Sitting of 23 May 1957

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

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Exports to U.S.S.R.
    Mr. Usborneasked the President of the Board of Trade why licences for thread - grinding and gear - shaping machines required by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been recently refused.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Licences have been refused because the export of these machines to the U.S.S.R. is subject to embargo.
    Mr. Usborne: Is not this embargo somewhat ludicrous at the present time in view of the fact that anybody who has visited the Leipzig or Hanover Fairs now knows that machines of very similar quality are being made in the Eastern European countries and are being obtained by the Soviet authorities? That being so, why cannot we now supply these machines from our own industry here?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: We think, in conformity with our partners and allies in this matter, that the embargo is effective for the purposes for which it was designed.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that although Her Majesty's Government were wrong when they "went it alone" on
    1364
    Suez, on this issue they might usefully "go it alone" and be right?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not accept the implication in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question or the invitation in the second part.
    Mr. Usborne: Is this embargo list, which was made up so long ago, still as valid as it was then? Are there any changes that would make it less valid?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: When the hon. Gentleman refers to "so long ago" he no doubt recalls that the strategic controls on trade with the Soviet Union were drastically curtailed in October, 1954. It is on that list that we now proceed.
    Mr. Usbomeasked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to lift the restrictions on the export to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of machine tools of the types which Eastern bloc countries are exporting to other markets.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Not before we and our partners in the Paris Consultative Group consider that the strategic reasons for these restrictions have lost their validity.
    Mr. Usborne: Are the Government having discussions with those partners, and particularly with the Americans, with a view to getting these restrictions rapidly modified?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: There are no discussions taking place relating to the specific point raised in the Question of the hon. Member.

    Factory, Trafford Park
    Mr. Storeyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Ministry of Supply factory, Barton Dock Road, Trafford Park, until recently occupied by Platt Brothers, has yet been re-let.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): Negotiations are taking place with prospective tenants who are interested in about one-third of the factory. Other applications are being considered.
    Mr. Storey: While thanking my hon. Friend for the effort which he has already made to let this factory space, may I ask whether the modern foundry block is

    1365
    among the portions which are likely to be let, and whether efforts will be made to let the foundry space as early as possible?
    Mr. Erroll: We are maintaining our efforts in respect of the factory as a whole, and we are making renewed attempts to find someone to take over the foundry. Our regional controllers have been asked to give all possible help in securing this end.

    Potatoes and Tomatoes (Import Duties)
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has set a timetable for the consideration of the applications received for increased import duties on potatoes and tomatoes in the summer months; and whether any changes can be made effective for the current season.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. The time this will take depends upon the representations my right hon. Friend receives.
    Mr. Hurd: That is a rather disappointing reply, especially in view of the fact, of which I now ask my hon. Friend if he is aware, that a very heavy flood of Canary tomatoes is now coming into this market, making the position for our tomato growers very difficult. Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to this matter?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, but I hope my hon. Friend does not find it disappointing that my reply should take into account the necessity for thoroughness and care in the examination of these applications and for providing a full opportunity to all interested parties to make known their views.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are Cyprus potatoes going to come in just at the time when the Ayrshire potatoes are on the market, and are the farmers to lose money, as the result of the actions of the Government?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: That supplementary question goes a little wider than the Question on the Order Paper, but I will do my best to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity at an appropriate time.

    Prices
    Mr. Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause an investigation to be made into the articles, commodities and services which have risen in price since the Suez Canal crisis, with a view to defining the extent to which these prices have been reduced to their pre-Suez crisis level; and whether he will take the necessary action, by the imposition of price control or other wise, to ensure that all of these prices are reduced to the prices pertaining in October, 1956, where it can be shown that these were increased due to the war in Suez.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: Can the hon. Gentleman give any sensible or logical reason why he will not accept the suggestion made in my Question, or some such suggestion, when everybody, irrespective of political opinion, would agree that if these prices went up because of the Suez crisis they ought to be reduced now that the reason for the increase has gone? Is he aware that, although the price of flour has been reduced by 9s. a sack in the last few weeks the price of bread has gone up again? Will not the hon. Gentleman do something on the basis of the suggestion made in the Question?
    Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member has pursued this subject on a number of Parliamentary occasions. I think he would help his case best if he were to produce some facts and figures on which he bases his contention.

    Metric System
    Mr. G. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Bill to amend the Weights and Measures Acts, which has been, or is being, prepared, will include proposals for adopting the metric system, as recommended by the Hodgson Committee.
    Mr. Erroll: I cannot anticipate the contents of the Bill. As regards the adoption of the metric system, I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 16th May.
    Mr. Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I heard that unsatisfactory Answer, and that is why I left this Question on the Order Paper? Is he aware

    1367
    that this is a great opportunity, not only to carry out the reform suggested by the Hodgson Committee, but also to place ourselves in line with the European market? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that quite a lot of trade is still being lost to this country because manufacturers still quote in measurements and weights that are in a form that cannot be understood by their potential customers?
    Mr. Erroll: We are aware of that argument, and we are studying it, but we are far from convinced that we are losing any substantial volume of trade by adhering to the Imperial system.
    Mr. Orbach: Can we have any idea when the Bill is to be presented to the House? I asked a question about four years ago, when I was told that it would be presented almost immediately.
    Mr. Erroll: It will be presented as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

    Monopolies Commission
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the reference on chemical fertilisers to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The Commission is proceeding with its work. My right hon. Friend does no expect to receive its Report for some time.
    Mr. Willey: The Minister of State will appreciate that there is a good deal of public concern about this matter, as a substantial subsidy element is involved. Will he call the attention of the Commission to the question whether we can get an earlier report than he, apparently, expects?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think the instrumentality of myself is necessary to make the Commission, and indeed the public generally, aware of any point raised in the House by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Orbachasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is a condition of membership of the National Pharmaceutical Union that applicants in retail, wholesale or manufacturing, shall be members of the Proprietary Articles Trade Association; and if he will ask the Monopolies Commission to make an inquiry on this matter and report to him.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend is not so aware; but if such a condition does exist, it would not be a matter on which a reference to the Commission could be based.
    Mr. Orbach: Surely, this organisation, which is recognised by the Board of Trade and with which the Ministry of Health has dealings, ought not to lay down a condition that applicants should, in the first place, join a price-fixing organisation? Surely that fact ought to be referred to the Monopolies Commission?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will study Section 3 of the 1948 Act, he will see that this condition, taken by itself, does not constitute a case for reference to the Monopolies Commission. Price-fixing agreements, as I am sure he is aware, are not, in any event, a matter for the Commission, but one for the Restrictive Practices Court.
    Sir H. Linstead: Is it not a fact that all that happens is that, for convenience, the two subscriptions can be paid together, and that if any member of the Union does not desire to be a member of the Association, that can be arranged?
    Mr. Collinsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that although the cost of producing newsprint in this country is only £35 per ton, the equalised price charged to newspapers is approximately £60 per ton; and if, in view of the dominating position of the two largest producers, he will refer the newsprint industry to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend is aware of the price charged to newspapers for newsprint; but he is not aware of the cost of production. My right hon. Friend will bear in mind any representations relating to this industry in considering references to the Monopolies Commission. But the hon. Member will have in mind that if there are any common price agreements in this industry, these are not a matter for the Monopolies Commission, but for the Restrictive Practices Court.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that of imported newsprint nearly 50 per cent. is imported and used by the big newspaper chains like Rothermere and Northcliffe, which leaves the remaining

    1369
    daily and evening newspapers in the hands of the newsprint companies, and constitutes a monopoly? Is he further aware that the inferior newsprint made from rags is foisted, to the extent of 80 or 90 per cent., on weekly provincial papers? Many newspapers have died, many more are in danger, and, whatever the position is technically, will he not have an inquiry into the price structure and distribution of newsprint?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's question relates to the reference of the newsprint industry to the Monopolies Commission. He will appreciate that the Monopolies Commission acts under statutory powers under the relevant Acts, and we cannot, of course, go outside these statutory formulæ.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Is not the Minister aware that there is a widespread feeling that there are very serious restrictive practices in regard to the newsprint industry? Will he bear in mind that The Times, in a leading article last Saturday, said:
    " If the newsprint companies feel that they have as good a case as they claim, they should welcome their operations being referred to the Restrictive Practices Court."
    Is not this a matter of public interest, which the Minister ought to take far more seriously than he has done?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows so well from his participation in the proceedings when the Bill was before the House, cases are not referred to the Restrictive Practices Court. If there are common price agreements in the industry, they are, of course, liable to registration under the Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements Order, 1956, and will come before the Court in due course.

    Copyright Act, 1956
    Mr. Hydeasked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for the delay in announcing the date for the coming into full operation of the Copyright Act, 1956.
    Mr. Erroll: There has been no avoidable delay. As hon. Members will have realised, when they were debating the Copyright Bill, an interval was necessary between the passing of the Act and its coming into operation in order to
    1370
    consult interested organisations, to prepare certain subordinate legislation and to set up the Performing Right Tribunal.
    Mr. Hyde: Arising out of that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend when it is proposed that Her Majesty's Government should adhere to the Universal Copyright Convention, and so afford a measure of copyright protection in the United States of America for which British authors and publishers have been waiting for a very long time?
    Mr. Erroll: It is our intention to ratify the Universal Copyright Convention shortly after the coming into operation of the Act.
    Mr. Greenwood: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the necessary Instruments will be laid before the House?
    Mr. Erroll: A number of Instruments will be laid tomorrow.

    Newsprint Industry
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the need to preserve the freedom of the Press, he will institute an inquiry into the present ownership and policy of the newsprint industry and into other factors which appear to militate against the survival of some newspapers.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir.
    Mr. Greenwood: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I tabled this Question to the Prime Minister because it raises issues which are beyond the responsibilities of the Board of Trade, including the impact of commercial television upon the advertising revenues of newspapers? Is he aware that this factor, as well as the high prices charged by the four newsprint companies, to which hon. Members have already referred, are generally accepted as being responsible for the difficulties which many papers are facing at the moment? If he cannot refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission, will he consider the possibility of setting up an inquiry into the newsprint industry of the kind for which there was all-party support last Friday?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: In considering the question of setting up an inquiry, it is material to consider what is the likely benefit to accrue from such an inquiry. I have dealt with the position in regard

    1371
    to the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court in answer to Question No. 9. In regard to these wider matters of the competition of television and so on, it is difficult to see what help the Government could give to the newspaper industry other than by way of subsidy or restrictions upon its competitors, neither of which courses, I think, would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: Would not my right hon. Friend confirm the fact that the Newsprint Supply Company is wholly operated by newspaper proprietors themselves, who in turn operate an equalisation price scheme, and that they include the proprietors of Left-wing newspapers like the Daily Mirror and the Daily Herald?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Social Services (Expenditure)
    Mr. Stevensasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the increase in expenditure on the social services by the central government, the National Insurance Fund, and the local authorities between 1951–52 and 1956–57 compares with the rise in retail prices during the same period.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Between 1951–52 and 1956–57 expenditure on the social services increased by 38 per cent., and retail prices by about 23 per cent.
    Mr. Stevens: Arising out of that Answer, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that, despite economic difficulties in the last few years, there has been a very substantial advance in the provision of real social services for the people?
    Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the hon. Gentleman also recognise that a very large part of any increased expenditure is in fact due to rises in prices, and that the real increases in the value of the services are extremely limited?
    Mr. Powell: That does not detract from the fact that there has been a substantial increase in real terms over the period—about 12½ per cent.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The Government, who pledged themselves to reduce Government expenditure, record that there has been an increase in Government expenditure of £1,600 million since 1950–51. Is not the hon. Gentleman's answer an admission that by far the greatest single element in that increase of £1,600 million is the price rise and inflation?
    Mr. Powell: But in that period there has been a substantial fall in the real burden of Government expenditure.

    European Common Market and Free Trade Area
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his discussions with M. Faure, on behalf of the French Government, about proposals for a European Free Trade Area; and, in particular, what conclusions were reached about the entry of goods from French colonial territories into the European Common Market area and the European Free Trade Area, respectively.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Birch): My right hon. Friend was glad to welcome M. Faure and had useful discussions on the Common Market and the Free Trade Area.
    My right hon. Friend took the opportunity of welcoming the signature of the Treaty of Rome and emphasising the importance which Her Majesty's Government attached to its ratification and to the association in a Free Trade Area of the United Kingdom and other countries of the O.E.E.C. with the European Economic Community. M. Faure for his part emphasised the French Government's support for such association.
    There was an exchange of views on a wide range of matters, but it was not the object of the discussions to reach final conclusions on the many complex problems involved.
    Mr. Wilson: While it would be wrong to press the right hon. Gentleman on the outcome of these discussions in view of the latest events in Paris, I should like to ask him a question. The very general communiqué issued by the Treasury covered the same points as the right hon. Gentleman has done. Is he aware, however, that apparently inspired statements

    1373
    have appeared in the newspapers suggesting that included in the discussions are subjects relating to the position of French colonial territories in the Free Trade Area and that there was, at least, a provisional agreement that colonial territories should not be included in the Free Trade Area? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether there was such a provisional agreement and will he bear in mind that, if there was, it will be supported from all sides of the House?
    Mr. Birch: As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, it is not customary to give details of private conversations between Ministers. I cannot add to what I have said.

    Overseas Profits (Taxation)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish as a White Paper all the memoranda submitted by the Board of Inland Revenue to the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income on all aspects of the subject of exemption of overseas profits from home taxation.
    Mr. Powell: The Royal Commission decided on grounds of expense, against publication of the written evidence submitted to it but arranged that copies should be deposited with the libraries mentioned in paragraph 12 of its Report. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of this House.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since it is generally known that the Board of Inland Revenue produced the most blistering memoranda on the original proposals for these overseas trade corporations, the interest in this matter goes much wider than this House? Will he not, therefore, consider publishing the memoranda as a White Paper so that newspapers and other commentators can inform themselves of the reason for the opposition of the Board of Inland Revenue thereto? Secondly, while we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to put the document in the Library, because of the widespread interest, may I ask whether he can arrange not only that one copy should be available, but that there will be a number of copies, and that they should be put in the Library almost immediately, so that we can put down appropriate Amendments to the Finance Bill?
    Mr. Powell: I hope that it will be in the Library in a day or two. I will look into the point about how many copies can be made available. As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I suggest that he verifies his surmise.

    Purchase Tax
    Mrs. Mannasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Purchase Tax was first imposed on the Crayleigh safeguard for gas and electric cookers; and how much has been collected, to date, from this tax.
    Mr. Powell: Articles of this kind have been chargeable with Purchase Tax since October, 1940. The amount of tax collected on them is not separately known.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this is the first time that a cooker device or any device aimed at reducing accidents in the home has been subject to Purchase Tax? Is he further aware that what he gains on the Purchase Tax swings, he will lose on the hospital roundabouts? Why does he not abolish this tax?
    Mr. Powell: There are a number of accident prevention devices which fall into Purchase Tax groups, and, of course, this item has had the Purchase Tax on it reduced by half in the Budget.
    Mr. H. Wilson: It is not good enough to say that because the Government are misbehaving in respect of one item, they can misbehave in respect of many others too. Will the hon. Gentleman, realising, as I am sure he does, the widespread feeling all over the country about accidents in the home, have another special look at this question, the more so in that the House of Commons cannot, on this year's Finance Bill, move separate Amendments to deal with this point? Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at this matter and give a lot of satisfaction, I am sure, in all parts of the House?
    Mr. Powell: Naturally, I sympathise with the object behind the two questions, but the exemption of accident prevention devices generally is a very complicated and difficult matter.
    Dame Irene Ward: Does my hon. Friend realise that what I think is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the

    1375
    rest of the Treasury Ministers are so taken up with the big financial problems of the day that they really have no time for these most important and small details? Would it not be a good thing if they got a few housewives to get down to telling them what to do?
    Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend has been able to look at this detail very carefully.
    Mr. Wilson: Since, to follow the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), the hon. Gentleman and other Treasury Ministers have made such an awful mess of the big financial and economic problems, could they not at least gain a little credit with the hon. Lady and also more widely by applying their minds to this problem a little more constructively?
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the reasons for heavy rates of Purchase Tax on domestic space and water heating appliances operated by gas and electricity, based largely on indigenous fuel, namely, coal, whereas similar domestic appliances operated by imported oil fuel are free of Purchase Tax; and, in view of current hazards in oil supply, whether he will rearrange matters to encourage maximum use of indigenous fuel resources.
    Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend has noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Nabarro: To return to the supplementary question asked earlier by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that in the terms of the Finance Bill this year, none of these important issues can be raised in Committee or on the later stages of the Bill? As this is an anomaly which we have had now for several years, and having regard to the hazardous oil supply position in the future, is it reasonable that we should continue to give preference to oil consumption at the expense of indigenous fuels?
    Mr. Powell: Those are points which my right hon. Friend has noted in connection with my hon. Friend's Question.
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. As I am precluded from raising this question on the Finance Bill, I give notice that I shall seek to raise it on the Adjournment when it will be in order.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. Member not be equally out of order in trying to raise on the Adjournment a matter of taxation legislation? In view of that, will the Government again consider this matter and see whether it cannot be raised, in order, on the Finance Bill?
    Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not seen what question the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) desires to raise. When I see it, I will express an opinion as to whether it is in order.

    Travel Allowance (Dollar Area)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will pursue his desire to provide a basic travel allowance for the dollar area by discussing the problem with the Canadian and United States Governments now, to see if some mutually satisfactory arrangements can be made.
    Mr. Birch: My right hon. Friend is anxious to provide this allowance as soon as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fairly confident that he will be successful in this so that ordinary people can visit Canada and America, which will be welcomed on both sides of the Atlantic?
    Mr. Birch: I quite agree that it is desirable.

    Italy (Double Taxation Agreement)
    Mr. Hydeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made towards the conclusion of a double taxation agreement with Italy.
    Mr. Powell: I hope that such an agreement will shortly be signed and submitted to Parliament for ratification.

  FORESTRY COMMISSION

    Cottage, Aberangell
    Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the tenant of the Forestry Commission lodge at Aberangell can expect that his cottage will be repainted and redecorated.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): The Forestry Commission has informed my right hon. Friend that it will paint the outside of the cottage this year. The tenant is responsible for internal decoration.
    Mr. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that this cottage has been allegedly down for painting for several years? Is he further aware that when the Forestry Commission leases a property, it insists on a five-year painting clause? In these circumstances, how has this cottage gone unpainted for over twenty years?
    Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is not quite correct in his facts. The cottage was painted in 1943, 1949 and 1951. I am, nevertheless, grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the point to my attention.
    Mr. Bennett: As I live there, I know perfectly well when the cottage was last painted.

    Road Exit, Dovey Forest
    Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated comparative cost of making the principal Forestry Commission Dovey Forest road exit to Aber-angell via the hilly Cwmllecoediog Drive and the flat lower disused tramway road, respectively, taking into account the plans of the local authority to make up the latter in any case.
    Mr. Godber: The estimated cost of the first road is £2,600. Any work which the county council may do on the tramway road would be insufficient to make it fit for forestry traffic. The extra cost of so doing would be at least £1,400 and might involve compulsory purchase of agricultural land. The comparison is not however valid since, if the old tramway road were used, it would still be necessary to improve at least part of the other road and to carry out major works in Aber-angell village.
    Mr. Bennett: To anticipate further suggestions, might I again ask the Minister to appreciate that I have some local knowledge of the matter? Will he realise that if he persists in a scheme which means taking logs to the top of the hill only to bring them down again, he will be emulating a certain famous Duke of York?
    Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has gone into the matter at great length with my hon. Friend. I would remind my hon. Friend that in March this year a special meeting attended by the County Surveyors of Merioneth and Mont-gomerty, the County Clerk of Merioneth and the Chairman of the Merioneth Highways Committee came to the conclusion that the suggestion that my hon. Friend makes is not a practical one.

