller producers might be in a position to make good films if they could obtain the money, and we consider that

511
they will be able to obtain it from the Corporation. If such a situation as that which the noble Lord has in mind were to arise, however, it could be dealt with by a direction from the Board of Trade under section 3 of the Act of 1949. This allows the Board of Trade to give the Corporation directions of a general character as to the exercise of their functions. I hope that this will allay some of the fears that have been in the noble Lord's mind and enable him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know whether it has allayed any fears in the mind of my noble friend, but it has only strengthened the fears in my mind. If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, he has given a shocking answer. First of all, all that the Amendment of my noble friend seeks to do is to delete subsection (1) of Clause 10. That subsection goes no further than to take out paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section I of the Cinematograph Films Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949, as amended by the Cinematograph Films Production (Special Loans) Act, 1954.
LORD MANCROFT: Is that not the power to make loans?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No. It is a power to make loans on a special basis; and the special basis upon which Parliament originally agreed to this Act was because it was not in competition with the usual and recognised channels of finance. If the noble Lord now says that the Film Finance Corporation will in future have to conduct their business and comply with the ordinary forms of banking, then why not do away with the Film Finance Corporation altogether?
My noble friend has quoted words from my Second Reading speech on behalf of the Government in 1949. I then said, also: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 160, col. 424]:
"As I have already pointed out to your Lordships, these loans will not compete with the present channels of finance; they are supplemental."
If you are going to say to the Film Finance Corporation: "In future you must conduct your business along the ordinary banking channels," why have the Corporation at all? I agree with the
512
noble Lord that you would have to read in connection with this Clause 11, which enjoins the Corporation that they have to carry on their business like an ordinary commercial concern and not, if they can possibly help it, make a loss. In other words, they must do precisely what a bank would do. If they do not like the credit standing, or they have a doubt, or even if they think you are cast-iron, they will want collateral. Is have never known a bank lend a person money without wanting security of about four times what he wanted to borrow, as well as a joint and several guarantee, and a mortgage on his house and all his property as collateral. Is that what the noble Lord means the Film Finance Corporation to do? If he does, why have it at all? Why compete with the joint stock banks of the country? It is doing away with the whole purpose.
I cannot address the noble Lord on a close argument like this if he must have consultations with his noble friend next door to him. Perhaps the noble Lord will save your Lordships' time by saying that the Government will reconsider the whole thing. When the noble Lord makes the point that one of the reasons for this is the onerous conditions that have been demanded by the Film Finance Corporation, what did they do? They loaned money, as was their object, at a lower rate of interest, under special conditions which ordinary normal banking would not have; that is to say, that, perhaps without security, they took a percentage of the profits. I know that there was a time when some producers in the industry thought the percentage they wanted was too high.
But do not forget that the original purpose of the Film Finance Corporation was to save the British film industry. There have been many claimants for the privilege and honour of saving the British film industry, but there was one man who deserves 99 per cent. of the credit, and that is my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Wilson, who was the originator of the Film Finance Corporation idea. I remember saying at the time, about the amount of money which the Government were going to put at the disposal of the Film Finance Corporation, that it would be a good day's work if they lost the whole lot, the £5 million, but kept the independent British producer in business.

513
That is how it turned out—they lost a lot of money. But that was the object. Is the noble, Lord saying that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, there now is no need for the Film Finance Corporation at all? Is he saying that, and, therefore, that there is no need for the Film Finance Corporation and that British film producers are now so strong that they can go to the ordinary channels of banking for finance? Is he saying that? If he is saying that, he is suffering under a delusion. If he really thinks it, why does he not wind up the Film Finance Corporation altogether?
My noble friend's point, and I absolutely agree with him, is that there is as much need to-day for the Film Finance Corporation as ever there was. But there will be no outlet for the energies of the Film Finance Corporation as envisaged when it was first started, if you are going to say that they have to run on ordinary banking lines. That is what the noble Lord is saying.
LORD MANCROFT: Try to, if possible.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHYou have to read Clauses 10 and 11 together. Clause 11 reads:
"It shall be the duty of the National Film Finance Corporation to exercise and perform their functions in such a manner as appears to them best calculated to secure the avoidance of default's being made in the discharge, as regards any loan made to them after the passing of this Act, of their obligations with respect to repayment of the principal of the loan and the payment of interest on any sum for the time being outstanding in respect of it."