    Softwood Timber
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his estimate of the approximate volume of soft wood timber of 12-inch diameter and up wards at breast height now standing in the Forestry Commissions' plantations.
    Mr. Godber: The Forestry Commis-mission estimates the volume at between 40 and 50 million cubic feet Hoppus measure.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Food Prices
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the price of meat has been increased from 5 to 7½ per cent., and sugar Id. to 2d. more per pound since the Suez crisis; and if he will now take steps to have these increases removed.
    Mr. Godber: While I cannot accept the hon. Lady's figures, any increases which have occurred in food prices have been offset by reductions in the prices of other foods so that the index of retail food prices in March was at about the same level as in October. My right hon. Friend does not consider that any action on his part is required.
    Mrs. Mann: Am I to take it that when there was a direct opportunity to reduce the cost of living hon. Gentlemen opposite were content to keep it as it was by allowing increases to offset certain reductions? Would that have pleased the Conservative women's conference yesterday?
    Mr. Godber: Without going into the matter concerning the Conservative women's conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because it does not arise

    1379
    on the Question—I would tell the hon. Lady that in my view, and in the view of the Government, it is right to leave these matters to private enterprise. One then gets interplay, and competition arises. Many other foodstuffs have come down in price as a direct result of competition during the period referred to.
    Mr. Willey: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that he has a responsibility in respect of the surcharge on sugar? When will he announce that the surcharge is to be removed?
    Mr. Godber: The matter of the surcharge is perhaps a little outside the terms of the Question, but I would point out that when the Sugar Act was being dealt with by the House it was amended at the instance of hon. Members opposite to provide that a period of six months ahead should be clearly seen before any alterations were made. The subject is very much in my right hon. Friend's mind, and no doubt before long we may be in a position to make a statement.
    Dame Irene Ward: I agree that it would be a good thing if all prices went down at the same time instead of there being fluctuations, but will my hon. Friend explain to the Opposition that the Conservative women's conference does not want food controls?
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the latest and third decrease of 9s. per sack in the cost of flour, he will take steps now to reduce and control the price of bread.
    Mr. Godber: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Mann: Is it not incredible that, after all the decreases in the price of flour, I should be given the "brush-off" when I ask for a reduction in the price of bread? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that instead of the Conservative ladies being taken to the Terrace for tea, they should have been brought up to the Public Gallery to hear the "brush-off" that we are constantly given when we ask for a reduction?
    Mr. Godber: I am sure that the Conservative ladies would have approved of the Answer which I have given the hon. Lady, because I am sure that they believe, as I do, that it is not right to reimpose price control.
    Mr. Willey: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is some evidence of monopolistic tendencies in the industry, and that for that reason there is a responsibility on the Government to have an inquiry and to reduce prices by order?
    Mr. Godber: Bread is one of the very first items to come before the Restrictive Practices Court. I think it is best to leave the matter there.
    Captain Pilkington: If the price of bread is to be controlled, will it involve rationing, as was the case under the Socialist Administration?

    Skimmed Milk (Disposal)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will examine the possibility of using the large amount of skimmed milk, which is being poured daily on a field adjoining the creamery at Builth Wells; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Godber: Because of the record milk production over the last few weeks, the Milk Marketing Board and the manufacturers of milk products have not been able to find a market for all the skimmed milk which has been available.
    All the factories have been worked to the absolute limit. New plant has been brought into operation this year. The Board has made a vigorous and successful effort to increase the sales of skimmed milk for stock feeding.
    Nevertheless, as in every year since 1950, it has not proved possible to avoid the wastage of some skimmed milk during the short flush season. No one regrets this more than the Milk Marketing Board who, in close collaboration with the manufacturers, are making every effort to avoid waste. Milk production is now falling slightly from its record seasonal peak of over 43 million gallons a week, and it is hoped that all the skimmed milk will be handled without waste by the end of next week.
    Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister kindly ensure that all villages and schools around the depot are first provided with fresh milk? Also, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Milk Marketing Board and bring pressure upon the owners of the creamery to devise some

    1381
    process for dealing with surplus milk, even if it entails milk being brought for the purpose from other creameries in South Wales?
    Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman's first point is a matter for the Milk Marketing Board, and I will ensure that his comments are brought to its attention. With regard to his second point, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the factory in Builth Wells is a C.W.S. one, and the Milk Marketing Board has for some time been urging the C.W.S. to extend its manufacturing capacity there. I hope that it will be successful.
    Mr. Willey: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the milk is not used? Why is it not used for feeding pigs? Why is it going to waste?
    Mr. Godber: There has been a very substantial increase in its use for feeding pigs. The problem is an economic one, that of being able to convey it far enough, for the cost of distribution is so high. Nevertheless, as I said, there has been a substantial increase in its use. Some 750,000 gallons a week have been used recently for stock feeding.

    Compound Fertilisers (Mixing and Bagging Charge)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to compel merchants to disclose the charge made for preparing for sale, by mixing and bagging, compound fertilisers.
    Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has no power to compel merchants to make such disclosures.
    Mr. Willey: As inquiries show that there is a very wide variation in the rake-off of manufacturers—in some cases it is higher than 50 per cent.—will the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend to seek these powers?
    Mr. Godber: I am surprised at the figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman. Fifty per cent. seems extremely high. I would remind him, however, that it is very easy for farmers, if the prices seem excessive to them, to buy straight fertiliser. I should have thought that that would be an effective check against any monopolistic tendencies.
    Mr. Willey: As it is not an effective check, will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?

    Export of Live Cattle (Slaughterhouses)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which were the slaughterhouses referred to in the report of the committee of inquiry into the export of live cattle which failed to satisfy the standards required by the United States Army Veterinary Corps: and in what respects did they fail.
    Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is communicating with Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who was the Chairman of the Committee, and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible. He understands, however, that the requirements of the United States military authorities for slaughterhouse equipment include steam hoses and cool air chambers, which are not normally available in this country.
    Mr. Willey: Does not the hon. Gentleman admit that it is an awful reflection upon conditions in this country if we have to export cattle to be slaughtered for the United States Army? It is disgraceful reflection upon the state of our slaughterhouses. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall have legislation next Session to deal with this disgrace?
    Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are considering new legislation dealing with slaughterhouses, and I hope that it will come before the House next Session. In the meantime, we are producing draft regulations as a guide to people who are proposing to improve their slaughterhouses, and I hope these will be available very shortly.

    Veterinary Surgeons
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinary students graduate each year; to what extent the number of qualified veterinary surgeons is increasing; and if he is satisfied that the present veterinary schools are adequate to meet the calls on the profession.
    Mr. Godber: On average over the last five years about 230 new veterinary graduates have been added annually to

    1383
    the statutory register, while the total number on the register has increased by about 130 a year. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the existing veterinary schools are unable to provide a reasonable flow of graduates.

    Eggs
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the estimated cost of the subsidy to producers on shell eggs for the first four months of 1957, and the estimated weekly cost compared with the average cost of the subsidy for the equivalent periods in each of the preceding two years; the estimated total subsidy payable for the current year to egg producers; and what remedial action he proposes to take before the next Price Review.
    Mr. Godber: The cost of the subsidy to producers on shell eggs for the first four months of 1957 is estimated at £26·3 million, an average weekly cost of about £1·5 million; the average weekly cost of the subsidy for the corresponding periods of 1955 and 1956 was about £450,000 and £410,000 respectively. The published estimate of the cost of the subsidy on eggs for the current year is £32·7 million, but it is already apparent that this figure is likely to be substantially exceeded. As regards remedial action, I cannot add to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend on 20th May.
    Mr. Nabarro: But would not my hon. Friend agree that there are still eight months to the next Price Review, and that the present rate of subsidy—an average of £1½ million a week—would represent an additional expenditure of about £48 million for eggs? Is there to be a Supplementary Estimate or Vote presented to the House? Surely this state of affairs calls for some remedial action at an early date, and not eight months hence.
    Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend may be assured that if there is need for a Supplementary Estimate it will be presented to the House. I am afraid that his figure of £1½ million is not exactly accurate, because the bulk of the subsidy in the last year—and, indeed, for a number of years, I think—has fallen in the first three months of the year. Therefore, the figures need not be so large as my hon. Friend puts them.
    Mr. Willey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary remember that a previous Conservative Minister of Food abolished this subsidy?
    Mr. Nabarro: It is still £1½ million a week, and that is too much.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantities of shell eggs have been exported since 1st January, 1957, to European countries which are signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and what is the total value of such eggs; what element of Government subsidy is inherent in these exports; what discussions with foreign countries are taking place in this matter; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Godber: During the first four months of 1957, about 124,000 boxes of 30 dozen eggs valued at £400,000 were exported to European countries which are signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The best estimate that can be made of the average rate of subsidy on these eggs is approximately Is. 11d. per dozen. Discussions with the Danish Government took place earlier this week and, as already announced, Her Majesty's Government have decided to take steps to prevent serious damage being caused to the normal Danish export markets as a result of the export of eggs which have benefited from the subsidy on home production.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does that reply mean that there is to be an estoppel put on the export of eggs by Her Majesty's Government? If it does mean that, surely it will follow that we are to add to the surplus at home and thus to the taxpayers' burden, and further aggravate what I consider to be the appalling figures which my hon. Friend gave in his last reply?
    Mr. Godber: I think that my hon. Friend is a little unduly gloomy about this matter, because in actual fact the exports have been reduced very substantially in recent weeks and are now running at a much lower figure. As regards such arrangements as are to be taken, I would assure him that machinery for implementing the Government's decision is being worked out, and will be announced after further consultation with the Danish

    1385
    Government. I do not think that it would be right for me to comment further while those consultations proceed.
    Mr. Willey: Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate in what way he is to implement action consequent upon this admission of incredible folly and stupidity, and waste of the taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Godber: Without conceding the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that it would be wrong for me to comment while these negotiations are going on, A full statement will be made, of course.
    Mr. H. Morrison: As some of us are rather mystified by the complications of this business, would the Parliamentary Secretary convey to his right hon. Friend that it would be a good thing if we had a White Paper—that is, if we have not got one—which would really fully explain the economics of this transaction, including the consequences to Denmark and to countries to which we export? Does he not think that the House should be fully informed about this? It does involve very big amounts for the taxpayers.
    Mr. Godber: While I would, naturally, consider very seriously anything which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, I do not think that a White Paper is called for. These exports are really very marginal. The numbers exported are really quite small in relation to the total output.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the reports which are circulating to the effect that British eggs are being exported at a rate of over ½ million boxes a week, and at a cost to the taxpayer of £1½ million a week? Would he not agree that these figures are inaccurate and that, therefore, the reports are very misleading?
    Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that this matter arose in Press reports, which I did see. The figures, of course, are totally wrong. In fact the figure quoted of over ½ million boxes a week is the total output of all our packing stations, nearly all of which goes for home consumption. The same applies to the figure for subsidy of l½ million a week for the export: the total
    1386
    subsidy on exported eggs in the first four months will be, I should say, approximately £400,000.
    Mr. Willey: Now that there have been these further discussions, would the hon. Gentleman agree that these eggs were deliberately used to break the Danish prices in the West European market?
    Mr. Godber: No, I would not agree.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Hungarian Refugees
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many Hungarian refugees have now received sufficient training to make them employable underground;
    (2) in which areas he has had difficulty in placing Hungarians for employment in the mines; and for what reasons.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am informed by the National Coal Board that so far 480 Hungarians have received sufficient training to make them employable underground. The National Coal Board is responsible for their allocation to the mines, and I understand that some branches of the National Union of Mine-workers have objected to Hungarians being placed in particular collieries, mainly in South Yorkshire, the Midlands and South Wales. This is a matter for the Board and the National Union of Mineworkers who are, I understand, actively engaged in dealing with it.
    Mr. Remnant: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I point out that it is still his responsibility, to some extent, to obtain employment for these men? If the objections lie on the score of personal risk, will he ask the Chairman of the Coal Board to consider whether training could not be designed with a view to allotting what have hitherto been regarded as uneconomic pits to be worked solely by Hungarian miners?
    Mr. Macleod: I think that that Question goes beyond my responsibility in this instance. I have a general responsibility, of course, but in this particular case I have not. Indeed, the information which I give to the He use is passed on from the National Coal Board. I can say.

    1387
    however, that the numbers actually employed in the collieries have gone up by 70 or so since I gave a figure about a fortnight ago—207 have actually started. There are difficulties remaining, and I think that the only way to get over them is for the Board and the N.U.M. to get together.
    Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister aware that the employment of foreigners in the mines is governed by the 1947 agreement, and that Questions like that asked by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) are making it more difficult for the N.U.M. and the Coal Board to get over these difficulties? Could the Minister tell us how many Hungarians have been employed in the breweries?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Labour how many Hungarian refugees have been placed in industry other than coal mining.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: About 11,000 Hungarian refugees have been placed in employment other than coal mining. This total includes refugees who were placed in temporary employment but have since emigrated to Canada, and the actual number now at work is somewhat less.
    Mr. Mason: Does the Minister realise that there are very special difficulties in the way of placing Hungarians in the coal mining industry, as compared with other industries? First, the Hungarians have to go into areas where there is hostel accommodation available but not necessarily vacancies; and, second, they have to train for sixteen weeks before being accepted for work underground. Is he aware that at the present time discussions are taking place, particularly in Yorkshire, with a view to providing Hungarians with special facilities to work together in drift mines?
    Mr. Macleod: That may be so. It is a very ingenious supplementary question, but it is not directed to the Question, which relates to all other industries except coal mining.
    Mr. Robens: Is it possible for the Minister to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton)?
    Mr. Remnant: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has received any opposition from any other industries about the employment of Hungarians, and if he has, can he state which industries they are?
    Mr. Macleod: It is true that the difficulties have mainly, indeed almost entirely, come about in coal mining, but there are special reasons there. The trade unions have been extremely helpful throughout, and I am very grateful for their co-operation.
    Mr. Robens: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) as to how many Hungarians have gone into the breweries, particularly those associated with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant)?

    Furniture and Upholstery Industry
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour to state, at the latest convenient date, the number of furniture workers unemployed and the number on short time.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The number of persons last employed in the furniture and upholstery industry registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain at 15th April was 1,988. The number of operatives on short time at firms in the industry which rendered returns for the week ended 30th March was 3,700 but reports from my regional controllers indicate that there has been some increase since then.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that this is the third successive year in which there has been considerable unemployment in the furniture industry, and that currently it is rapidly getting worse, despite the fact that many have left the industry? Will he get in touch with his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade to see if they can do something to bring about an improvement?
    Mr. Macleod: I think that the unemployment figures which I have given are rather better than comparable figures of a year ago, which is unusual in most trades. Actually, these figures are rather out of date, as my Answer indicated. I

    1389
    will have some more recent figures very soon, and perhaps I can send those to the hon. Gentleman, and consider his supplementary question in the light of them.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisoners (Interviews)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the system of interviewing prisoners eligible for corrective training for the purpose of making reports which may be published in court, with special reference to the danger of defaming third parties who have no.redress.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Not yet, Sir, but I am making progress with this problem, and if the hon. Member would care to put down a Question for answer next Thursday, I hope by then to be in a position to indicate what action I propose to take.

    Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society (Government Payment)
    Mr. Orbachasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to hand over to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society the remaining £70,000 promised by Her Majesty's Government to the Society for its work in aiding British nationals expelled from Egypt.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: it has been agreed with the Anglo-Egyptian Society that, in addition to the £30,000 already paid to it, a further sum of £50,000 should be paid to it in respect of the work which it has done, before the establishment of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. It is proposed to submit to Parliament a Supplementary Estimate to authorise the payment of this sum of £50,000 to the Society.
    Mr. Orbach: Is the Home Secretary not aware that the Society has presented an account for £77,000, and did so in February of this year, before the date when I raised this issue, in a debate which I initiated, when his Parliamentary Secretary replied that there was no such demand made by it? Will he pay the £77,000, as he undertook to do in the first place?
    Mr. Butler: No; I am informed that this agreement was made by agreement with the Society. It will bring the final payment of Government moneys to £80,000. That means that the Society will have spent only £30,000 out of its own resources on this operation, and will be left with some £60,000, out of £90,000 raised by public subscription as a result of an appeal. The Society has done extremely well; there are some minor disputes on minor bills outstanding with it, which we shall do our best to settle. I am satisfied that we have done the right thing by the Society, and that it has done its duty.

    Parking (Removal of Cars)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cars have been towed away for improper parking in the Metropolitan Police district up to date; and in how many of these cases the owners were prosecuted.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that, up to 20th May, 148 vehicles were removed from the roads in the Metropolitan Police district under powers conferred on the police by The Removal of Vehicles (England and Wales) Regulations, 1957. The question of proceedings is being considered in all cases.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: In the light of experience in London, does my right hon. Friend propose to recommend this practice to the police elsewhere?
    Mr. Butler: I should like to consider that matter. I think that we have made a start in London which, while preserving as much as we possibly can the liberty of the subject, also maintains circulation on the highway.

    Borstal Institution (Film Shows)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case where a film depicting an escape from captivity was shown to inmates of a Borstal institution, with the result that two youths immediately proceeded to break out; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such unsuitable films will not be shown in future.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: In the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, two inmates of Portland Borstal Institution, who were taking part in a route march under escort, absconded after attacking the escort. The previous day they, along with other inmates, had seen the film "The Colditz Story", which bears a "U" certificate and deals with life in a prisoner-of-war camp. My inquiries do not result in establishing any decisive connection between the escape and the showing of the film.
    The question of the suitability of films is one which I must leave to the authorities responsible, and I have confidence in their judgment.

    Metropolitan Police (Fingerprints)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances the Metropolitan Police are instructed to take fingerprints from persons charged with minor offences.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: In ordinary circumstances, the police do not take fingerprints from persons charged with minor offences.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would the Home Secretary explain how taking a person's fingerprints helps the police to prove a charge of drunkenness?
    Mr. Butler: I would rather not go into detail. If the hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, have a talk with me, I will explain the matter to him.
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds an order has been issued to the Metropolitan Police, as recently stated in evidence by Inspector Atkinson at the Clerkenwell Magistrates' Court, that all Irishmen's fingerprints are to be taken; and whether, in view of the discrimination involved in this order, he will now have it withdrawn.
    Mr. Orbachasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority, and in what circumstances, police officers in the Metropolitan Police district take the fingerprints of Irishmen.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: In the absence of a court order, the fingerprints of a person in police custody may be taken only with consent. The instruction mentioned by
    1392
    the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was confined to the taking of fingerprints with consent for the purpose of assisting a particular criminal investigation, and the fingerprints taken have been subsequently destroyed.
    Mr. Fletcher: May we take it from that Answer that the Home Secretary repudiates the suggestion made that the fingerprints of all Irishmen charged with minor offences are in future to be taken?
    Mr. Butler: I should not like to commit myself to any such generalisation.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I understood from the Home Secretary's original reply that this was an individual case wherein a particular person gave his Consent. Would the right hon. Gentleman not be prepared to say that there is no reflection on Irishmen as a whole?
    Mr. Butler: There is no reflection on Irishmen at all. There is also no desire on my part to restrict those authorities responsible for the detection of crime.
    Mr. Hyde: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, so far as Irishmen are concerned, whether they are innocent or not, they seldom plead guilty?
    Mr. Orbach: May we take it from the reply of the Home Secretary that the statement made by Inspector Atkinson since the recent murder, that it is an order that all Irishmen's fingerprints are to be taken, is either incorrect, as put in that very fruitful newspaper, the Sunday Express, or that the inspector himself is to be reprimanded by the Home Secretary? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarm that this sort of statement has created amongst other minority groups, apart from Irishmen?
    Mr. Butler: It is the fundamental duty of the Home Secretary to protect minorities and the liberty of the subject. I certainly will investigate the particular point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention, and perhaps communicate with him.