In other words, if I were the managing director of the Film Finance Corporation, I should take it as a directive that I had got to have security plus security, and guarantee upon guarantee, precisely the same as would have to be given to a bank.
I feel as strongly upon this as does my noble friend. The noble Lord says that the Film Finance Corporation should go on precisely in the same way in the future as it has done in the past, and not, as my noble friend said, have all its funds swallowed up by big concerns, because there are hundreds of people who to-day want finance. I think the Film Finance Corporation has done a very good job of work. I hope that my noble friend, if not now, then at some later stage of this Bill, will press this matter to a Division,
514
because I am certain that the Corporation should remain intact without the fetters being placed upon it which are imposed under Clause 10.
LORD BURDEN: May I say one word in addition to what has been said? I suggest that the Department have landed themselves in these difficulties because there has not been adequate discussion with all the interests concerned. The borrowing powers of the National Film Finance Corporation, as I understand it, finished in April of this year. As far back as February last year, the matter was raised in another place, and a little later a letter was addressed to the various sections of the industry. Although some replies were received, adequate consideration has not been given by the Board of Trade to the fact that other sections of the industry, as well as the producers, the distributors, and so on, all have a direct interest in the way in which this Corporation does its job. But since then no steps have been taken by the Department to get the interests together to discuss what is now in this Bill, and that is why the Government have landed themselves in this difficulty. I hope my noble friend will press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD ARCHIBALD: On looking at the Amendment again, I am bound to admit that I think the noble Lord who spoke for the Government was right in saying that my Amendment is technically at fault, and that it would not merely prevent the change of function but would lead to the cessation of function. That is something upon which I shall have to take advice, as to how to frame a new Amendment for a later stage. I warned the Committee at the beginning that all my Amendments were of my own drafting, and I see that on this one I have gone astray.
But the point at issue remains the same, and here I think we have not received a satisfactory explanation from the Government. I may say that I raised this point not as someone associated with the film industry. So far as I know, I have not heard a word from producers that they have even thought about this subsection. I do not know what their views are at all, if they have any views. I do not know the views of any part of the industry about this clause. I raised it, if I may put it in this way, as a

515
Parliamentarian, because here we have what will be an Act of Parliament which introduces something quite new—the provision of public finance for such sections of the industry as are able to get their finance from normal channels. I think it is true to say that the original Bill would not have gone through both Houses by agreement if it had then been proposed that the Film Finance Corporation should be entitled to lend to all and sundry of British film producers, or that it should compete with the banks or other sources of finance. It was an agreed measure because it was a limited measure —because it was providing something that could not be provided from other sources. Now we are having the fundamental conception of its functions changed without, in my opinion, adequate reason therefor.
I thought the noble Lord allayed a number of fears which I had, in fact, neither expressed nor felt—for example, that the big corporations might borrow all the money. The noble Lord attributed that to me in my Second Reading speech, but I made no such suggestion. I put the hypothetical case that borrowers who did not need the money might, in the early part of the year, come along and borrow so much that other producers who could not get money elsewhere, coming along later, would find that the funds were used up. Naturally, that is exaggerating the situation, but it is not a wholly impossible picture, and it is only partly met by the suggestion that it could be dealt with by a directive which might by then be too late.
I also thought that the noble Lord was a little contradictory when he suggested that the conditions laid down by the Film Finance Corporation were so onerous that people who could get their money elsewhere would do so, while at the same time he was arguing that people who could get their money elsewhere would be people who had the more attractive, and likely to be more commercially successful, films in the offing. Their borrowings from the Corporation would enable the Corporation to offset some of the risks in lendings to films that had a less prospect of success. You cannot impose such onerous terms that you frighten off the commercially attractive and at the same time have the commercially attractive to
516
offset the commercially unattractive. You must make up your mind on which leg you are standing. On the ground that an insufficient case has been made for this change of function, I intend to return to it, but, naturally, I shall be unable to press it now. I gather that the noble Lord has something further to say, so I shall not withdraw it until he has had the opportunity to speak.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: If the noble Lord is going to move it again, differently drafted, perhaps that might be a better occasion on which to say something about it.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Duty of Corporation to pay their way
11. It shall be the duty of the National Film Finance Corporation to exercise and perform their functions in such manner as appears to them best calculated to secure the avoidance of default's being made in the discharge, as regards any loan made to them after the passing of this Act, of their obligations with respect to repayment of the principal of the loan and the payment of interest on any sum for the time being outstanding in respect of it.
8.2 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, after "secure" to insert "taking one year with another". The noble Lord said: To some extent the ground here has been covered, but noble Lords will notice that in moving the previous Amendment I tried to avoid any reference to this one, although I realised that to some extent the two were linked. Other noble Lords have linked them, but I have not made any reference to this in my previous remarks. I want to make some reference now. Here again, we have to go back to the attitude of Parliament when the original Act was passed. I cannot do better than quote the words which were used by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in the Second Reading debate, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 160, Col. 432]:
"If we are going into this business at all… then we have to lake a risk. After all… the Government take a great deal of money out of this business already…It is not unreasonable that a little of that money should be ventured back in a risk."

517
In other words, it was accepted on both sides of the House that this money had to be risk money or the Film Finance Corporation would not serve any useful purpose at all.
Now this new Clause 11 puts an added restriction on the operations of the Film Finance Corporation. In effect, it is an instruction to the Corporation to exclude the element of risk as far as humanly possible. When I put this point during the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was good enough to write to me. He put the point that it requires the Film Finance Corporation to endeavour to avoid losses, to avoid being in the position that it could not repay its loans to the Board of Trade, but that it did not put any restriction on the Corporation with regard to the loans which it made. I venture to suggest that that is really a quite absurd argument. If the Film Finance Corporation is to be in a position to repay its loans to the Board of Trade, then it must be in the position of recovering all the loans that it makes. Quite clearly, that means that it has, as I put it, to look only for the more or less gilt-edged propositions. It is, in effect, telling the Film Finance Corporation that it is no longer to carry out the purpose for which it was set up, that of providing risk money. It is in future so to conduct itself that it will not make losses, so that it is in the position of being able to repay the Board of Trade in full.
I regard this as a very sad clause altogether. It is a mean clause. In my opinion, it is putting the Film Finance Corporation in an impossible position. No man who is a director or managing director of that Corporation, faced with this clause in the new Bill, can be other than very hard and strict indeed in all his lendings. There may well be films of great artistic merit of which the box office possibilities may be a little doubtful, where the Corporation will have to say, "Sorry; we cannot lend you arty money because we might make a loss; then we should not be able to repay the Board of Trade, and that would not be in conformity with this clause." The Amendment which I have put down is, if I may use an Americanism, only a "gimmick" on which to have this matter discussed. This is probably a clause of which I should have moved the deletion, because I think it sets out a
518
thoroughly bad principle. The Government would be well advised to allow the Film Finance Corporation to carry on under the powers of the original Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, after ("secure") insert ("taking one year with another").—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know whether my noble friend, Lord Archibald, will agree to this course, but in order to be helpful I would suggest to him that he withdraws this Amendment for the time being to let the Government think about Clauses 10 and 11. If not, if he presses it we shall have to go on, but I suggest that it will be better if the Government consider this. Our attitude on this side of the House is this. We desire the Film Finance Corporation to have extended life. It has served a useful function; it will carry on serving a useful function, and we want it to continue on precisely the same lines as it is carrying on to-day. We have no objection to the Board of Trade from time to time giving it directives, as they always have done, but we do not want its powers impaired, as they are by Clauses 10 and 11. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would like to do that, and if he cannot accommodate us upon the lines I have suggested, then on the Report stage we can put down either or both of these Amendments again in a different form, because my noble friend said he would do that with regard to Clause 10. It could also be done with Clause 11. I want to make it perfectly clear that we shall press our point of view on this matter. I should like the Government to have the opportunity of considering the attitude we adopt, which we think is reasonable.