  NUCLEAR RADIATION (HAZARDS)
  Dr. Strossasked the Prime Minister how often the signatories to Command Paper No. 9780, on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations, have met in order to consider further evidence made available since June, 1956.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), on 25th March, 1957.
  Dr. Stross: Would not the Prime Minister consider asking them not merely to meet for a few minutes or for half an hour, as I understand they have done, but to meet in order to consider whether a further report is not now needed, in view of the evidence which they now have which they did not have before them at the time they last reported?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, I will consider that, but I think that I ought to make clear again what I tried to make clear in answer to a supplementary question a few days ago, namely, that the work of the Medical Research Council is not something which is done and finished with. It is a permanent inquiry, and there is a standing committee of the Council for this purpose. It has its own research units, and there is what one might call a continuing progress of research.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the fact that it is a body continuously at work constitute an argument in favour of inviting the Council to produce a further report?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I will certainly consider that from time to time. As in all these investigations, there is, I think, a moment when there may, perhaps, be enough new material to justify a new report.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is some time since the last Report was produced, and here has, since then, been a great conflict of opinion on this matter, between, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and many other scientists? Would the Prime Minister not agree that it would the desirable to have the Medical Research Council's views on the matter?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think hat there is really a very great conflict of opinion, but I will certainly consider whether a supplementary report should, IOW or at some near date, be produced.
  Dr. Summerskill: In view of what the 'rime Minister has said, may I ask him
  1394
  whether he has read the letter by Professor Haddow, a member of that Committee, published in The Times today, refuting the statement made in another place last week on this subject? In view of that, would the Prime Minister now reconsider convening the committee?
  The Prime Minister: It is not a question of reconvening the committee. The main body is a permanent body. There is a sub-committee, with various research units, and it is simply a question of what are the convenient intervals for making up-to-date reports.

  HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS
  Dr. Strossasked the Prime Minister whether the casing of the hydrogen bomb which was exploded on 15th May in the Pacific Ocean was free from uranium or plutonium.
  The Prime Minister: As I said in my statement in reply to Questions on Tuesday, for reasons of national security I am unable to pass on to the House any detailed information about the precise type and design of the weapon exploded.

  RADIOSTRONTIUM
  Dr. Strossasked the Prime Minister whether he has noted that the amount of radiostrontium found in the bones of newly-born children and young infants is appreciably higher than in the bones of adults; and what action the Government propose to take to prevent the incidence of bone cancer and leukemia as the amount rises in future years.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The fact that radiostrontium is concentrated to a greater extent in the bones of young children than in those of adults was recognised and taken fully into account in the Report of the Medical Research Council published in June, 1956. I am informed that the present average level found in the bones of children under five years of age is well below one unit. The Medical Research Council has expressed the view that the concentration in the general population, with its proportion of young children, should not exceed 100 units.
  Dr. Stross: Has the Prime Minister noted, in looking at this problem, that the

  1395
  tendency for radiostrontium in bones, whether of cattle or human beings, does tend to rise, and that we must expect it inevitably to rise in the next twenty years, even if no more explosions are made? As it has risen in sheep, for example, ten times over a period of three years—1954 to 1956—will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question, namely, what he is going to do:
  " to prevent the incidence of bone cancer and leukemia as the amount rises in future years."
  The Prime Minister: There are two parts to the Question. I must repeat that the ratio between what is regarded as reasonably safe and what now exists is 100 to 1. Although that should not make us complacent, it certainly should not make us unduly pessimistic. With regard to the larger question, we have debated that and we shall again debate it in the future. It is our hope that a full measure of disarmament agreement may be reached between the great Powers.
  Dr. Summerskill: Is the Prime Minister aware that this condition is cumulative and, therefore, there can be no comfort in the thought that there is only a certain amount present in the bones of young children at this stage?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but whether it is cumulative or not, these ratios are still an effective test of the reality of the situation.
  Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister keeps quoting the Medical Research Council as though its Report supported the idea that there was a threshold dose below which no danger obtains? Is it not true that the Report cannot be interpreted in that way, particularly in the light of the very important appendix elaborating the argument that in fact the relationship is proportionately between the dose and its effects and there is not a threshold dose?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I think that that is not a correct reading of the Report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 27TH MAY—Report and Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill.
Second Reading of the Solicitors Bill [Lords] and of the Dentists Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures;
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, and a similar Scheme for Scotland; and the Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order.
TUESDAY, 28TH MAY and WEDNESDAY, 29TH MAY—Further progress will be made in Committee on the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY, 30TH MAY—It is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Win-frith Heath Bill, if the necessary preliminaries have been completed.
Afterwards, we shall resume the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 31ST MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
It may be convenient if I inform the House that we expect to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess on Friday, 7th June. If good progress is made with essential business, we think it would be desirable for the Recess to extend over two weeks. I will name the date of return before putting a Motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Gaitskell: However desirable it may be, particularly in the interests of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that we should adjourn for a fortnight instead of ten days, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the idea of linking this up with progress on any particular Bill is a very unfortunate suggestion to make and that we can give no possible undertaking on that subject?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I have no intention of making any conditions, because I understand the right hon. Gentleman

1397
and his Friends well enough not to do that. I simply said, "if good progress is made with essential business ", which is an obvious caution which I must put in. That is why I have not yet named the date of return. Judging from precedent by the party opposite and the Labour Governments—in 1949, 1950 and 1951 there were two weeks adjournment at Whitsun, and in the Coronation year, 1953 and in July, 1955, for other reasons, there were longer periods—I think that in relation to the general efficiency of Parliament it would be a good idea to have two weeks.
Mr. H. Wilson: Are we to assume that in the phrase "essential business" the right hon. Gentleman includes the Finance Bill, which is somewhat controversial? If he does, is he aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be most desirous of giving that important Bill most constructive examination and that, as an earnest of that, his own back benchers have put down about 70 Amendments, dealing principally with the Clauses relating to the overseas trade corporations? Does he intend that Amendments should be as adequately discussed as they were last year?
Mr. Butler: We rejoice to see the return of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) to the field. With his presence in discussions on the Finance Bill, we may be assured that there will be meticulous care in its handling. We are prepared to submit the Amendments of my hon. Friends to the attention they deserve and we intend that the Finance Bill should be properly considered. It also means that we should like to see some progress made, because it is a compensation for some progress that we should also get some relief from our labours.
Dame Irene Ward: In dealing with the business for next week, could my right hon. Friend see that we have some new flowers put in the boxes on the Terrace, because they are dead and look appalling?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is relevant to the business before the House.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether this additional week at Whitsun which is in contemplation is
1398
attributable to the anxieties expressed about Ministers being overburdened, or is intended to provide additional relaxation for overburdened hon. Members?
At the same time, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Private Bill, introduced in another place, which is intended to transfer Arundel Castle from its present owner to the State, is likely to come before this House soon?
Mr. Butler: I cannot say anything today about the Private Bill which refers to Arundel Castle. If I can, I will give the House any information when I have it in my possession.
In reply to the first part of the question of the right hon. Member, our idea was that we might freshen up the Opposition by giving them a little more relaxation. As to Ministers, we are so confident in the outcome of the report of the committee of Privy Councillors that we are already refreshed.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it still the intention of the Government to have an early debate on the European Free Trade Area, or has so little progress been made in three months with the work that the Chancellor gave to the working committee that it is not possible to have a debate?
Mr. Butler: We should not be able to do that before Whitsun. It is not true that no progress has been made, but it is true that the Treaty of Rome has been signed and the Customs Union has been established. That does not mean that the initiative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is less effective than it was. When we are ready we shall be eager to have a debate.
Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when the Bill dealing with Arundel Castle comes before the House adequate time will be given for its discussion, because if he wants to enliven the Opposition there would be no surer way of doing so than by giving adequate time for discussion of that Bill.
Mr. Butler: That is a matter rather for the Chairman of Ways and Means than for the Government and myself, in following the normal procedure for a Private Bill.
Mr. Ede: Inasmuch as the Winfrith Heath Bill was introduced only yesterday, and is to be debated next Thursday and the deposited plans relating to it have to be studied in Dorchester, will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting a copy of the plans in the Library, or some other convenient place in this House?
Mr. Butler: I will do anything I can to ease the problem of hon. Members in examining the Bill.
Mr. Fernyhough: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last Thursday I raised the question of the substantial salary increases to be granted to the judiciary, and that I asked him whether he could tell the House when the necessary legislation to give Parliamentary sanction to those increases would be introduced, and that he said he would discuss the matter through the usual channels? Could he now tell us what the result of that discussion was, and whether he thinks it is a desirable practice to pay out public money before having Parliamentary sanction for doing so?
Mr. Butler: I will not animadvert at the moment on the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. On the former part, I would say that we cannot at present give a date for the consideration of this Bill, but we shall as soon as possible.
Mr. Ross: Has the Leader of the House consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland about the question of an extended Whitsun Recess? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was, I think, only yesterday forenoon, but also at various times during the preceding night, that the Secretary of State for Scotland kept the Scottish Grand Committee sitting for 26 hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member did."]—on the plea that he could not afford to delay the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill for another day. Does not the proposal to extend the Whitsun Recess make nonsense of our having been kept there all that time, instead of having adequate discussion at a reasonable time of day?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I would not say it was my right hon. Friend who kept the Committee sitting. I should say that the responsibility lay elsewhere for keeping the Committee sitting so long. The
1400
reason my right hon. Friend wanted consideration of the Bill to be concluded was so that we could make progress with it. I do not think that that is very much affected by the extension of the Whitsun Recess.
Mr. Lewis: The Leader of the House has said that he has discussed the business for next week through the usual channels. Is he aware that apart from the official Opposition the largest opposition now is the independent Conservative Party? Can he say whether or not the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke) and the independent Conservative Party have been consulted and, if so, whether they have agreed the business for next week?
Mr. Usborne: In view of the fact that on 3rd June the United Nations is sitting in full session to discuss the possibility of rewriting the Charter which was evolved at San Fransisco, and that the United States Secretary of State has apparently been saying that the voting arrangements need complete changes, is there any possibility of this House having a debate before then to discuss this very important subject?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I will discuss the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when he returns from abroad, but I do not see any chance of a debate on it before Whitsun.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I asked a question a moment ago of the Leader of the House, and now I wish to address a question to you, Mr. Speaker. We know your prerogatives, and we admit that you honourably carry out protection of the rights of back benchers, particularly of minority groups in the Opposition. It is for that reason that the Liberal Party, which is small in number, is given —and rightly so—certain rights and privileges. What I want to ask you is: what is the position of a large, declared party of about eight members, larger than the Liberal Party, which has officially appointed a leader, when it is not given any opportunity to discuss the business arrangements? Is it not right that either the Leader of the House, or, with respect to you, Mr. Speaker, you yourself, should see that those rights are dealt with in the same way as are those of the Liberal Party?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know of any parties but the three which are recognised in this House. I am aware that there are, in all parties no doubt, differences of opinion, but I have never heard it suggested that any group inside a party should be entitled to what is called "a usual channel". Until I observe any active attempt at suppression of those groups I do not think it my duty to intervene.

ADMIRAL SIR DUDLEY NORTH
The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, with permission I will now make a statement on the question raised by several hon. Members regarding the circumstances which led to Admiral Sir Dudley North's relief as Flag Officer, North Atlantic, in 1940.
After careful study of all the papers, Questions and debates concerned with this affair, I am bound to say that there does not seem to be any difference as to the facts of the case. The orders that were given and the signals that passed backwards and forwards are on record. It has been suggested that there should be a new inquiry into the facts, but the facts are not really in dispute. The question at issue is the interpretation that should be put upon these facts and the wisdom and justice of the decisions reached by the authorities at the time.
I must recall to the House that the period was one of perhaps the most acute danger that has ever beset this country. The Battle of Britain was at its height, the French fighting power had collapsed, and grave uncertainty existed as to whether the powerful French fleet might pass into enemy hands, which, had it happened, would have turned the whole balance of naval power against us.
It is only fair to recall the memories of those anxious days in order to put ourselves in the position of those who had to make the great decisions. In the circumstances of that period, the authorities concerned formed the view that they needed a different naval commander at Gibraltar. I must insist upon the constitutional rights of the Admiralty, and, indeed, of all those in positions of supreme responsibility, to choose officers in whom they have confidence at moments of supreme crisis. Any other system would be dangerous in peace and fatal in war.
1402
A careful examination of the records has led me to the conclusion that, so far as concerned the passing of the French ships through the Straits of Gibraltar, Admiral North cannot be accused of any dereliction of duty. He obeyed his orders as he interpreted them and some blame must rest on the fact that they were not drawn with complete clarity. Nevertheless, in those dangerous days the Admiralty felt that they required at Gibraltar an officer who would not content himself with strict adherence to his orders, but who would be likely to show a greater degree of resource and initiative in an emergency.
I am convinced that, while we all have a deep understanding for Admiral Sir Dudley North in what must have been a great disappointment to him at the height of his career, it is essential in the Services to maintain the principle that the authorities of the day should have unrestricted discretion in deciding to whom they will entrust high command.
I very much deprecate the use of the words "dismiss" or "remove" or, still worse, "sack". These are phrases which are quite inappropriate to these difficult decisions in conditions of war. Many officers of high rank in all the three Services were superseded in those harsh days by others who were regarded as more likely to be able to cops with the problems and burdens that confronted them.
In my view, a general distinction must be drawn between two things. On the one hand are definite charges of negligence and the like or reflecting on an officer's honour. Any charge of this kind against Admiral Sir Dudley North could not, in my view, be sustained, and I believe that is generally recognised. On the other hand, the Board of Admiralty have the right and duty to decide on broad grounds whether an officer possesses the qualities necessary for a particular command.
These qualities are not easy to define. One of them is the confidence reposed in an officer by his superior. The degree to which an officer possesses these qualities can never be the subject of an inquiry. It can only be a matter for the judgment of his superiors. And I must add that the country owes a great debt to the whole Board of Admiralty, political and professional, as it was constituted

1403
in that dark period which led to ultimate victory.
I am satisfied that Admiral North was not the victim of Service or political prejudice. He has nothing with which to reproach himself. He had forty-four years of long, distinguished, and devoted service in the Royal Navy, and there is no question of his professional integrity being impugned.
In these circumstances, I do not see that anything is to be gained by an inquiry regarding facts that are well documented and undisputed.
Mr. Gaitskell: Whatever our views may be of this matter, I am sure the House will agree that it would be very undesirable if it were to become in any way a party issue. May I ask the Prime Minister whether his statement really implies that he sees no reason for an inquiry because the facts are not in dispute and that he has endeavoured, in what he has said, nevertheless, to make a fair judgment for the whole country on this particular matter?
The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the way in which he has posed it. I have tried to make a balanced statement and give what I think is a fair view, after very careful inquiry myself. I hope that it will be taken by Admiral Sir Dudley North, the House, and the country as a whole, as a fair account, as best I can make it, of the situation and of the position as it really ought to be summed up.
Commander Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he personally consulted the five very senior officers who have interested themselves in this matter and, if so, whether they agreed with the statement that he has made?
The Prime Minister: After I had time to study carefully this whole question, I thought that it would be not only courteous to the Admirals of the Fleet concerned but also very helpful to me to invite them to come to see me, which, I am glad to say, they were very willing
1404
to do, with the exception of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Chatfield, who was not well enough to come but sent me a memorandum expressing his views. I saw Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cork, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope, Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Cunningham, and Admiral of the Fleet Sir Algernon Willis. While the decision and the statement that I have made are entirely on my own responsibility, I should like to express my gratitude to these distinguished officers for having, at my request, assisted me with their advice.
Mr. C. R. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement is welcome in so far as Admiral North is absolved from any charges of dereliction of duty? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider some form of amende honorable so far as restoring him to the substantive rank which he held as Commander-in-Chief, Gibraltar?
The Prime Minister: I will look into that matter.
Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation of very many people for his having taken the time and trouble personally to go into the whole matter, which, I think, will be a source of great satisfaction to everybody concerned?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would it be a fair summary of the right hon. Gentleman's statement to say that this admiral obeyed his orders when he should not have done so?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have tried to make a balanced statement. It would be easy to try to summarise it into an epigram, but I think that it would be unwise of me to do so. I would rather leave it where it rests and hope that the whole Navy and all those who care so deeply about the Service will accept it as a settlement of a matter which has long troubled them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 21st May.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL

    Clause 2.—(TELEVISION DUTY.)
    3.55 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, at the end to insert:
    Provided that the payer of duty at the said standard yearly rate may elect to pay the same by two half-yearly instalments each of ten shillings and that, if he so elects, the licence shall be valid if the first such instalment is paid on or before the issue of the licence, but, unless the second instalment is paid on or before the expiry of six months after the issue of the licence, the licence shall then cease to be valid until the second instalment is paid.
    This Clause provides that on every television licence, that is to say, a combined receiving licence for both sound broadcasting and television, which costs £3, there shall be charged what is called
    "a duty of excise, to be known as television duty "
    at the rate of £1 a year. The Clause provides that licence will not be valid unless that Excise duty has been paid.
    The Amendment proposes that a licence holder shall have the right to opt whether he shall pay that Excise duty in two instalments and we suggest in the Amendment that, as long as the instalments are paid, the licence will be valid for the six months' period and will then cease to be valid until the next and final instalment has been paid. This, therefore, is a modest proposal, the sort of homely reform for which I am sure all of us hope to be responsible during our membership of the House.
    In putting this proposal forward, our aim is to help those sections of the population whose well-being is already gravely endangered by a steady rise in the cost of living. A number of subsequent Amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends are also designed to help the same groups of the population. We have specially in mind, of course, the disabled and the old-age pensioners, and it is our view that the retirement pension at present is inadequate to meet the rising prices resulting from the economic policy of the party opposite.
    1406
    This morning I looked up the change in the cost of living since the right hon. Gentleman's party took office. If we take 16th October, 1951, as 100, with the price change based on the Interim Index of Retail Prices and the Index of Retail Prices we find that on 12th March, 1957, the figure was 123. If I may put it in a different way, it means that a £ note which was worth 20s. when the Labour Government went out of office is, after nearly six years of Conservative administration, worth only 16s. 3d. During that period we have also seen the combined television and broadcasting licence increased by £1 in 1954.
    Our contention is that, on top of all this, the extra £1 television duty which the Government are proposing to impose will have a very serious impact on people like old-age pensioners. We suggest that the only proper thing to do in the circumstances is to lighten the blow that they will feel by providing that the tax or duty can be paid in instalments. I hope that the Government will consider our suggestions very carefully and sympathetically.
    I should like the Government to bear in mind that already licence holders are paying approximately 2d. a day for holding a licence. That may not seem very much to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to some hon. Members, but that payment is being made in addition to the general cost of maintaining a television receiver.
    4.0 p.m.
    This morning I checked up on the current prices of television receivers and I found that the 17-inch set, which is now the most popular model, costs approximately £65. The hire purchase provisions for buying a set of that kind are that a 50 per cent. deposit of £32 10s. has to be paid and then 24 monthly payments of £1 9s. 9d. If the set is bought on credit terms it means that £6 10s. deposit has to be paid with 38 weekly payments of 33s. 10d.
    It is clear that expenditure of that kind, which many old people will have strained all their resources to meet, is a serious undertaking for them, and this further addition of £1 will make their position even worse than it is. Moreover, there is the expense involved in installing a television receiver, and also the high costs of maintenance. I think it is true to say that if the cathode ray tube in the receiver