LORD MANCROFT: I can answer the noble Lord quickly. This particular Amendment No. 31 would be unacceptable to us for a technical reason—that is, that the words "taking one year with another" have nothing to do with the main substance of the argument. However, if noble Lords are worried about this point (it is a major one, and we do not want to stay till midnight discussing the future of the Film Finance Corporation), we will try to win them over and not "bulldoze" this clause through. But

519
win them over we will endeavour to do. I will certainly give the noble Lord the undertaking that we will think about this matter, and it would be improper not to pay attention to the noble Lords' arguments. I will certainly undertake to consider carefully, between now and the next stage of this interminable Bill, whether we can help the noble Lords to clear up their doubts.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said, though I am bound to say that personally I should be quite willing to stay here till midnight discussing this very important point, and I do not regard it as an interminable Bill. This is a Bill affecting quite an important industry, proposing many very important changes, and I do not think there has been an undue amount of time devoted to its discussion. I do not begrudge any of the time we are spending on it now. The point here is that I think the Government are changing a fundamental principle. They are trying to take out the element of risk. May I point out that since the Film Finance Corporation was set up the Government have probably taken over £250 million from the industry in taxes. Compared with that, the losses of the N.F.F.C. are trifling. I do not know why this new clause should have been put in at all, but if it will be thought about again we can discuss it on another occasion. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Extension of period during which exhibition of British films is obligatory
14. Section one of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948 (which makes compulsory the inclusion of British films amongst registered films exhibited to the public in theatres in Great Britain during the period beginning with the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-eight and ending with the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight) shall have effect with the substitution, in subsection (7) thereof, for the words "nineteen hundred and fifty-eight", of the words "nineteen hundred and sixty-eight".
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to add to the clause:
"and in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-five of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, for the words 'His Majesty's
520
dominions' there shall be substituted the words 'United Kingdom'"
The noble Lord said: The first two of the three Amendments standing in my name raise the same point, which I can put very briefly to your Lordships. Lest I should be suspected of any unfriendliness towards any overseas members of the Commonwealth, I would mention that I am one of the small minority in your Lordships' House who have had the pleasure and privilege of being a student of an overseas Commonwealth university, and I am very far from having any unfriendly feelings.
Your Lordships will remember that the first Cinematograph Films Act of 1927 was introduced and passed as a result of a resolution which was passed by the Imperial Conference of 1926. That resolution read as follows:
"The Imperial Conference, recognising that it is of the greatest importance that a larger and increasing proportion of the films exhibited throughout the Empire should be of Empire production, commends the matter and the remedial measures proposed to the consideration of the Governments of the various parts of the Empire with a view to such early and effective action to deal with the serious situation now existing as they may severally find possible."
The United Kingdom only took steps to implement this resolution, and part of the implementation took the form of extending the advantages of being a British film to films produced in other parts of the Commonwealth. I do not think that any member of the Commonwealth who has not taken steps to give to British films the same advantages that their films would receive in this country can possibly take objection to the fact that we should now narrow our beneficence, if I may put it so, our advantageous treatment of British films, to the United Kingdom only. This is the object of the first two Amendments which stand in my name. I apologise if they are really rather clumsy in form, but owing to the structure of the Bill I have no option, and I take it I could not have done better because I took professional guidance on the matter and was helped by the officers of the House.
The first Amendment deals with the use of studio space and the second with labour, but the basic point is the point I was making: that there has been since 1927 no reciprocal action on the part of other members of the Commonwealth,

521
and it seems to me only fair that the advantages we wish to give to British films should, in the circumstances, failing reciprocal action, be limited to the United Kingdom. With your Lordships' permission I will move the first Amendment, and, depending on the treatment it receives, I will either move or ask leave to withdraw the second.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 4, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: May I first of all speak to the first Amendment. Do I understand that the noble Lord is going to move each one in turn?
LORD FARINGDON: Just as the noble Lord likes. The point is exactly the same on both, although they apply to different sections of the industry.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I am afraid I must tell the noble Lord I cannot accept any of the Amendments. The effect of the first one is to provide that films shall not be registered as British (and therefore will not get a share of the levy) unless made in studios in the United Kingdom. This would certainly raise difficulties within the Commonwealth, which would have to be examined very carefully before Her Majesty's Government could take a firm attitude on this proposal. In the case of the second Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, its effect would be to provide that in calculating the requisite amount of labour costs for the purposes of registering a film as a British film, persons domiciled outside the United Kingdom (instead of at present outside Her Majesty's Dominions) should not count as British. This would raise serious difficulties within the Commonwealth which would require very careful examination before the Government could take an attitude on this proposal.
In the case of the third Amendment standing in the noble Lord's name, which is slightly different, its effect would be to disqualify a film as a British quota film (and therefore entitled to a share of the levy) unless 95 per cent. of the laboratory costs in making the film were incurred in a laboratory situated in the United Kingdom. At present it is believed that a high percentage of the laboratory work
522
is done here, even for films made on location, but there are some films made on location at a great distance from the United Kingdom: for example, in South Africa and Australia, where it is not reasonable to expect the "rushes"—I am sure the noble Lord is familiar with that word—to be brought back to this country for processing. There seems no need for this Amendment, since it is not thought that there is any tendency for the work to be done outside the United Kingdom. For those reasons—and I hope the noble Lord will appreciate them—I am unable to accept his Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: I confess I am not enormously impressed by the noble Lord's argument, certainly on the first two Amendments. I do not 'believe it would give rise to very considerable difficulties with members of the Commonwealth. I am certain that members of the Commonwealth would fully appreciate that if they were unable or unwilling to give reciprocal advantages to British films there would be no reason why they should benefit as if they were giving those reciprocal advantages.
I do not intend to press these Amendments. I would ask however that they should be considered. The noble Lord said that very careful consideration would have to be given to the situation which would be caused by the adoption of any such Amendments. I suggest that this attention begin to be given at once, because there is quite a serious point here. Moreover, if, in fact, it would give rise to difficulties with other members of the Commonwealth, I suggest that the advantages which we in this country give to Commonwealth films must be of a certain value. If they are of a certain value, I imagine that it is quite possible that the overseas members of the Commonwealth might he prepared to give reciprocal advantages. I shall, however, not press the first Amendment.
I had not spoken to my third Amendment. The noble Lord took the words out of my mouth. At this late hour I think it is reasonable to cut things down to the shortest possible period. Frankly, I do not accept his point. I am not wedded to the actual percentage in the Amendment on the other hand, even for films which were being shot on location in. South Africa, the time needed to fly them back to England is really quite short. Whilst he says that he is

523
informed that in fact there is no danger that the use of overseas laboratories will take much custom away from our own laboratories, I am informed otherwise—that is to say, I am informed that there has been a tendency recently to have an increasing amount of the laboratory work done outside this country. I am therefore unable to accept his plea. However, with the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw the first Amendment, and, when the time comes, will not move the other two. I suggest, however, to Her Majesty's Government, that these are both points which merit consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.22 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit Clause 14. The noble Lord said: We may be able to deal with this Amendment quite quickly or it may take us a long time it all depends on what the noble Lord opposite has to say. Part III of this Bill, and especially Clause 14, extends the period during which exhibitors are obliged, under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, to show British films, and increases the maximum amounts of certain fees payable under the Cinematograph Films Act. 1938. Clause 14 deals with the extension of period during which exhibition of British films is obligatory. To-day, it is obligatory to show on British screens at least 30 per cent. of British films—and the definition of a British film we discussed fully earlier to-day.
When this Bill was mooted, about last February, the President of the Board of Trade said that he wished to discuss with the film industry, in all its sections, three major points. The first was whether the Eady levy should be made statutory or should remain voluntary; the second was the borrowing powers of the Film Finance Corporation, and the third was whether or not the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948 (that is the quota Act), should be extended or altered in any way. He asked the Film Finance Corporation to circularise the entire industry. This they did, pointing out that the first two objects I have mentioned were of prime importance and the Film Finance Corporation would not ask the industry to pass on any comments about the third object until some later date.