    1407
    fails, the cost of replacing it is between £12 and £20.
    We say that in view of the heavy expense to which many people are put already for what is, in a large number of cases, almost their only source of recreation, it is unfair to add even a further £1 to the burden which they are having to sustain. If, however, the Government can convince the Committee that a further charge of £1 a year in the form of Television Duty is necessary, we maintain that the Government should be very reasonable indeed as to the method of exacting that £1. That is why we propose that it should be possible to pay it in instalments. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find it possible to agree to this modest reform that we are proposing.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The effect of this Amendment would be to enable a payment of £4 to be made, not at once, but in two parts, one of £3 10s. and the other of 10s. The effect is not, as the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) realised, to reduce the total amount of the payment, but to enable it to be made in two unequal instalments, the first instalment being £3 10s. instead of a full payment of £4.
    In the first place, the result would certainly be a substantial increase in the administrative costs of collecting the duty, because it would be necessary for the reminders which are normally sent out annually to be sent out twice a year. The second reminder would be unconnected with the necessity for the renewal of the licence. There would also inevitably be a certain loss of duty by reason of the collection in two instalments instead of one. So I suggest to the Committee that unless there is a really strong case for reducing the payment which is to be made at one time from £4 to £3 10s.—and that is the issue— it is not a change which, on other grounds, we ought to make.
    The people who are called upon to pay £4 at one time, as the Bill stands, or £3 10s. as the Amendment stands, are those who are already, in the ownership of a television set, liable to incur substantial lump sum payments from time to time or—I emphasise this alternative
    1408
    —on whose behalf substantial lump sum payments in respect of the running of a television set are incurred by other people.
    The necessity of replacing the cathode ray tube was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and the estimate I have been given of the cost of doing that practically coincides with his. It would mean a single payment at one time of some £15 in order to continue to enjoy the amenities of the set. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the initial deposit to acquire the set can hardly be less than £6 or £7 and, of course, the viewer has already been paying the £3 licence fee in one sum annually.
    I do not think that it can be sustained for a moment that persons who, at the moment, are paying for television sets, or on whose behalf television sets are being paid for, could reasonably be expected to make a lump sum payment of £3 10s. but could not be expected to make a lump sum payment of £4. That being so, the case for the Amendment falls.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: I intervene only to put a question to the Financial Secretary arising out of what he has said. I do not want to comment on his general remarks, because I am sure that others of my hon. Friends, on both Front and back benches, will want to comment on those.
    First, about the cathode ray tube. We are all aware that it is a very heavy expense, falling from time to time and at unpredictable seasons on the owner of any television set. It would be out of order to pursue the hon. Gentleman's reference to price, though he will be the first to realise that if the Government had taken action as the result of the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the Supply of Electronic Valves and Cathode Ray Tubes, it might be possible to buy these a little more cheaply, and it might be more tolerable for people in difficult circumstances to meet the extra levy which the Government are now imposing.
    Now I come to my main point. The Financial Secretary enunciated correctly the effect of this Amendment, if it were accepted and written into the Bill, as meaning that there would be not two equal payments but one payment of £3 10s. and the other of 10s. He will realise the difficulty in which the Opposition were placed, namely, that it would

    1409
    have been out of order for us to move an Amendment to the Bill to propose that the licence fee and the Television Duty should be aggregated, and then that the aggregate sum should be divided so that it could be paid by equal instalments.
    In the light of the problem, the total annual payment will come to be regarded as a single thing. People will not ask how much of it represents a Post Office licence and how much a Treasury impost. They will know that they have to pay £4. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman implied, that it would have been better if we could have proposed an Amendment suggesting that there should be two equal payments of £2, but that would have been out of order. It would even be out of order, Sir Charles, for me to argue the case now, so I will not do that.
    If, therefore, the Financial Secretary will say that the Government will agree to look at this point, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment. I do not ask for a commitment, only for an undertaking to come back at the Report stage with legislation to enable the £4 to be divided into two instalments. In that way there need be no further debate, and we could thereby save the time of the Committee, which the Lord Privy Seal told us this afternoon he would like to see done so that hon. Members can get away for two weeks at Whitsun.
    If the hon. Gentleman cannot give that assurance, we shall have to continue debating what is not an entirely satisfactory Amendment, but one which, however, raises wide issues. There are many families which help old people to maintain their sets, although in some cases the licence duties are paid by the present owner of the set and not by the donor. But once the set has been given—in many cases an old, second-hand set—the donor is left not only with the responsibility for running charges, some of them substantial repairs, though less than the cost of a cathode ray tube, but is left, also, with the responsibility for paying the Post Office licence.
    We are not asking the Treasury to give up any revenue. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, therefore, will look at this point more widely than the Amendment, and will consider between now and Report an Amendment to give effect to what we are really seeking to do.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I, for one, agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). There is no doubt that the Financial Secretary's answer was, in its way, complete to the Amendment on the Notice Paper; the difference between £3 10s. and £4 is not very large. What we were concerned about when we tabled the Amendment—and we put it down in this form to comply with the rules of order— was the fact that people have to pay the £4 in one lump sum, and although many of those who own television sets can find that money without difficulty there must be thousands of people to whom finding this £4 out of a weekly wage in a lump sum means stretching themselves when it is an addition to their other expenses.
    I do not think that the mere fact that television sets are expensive and that repairs to them are also expensive items in a family budget is one which we ought to consider as a satisfactory argument, or one which goes to the whole root of the matter. Most of us either have a car or know someone who has, and the same difficulty arises over the Road Fund Licence for a motor car. Although the repairs to motor cars are expensive and the cars themselves are expensive, it was realised that to pay the year's licence in one lump sum might be a considerable burden on many people, and the State in its wisdom, and, in my view, very properly, decided that people should either pay in one lump sum or should pay half-yearly or quarterly.
    It is true that to reimburse the State for the extra expense which this entailed, an addition was made to the cost of the licence. Nevertheless, it has worked extremely well, and I ask the Chancellor, whom I see in his place, to look at the question of the television licence between now and Report and to see whether some action can be taken, if not this year then next year.
    Undoubtedly, this licence fee may be increased. I imagine that it will be increased as the years go by, particularly if we have in office the present Government or one like it. In that event, the cost of living and the value of money will change to such an extent that this fee will become derisory and will have to be increased. I ask the Chancellor to look at this matter and, if he can do something about it now, to do it; and, if not,

    1411
    to see whether some arrangement can be worked out before the Finance Bill next year.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I rise to support my right hon. and hon. Friends in what they have said. The whole of this Television Duty is mischievous, ill-conceived, thoroughly bad and thoroughly ill-advised.
    Television is coming to be one of the most popular forms of public entertainment. The Chancellor takes credit to himself for having abolished Entertainments Duty on sports and the living theatre, and we applaud him for having done so, but he should not ignore what he is doing in television. Television is the most popular and most universal form of entertainment in this country. Let us consider what the Chancellor exacts from those people, many of them old and of small means, who derive all their entertainment from television.
    First, he exacts a large measure of Purchase Tax from them when they buy their television sets. He then exacts a fee of £3 for an annual licence. On top of that he is imposing an Excise duty. This is adding impost on impost on impost. It may be camouflaged and concealed by one form of exaction being designated with a name different from that of the other forms, but the effect is that the old-age pensioners, the handicapped people, and those who live at home and cannot get about are being penalised by three separate and distinct forms of taxation before they can begin to enjoy their television.
    I regard this mischievous duty as the thin end of the wedge, because it may be increased later. It is thoroughly bad in principle. A fortiori, therefore, I support the Amendment in order to do something to ameliorate the hardship which is being inflicted on these elderly people. It is notorious that it is the least well-off sections of the community who depend for their entertainment entirely on television.
    The argument which the Financial Secretary gave us was lame, ill-conceived and highly technical. He knows perfectly well what a great hardship it is on these people to have to pay £3—now £4—a year. He told us that the only effect of the Amendment would be that the £4
    1412
    would be split into £3 10s. and 10s. We do not want that kind of high-falutin technical argument from the Financial Secretary when the Lord Privy Seal is appealing to us to get on with the business so that we can give his supporters two weeks' holiday at Whitsun.
    As my right hon. Friend said, this is quite simple; there is no distinction between the £3 and the £1 except a superficial distinction in name. It is, in fact, an exaction of £4. The answer to the Financial Secretary's argument, and one which I prefer, is that the £4 should be divided into two; and that would mean £4 to be paid half-annually, semi-annually as the Americans call it. That would mean paying £2 every six months, a total of £4 a year. I hope that the Chancellor who, if I may say so, has a more humane and broadminded outlook, will accept this suggestion so that we may get on with the business.
    Mr. Victor Yates: I support the Amendment. I am very disappointed by the answer given by the Financial Secretary; it was a cold answer about a vital matter affecting, in particular, old-age pensioners throughout the country.
    I cannot believe that the Financial Secretary is quite as cold as he appeared to be when he dismissed the Amendment by saying, "Of course, if they can pay £3 10s. they can pay £4", as though it did not mean anything at all. Every shilling which is extracted from an old-age pensioner at present is the cause of great hardship to him. If the question were only that of the difference between paying £3 10s. and £4, in my view it would still be a question of great hardship to the old-age pensioner.
    I ask the Chancellor to consider the plight of a number of old-age pensioners who have television sets. I know of a number of old-age pensioners in the City of Birmingham who are enjoying the privilege of a television set because their families have collected the money and provided one for them. Recently, I have had to consider what can be done to assist old-age pensioners who are quite unable to meet the cost of repairs, to which my right hon. Friend, the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) referred. I recall a recent case where old-age pensioners had a television set provided by

    1413
    the family, and the set broke down. The repair bill amounted to £19. It was quite impossible for the old people to pay it, as they had nothing but their pension on which to live, and there was another whip-round in the family to pay it. But the cathode ray tube broke down again, so I wrote to the Chairman of the West Midlands Electricity Board asking what could be done in conjunction with the manufacturers. I am glad to say that he took the matter seriously and obtained a substantial reduction on the second account.
    This duty of £4 is a heavy burden. I agree with my hon. Friend that were it possible and in order to divide it into two payments, that would be more satisfactory and I hope that we shall have more consideration given to the matter. I do not agree that it is right to impose this duty at all. It is wrong and is unfair to old-age pensioners and others suffering disability. But if the Government say that it must be so, and that they must pay, cannot a way be found to ease the consequent burden upon old-age pensioners?
    One of the greatest problems of today is loneliness in old age. Whatever may be said against television, it has provided companionship for old people and we should be careful not to remove that benefit. I ask the Chancellor to see whether something can be done to ease this burden if he feels that he cannot exempt these poeple from payment. If the right hon. Gentleman could do something to ease their position he would earn the gratitude of this House and many thousands of people in the country.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: We were all disappointed at the unsympathetic reply of the Financial Secretary. The Government did not have to put on this £1 to recoup themselves for what they are losing in Entertainment Duty because of the concessions made there. It was within their power not to do so. If the Government have deliberately taken this way to raise extra money, it is up to them to make this new impost as bearable as possible for those with limited means.
    It is true that many old-age pensioners who depend solely on their pensions, with perhaps a National Assistance grant, have television sets provided for them; or they
    1414
    managed to get one while they were at work. But now they are retired, with a reduced income, any addition to the licence fee, or maintenance costs, is beyond their means to pay. I do not accept the argument that if one can afford a television or if a television is provided, automatically one should be in a position to pay the extra £1. I do not think that a just argument.
    The effect of the £1 increase may be twofold. It will stop many people who have television sets from licensing them again, or else they will run the risk of using a set which is unlicensed and perhaps they will have to pay a fine in consequence. Secondly, it will deter many people from acquiring new television sets and that is not very desirable. Television is now a necessity, though I often think we should be paid for looking at it rather than have to pay a licence, but that is my own opinion. Many people look upon a television set as permanent company, particularly those who are home-fast, and the aged sick. Therefore, the Treasury should give more consideration to the question of easing the burden imposed by having to pay this new licence fee.
    There are precedents for easing the burden on the old. A concession was made to old-age pensioners when the Tobacco Duty was increased. They were given the right to purchase tobacco at the pre-increase price. Something on those lines should be done in this matter of television licences. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) mentioned that payment for motor car licences can be split into four. I do not think it beyond the bounds of possibility for the Treasury to work out a simple system whereby a television licence could be paid for half-yearly, although, naturally, it would be better not to put on the £1 increase at all. But if that must be done, it would be better if the licence could be paid in two instalments of £2, or in one instalment of £3 10s. and another of 10s.
    The Chairman: Mr. Hale.
    Mr. R. Moss: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I ask your advice? Two of my hon. Friends have already said that they are opposed to the imposition of this duty. Am I correct in thinking that you would not allow a

    1415
    speech on the general aspect of the Television Duty during the debate on this Amendment, which assumes that the duty is imposed, and refers to the way in which it may be conveniently levied?
    The Chairman: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Moss: This Amendment is a narrow one and concerns the method by which the Television Duty is to be levied. I take it that an argument against the duty altogether would be out of order during the discussion on this Amendment?
    The Chairman: Yes. This Amendment deals with the manner of collecting the duty.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I am not sure that I am filled with gratitude at the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss), who has secured a Ruling from you, Sir Charles, which will limit the observations I was about to make. I much prefer the normal course, with you ruling me out of order after I have said the things I wished to say, and in future I hope that we shall revert to that course. Nevertheless, there are certain things I wish to say which, I apprehend, are in order.
    I rarely find myself in disagreement with my right hon. and hon. Friends, and even when I do I rarely express my disagreement. But in Oldham there are few old-age pensioners who have television sets. I do. not know what is the position the prosperous Midlands where there are very high wages, but in Oldham there are low wages and unemployment. Old-age pensioners in Oldham can see television at the hostels provided under provisions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). But if they wish to see television normally, they must visit the homes of other members of their family or their friends who have television sets.
    Nor do I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd)—a place where I once mounted a gun—that television is a necessity.
    Mr. Chetwynd: I said that it was for some people. It is not for me.
    Mr. Hale: I agree, it is not a necessity for me either. I limit my viewing ol television to about 5.30 p.m. on a Saturday, when I look at the sports results. I do that only because of the happy event of Leicester City being the champions of the Second Division of the Football League this year and of Oldham Rugby Football Club winning the championship of the Rugby League last week; and I am sure that the whole Committee would wish to felicitate me and to compliment me on those achievements in which vicariously I have taken part.
    I wish to refer to the somewhat unfortunate speech of the Financial Secretary. He has the merit of consistency. It was this sentence, which he uttered on 7th May, which brought me early into the Chamber today. Then the hon. Gentleman said:
    " The larger the outlay which the owner of a television set is called upon to pay, the smaller will be the proportion of his annual outlay represented by this duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 809.]
    I wonder whether the Economic Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Financial Secretary ".] Since the noble Marquess left the Government there has been a certain amount of reshuffling while I was abroad and I have not become completely au fait with the situation. We all respect the integrity and ability of the Financial Secretary, but I am not sure that he has sufficient empirical knowledge in these matters. Here is a very important new industry, a very important new contribution to our social life, something which I think, on the whole, is probably all to the good.
    4.30 p.m.
    I hope that it is not out of order to say, in a single sentence, that television sets are made in Oldham. The great firm of Ferranti has two large factories in the Borough of Oldham. It is, after all, a social industry, the sort of industry we all wish to encourage. Television is precisely the sort of thing we ought to want to see in every house in the country. If it is not a necessity, it is a deprivation to people who see that others have it when they have not.
    The social pressure is an important social pressure. We talk in these days of keeping up with the Jones's, but keeping up with the Jones's is a rather unfortunate way of putting it.
    Mr. David Jones: Why the Jones's?
    Mr. Hale: They are a very large family. I should not have thought that in referring to this large family I should have singled out any one member of it for any question. In any event, it is a flattering remark about the Jones's. The Jones's have got it. They are the people at the top of the tree, and it is the other people who have to try to keep up with them.
    But the real pressure is not that of keeping up with the Jones's. It is the pressure of the ordinary, decent man who wants to see that his children have got the same facilities as other people's when the children come back from school and say, "The Jones children saw the performance last night", that they saw His Royal Highness giving his talk for children, and his children had not been able to see it.
    The pressure upon that parent is very severe. It is precisely of the kind which I always understand of the man who has been to a public school and who wants his children to go to the same school. I think he is wrong. I think he is silly. I think that there may be a tiny bit of snobbishness in it, but it is a decent, human emotion.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I regret to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but when I was in the Chair on an earlier occasion the hon. Member said that he was going to interrupt himself in parenthesis. He did so and very soon came to some semblance of order. I ask him to do the same now.
    Mr. Hale: I am most grateful to you, Sir Robert, for your admonition and I appreciate that you said that you did it with reluctance. I was about to call myself to order and to refer to the question—what is it that we are discussing?— of television sets.
    It is a great pressure, but the Financial Secretary says, "Of course, it is only another 'quid'. What does it matter?" It is just as well to remember all the burdens which are imposed on the parent who is anxious to see that his children get the chance of seeing television which is now afforded to other children. What are the burdens imposed by this Government? First, there is a restriction of hire
    1418
    purchase, which means that he has to deposit a much larger sum than he would in normal circumstances. Secondly, there is the refusal to refer the cathode ray tube industry to the Monopolies Commission, though everyone knows that the cathode ray people are taking £7 or £8 of privateering money out of every one who buys a set. Thirdly, there is Purchase Tax. Fourthly, there is the licence.
    Having done all that, the Government now come forward with this iniquitous tax, which it would be out of order to say is iniquitous because at the moment we are only discussing the method of payment. Perhaps it would be in order to point out that, of course, our innate respect for the rules of order, our desire to conform to the rules, makes it almost impossible for us to express with emotion the things we want to say on these matters, and that we are rather restricted on a narrow Amendment which can only symbolise the more beneficent acts which we wish to take.
    Smith wants to keep up with the Jones's, and he saves the money. I say with absolute sincerity that in the discussions I have had with constituents recently I have been quite surprised at the number of problems that arise out of hire-purchase agreements for television sets. I have been surprised at the number of people who never really knew what they were signing. Although the Committee may not feel sympathy with people who sign agreements without ever having made sure that they can keep them, one knows that these things do happen.
    In the days before the war high-pressure salesmen used to call at the door and persuade people to buy carpet sweepers before they had a carpet. While they were paying instalments on the carpet sweepers they could not afford to buy a carpet, and, by the time they had paid the instalments and started to pay for a carpet, the carpet sweeper would not work. That is how hire purchase worked.
    It really is not good enough to say that an extra 20s. is not the straw that will break the camel's back. In point of fact, the camel's back is strained at the moment by all these burdens. Thirty-one years ago, when I entered into the bonds of holy matrimony, which are still preserved, I am glad to say, I bought a house. I built a house and I borrowed