I will not go through the whole of this unfortunate history, but it was firmly in the industry's mind that the Government intended to bring forward legislation that would amend the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948. Whilst the Government may not have known that every section of the industry wanted it amended, I do not think there is a section in the industry that disagrees with the fact that there should be a quota. But on the exhibitor's side it is said, quite frankly, that there is not enough latitude to take care of the unfortunate exhibitor who, through no wish of his own, really cannot fulfil the quota. My information is that, of the 4,500 cinemas in this country, the number of defaulters in quota amounts to 1,000 a year: that the law is absolutely unenforceable and, therefore, is brought into disrepute. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is here at the moment, because I feel certain that it is one of the most distasteful things for any Lord Chancellor to know, that the law is brought into disrepute because it is unenforceable and because it is so silly. That is on one side. On the other side, the exhibitors have their reason for wanting it altered, and in all there is a feeling within the industry—I say this with great respect—that the Government have not played fair.
I ask your Lordships to take into consideration the fact that the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, does not expire until September, 1958. I hope that the noble Lord will not tell me that the reason why it is necessary to put through an extension of the quota without any Amendment in this Bill is because there will not be any legislative time between now and 1958. He might "tell that to the Marines," but I hope he will not try to tell me that. That is the stock phrase that is put into the mouth of every Government spokesman. When the Government do not want to do anything, or when it is inconvenient for them to do it, of course they say that there is no legislative time. But if the Government want to do anything, they generally manage to find legislative time to do it. That is the reason why we have not put down any amendment to the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, because any amendment that would be worthwhile, and acceptable to the Government, would have to be the result of long and careful—I say "long," but at any rate

525
extending over a month or two—consultations will all sides of the industry.
This is a highly technical matter, and I do not think it would have been fair to go into it—I will be quite frank with the noble Lord—because it would have prolonged these proceedings. The noble Lord says that they are getting too protracted. I do not think so; I think we have got through very well. This Bill is of tremendous importance to an important industry. The noble Lord must not get tired because he cannot have his own way all the time. I have not succeeded in one of my Amendments, but I am not tired. The noble Lord should never be tired of well-doing.
What I want to ask the noble Lord is this: will he give me an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will consult with the industry as soon as may he and get an Amendment to the Cinematograph Films Act, the "quota" Act, within a reasonable time? Frankly, I do not think Her Majesty's Government have played fair. They should have carried out their original intention. They did not tell the industry that they were not going to do so. It was left to a statement made in another place by the then President of the Board of Trade, and it has caught the whole industry on the wrong foot. I have a letter which reached me only yesterday saying that at a meeting of the producers, the exhibitors and the trade unions, a letter was written to the President of the Board of Trade expressing the unanimous disappointment of all four associations represented at the meeting at the decision of Her Majesty's Government to limit Part III of the Bill to Section 1 of the Act of 1948. That is just that one section which specifies the time.
I hope the noble Lord will not tell me that the quota provisions of the Act of 1948 cannot he amended because that matter does not, come within the Long Title of the Bill. One of the advantages in your Lordships' House is that the first Amendment to a Bill proposed by the Lord Chairman is, "That the Title of the Bill be postponed," for the very important reason that, if your Lordships so desire, you can pass any Amendment so long as it is germane to the subject of the Bill. If we so desired, we could have put down Amendments on the Report stage and on this stage and we should
526
have been quite in order. As I told the noble Lord, we did not do so because we felt that it would be jumping the gun". And, as I have said, I feel that the very important Amendments that are needed to bring the quota provisions up to present-day requirements, in the light of experience, require close discussion between Her Majesty's Government and all the interests concerned. That is the reason why I have put down this Amendment. I hope that perhaps the noble Lord is going to be conciliatory about this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 14.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD JESSEL: I touched on this point on the Second Reading of the Bill, and as a result of my remarks the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was kind enough to write me a letter in which he said that he would see whether something could be done to reassure the industry that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to let quota legislation run on unamended until 1968. I know that the exhibitors, who feel that they have been pretty shabbily treated in this matter, will be most anxious to know what he is going to do to see that this does not happen. I would make one further suggestion. If Her Majesty's Government cannot accept this Amendment as it stands, would it be possible, so as to reassure the industry, to accept an Amendment which continued the existing quota system for one year? That would give plenty of Parliamentary time to bring in another Bill, at the end of one year, to put right what most of the industry consider are serious defects in the existing quota system.
LORD MANCROFT: This is an important subject. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has begged me not to do two things which I have no intention of doing, and not to do a third thing which I did with some vehemence in the course of my Second Reading speech. I am afraid that I am not going to please the noble Lord. This clause extends by ten years, to September 30, 1968, the period during which exhibitors are obliged to show a certain percentage of British films. It is important to be clear as to what its omission would mean: it would mean that the quota provisions of

527
the Cinematograph Films Acts, 1938 and 1948, would expire in September, 1958, unless legislation were promoted in the present Session, or in the 1957–58 Session.
I would ask all noble Lords who favour this to consider its probable effect on British film producers. We are already devoting a good deal of time in this House to discussion of film production problems, and I was not complaining in any way that we were devoting too much time, or that this was not an important matter which should not be fully debated; I was fixing a self-denying ordinance on myself not to be more "long-winded" than was necessary. By the time the present Bill has been considered in another place, we shall be well into the present Session. I wonder whether, at the moment, it is in the best interests of film producers that time should be sought in the Session beginning next autumn to go over their affairs again.
Words of disappointment have been used, and I was rather discouraged to hear allegations of bad faith levelled against Her Majesty's Government on this particular clause. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that Her Majesty's Government had caught the industry "on the wrong foot." If we have done so, I can assure the industry at once that there is no question of bad faith. If we have embarrassed them, I am truly sorry, and I apologise for any inconvenience caused to those in the industry who would have wished other than what is now done, but I can assure them that there are no evil motives. I appreciate that industry may be somewhat surprised to find that the Bill extends the quota provisions of the 1938 and 1948 Acts, and that this has been done before the consultations which were promised by the President of the Board of Trade earlier this year, on revision of all the clauses of quota legislation; but I think the reason will be understood. Because of pressure of other business, it has not been possible to conclude the work in time for the present Bill. I can say categorically, however, that we propose that these discussions will begin in the autumn this year, just as soon as the present Bill, and regulations made under it, are completed, with a view to legislation as soon as possible after that. I cannot be more categorical than that and I do not think
528
your Lordships can expect a more categorical statement, but that is what we have in mind.
In all those circumstances, I suggest that this programme should prove to be the most practicable and most desirable for the health of the industry. I therefore ask your Lordships not to press for this Amendment but to approve the clause as it stands. I hope that I have given the categorical undertaking which the noble Lord wanted. I wish that I could have gone further, but I think he will realise that to attempt to be more specific would be stupid, because I cannot pledge my successors or put my hand on my heart and say without a doubt what will be done. I can only repeat that we hope this legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after the date I have mentioned.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Did the noble Lord say that conversations with the industry will commence in the autumn of this year?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I quite understand that he does not want them to start while this Bill is going through Parliament. But why wait until the autumn? Is there any point in waiting? Would the noble Lord alter the statement to say that negotiations on discussions with the industry will start, not in the autumn but after the Bill has gone through Parliament? I can quite understand the difficulty of carrying on one set of conversations about legislation while this legislation is going through. Will he say that Her Majesty's Government will undertake to bring in the later legislation as soon as possible after those discussions?
LORD MANCROFT: I do not think the noble Lord is being unreasonable. I will certainly undertake that the conversations shall take place as soon as possible, and that legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after the conversations.
LORD BURDEN: Will Her Majesty's Government stand by this extension till 1968, or will there be legislation to consider that if this Amendment is withdrawn? In other words, would it not be good policy to accept the suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, to have this clause withdrawn, and

529
the quota system as it is to-day continued for another twelve months, to allow the discussions to proceed and fresh legislation to be got through? Otherwise, this ten years is riveted on the industry.
LORD MANCROFT: That would be a very bad idea. We want, and the whole industry want, the quota legislation. If I attempted to meet Lord Burden's requirements, we should only have a year's safety—then we should have legislation again, or the whole thing would go by default and we should have a great gap in the legislation which would be very much to the disadvantage of everyone concerned. I am sure that our proposal is the tidiest way of dealing with the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I take it that by this Bill we extend the quota provisions of the 1948 Act.