    1419
    £500 on it. The building society's instalments were 17s. 6d. a week, and that 17s. 6d. a week was a very, very serious burden.
    It became a question of how regularly we could pay it. In fact, I remember that the building society wrote to me and asked me to be more consistent. In those days, being less reticent than I am now, I wrote back and said that if consistency was the only thing they desired I could achieve that with ease, and I did not pay for three months. Then we had a further discussion in which the society made it clear that that kind of consistency was not satisfactory and that further payments were desired.
    When my first child was born we were really frightened about what the doctor's bill would be. It was only three guineas when it came, but it could have been the sort of thing that could have made me go "subbing". It is not good enough to say that if these people can afford to pay already, they can find another 20s. I find people in Oldham, good working-class people, signing agreements to pay more in instalments for television sets than I had in 1926 to agree to pay for my house, and it was not a bad home at that.
    When one is paying 17s. 6d" 20s. or 25s. a week and someone comes along and says, "We want seven ' quid' extra for a cathode ray tube over and above what it ought to cost," and someone else says, "We want you to pay for the programme," and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Look here, you have stopped going to the cinema and we are going to cut off a bit of taxation from the cinema and tax you for staying at home," I cannot imagine a more evil principle than that.
    I should have thought that the foundation of all our life was our home life. I should have thought that this was exactly the sort of thing on which a progressive Government would want to give remissions and not impose increases. I should have thought that they would have said, "We have something here which is of great value. Here we have a sense of keeping people at home and of restoring the sanctity of family life which is the foundation of Britain and of all civilised nations. Here we have a chance of seeing
    1420
    the children round the television sets, with their mother and the father." But the Chancellor says, "No."
    Finally, if the argument of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is allowed to pass unnoticed, then there is no case against not putting another £1 on next year and another £1 the year following. Indeed, there may be a stronger case for his argument, because he will say that these people have managed to pay for another year. The more they pay, the less it costs. The more they pay, the more evidence of their ability to bear a burden, and on this assumption the Government can go on putting on taxes.
    I therefore beg the Chancellor to consider this matter anew and consider it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, in the light of our intentions, which are honourable, rather than in the light of the Amendment, which is narrow. It is a generous act of the Opposition to give the right hon. Gentleman a chance to recover some of the measure of popularity for the Government which they have lost in the last few weeks. A generous Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the opportunity we offer him, seize time by the forelock, and make a concession which would be one of importance in most of the homes of the country.
    Mr. Ron Ledger: The Financial Secretary seems to be under a distinct disadvantage when he says that a person should be able to pay £4 if he can pay £3 10s. Obviously, he looks upon members of his own Front Bench as a good cross-section of the people from the point of view of their ability to pay. If he believes that, the people of Romford are unique, because most of those who have written to me about the Budget have mentioned this particular duty. I shall not repeat what they have had to say about the value which they get for their money, or the remarks which they have made about the value of the entertainment, which has, if anything, decreased, particularly since the introduction of I.T.V.
    At last, the Financial Secretary appears to be showing some interest in what I am saying, so perhaps he now intends to accept the Amendment. People in Romford certainly regard 10s. as rather a lot of money. I am bound to admit, and

    1421
    possibly the Financial Secretary agrees, that 10s. is certainly not worth as much as it was under a Labour Government, but I should have thought that that would have meant that it was all the more precious today because it is worth so much less, and that he would, therefore, have given even closer consideration to the way in which he filched the odd 10s. or the odd £1 from the people of whom I am thinking.
    People with families often find it difficult to go to the pictures. They work on a stringent budget, and they have worked out very carefully that the cheapest method of entertainment which they can get is the television set. To these people 10s. is a considerable amount of money. It is a silly argument to say that if one pays a bill it does not really matter how much the bill is, so long as it comes within 10s. of what one is able to pay. That is a ridiculous argument.
    I have had a close look at this question of the sale of television sets, and I find that the statistics show that more and more people are going in for schemes which will help them to avoid having to pay large sums of money. Those are maintenance and insurance schemes which cost them a few shillings a week, and they find that they have to go in for those schemes by which they pay 2s. 6d., 3s. or 4s. a week because they simply cannot find even £1 in cash. I think that the Financial Secretary has not the slightest idea that many families have so little money that 10s. in one payment is an impossibility over and above their weekly commitments.
    I think that if the Financial Secretary took a closer look at the methods by which television sets are being sold through maintenance and insurance companies he would come to the conclusion, which many of us have come to, that the industry is bound to suffer if an increased burden is put on those who want to purchase television sets. He put forward the argument, which I think that he himself did not really believe—it was just a reply to the Amendment and a way of passing it over—that it might mean having to remind people twice that they had something to pay for their licences. I suggest to him that if it is true, as we suggest, that people will have difficulty in finding an extra 10s. and certainly an extra £1, he
    1422
    may find that the next time licences become due and the increased amount has to be paid, some people will leave it as long as possible before paying, and take a chance.
    You may find some difficulty in collecting the money and the cost will increase. If it does, you have only yourself to blame. You are going to make it harder to collect this £1 because you are not going to accept any Amendment to make it easier for the people to pay.
    Mr. Douglas Glover: I did not know that you, Sir Robert, were going to collect anything.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ledger: I join with my hon. Friends in saying that it is chiefly the working-class families who will suffer. Some of my hon. Friends rather limited the problem when they continually referred to the old-age pensioners. Those old-age pensioners who have television sets will certainly suffer, but I think that the problem is much broader than that, and that millions of people will find it more difficult to keep their television sets as a result of this increase of £1. Of course, the Government, by imposing it, will help us to a certain extent because they will prove, as the Financial Secretary proved this afternoon, once again very clearly, that the Government are mean when they want money and do not mind where it comes from, provided that it does not come from those who can best afford it.
    Mr. D. M. Keegan: I wish to intervene for only a few moments. I apologise to those who support the Amendment for not having been here earlier, but I was detained outside, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for intervening without having heard the Amendment proposed.
    I think that probably what most of us are concerned about is that any increase in the charge made on television sets by way of licence or duty will tend inevitably to increase the number of people who are tempted not to pay licences and will result in rather larger numbers than hitherto of what, I believe, are referred to as pirate television viewers. I have already heard an estimated figure of about 200,000 such viewers and I should not like that figure to go any higher.

    1423
    I hope that the Chancellor will earnestly consider making an allowance, either by means of this Amendment or in some other way, for people to pay duty on television sets by instalments. If he cannot do that, will he consider with the Postmaster-General whether some publicity can be given to the purchase of savings stamps over a period, amounting to the £4 now necessary, and trading these stamps in at the end of the year for the total value of the television licence and the duty? I hope that that suggestion will meet with approval.
    The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I believe that television viewing is a menace to our children and a time waster for grown-ups, but is the ideal entertainment for old people. A retired couple on pension, who have received their post-war credits—a very acceptable, though, perhaps, modest lump sum—may well devote them to the purchase of a television set. I believe that the Financial Secretary has a strong case where the majority of people are concerned, but I do not think that his case is so strong when it comes to old people, to whose interest I will limit my remarks.
    The movements of the old are probably circumscribed by health and age. The ordinary forms of entertainment are not always available to them. The football match, in British weather, is not particularly attractive to them, nor is wandering out on winter nights to the cinema. They are, therefore, justified in expending their post-war credits on a television set, which is their most ideal form of entertainment. I think that younger people would be ill-advised to embark on that type of investment.
    There must be thousands of elderly people who have put everything they have into such a purchase and are looking forward to years of quiet, leisurely entertainment; and there was real point in the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to the old adage about something being the last straw that breaks the camel's back. There is a lot of economic validity in that. He quoted his own experience, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides can corroborate it with theirs. One sometimes enters into a rather large commitment. One may spend a lot of money on furniture, or on repair jobs
    1424
    in the house. If, after that, one is faced at the wrong moment with a demand for even 10s., it is sometimes more difficult to find it than it was to find, possibly, £50 a few months earlier.
    To ask pensioners to find £4 when the finding of it presents a real difficulty means doing them a great injustice. I warmly support the pleas made by my hon. Friends to the Chancellor to reveal —I am sure that he has the ability—a willingness to look into the administration of this new duty. The mechanics are not insoluble. With good will this could be done, and I cannot believe that, in such a small matter, the Chancellor could not find the will to try to do something for these old people for whom I have spoken and who, I believe, have a very strong case.
    Mr. Charles Grey: I join with my hon. Friends in supporting this Amendment, and want to say how sorry I was to listen to the cold manner in which it was received on the Government Front Bench. I rather thought that when the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor looked at the Amendment he dismissed it altogether as being of no importance, but after listening to my hon. Friends I am sure that the Government will agree that there is substance in what has been said.
    I agree that this duty concerns only a certain part of the population, and we must accept the fact that, whether we like it or not, the £1 will be imposed. We have to accept that as a principle now. Could there have been a means of deciding among those who have television sets how they would like to pay the money, I am sure that most wage earners, though not all, would say they would rather pay it in one sum. The type of person who cannot pay in that way is the old-age pensioner. I am sure that the Chancellor will agree that the nation has been perturbed about the plight of the old-age pensioners, who are now campaigning for an increased pension. To suggest, as is being done now, that to have their viewing they should pay an extra £1 in one sum makes the whole of that campaign ridiculous.
    Due consideration should be given to those who have to measure out the weekly amounts they pay to certain people. I speak from personal experience. I had to do it after 1926, when I worked in the

    1425
    mine and earned 30s. a week. It was not at all an easy task to measure out weekly payments. These people are paying sums weekly to others, and it is an utter impossibility for them to find the extra £1 in one lump. I would, therefore, ask the Chancellor to look at this again, and see whether it is possible, even if the people cannot be let off altogether, at least to let them pay by instalments. If the Chancellor does that, he will earn the gratitude of all old-age pensioners.
    Mr. Moss: As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) has said, this Amendment assumes that the duty will be imposed. I am opposed to the imposition of the duty, but this Amendment is concerned merely with levying it in a manner convenient to many of those who have to pay it. There has not been a single argument advanced in support of this duty which will bear independent examination, and I am led to the conclusion that the Chancellor has chosen to impose it merely because he has found another method of raising revenue from a popular form of entertainment. It follows from that, I think, that in future the duty may be increased. Therefore, the total amount to be paid will be increased, and if a convenient method of levying the duty can be found it should be found now, when it is being first imposed.
    The Financial Secretary has used the most peculiar argument. Although I agree with other hon. Members that in his remarks today he put paid to this particular Amendment, he used a most peculiar argument about the effect of this duty on those who will have to pay it. In the Second Reading debate on 7th May, he began by saying that the amount of duty was small. He went on to discuss the annual cost of running a television set, and concluded that that cost, including the licence, was £10—or 4s. a week. He went on to say that the tax of £1 would be only 10 per cent. of the annual running costs. All that is very nice mathematics, but the inner logic of the argument is related entirely to costs.
    5.0 p.m.
    If I pay £60 for a television set, the annual cost of running it is one-sixth of that and the extra tax will be 10 per cent. of the annual cost of running it. What is the point of that argument? The proper
    1426
    approach is that if I want to spend a fairly substantial initial sum upon the purchase of something like a television set, I consider whether I can afford to have it, and whether I can afford to run it once I have bought it. I do the same if I buy a car—and I require a car in a constituency nearly 600 square miles in extent—but I must consider whether, having bought the car, I can afford to run it.
    The result of an extra payment should be related not to the initial cost or the running costs, but to the capacity to pay. The Amendment is obviously concerned with people who have marginal incomes, and in respect of whom any increase in their obligations is an increase which they may not be able to meet. For most people that is true of other things, as well as television sets. For instance, it is true that in the buying of a house mortgage charges may increase. One has to consider the mortgage charges in relation to one's income, not some sort of percentage, when one is buying a house.
    On the occasion to which I have referred, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) the Financial Secretary finally said:
    " The larger the outlay which the owner of a television set is called upon to pay, the smaller will be the proportion of his annual outlay represented by this duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 809.]
    That does not get us anywhere. The Chancellor said that he was prepared to discuss these matters in Committee. I took that to mean that he would consider them sympathetically.
    We have to consider the spirit of the Amendment in relation to the capacity to pay. This duty will in many cases be paid during the season of festivities at the end of the year, when many other payments fall due. For that reason, the Chancellor might consider some method of having it paid in two instalments rather than in one fell swoop at that time of the year. For instance, that is the time of the year when I have to pay the tax on my car and when I have to pay for the radio and television licence. I am not saying that everyone has to pay at that time of the year, but many people do, and, added together, these burdens form a formidable sum.
    The main argument in support of the spirit of the Amendment is the fact that the increased duty will fall upon people

    1427
    with marginal incomes. Those sections of the community who depend on smaller incomes will find it very difficult to meet this increased charge, or at all events will find it much more difficult than if the Chancellor found a way of splitting the payment into at least two instalments.
    Dr. Horace King: This is a very narrow Amendment, and we could have passed from it an hour ago if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had listened to the reasonable suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) very early in the debate. I am in sympathy with what has been said about the claims of the old folk, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity of examining their position when we discuss later Amendments.
    However, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was right when he said that most of the old folk are not concerned with television sets because they are too poor to buy them. There are millions of people far too poor to be concerned with anything that we are discussing on this Amendment, or indeed with this new tax. By all means, let the right hon. Gentleman be an "Iron Chancellor", but I hope that he will not be a stubborn and obstinate Chancellor, and that he will note that in addition to the representations which have come from this side of the Committee we have had a very grave statement from an hon. Member opposite, in a brief intervention.
    For two or three minutes I want to examine the arguments of the Financial Secretary. He argued that there was no burden in the tax in view of the high cost of television sets and the large instalments that have to be paid in hire purchase. If he had used that argument to show that his Government were concerned with the racket in cathode tubes and were proposing to do something about it, that they were concerned with the fact that high Purchase Tax makes television sets expensive, and that their own policy makes television a far more expensive proposition today than it was in the past, one might have some sympathy with what he said.
    The general argument is that television is such an expensive luxury that it does not matter if extra costs are added, and that there is no burden which requires
    1428
    alleviation by splitting the payment into two parts. I was interested in the meaner arguments of the Financial Secretary. My right hon. Friend said that no money was involved. The Financial Secretary thought differently. He objects to splitting the new tax into two because it would mean increased administrative costs—one more notification would have to go out to licence holders and the cost of that would have to be paid for—and he went on to say that the tax would produce less income this year or in any year if we collected it in two halves. That means that the Treasury is dishonest and that it wants to continue collecting the whole annual payment from some people who would not make the annual payment if it were in two instalments.
    Mr. Hale: And to fake the public accounts.
    Dr. King: The Treasury wants to collect from people who might die during the year and who would thus not pay the second half. The Financial Secretary wants to get the full annual amount from all television viewers whether they use the television set for the whole year or not. I agree with him that the difference between paying £3 10s. in one instalment and 10s. in the second instalment is not very important. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend suggested that between now and Report the Chancellor might look at other ways of solving this problem. The new tax might be collected in the second half of the year, so that the instalments would be £3 and £1.
    Mr. Hale: There is always the possibility of considering other forms of revenue, because the argument of the Financial Secretary indicates the desirability of putting a tax on yachts instead of television sets, because the bigger the expense the smaller the outlay—
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: And the Government are all at sea.
    Mr. Hale: —and the Government are all at sea. Such a proposal might even induce my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shaw-cross) to complete the arduous journey from the Temple to Westminster.
    Dr. King: We are not arguing for the splitting of the tax into £3 10s. and 10s. but for dividing the; payment of it into two equal instalments.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: This has been a most disappointing debate from the point of view of the Opposition.
    Mr. Glover: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman is not yet a Member of the Opposition, although our ranks are gradually being swelled because of divergencies on Government Benches.
    Mr. Glover: The quality of the speeches from the Benches opposite have not only been deplorably low but were reeking of hypocrisy.
    Mr. Greenwood: I will not comment on either the good taste of that remark or upon whether it was in order. The hon. Gentleman confined himself to making a purely obstructive intervention on a point of order. He might have raised the general level of the debate if he had had the courage or the enterprise to take part in it.
    This is a very modest proposal. It does not embody any deep-rooted political principles or fine points of ideology. I hoped that Government supporters, apart from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Keegan), might lend their voices to support the case that we have been deploying. A large number of Conservative supporters outside the constituency of Nottingham, South will view their papers with some distaste tomorrow morning when they find that the Conservative Party has been so backward about supporting the modest proposal that we have made.
    When I listened to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury I thought at first that I detected some glimmer of sympathy for our point of view. He argued that it would have been much better had it been possible to divide the payment into two instalments of £2. When my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) first suggested that we might table an Amendment upon those lines, we sought to do so, but we found that that would not be within the rules of order. Therefore, we had to do the best we could.
    We should have liked to equate the payment of this licence to the payment of rates or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said, to the payment of the Road Fund licence. That is, of course, out of
    1430
    order for us to do. If the Government will give us some encouragement upon this point, even that they are prepared to consider this suggestion between now and Report, or an undertaking that they will do everything they can to make a concession of this kind on the occasion of the next Finance Bill, we shall view the whole problem in a very different light.
    The glimmer of sympathy which I thought I detected was obviously not there, because we had the fantastic argument from the Financial Secretary that the more expense a person has to bear the more able he is to incur still more expense. That will be a most impressive example when it appears in the Labour speaker's handbook as showing what Tory reaction can mean. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that Marie Antoinette was a Radical compared with the Financial Secretary.
    We still hope, in spite of the very discouraging remarks that we have heard from the Financial Secretary, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been sitting there in great ease for well over an hour, has had time to ponder this problem and will be able to give us some message of hope, and so avoid our having to summon about 200 Conservative Members from other parts of this building where their attention is apparently at the present time engaged.
    5.15 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I sympathise with the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) in the disappointment of the Opposition. Having listened to the debate I can understand it. The idea that we should divide this payment into two parts must have had a certain superficial attraction about it, but when we examine the arguments the case is clearly untenable.
    The Amendment really suggests, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary pointed out, that we divide the payment into one payment of £3 10s. and another payment of 10s. That is all there is to argue about. It has nothing to do with old age because there is nothing about old age in the Amendment. We shall come to another Amendment in which old age is referred to, and that question can then be debated. I rather agree

    1431
    with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that it is unrealistic to talk about old people who are living only on their pensions buying television sets or paying either £4 or a £2 instalment. We had better be realistic about this matter. That idea is remote from the circumstances.
    I will confine myself simply to discussing the Amendment. I can see little advantage in dividing the payment into £3 10s. and 10s. There might be a case for arguing that the duty or the Post Office licence should be divided, but that is clearly out of order and is not relevant to the Finance Bill. In the circumstances I rather agree with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) who said that the Financial Secretary's speech had really put paid to the Amendment.
    The Temporary Chairman rose—
    Mr. H, WilsonThe Chancellor's answer is not good enough. At the very beginning of his speech my hon. Friend
    the Member for Rosendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) admitted quite frankly that the idea of £3 10s. and 10s. was not a very good proposition, but that it was all that we could put forward because of the rules of order. I suggest that the Chancellor might say that he will consider this matter with a view to bringing forward a proposition on Report to divide the £4 into instalments of £2 each. Then we shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment. It was not enough to say that the Financial Secretary put paid to the Amendment; we will put paid to it by withdrawing it if the Chancellor will give us that assurance.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If I attempted to do that my Amendment would be just as much out of order as is the one that we have been discussing.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted: —
    The Committee divided: Ayes 161, Noes 213.

    Division No. 114.]

    AYES

    [5.17 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Albu, A. H.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mason, Roy

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Grey, C. F.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Balfour, A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mellish, R. J.

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

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Benson, G.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Monslow, W.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Moody, A. S.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hannan, W.

    Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

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

    Hastings, S.

    Mort, D. L.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Moss, R.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Healey, Denis

    Moyle, A.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

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

    Mulley, F. W.

    Brookway, A. F.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Holmes, Horace

    Oliver, G. H.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Oram, A. E.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Orbach, M.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Owen, W. J.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Clunie, J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paton, John

    Coldrick, W.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pearson, A.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Pentland, N.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Popplewell, E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Janner, B.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Probert, A. R.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

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

    Proctor, W. T.