LORD MANCROFT: That is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the Government, after discussions with the industry, decide amendments of the 1948 Act are necessary, an Amending Bill will have to be produced to amend the 1948 Act. This Act only carries on the quota provision of the 1948 Act?
LORD MANCROFT: That is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will accept that. If I may say so, I think that the noble Lord has been eminently fair. I am sure that the industry will wait with cheerful anticipation, immediately this legislation has gone through Parliament, for a summons to discuss the proposed Amendments to the 1948 Act. I am sure they will be very satisfied with the Government's undertaking that discussions will start, and that if it is decided to legislate, legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after those discussions.
LORD MANCROFT: Not immediately, but as soon as possible after those discussions.
LORD FARINGDON: I should like to inquire whether these consultations on this legislation will be the occasion when my Amendments to Clause 14 could come under consideration.
LORD MANCROFT: I think that is a perfectly fair question and the answer is, "Yes".
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Increase of maximum amounts of certain fees]:
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD had an Amendment on the Marshalled List to leave out Clause 15. The noble Lord said: As this would have been a consequential Amendment in the unlikely event of the Government's having accepted the previous Amendment, I will not move it.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Schedule [Provisions relating to British Film Fund Agency]:
8.45 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved to add to paragraph 7 (1):
", and regulations under section three of this Act may include provision for requiring the Agency to set aside, out of the proceeds of said levy in respect of the last period in respect of which it is imposed, such sum as appears to the Board sufficient to defray the expenses of the winding up"
The noble Lord said: The Schedule provides that, where there are no further functions to be discharged by the Agency, the Board of Trade may by order provide for the winding up of the Agency. No provision has been made in the Bill for the payment of the expenses of the winding up. These expenses should not be very great but will no doubt include the salary of a liquidator and the normal expenses associated with a winding up, such as the expenses of advertising for creditors of the Agency. This Amendment gives power to the Board of Trade to include in regulations made under Clause 3 (which will relate to the distribution of the levy), a requirement that the Agency shall set aside such sum as the Board of Trade consider sufficient to defray the expenses of the winding up out of the proceeds of the levy collected in respect of the final levy year. On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, at end insert the said words, —(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I can quite see the reason for this Amendment and I am not going to oppose it. But I think I had better have something

531
on the record. I want to get an assurance from the noble Lord on behalf of the Government that this does not portend in any way the winding up of the levy. I do not mind your making provisions for its being wound up, but I cannot foresee, and I do not think the industry can foresee, the time when this levy in some shape or another will not be necessary, because it may well be—and this is what I want to impress on the noble Lord—that the more British film production expands, the greater the amount of levy that will be required. I want to draw his attention to what I said on the first Amendment which I moved—that the British picture industry can never be self-supporting on a home market. I cannot foresee the time when it will not require financial assistance, either direct grant from the Government or a levy of this description. I want it clearly understood that in agreeing to this Amendment we understand that this is not one of those cases of "coming events casting their shadows before" and that it is not the intention that the levy shall be discontinued and the British Film Production Fund come to an end. Can the noble Lord give me an undertaking that that is not what is intended by the Government by this Amendment?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I give the noble Lord the assurance that that is not the Government's intention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the said Schedule, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD BURDEN: On one or two occasions previously I have mentioned the point of the regulations, and this Schedule provides for the making of regulations. These regulations will be of profound importance to every section of the industry, and I hope I can take it, or have the assurance, that in the framing of these regulations, consideration will be given to each section of the industry and appropriate consultations will take place. The next point I should like to make is this. These regulations are usually in draft for quite a long time before they are laid before Parliament, and when they are laid we are not in a position to amend: we have to accept or reject, and rejection, of course, is not a conceivable possibility. Will the noble
532
Lord take into consideration whether it is not possible for a debate to take place on the draft regulations at a stage before they are laid before Parliament for consideration? That is a way which would get us out of many difficulties, and I think would be helpful towards getting an Affirmative Resolution when the time comes for that. May I ask the noble Lord that consideration be given to that matter?
LORD MANCROFT: The answer to both questions which the noble Lord has put to me is: "Yes."
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

  RECRUITMENT TO FIGHTING SERVICES
  RECRUITMENT TO FIGHTING SERVICES