    Deer, G.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Redhead, E. C

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

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Reeves, J.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Kenyon, C.

    Reid, William

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Ross, William

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Ledger, R. J.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Fienburgh, W.

    Logan, D. G.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Finch, H. J.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Snow, J. W.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Weitzman, D.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

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

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Woof, R. E.

    Swingler, S. T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Tomney, F.

    Willey, Frederick

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tlilery)

    TEIXERS FOR THE AYES:

    Usborne, H. C.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Mr. J. Taylor and Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Goodhart, Philip

    Marshall, Douglas

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Maude, Angus

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

    Gower, H. R.

    Maudting, Rt. Hon. R.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Mawby, R. L.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

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

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Green, A

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Ashton, H.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Neave, Airey

    Balniel, Lord

    Gurden, Harold

    Nicholls, Harmer

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

    Barter, John

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

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

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

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Harvie-Wait, Sir George

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

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hay, John

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

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Page, R. G.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Partridge, E.

    Black, C. W.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Body, R. F.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Pitman, I, J.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Holt, A. F.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pott, H. P.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Bryan, P.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

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

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hurd, A. R.

    Redmayne, M.

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Robertson, Sir David

    Cooke, Robert C.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Shepherd, William

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

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

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Keegan, D.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Kimball, M.

    Speir, R. M.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Kirk, P. M.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Storey, S.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

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

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Longden, Gilbert

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Farey-Jones, F. W

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Teeling, W.

    Fell, A.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Temple, John M.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Fisher, Nigel

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Foster, John

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Maddan, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Glover, D.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Godber, J. B.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    1434

    1435

    Wade, D. W.

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Mr. R. Thompson and Mr. Hughes-Young.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Mr. E. C. Redhead: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out subsection (3).
    This Amendment has been put down in the hope of eliciting precisely what this subsection is intended to cover, to try to clear up some of the obscurity in its rather involved phraseology, and also in the hope that we may remove any fears that it will catch any form of licence that was not originally contemplated. The subsection purports to deal with cases where—
    "the licence fees for television licences are not prescribed by post office regulations."
    The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, seems to make it perfectly clear that any form of wireless apparatus capable of reception must be covered by a licence issued by the Postmaster-General, and the regulations made under that Act prescribe licence fees in respect of every type of licence, and certainly every type of licence of which I am aware—the general form of the television licence for the individual, those for hotels, for multiples and the relay broadcasting stations.
    The phrase which I have quoted for the subsection appears capable of two possible constructions. First, it would appear to suggest that there are some licences which are necessary, although not prescribed by Post Office regulations, and that I find difficult to believe. Alternatively, it suggests that there are some licences issued by the Postmaster-General for which no licence fees are payable. If it is the latter, then, quite frankly, I do not think it is within the contemplation of anyone that it is right that licences which do not call for the payment of a fee should attract this Excise Duty.
    In short, it is difficult to see precisely what purpose it is hoped to serve by this subsection. If in a very involved Clause, and for so simple a purpose so long a Clause, it is possible to dispense with something for which there is no apparent purpose, I would have imagined that it would have been an advantage to get rid of the subsection.
    It may be that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to enlighten us, but if there is some type of licence
    1436
    not within my knowledge, nor, so far as I have been able to discover, within the knowledge of any of my friends, clearly I think we should avoid any possibility of obscurity in future in interpreting this Clause, and this type of licence ought to be defined specifically in the subsection itself. It is for the purpose of eliciting that explanation and that degree of clarification which I think is necessary that I submit this Amendment.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: The reason for this subsection is as follows. The power of the Postmaster-General under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to issue licences covers types of licence not provided for in the Post Office Regulations prescribing licence fees. In other words, the field of possible licences which at present is covered by the Post Office Regulations is not as wide as all conceivable types of licence which the Postmaster-General has the power to issue under the Wireless Telegraphy Act.
    If therefore he decided, as would be within his power, to issue a special licence of a particular type to meet a particular set of circumstances, that would fall outside the provisions of this Clause unless the subsection were included. The only purpose of the Clause is to ensure that its ambit will be exactly as wide as the ambit of the licensing powers of the Postmaster-General under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. The hon. Member need not fear that if a licence were issued on which a fee was not payable the duty might nevertheless be payable under this subsection. I can assure him that that is not the case.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is not good enough. When we were discussing Clause 1, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) moved an Amendment to delete a subsection for exactly the same purpose as he has moved this Amendment, namely, to elicit from the Government some explanation of what the Clause meant. The Financial Secretary then spoke for about two minutes in a very airy way. He did not do very much in the way of elucidating what the subsection meant. When I intervened and asked if he would give an

    1437
    example so that we could see, amidst all the cloud of words he used, what he really meant, he was quite unable to give us an illustration. He gave another dissertation which was almost as obscure as when he first spoke.
    I ask the hon. Gentleman now if he will give a simple example of what the Treasury had in mind when it put this subsection into the Bill. Can he let us know the kind of thing it wants to cover by the insertion of this subsection? If he can do that, I have no objection to passing on to the next business, but the Committee is certainly entitled to know what it is doing. The mere fact that the hon. Gentleman said my hon. Friend need have no fear that there is something here that should not be here is not enough. Knowing this Government as I do, I have every fear, even on a matter of a simple obscure Clause such as this. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will insist on having something a little more clarifying than the very obscure and very short so-called explanation which the Financial Secretary has deigned to throw out.
    Mr. D. Jones: I should have thought at least that the Financial Secretary would have given us one example of the kind of thing he has in mind. I have not the slightest doubt that he has confidence in himself, but I have not very much confidence in either him or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have recollections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a previous capacity and of some of the things he said.
    If there are any dangers or possibilities of licences being issued which are not covered by Post Office regulations, can we not have one or two examples of the kind of thing the hon. Gentleman has in mind? Otherwise, why not explain the Post Office regulations and make it clear to all ordinary people that this is designed to catch every kind of television licence which is issued in this country? To put in a blanket provision of this kind and then, perhaps, catch some unfortunate individual at a later date seems to be quite wrong. I should have thought that the ingenuity of the Financial Secretary would have discovered one example of the kind of thing the Treasury wants to catch.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: I wish to support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and my hon. Friends have said. It is incumbent on the Committee to insist that the promoters of a Bill shall explain with due clarity what they want the House to enact.
    It seemed to me that the Financial Secretary said that under some powers the Postmaster-General can issue a licence without a fee, but that if he does so that would not attract duty under this Clause. If powers exist for the Postmaster-General to do so, it should be possible to give two or three illustrations of what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mrs. Eirene White: I wish to support what my hon. Friends have said. I am afraid that this is not the first occasion on which the brevity of the Financial Secretary has proved a snare and delusion, because in the end it has taken longer to explain the matter. It would be to the satisfaction of the Committee if he could perhaps descend to our level and explain to us in precise, although simple, language what the Government intend to do.
    It has been suggested to me, for instance, that one of the types of television licence to which the hon. Gentleman was referring would be a closed circuit, a private circuit, where there is television reception which is not open to the general public. I do not know whether that is covered here; it may be or may not. I suspect that my hon. Friends are as ignorant as I am on this matter, and we should like to be enlightened, and if there were hon. Members on the benches opposite they also would wish to be enlightened.
    What are these special occasions or unusual circumstances to which reference has been made? We have had no indication of them at all. Are they few, or are they many? Can we have some notion how many occasions in the past financial year the Postmaster-General has issued a type of licence referred to in this subsection? We have no idea as to the scope of the television licences with which we are being asked to deal. There are many points on which, before it reaches a decision, the Committee should have a much fuller and more enlightening

    1439
    explanation than we have so far received. I hope that before we pass to the next matter this point, which has been very properly raised, will receive the attention it deserves.
    Mr. Powell: Taking first the question raised by the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West about whether as a result of this subsection television duty would be imposed where no licence fee was payable, if he will look at the governing subsection (9), on page 4 of the Bill, he will see that by lines 34 to 36 that is specifically excluded.
    Secondly, the general purpose of this subsection is to ensure that the ambit of television duty under this Clause and the ambit of licences for receiving television under the Wireless Telegraphy Act are coterminous, because it would be foolish if after this Finance Bill were enacted the Postmaster-General exercised powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to issue a kind of licence for which provision was not made in this Clause.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) asked for an example of a kind of licence which the Postmaster-General has power to issue under the Wireless Telegraphy Act but for which Post Office regulations do not exist—at present, at any rate. An example is a licence to receive television and to charge for admission to view it. That is a licence which the Postmaster-General can issue, for which he can make a price for the licence fee, but where the licence fee is not prescribed by Post Office regulations. This subsection deals with that case by providing that the television duty chargeable on such a licence shall bear the due proportion to the licence fee which the Postmaster-General charges in that case.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman could not have gone into even the detail which he has now, which is not much, when he made his original speech. I gather he is telling us that at the moment there is no real illustration and no real reason for the provision, that it is a precautionary measure by the Government in case a Postmaster-General sought at some time to issue a certain kind of licence upon which otherwise the extra £1 might bite unless the words were included. Why could not the hon. Gentleman have said that when he first rose?
    1440
    The hon. Gentleman might realise that during the proceedings on the Bill—we shall spend many hours on it—he will save himself and the Government a good deal of time if he treats the Opposition, and, indeed, his hon. Friends, with a little more respect and in the realisation that, after all, we take the Bill seriously and want to know what we are passing into law.
    Mr. Redhead: In the light of the assurances which have finally been extracted from the Financial Secretary, I shall not press the matter unduly, but I am by no means convinced that we have had a valid explanation. We have, in effect, had a frank acknowledgement that there is no such licence currently being issued of the type which it is intended to catch by the subsection. There is no necessity at all to provide for the one hypothetical example which has been quoted. If it became necessary to issue a licence for a television show at a place where there were payments for admission, there is no justification for applying Excise Duty, because such a performance would already be caught under the residue of the Entertainments Duty which has now become the "Cinema Tax".
    I feel that in the Clause as a whole— the subsection illustrates it—there has been an unnecessary degree of pernicketiness in trying to cover all conceivable eventualities, few of which are likely to arise. It would have been to the profit of the Treasury and to the advantage of the part of the Department concerned with the administration of the provision to omit anything from the Clause which was not absolutely essential for the administration of a relatively simple duty. In all the circumstances, if the provision is regarded as so vital for the protection of the Revenue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Redhead: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out subsection (4).
    I would again draw attention to the excessively involved character of the Clause. The Chancellor is here seeking to impose a very simple—in terms of administration—Excise Duty of £1 per annum in respect of television licences. It takes no fewer than eleven subsections and 1,000 words to bring about such a legislative effect.

    1441
    In subsection (4) we seem to have reached the most excessive degree of verbosity and complexity. It is extremely difficult to follow. Precisely what is intended by the subsection? I will quote one phrase in the latter part of the first paragraph:
    "… where a licence taken out after the expiration of a previous licence is issued so as to expire at the end of a period calculated from that expiration, it shall for this purpose be treated as a licence for that period …"
    On first showing, what on earth does that mean? When one reads the proviso it becomes even more complex and more difficult to understand.
    By dint of great study, I have come to the conclusion that it is intended to make provision in the subsection for the rate of duty which shall be payable in respect of a licence which is issued for a shorter or a longer period than one year; in other words, that the rate of duty shall be pro rata to the standard annual rate. Why that could not be said in more simple terms than those in this long subsection, I cannot understand. I refuse to believe that it is beyond the ingenuity of Parliamentary draftsmen to put it in simpler terms.
    While the provision may be capable of ultimate interpretation, it must be explained to the public in much simpler terms in some way or other. I should have thought that it would have been a contribution to efficient and effective administration to seek to frame these provisions in terms which are reasonably intelligible to ordinary men. I hope the Financial Secretary will say that he is willing to look at the matter again to find a more satisfactory and less obscure construction to cover what he seeks to do.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: It would, perhaps, be most convenient if I took the subsection in three parts and dealt first with the first half of the first paragraph. By the preceding subsections the yearly rate of duty has been laid down, and the first part of subsection (4) says that the duty charged shall be the yearly rate applied to the number of months for which the licence is issued.
    It goes on to say, however, that where a licence is issued for, for example, fewer months than a year, but runs from one year's end to another, it shall be treated
    1442
    as issued for twelve months. For example, where a licence has expired and is not renewed until the following year is some way advanced, the second licence is issued so as to expire at the end of a full year from the expiry of the previous licence. In such a case, the renewal licence, although it may only cover nine months, is treated as running for twelve months and is charged accordingly.
    The proviso deals with a special case where a licence which would normally be issued for twelve months is issued for a longer period. For example, if a licence in one year were not used for a considerable portion of the year, the Postmaster-General would have the power to issue a licence for the following year at the same rate to cover twenty-one months instead of twelve months to make up for the use which had not been made of the previous licence. In such a case, it would clearly be unfair to levy the duty in proportion to the total number of months, so in that case it is treated as a normal twelve months' licence. That is the effect of the three parts into which the subsection falls.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Cannot we be told the reason for this? The hon. Gentleman has given a very long explanation, but I do not know how many hon. Members understood it. I did not follow all of it. I wonder whether we can prevail on the Economic Secretary, who has a great command of language and an extreme facility of phrase, to explain to us in simple terms just what the provision does. Is it another precautionary measure? It seems a pity to have all these subsections, but I suppose there is something to be said for it, particularly as the Government failed to take obvious precautions at the time of the Suez affair and on other occasions which I should be out of order in elaborating now.
    At any rate the Financial Secretary has given us a somewhat longer explanation than he deigned to give in respect of earlier Amendments. Nevertheless, he has left the matter in almost as complete obscurity as it would appear to anyone reading the subsection for the first time. I do not think that the Committee would be doing itself justice if it let the matter pass merely with the explanation that has been given. I can only submit that as the Financial Secretary seems to be quite unable to give us an explanation which we

    1443
    can understand someone else should do so. The Postmaster-General has been sitting there without saying anything. Perhaps he can tell us what it means. If he cannot, perhaps one of the Whips could be sent for—or even a Law Officer. We are entitled to have one here, but I have not seen one on the Front Bench since we began our proceedings. If that had happened when a Labour Government were in office the whole Committee would have been in an uproar until a Law Officer came along.
    There are now three Members of the Government on the Front Bench—all apparently quite knowledgeable upon the meaning of the subsection. We have had an explanation from one which is no explanation at all. I am as completely in the dark now as I was when the hon. Gentleman began his speech. The only thing that we can do is to ask for another Minister to try to explain just what these words mean. The Postmaster-General seems to be feeling very happy. He is smiling. He must therefore know what it means. It affects his Department, and he appears to be quite satisfied. Let us have an explanation from him before we go any further.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I join my right hon. Friend in his appeal, save for one thing. I do not think that we would be any better off if we sent for a Law Officer. I do not think that he would help; in fact, we should probably be more confused after his explanation. I did not understand this provision when I read it, and I cannot understand it now that I have heard the Financial Secretary explaining it. I think that I may understand it when I read the Report of the Financial Secretary's speech in HANSARD tomorrow.
    I wonder whether we ought not to change our methods of procedure. Perhaps we ought to receive a "hand-out" when a statement like this is to be given. I do not think that we, as a Committee, should agree to legislation when we do not understand what it is doing or what it is for. I am not alone in this, but, even if I were, it would be right for the Government to explain it to me.
    I want to reinforce what my right hon. Friend said about the Postmaster-General. When I said that I did not think a Law Officer could help us, I said it without intending any offence. But
    1444
    Law Officers are apt to express themselves in terminology which is not readily understood and which needs time for reflection. But if the Postmaster-General will explain the matter, he will express himself in terms more likely to be intelligible to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
    I hope that we can get ahead because I have an interest in the Amendments which are to follow, and I am anxious to have an opportunity of discussing them. I do not think that we should be held up by a matter such as this, which, when it is properly explained, may turn out to be non-controversial after all.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would help considerably if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose job it is to explain Government legislation, stopped standing outside the precincts and came in and sat on the Front Bench in order to fulfil his task?
    Mr. Willey: I appeal to my hon. Friend not to try to persuade him to do so. He is the last person I should send for. He spent much time trying to explain food matters to me. He made them more obscure, and I regret to say that he often misled me. Again, I found it necessary to read HANSARD for the following day in order to see what he had been trying to say. This is a question of legislation, and we must be sure that what we approve is something of which we approve. It is as simple as that.
    As the Postmaster-General has courteously consented to adorn the Front Bench, why cannot he now tell us what he thinks the provision means? We can then check his explanation against that which we have already had and against the words which we are asked to approve. If he will do that immediately, we might be able to proceed to the Amendments in which I have a particular interest.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: My hon. Friend thinks that when he gets HANSARD tomorrow the meaning of the provision may be clear. I think that when he gets it tomorrow he will find that the statement made by the Financial Secretary contradicts subsection (4). One would expect the hon.

    1445
    Member to interpret properly what appears to us to be Greek, but he has failed to do so. I take it that his interpretation means that if a television set had not been used for, say, nine months of one year, at the end of the second year that nine months would be added to the twelve months and the owner would therefore have twenty-one months.
    The provision states that the television duty:
    " shall be calculated at the appropriate yearly rate according to the number of months in the period for which the licence is issued (any incomplete month being treated as a complete month) and where a licence taken out after the expiration of a previous licence is issued so as to expire at the end of a period calculated from that expiration, it shall for this purpose be treated as a licence for that period."
    In other words, the owner shall not have another nine months, but the nine months of the dead licence will be treated as having been covered.
    Mr. Powell: My explanation was in regard to the proviso to the subsection to which the hon. Lady was referring— and that is the part which she has not read.
    Mrs. Mann: I was going to suggest that we might send for a Law Officer, but the Jaw and the legal fraternity thrive on these obscurities. The courts are kept going by them.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have not nearly finished with this matter yet. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) was speaking I noticed the Financial Secretary nodding his head. From that I assume that her explanation was the correct one. Unless we are to hear either from the Postmaster-General or the Solicitor-General, who has just come in, we ought to be told whether we are to assume that my right hon. Friend's explanation is the correct one and the one given by the Financial Secretary is incorrect. If so, would it be possible for me to move that the Financial Secretary's speech be annulled and my hon. Friend's put in its place in HANSARD tomorrow?
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I want to ask one or two questions about this matter. It looked at first sight rather more simple than it appears to be on further investigation and explanation. I listened with very great interest
    1446
    to the hon. Member's exlanation of the preceding subsection. He happened to give us an instance of a licence which was issued on an occasion, but it seems to me equally to cover licences which are issued for a period and, as I see it, under subsection (3) a licence might be issued either for a year or for a number of months. Offhand, I should have thought that if we prescribed a yearly rate and then indicated a unit and subdivided it that would be all right. Why are all the licences chargeable under subsection (3) not to be subject to the same kind of procedure as the licences issued at the standard rate?
    6.0 p.m.
    We did not get quite enough from the hon. Gentleman to indicate the reasons for excluding not only the particular instance he gave under subsection (3) but any other licence whatever which is issued under subsection (3). If, in fact, it is the case that one can get any licence other than the licence for the single occasion issued under subsection (3), why does one need any provisions of this sort about it?
    The hon. Gentleman treated the subsection as containing two provisions and, for the purpose of my next question, I take the second one. The subsection says:
    "… where a licence taken out after the expiration of a previous licence"—
    that is to say, any licence other than the first one—
    "… is issued so as to expire at the end of a period calculated from that expiration …"
    Perhaps the answer is in the Post Office regulations, but what does that mean? Does it mean that one has an annual licence or does it not?
    "… it shall for this purpose be treated as a licence for that period."
    Will the Financial Secretary tell us what "for this purpose" means? I find it a little obscure.
    As regards the third matter, the proviso, the words are:
    "… where a licence of a type normally issued for a period of a particular length "—
    let us call it an annual licence—
    "… is for special reasons issued for a longer or shorter period, but the licence fees payable for it are the same as if it had been issued for a period of the normal length …"
    I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to indicate the circumstances

    1447
    in which one can get for £1 a yearly licence valid, let us say, for two years. We are, I feel, now coming to the meat of the matter, and we might here get a useful tip for the old folk who have, perhaps, been a little hard hit by these provisions.
    Mr. Tom Brown: We cannot allow this to go without challenge. We have had an attempt at explanation from the Financial Secretary, but he has not satisfied us. We must, therefore, register our protest. The Government brought along the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, but when he is called upon to give an explanation or interpretation of the particular part of the Bill now under consideration, he shakes his head. Surely, that is not treating the Committee as it ought to be treated. We are entitled to an explanation from the Law Officer of the Crown. [An HON. MEMBER: "He shook his head; he does not know."] Perhaps he cannot explain it himself.
    So far as I can understand the Clause and its application to the outside world, it appears to be a cross between a crossword puzzle and a jigsaw puzzle. I beg the Solicitor-General, at least, to attempt to explain to the Committee what it really means.
    Dr. King: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) on calling attention to the obscurity of the Clause. I protest against Parliament having from time to time to consider Sections or Clauses in Acts of Parliament which are so obscurely drafted that their meaning is debatable in Committee. I raised this matter some years ago and was told outside the Chamber by an Attorney-General that there is a Section of an Act of Parliament so confused and badly drawn that nobody could decide what it meant, and that, a certain judge having put a meaning upon it, that was the meaning of the Section which now obtains in law.
    When I heard the Financial Secretary, I thought I understood what he said. I approve of the Clause if it means what he thinks it means, but it seems extraordinary that we should have an obscure piece of phraseology like this and then, after a member of the Government has said what it means, instead of our putting
    1448
    his speech into the Bill, we have to be satisfied with the obscure terminology of the Clause.
    Mr. Powell: I am much complimented that the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) should wish to see my language enshrined in an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. D. Howell: We have it in the Rent Bill.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked why the words in brackets in lines 33 and 34 are made an exception to the procedure laid down in the subsection. The reason is that where a licence is covered by subsection (3) the duty payable is not fixed on a time basis but is fixed on a proportionate basis. Having settled the duty in subsection (3) on a proportionate basis, one could not go on to apply the time basis prescribed by subsection (4).
    Mrs. White: Proportionate to what?
    Mr. Powell: If the hon. Lady will read lines 30 to 32 of subsection (3), she will see the proportion there set out.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have intervened more than once already, and I regret having to do so again. I understood from the Financial Secretary earlier that subsection (3) at the moment means nothing but is merely a precautionary measure.
    Mr. Powell: A precautionary measure can have a meaning.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon Gentleman indicated that the words in brackets in subsection (4) referred back to a licence issued under subsection (3). We are told that, up to now, no licence has been issued under subsection (3) and nobody expects one to be issued.
    Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman is going a little beyond what I said on subsection (3). He will find that the words in brackets do refer back to subsection (3), and subsection (3) has an effect, even though that effect has yet to be invoked.
    The meaning of the words in subsection (4), about which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and other

    1449
    hon. Members asked, is this. Let us suppose that a licence expires on 31st December but that the owner of the set fails to go for another licence until 31st March. He will then be issued with a licence to run to the next 31st December, but although he will enjoy that licence for nine months only, he will, of course, be charged the full normal fee for it, and, of course, will pay the yearly rate of duty for twelve months. It would be clearly unfair—and the reason for this subsection is to avoid unfairness—that a licence holder who neglected to renew his licence for several months after the conclusion of the year should, for that reason, pay less by way of duty.
    Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman has not quite answered my question. Perhaps I have interrupted too soon. I quite understand the intention he has just expressed; indeed, I think he said the same thing previously. But when this happens and the licence is issued, let us say, at the end of three months for a period of a year starting from the expiry of the previous licence, what is "for this purpose"?
    Mr. Powell: Such a licence as that described is, of course, issued for nine months, for the nine months April to December, but it is issued so as to expire twelve months after the previous licence expired, that is to say, on 31st December. Therefore, it attracts both the fee and the duty of a twelve months' licence, as it should.
    Mrs. White: Could the Financial Secretary go a little further? We all appreciate that someone who, through negligence, does not pay for his licence at the correct time should not thereby get a benefit, but would the hon. Gentleman make perfectly clear what happens if, for instance, someone goes abroad, closes his house entirely for nine months of the year and does not use his television set at all? Must such a person also pay at the twelve months' rate for only three months' use?
    Mr. Powell: I am coming to that, because that is the point to which the proviso relates and the point to which the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) referred. That is the case where a licence is issued carrying the normal fee for a twelve months'
    1450
    licence, but is neverthless issued to run for more than twelve months. It is a normal licence carrying the twelve months' licence fee, but it is made out for a longer period than twelve months. The Postmaster-General has power to do that, and as I indicated—and the hon. Lady has again mentioned—there are circumstances in which he might possibly exercise that power.
    It would clearly be wrong that, because the licence was issued for a longer period, though at the normal annual fee, it should attract more than the twelve months' annual rate of duty. It is to avoid that unfairness that the proviso to the subsection is necessary.
    Mr. Redhead: I do not want to be unhelpful about this, because I have appreciated from the outset that there were cases in which the period of the licence would be different from the annual basis, which is the basis for the proposed Excise Duty. It is obvious that some provision has to be made in the Clause for dealing on a pro rata basis as may be appropriate to the particular form of licence.
    My chief purpose was to draw attention to what has been abundantly demonstrated in this debate—that is, the obscurity in which the Clause is expressed. If it is obscure to Members of Parliament, who are not unversed in dealing with rather obscure matters of Parliamentary drafting, how much more difficult will it be for members of the public?
    I will refer simply to two aspects. In the type of circumstance which the Financial Secretary has outlined, imagine the task of the luckless post office counter clerk who tries to explain all this, with far less ability to grasp the essentials than even the Financial Secretary himself, before a long queue in the post office. Imagine, too, that the Postmaster-General does what he has hitherto done in regard to the Post Office regulations concerning the television licence, a copy of which I have in my hand and three parts of which are full of close print, setting out the vital parts of the existing regulations under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and which, presumably, now have to be supplemented by setting out the provisions of the Clause. It will become a most fearsome document, completely unintelligible to the general public.

    1451
    I sincerely hope that even at this late stage, having regard to the discussion and the clear confusion of thought that it has induced among Members of the Committee, the Financial Secretary might be willing at least to say that he will be ready to consult his advisers to see whether before the Report stage he can produce simpler phraseology to cover the purpose he has in mind. I invite the hon. Gentleman, even now, to say that he is ready to consider that possibility.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause: —
    The Committee proceeded to a Division:—
    Mr. R. Thompson and Mr. Hughes-Young were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.
    6.15 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The next Amendment to be selected is that in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), in page 4, line 36, at the end to insert:
    " or to any licence issued to a person, who by means of a certificate issued by the local authority (being the local authority for the purposes of subsection (2) of the said section one of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949) and produced by the person satisfies the Postmaster-General that he is a handicapped person to whom section twenty-nine of the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which provides for welfare arrangements for blind, deaf, dumb and crippled persons), applies ",
    I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with it the following three Amendments, that in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), also in line 36, at the end, to insert:
    " or to any licence issued to a person who proves in such manner as 'the Postmaster-General may direct that for the week during which the licence is issued he is receiving a retirement pension under the National Insurance Act, 1946, or, if he satisfied the relevant contribution conditions under that Act, would be receiving such a pension, or is receiving an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936";
    that in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), also in line 36, at the end to insert:
    " or to any licence issued to authorise the installation and use for receiving television broadcast programmes of apparatus in residen-
    1452
    tial accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which obliges local authorities to provide such accommodation for aged and infirm persons and others in need of care and attention) or in a disabled persons' or old persons' home registered under section thirty-seven of that Act";
    and that in the name of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), also in line 36, at the end to insert:
    " or to any licence issued to a person, who by means of a certificate issued by the local authority (being the local authority for the purposes of subsection (2) of the said section one of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949) and produced by the person satisfies the Postmaster-General that he is a deaf and dumb person ".
    Mr. Charles Grey: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Sir Gordon, concerning the Amendment in the names of myself and a number of my hon. Friends in page 4, line 35, after "Britain", to insert:
    " elsewhere than in the counties of Durham and Northumberland or in the county boroughs comprised in those counties".
    While I am not questioning your decision not to call the Amendment—I have
    no doubt that you will have given it careful thought—I was wondering what advice you could give. The folk in the North-East have a sense of grievance at the grave injustice meted out to them over the past year. We have attempted to obtain satisfaction by questioning the rather stubborn Postmaster-General, and we have continued the campaign for quite a while—
    The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot deal with this point at the moment. The position is that the Amendment has not been selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and there is, I am afraid, no opportunity for debating it now. It occurs to one that there might be a possibility of raising the question to which the hon. Member refers on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Grey: Cannot this matter be raised on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot give an undertaking now about what would be in order when discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. H. Wilson: While we understand that at this stage, Sir Gordon, you cannot say what will or will not be in order and thereby bind whoever occupies the Chair,

    1453
    surely, as the Amendment has not been selected—it is entirely within the discretion of the Chair—it would be reason able for my hon. Friend to assume that this and a similar but rather broader; Amendment in the name of my hon Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), in page 5, line 4. at the end to add:
    " but shall not apply to those areas which are not yet covered by commercial television ",
    which, I understand, is not being selected and which is designed to deal with the same purpose, could be raised when discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." While we understand you cannot give a Ruling on that, Sir Gordon, it might help if I were tc suggest to my hon. Friends that they might have a good chance of keeping in order on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" and enabling the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) to be discussed.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Although I have sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman says, he will realise that I cannot prejudge the debate. I might not be in the Chair at the time.
    Mr. Edward Short: While I realise, Sir Gordon, that it would be unusual for you to tell us why the Amendment has not been selected, there is here a matter of considerable grievance affecting millions of people which the Postmaster-General has been unwilling to redress. Can we assume, at least, that the reason why the Amendment has not been selected is not that it is out of order?
    The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss the merits of the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means. All I can say is that the Amendment has not been selected.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Surely, it is not unusual, Sir Gordon, to say either that the Amendment has not been selected or that it is out of order. Surely, the position concerning the Amendment is not that it out of order, but merely that it has not been selected, which we cannot question.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is right. It has not been selected.
    Mrs. Mann: I am sorry that the;- Amendment in my name has not been chosen. It was put down rather late because it was only yesterday that the Scottish Members realised that there would not be full coverage for Scotland in commercial television. We feel—
    The Deputy-Chairman: We have not reached the Amendment in the hon. ' Lady's name.
    Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I understood you to say, Sir Gordon, that the Amendment has not been selected, not because it is out of order but because the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his wisdom, thought that he would not select that type of Amendment. When Amendments are not called for this reason, is it usually the privilege of Members who have put down the Amendments to raise their particular points when dealing with the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? Would I be correct in assuming that the same procedure will be followed in this instance?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think there is any fixed procedure on the matter. The position is that this Amendment is not selected, and I cannot prejudge what will be admitted by the Chair on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
    Mr. H. Wilson: It is clear that the Amendment is not out of order, and so we shall not be precluded from raising the matter again at a later stage of the Bill. While I would certainly be prepared to command my hon. Friends to take their chance on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and although I understand that you, Sir Gordon, cannot give a Ruling upon that now, I should like to make clear the position of the Opposition upon the matter, for that may affect consideration of the Ruling.
    My hon. Friends have made it clear that the reason why they put down the Amendment is that they have no commercial television in that area and that, therefore, they ought not to pay the tax. Some of us who have seen commercial television may think they ought to pay a much bigger tax for wanting to watch commercial television, but it would be out of order to put down an Amendment to increase the tax. However, I should

    1455
    not like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to believe that everyone on this side of the Committee is necessarily united in thinking that commercial television is such a blessing that anyone who has not got it should have exemption from this tax.
    My hon. Friends have many points to make on behalf of that area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has arguments on behalf of more widespread areas farther north, and we hope that whoever is in the Chair when we reach the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" will realise after this exchange of views how strongly my hon. Friends feel about the matter and will give them scope to express their feelings when we reach that Question.
    Mr. Edward Evans: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, at the end to insert:
    " or to any licence issued to a person, who by means of a certificate issued by the local authority (being the local authority for the purposes of subsection (2) of the said section one of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949) and produced by the person satisfies the Postmaster General that he is a handicapped person to whom section twenty-nine of the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which provides for welfare arrangements for blind, deaf, dumb and crippled persons), applies".
    The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the Committee that I did suggest that it might be convenient to take the next three Amendments with this one.
    Mr. Evans: The object of this Amendment is very clear from its terms. We had some lighthearted moments in our preceding discussions, but I am quite sure that the Committee will consider that this is a most serious and vital matter to a great many people. The Amendment is designed to relieve a body of most deserving persons from an additional hindrance to their enjoyment of television. Although a great many of us are not as ardent fans of television as others here, there are many handicapped people who now regard television as one of their major relaxations.
    The persons to whom the Amendment refers are clearly defined in Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, that is to say, they suffer from a major physical disability. That Section 29 describes them as
    " persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped."
    1456
    I ask the Committee to note the precise terms of the definition. They are not persons who are temporarily ill or even severely ill. Their handicap must be so substantial and permanent as to make them eligible for the welfare provisions of the National Assistance Act.
    Hon. Members will note that one of the duties laid by that Act upon local authorities which have submitted schemes which have been approved by the Minister is to maintain a register of handicapped persons in their areas. It is pleasing to note that of all the local authorities more than 70 per cent. have voluntarily submitted schemes for the welfare of these handicapped persons. I am quite sure that when the time comes —and I hope it will be soon—when the recommendations of the Piercy Committee-—which has not long since submitted its Report relating to Government grants to local authorities for welfare services-have been considered, every local authority will be able to undertake the duties laid upon them by Statute.
    The handicaps of these people are wide in range. They include blindness, partial blindness and deafness, and the handicapped persons include the general category of cripples, spastics and epileptics. They include all who come under the general classification of the physically handicapped. I urge the Committee to try to visualise what so many of these people suffer, their isolation, their loneliness, the inhibition which dogs almost every action of their lives, their sense of being cut off. Just imagine what a great boon it is to them to be able to see television. They are not like us, for we can go out and mix with the wider world, but very many of them are homebound, and many of them, in addition to suffering a major physical handicap, suffer some other disability as well.
    It is the duty of the local authority's medical officer to maintain this register. That is one of his functions. So there is a complete list of the people who would benefit from this concession. It does not open the door wide to anyone to claim benefit from it by saying, "I am sick. I am a handicapped man". It does not even extend to those registered at the employment exchanges as disabled, because that register is based on employ-ability. The National Assistance register is based on the need for welfare services.

    1457
    I am sure the Committee will agree that anything which brings light, happiness, joy, contact with the outside world, to the permanently handicapped must be a beneficent influence. There has for long been a register of blind persons. It was set up under the great Blind Persons Act, 1920. Blind persons have benefited from sympathetic legislation since then. It is relevant to remember one concession to them, the remission of the wireless licence fee. I should have liked, had it been within the rules of order, to have argued the remission of the licence and the duty for these other handicapped people, too, but I could stress that if, in addition to the licence fee, we impose another financial obligation upon these people, we shall be treating them inconsiderately, if not cruelly. The least we can do is to refrain from adding to the difficulties which they already suffer. We must remember that Jarge numbers of the handicapped are homebound or partially so, and that therefore they enjoy much more intensively than we do the contact which television gives with the outside world. It means much more to them. They are cut off from so much that happens around them.
    6.30 p.m.
    Most of these handicapped people are also in the very lowest income groups. Many of them are on National Assistance. Their earning capacity is either very low indeed or entirely non-existent. Some of them engage in part-time occupations or domiciliary work of some kind or another, but it is work that is ill-rewarded, and, in the great majority of cases, the amount they have to spare with which to enjoy television cannot be stretched. A great number of these handicapped people who come within the terms of the Amendment are people who are right on the borders of indigence.
    One of the arguments adduced by the Financial Secretary today was that if a man can afford to buy a television set costing up to £60 or more, he can also afford to pay the additional duty. That argument has been demolished time after time by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and others. We must remember, too, that a great many handicapped people are the beneficiaries of grants from voluntary societies. The
    1458
    National Institute for the Deaf, of which I am the chairman, last year spent £6,000 in distributing sets. I assure hon. Members that if we had ten times that amount of money we could spend it profitably throughout the country on behalf of these people. When gifts of sets are made by societies or individuals of goodwill, the sets are rarely accompanied with a guarantee that the licence will be paid.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: That also applies to rediffusion.
    Mr. Evans: To add to the cost of maintenance of these handicapped people is anti-social, cruel and entirely unnecessary. When the Chancellor considers the amount of revenue that he will get from this miserable levy on handicapped people he will find that it does not square with his conscience and his better feelings.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) has on the Order Paper an Amendment designed to help the deaf and dumb—a term which is not often used nowadays. I should like to be allowed to say a special word for them in this connection. The deaf are the loneliest people. They are cut off from the spoken word and from the intimate communication with the world of speech, music and the sounds of nature. Very few people realise how completely isolated they are from the normal activities of the social life of our community. They approach the world wholly in visual terms.
    Sound radio is of no use to them at all, but they derive tremendous pleasure from the spectacle programmes which are transmitted by the B.B.C. and the other authority. Thanks to the understanding sympathy and enterprise of the B.B.C., special programmes are presented for them. I assure the B.B.C that this privilege is very much valued by the deaf and by those who work on their behalf.
    How cruel it is, then, to put even the smallest obstacle in the way of these people who are handicapped and home-bound, and who very often suffer intense pain because of their disability. How cruel to add anything that would make the slightest obstacle to their enjoying the full 'benefit of their sets. I am sure that many of my hon. and right hon.

    1459
    Friends would like to emphasise what I have inadequately put before the Committee and I urge the Chancellor to look at this matter most sympathetically. He will not lose a great deal of money, but he will create a fund of good will, and he will show that he has sympathy for these people who very much need not only all the good will and sympathy that the general public can give, but all that the House of Commons can afford.
    Mr. H. A. Marquand: I want to speak in support of the Amendment. As soon as I saw that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) had placed it on the Order Paper, I gladly added my name to it. My hon. Friend is indefatigable in the work he does for the kind of afflicted people that he has described today. When I was Minister of Health he acted as chairman of a committee which reported to me on the implementation of Sections of the National Assistance Act which deal with such people. I adopted the report and brought those Sections into operation. Seventy per cent. of local authorities have chosen to implement those parts of the Act dealing with the welfare of the class of people my hon. Friend has so accurately described today.
    I know that Ministers who are dealing with Finance Bills have to reply to Amendments of this kind, though they may sympathise with the objective, sometimes have difficulty in accepting an Amendment because the class proposed to be exempted from taxation is not clearly defined. I do not think that the Chancellor will feel in that difficulty today because, as my hon. Friend has already explained, the class of whom we are thinking can be readily identified. As the Amendment provides, they can obtain a certificate from a local authority stating that they are just this type of person in need of special help from the authority for rehabilitation and general welfare. They can be clearly and easily defined.
    The Chancellor is bound to have sympathy with the conditions that so many of these people have to endure through no fault of their own but either through congenital reflex or some injury or disaster. Having that sympathy, I hope that he will feel that he can aid them in this respect. So many of these people
    1460
    are home-bound and have no substantial income of their own. Many of them are drawing National Assistance. Even those who do not have, of necessity, very small incomes. Yet these people are waging the battle of life in a way which leaves us ashamed of our inadequacy when we see how they carry on.
    Two of the finest people that I have ever met I came across in my constituency almost by accident. Here was a man who was terribly injured in the steel works about thirty years ago. Until I happened to meet his wife when walking down the street these two people had subsisted for the whole of that time entirely on £2 10s. a week, which was the maximum workman's compensation that they were then able to receive. Although undoubtedly they had full claim to do so, they had never applied for National Assistance. I had the utmost difficulty in persuading them to do so; indeed, I had to go to the National Assistance Board myself and get it to send an officer round to visit these people before they would even consider taking aid of any kind. Yet that little house was spotlessly kept. The man cannot walk about because he has no legs. He has to sit on the floor most of the time and can only move when he is carried by his wife. Yet he had been scrupulously looked after all that time.
    If it is possible for a charitable organisation to supply such people with a television set, surely nobody would expect them to have to pay the full additional charge? I believe everyone would agree that they ought to be relieved as much as possible. We cannot expect the National Assistance Board to do it. At least we cannot instruct the Board to do it, because we have no power to instruct it what sums it is to pay to anyone and, under the Statute, the Board has to make up its mind about what is appropriate. I can conceive of the Board saying that to give one set of persons direct assistance might lead it into a moral obligation to give it to all.
    Certainly, however, this Committee must do all in its power to help such people. It has the power this afternoon to relieve them at least of the additional tax proposed, and so I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider those people with all the sympathy of which he is capable. I know the Chancellor has it, because I

    1461
    remember well the sympathetic attitude he adopted when he was a private Member to the welfare of the war disabled in his own constituency. So I hope our plea today will not fall on deaf ears, and that he will be able to meet our case.
    Dr. King: It is a privilege that this debate should have been opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has paid a well-merited tribute to him for a life's work of service, especially to the deaf people of this country. I am glad, too, that my right hon. Friend has paid a tribute to the handicapped people of Britain. Sometimes they shame the able-bodied people of the country by their courage, by their cheerfulness and by the way in which they endure the handicaps which nature has given them.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) shares with me the privilege of visiting the Invalid Tricycle Association, the parents of spastic children and numbers of associations of handicapped children. I am certain that if he were permitted to intervene in this debate he would echo the tributes to the courage and devotion shown by all these people. I hope that, by accepting the four Amendments which we are discussing, the Chancellor will show that he appreciates this group of the community.
    I do not think the Committee could object to the payment of £4 in all for television. It could not object to the extra £1 if it felt sure that all the money involved would go to the provision of programmes. After all, £4 is not much to pay for daily entertainment which, in spite of occasional criticism, is of a high quality. But while £4 a year for this mass of sound and vision programmes is something which people in fairly comfortable circumstances can bear, an extra £1 cannot be carried without hardship by the bottom millions of our people, and especially by the groups mentioned in these Amendments.
    I would be out of order if I went into details about the lot of the old-age pensioner at present, but I think that this group is the hardest hit in the community, that it is meeting an ever rising cost of living on an inadequate pension, a pension now lower in value than when
    1462
    first introduced in 1946. I hope that outside this debate the Government will do something, and quickly, for the old-age pensioner.
    The Chancellor can help a little this afternoon. He can do so by exempting some of the old-age pensioners from the Television Duty. In the previous debate, the Chancellor gave us our case. I agree that there are few old-age pensioners who would benefit from this concession. Most old-age pensioners cannot afford a television set, but there are lucky ones, who, by the kindness of societies, by the kindness of their relatives, have television sets. Those of us who know such people realise what a great companion television is to them. Those of us who go to old folks' clubs and Darby and Joan clubs know that every penny counts to the old-age pensioner, and that the £1 will be a real burden on them if this Amendment is not accepted. So I hope that we can persuade the Chancellor to relieve them of the extra £1.
    6.45 p.m.
    As for the handicapped persons, it ought not to need speechmaking to plead their cause. I am certain that any able-bodied person in the country would gladly carry in this Finance Bill any microscopic extra burden necessary to relieve the handicapped, the halt and the maimed, the lame and the blind, from the burden of this extra £1.
    When the Minister replies to this debate we may be told that there are technical difficulties involved, that it would be hard for the Treasury to distinguish between one kind of television licence and another. I have never believed this argument when it has been advanced, and it has often been advanced in this Chamber when we have asked for the exemption of, say, school stationery from Purchase Tax or for the payment of post-war credits to small groups of people ahead of their turn.
    I want to pay tribute to the Treasury. It contains some of the most superb technicians in the world when it is a question of getting money in. It is only when we ask for money to be paid out, it is only when we seek to exempt someone from the Treasury net, that the cry of technical difficulty arises. I am certain that if we were seeking by these Amendments to impose an extra tax on television for the

    1463
    blind, there would be no technical difficulty; or if we tried to impose an extra tax on the unfortunate people in the North-East who have been precluded from getting into this debate so far—
    Mr. Willey: They are still represented.
    Dr. King: If we were trying to impose an extra tax on them, there would be no tax difficulty argument advanced by the Treasury. So this is simply a question of whether the Chancellor has a heart or not.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: He must have a heart or he would not be living.
    Dr. King: I mean apart from his physiological organ. A paltry sum is involved. Every Chancellor has a few millions to play about with in his Budget, but here we are not talking of millions— we are hardly talking of hundreds of thousands of pounds. In the earlier debate the Chancellor said very few old-age pensioners would benefit by this concession. There are not a great number of cripples, there are not a great number of blind people, there are not a great number of the other categories of handicapped people who would benefit by this concession. Yet it is a concession which would help the old folk in the old folks' homes and in the disabled persons' homes. I have pictures of the excellent old folks' homes in Southampton, and at the moment I have a vision of the disabled ex-Service men's home at Portsmouth run by B.L.E.S.M.A. In each of these cases, television can play an important part, and this is a new tax which nobody here would want to impose on them. At all events, the Amendment would help at least some of the two million old-age pensioners who are looking to the Chancellor for much more than this at the earliest possible moment.
    I hope the Chancellor will show that he is genuinely concerned about these groups of people and will sweeten the rest of the debates in this Committee by being generous to those to whom life is difficult and to whom radio and television have brought more comfort and happiness than to anyone else in the community.
    Mr. T. Brown: I support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member
    1464
    for Itchen (Dr. King). I always wonder why it is necessary for the Opposition to have to table Amendments to the Finance Bill to secure a degree of happiness for the unfortunate people of this country. I sometimes wonder whether, when drafting Bills, the Treasury, or the Treasury Bench have any regard to what the effect will be on the unfortunate people.
    I plead with the Chancellor to reflect for a few moments while he considers our Amendments. I believe that the greatest joys in life are those which are shared with the unfortunates. Here the Chancellor has an opportunity to ensure that things which he enjoys are not denied to people who are unfortunately placed by being blind, deaf or crippled or by suffering from other afflictions. Surely we have not reached a stage where we shall deny happiness to such people.
    I sometimes wonder whether those responsible for the drafting of Finance Bills ever give a single thought to the unfortunates. Whenever I have taken part in discussions upon a Finance Bill, we have been like cripples at a cross, pleading for something to be done for the unfortunates. Why cannot something be done for them with a generous hand? Why cannot the Chancellor say, "We cannot leave these people in the wilderness of loneliness and deny them the happiness and enjoyment to which they are entitled "?
    My experience of blind and deaf people is that they find it extremely difficult to live anyway. It looks as if we are now to add to their hardships and worries by denying them enjoyment. While sitting here, I have been wishing that I possessed a fairy wand so that I could wave it and transfer one or two occupants of the Government Front Bench to the homes of some of these unfortunate people so that they could see how the hardships are endured. I am sure that there would then be no need for us to table Amendments of this character.
    When my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) spoke about the injured workman—we have many such, particularly in the industrial areas—there came to my mind a man I knew very well who was on his back for 22 years as the result of being injured in the pit. When television arrived, he was provided with a

    1465
    set by subscriptions raised by the people living around him. It was a boon and a blessing to him, bringing into his life a large degree of happiness and contentment. If he had lived, he could not have afforded this increase.
    I know that there are voluntary charitable organisations which do very useful work for the unfortunates. The people concerned respond out of the goodness of their hearts to the call which is made to their inner self to help the unfortunates, and they do it from no ulterior motive. There ought not to be any acrimony or division of opinion about this matter. The Government ought to say, "These are people who may have been crippled in industry, who have been overtaken with misfortunes. We must not deny them a right to a little happiness simply because they have been overtaken by misfortune in industry or some other sphere."
    I sometimes wish that I could infuse a little humanity into the Treasury. It seems to be so stereotyped in trying to prevent our spending £100 here or £100 there, and all the while it ignores the effect that its actions will have on the poorer people. I shall be ruled out of order by you, Mr. Blackburn, if I begin to discuss what the Chancellor has failed to do for the old-age pensioners in respect of the basic pension, although we are assured that in course of time—perhaps when it gets a little nearer the next General Election—the Government will come forward and say, "Here is what we are going to do for the old-age pensioners." All the time the pensioners are suffering greater hardship than any other section of the community because of the niggardly and parsimonious policy pursued by the Government.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go into too great detail about the policy of the Government in general.
    Mr. Brown: But it is the policy of the Government, Mr. Blackburn, which has led us to table these Amendments. The Government have failed to do what they ought to have done in the Budget for these unfortunate people.
    The Temporary Chairman: It is not the policy of the Government in this particular aspect which has Amendments to be tabled.
    Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Blackburn. We recognise that it would be straining the rules of order if we were to debate on this Amendment the whole question of old-age pensioners and what the Government have not done for them. I am sure that was the last thing in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). However, it might save a great deal of time, particularly in this debate, if the Chancellor were to tax your patience for two or three moments in order to say that he really is going to do something for these people. We should then perhaps withdraw the Amendment.
    The Temporary Chairman: That may be the case, but I am afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be out of order too.
    Mr. Hale: Further to the point of order, Mr. Blackburn. Your predecessor in the Chair said that we might discuss four Amendments together. One of those Amendments is limited entirely to old-age pensioners. It is extremely difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who speaks very movingly on this subject, to argue in favour of a remission on behalf of old-age pensioners unless he briefly gives information to the House about the position of old-age pensioners today. Surely he is in order in saying that old-age pensioners are now receiving so very little that they cannot afford the additional charge imposed by the Clause.
    The Temporary Chairman: I am aware that there is an Amendment dealing with old-age pensioners. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is in order in referring to it in passing, but he cannot go into detail about the whole of the Government's policy.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Brown: I have no desire to get at cross purposes with you, Mr. Blackburn. You are a Lancastrian, as I am, and you have been lenient with me. I started with the best intentions to try to persuade the Chancellor to my point of view. He has known me sufficiently

    1467
    long to know that what I am trying to do is to make him think of the old folk, the unfortunates, the cripples, the deaf and the blind. I want to persuade him if I can.
    We all realise that the position of these people is worthy of our consideration. A great amount of work is done by voluntary and charitable organisations, all of them passionately trying to bring some happiness into the lives of people less fortunate than themselves. I am not asking too much in suggesting that the Government should copy some of the, things these organisations do. If they did, the unfortunate people in this country would be much happier than they now are.
    I do not need to deal with the question of whether old-age pensioners can live on £2 a week. I do not need to deal with the question of whether they can afford to pay the increased cost of the licence. The admission from the Front Bench opposite on 25th February is sufficient to convince anybody. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance then admitted that the Government did not pretend that old people could live on £2 a week. With that admission from the Government, I can do nothing to add to that evidence from the Front Bench.
    I do not know whether the Treasury keeps up to scratch on information about these matters. I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has the task of collecting information, but I do not know whether, when he has collected it, it reaches Government Departments. Has the attention of the Treasury been called to a recent independent investigation into the situation of old people in Sunderland? Dr. R. C. F. Smith, the medical officer of health for the Sunderland Rural Council, says in an interim report on the living standards of old-age pensioners, which is to be presented to the Council in due course:
    " All these people rely on gifts of clothing from their relations. Many of them have to eke out a weary existence plagued with the worry of trying to make ends meet."
    Those are among the people with whom the Amendment deals. I plead with the Government, for goodness sake let us have no more of this niggardly, parsimonious policy. Let the Govern-
    1468
    ment accept the Amendment and adopt the philosophy that "The greatest joys in life are those shared with others who are much less fortunate than ourselves ".
    Sir Frederick Messer: Strangely enough, I have some sympathy with those who would oppose the Amendment, because I do not like the idea of a lot of indiscriminate concessions being made to people because of their inability to meet what should be their proper commitments. Some time ago I had the temerity to write a pamphlet for an organisation which devotes its activities to handicapped people, and I was very pleased to note that subsequently the Report of the Piercy Committee on the Rehabilitation, Training and Resettlement of Disabled Persons followed lines similar to those of my pamphlet.
    My own view is that Amendments of this sort ought not to be necessary, that society is under an obligation to those who, by virtue of any consideration, by virtue of any circumstances, find it difficult to live a normal life. It would not be difficult for us to make moving speeches. Anybody who is engaged in welfare work can easily recount his experiences and make the subject one of urging that concessions should be made because of the pathetic physical condition of these people.
    That is wrong. That is not the right approach. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be entitled to say that it is a matter not of the physical condition of people, but of whether they are in a financial condition to pay. The problem will be solved only when society faces its obligations and says that handicapped people, who because of their handicap are unable to earn enough money to enable them to live a normal life, shall be entitled to a handicapped persons' allowance, apart from National Assistance.
    National Assistance is something which should be used only in cases where there is temporary need. Originally it was never intended as a continuing payment for lengthy periods. Indeed, it will be remembered that the Blind Persons Act, 1938, which amended previous Acts, took blind persons and their dependants and relatives completely out of the sphere of what was then public assistance. Blind people were entitled to benefit under

    1469
    local authority schemes. Amendments of this description would not be necessary if we were to do something of that sort.
    I think that it is humiliating when a handicapped person has—as old people have to do at the present time—to show some sort of identification to get something on the cheap, old people getting tobacco coupons, cheap or free baths, free transport by the local authority—and then being challenged by somebody. We ought not to want to give these people cheap things because we fail to give them enough to live on.
    What we ought to do is to assure them of an income. That brings me to a point which has not been made and which cannot be too often stressed. I shall deal only with the physically handicapped. A physically handicapped person who is registered, can be registered only if he is in that physical condition which prevents him earning his living. I am not now referring to registration under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act. 1944. Under that legislation, disabled people have to be certified by a medical practitioner as not too handicapped to be able to work. That is a different sort of certificate. They are registered rather differently. Those who are registered by local authorities are registered as having been so physically handicapped as to come under the local authority's welfare scheme.
    The point to which I wish to draw attention is this. I do not think that it is recognised clearly enough that it costs a badly disabled person more to live than a normal person. Therefore, if we eliminate sentiment, if we say that we know when we see that poor hobbling spastic that he is suffering with every step he tries to take; if we say that we know that when a man or woman, rising from bed in the morning, cannot even dress without assistance unless he or she has some special gadgets, we realise that they need more money.
    Indeed, it would not be a bad thing if in one of the Committee rooms we had an exhibition of the gadgets which crippled people need. They need tongs with which to put on their socks and all sorts of other appliances before they can start their day.
    I wish to develop the point about the cost of living. There are people who earn
    1470
    just a little money, who cannot walk very far. They must take a taxi when a normal person would walk. Physically handicapped persons have to pay. They cannot always ride in public conveyances. There are a large number of circumstances where the place to which a person wants to go is not served by public transport. A normal person might be able to walk, but it is hopeless for these people to try to do that.
    Reference has been made to the home-bound. They are those who are in their homes but are not completely prostrate. They are not tied to their beds but they have not sufficient physical strength or ability to do their ordinary housework. Whereas a normal person can do it, they have to pay someone else. It is a fact that their physical condition creates a degree of poverty which ought to be recognised as a reason for focussing attention on this problem. If I support the Amendment it is because it is the next best thing. If society has neglected to look after that section of the people, as I claim that it has, we should do something about the matter.
    There may be some who say that if the Amendment were accepted what would happen would be that there would be some homes which would benefit from the concession just because in the family was one physically handicapped person. That is one of the problems which arise when we try by compromise to get out of a difficulty which faces us. In our own families what happens when one of the family is less able to bear the strain of life is that everybody conspires to help.
    The nation should act like a family. We should endeavour to give not merely the self-respect which comes from an income which will leave people independent of the charity on which they are now dependent. What we should do is to bring into their lives something in addition to just eating, sleeping, breathing and hearing other people's conversation. We should bring into their lives some of that brightness which we can get when we get outside our homes and which is denied to those who are bound with bonds of greater severity than any physical bond—the bond of being a hopeless cripple.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: After the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), who has spoken from his wide experience, the Chancellor must feel very moved. My hon. Friend has given a life of sacrifice in order to bring some comfort and help to those for whom we are pleading tonight. Before he spoke I had written down these words—that a good family makes very great sacrifices in order to help the weakest person in it. We as the people who legislate for the community should act as a good family to those who are least able to help themselves.
    We ought not to have to ask for concessions to be made on a matter such as television licences for those who may be crippled, blind, deaf or aged. In a State which prides itself on its care and welfare services for those whose need is greatest, these people ought not to be in the position of having to ask for this help. It should not be necessary to make a plea for them; they should be financially provided for.
    The blind, the deaf, the dumb, the physically handicapped and the aged live a very restricted life by the very nature of their handicaps. Examples have been given of people who have been crippled for years. I know of miners who have had spinal injuries as a result of which they are not able to get about and to go to watch football or cricket. When television came into their homes they were able for the first time in years to share in some of the enjoyment which they had known before their misfortune.
    It costs much more to look after these people than it costs to care for a normal person. They wear out their clothes very quickly. Some need special shoes and other appliances such as those of which my hon. Friend spoke. Sometimes they become crotchety and need tasty little extras to entice them to eat. The cost of all these things mounts up, and to them this extra £1 is almost the last straw. We should not make it more difficult for them to enjoy the simple pleasure of seeing sport and documentary travel features on television. On television they can see places which they will never be able to visit because of their condition; they can enjoy some of the beauty of other parts of the world.
    1472
    I ask that, in this direction at least, the Chancellor should be prepared to give. He has not been giving much since we started the debate. This concession would not cost him very much. We are often told by Members on the benches opposite when we have debates on old-age pensions that the families of the old people should help. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions has often put that to us. We know that many aged people have television only because their sons and daughters have bought the sets for them. If the licence fee goes up to £4, this means that the cost will be more for the sons and daughters. It is a little bit of extra expense for them on top of running their own homes, and it makes them wonder whether, if something goes wrong with the television, they will be able to make sure that it is repaired.
    I suggest that many of my hon. Friends have been very kind to the Chancellor in the speeches they have made on these Amendments. They have pleaded with him and have been very kind and courteous to him. I suggest that this is a Finance Bill in which in some Clauses we are giving many concessions to those who already have. We are asking in these Amendments that he should give a little of it to the folks who have not so much.
    Mr. Collins: Stop taking it away.
    Mrs. Slater: That is perhaps a better way to put it. In this Finance Bill the Government are giving Income Tax relief to very many wealthy people. They will be giving to those people the opportunity to buy more of the normal things of life. We ask them on this issue, which is not a very big one, to say to those folk for whom we have a very great responsibility, "We are prepared to forgo the extra £1 for the small number of old-age pensioners who come within the category of the Amendments—the blind, deaf, dumb and crippled."
    Surely the Government are not going to use the argument that all kinds of difficulties will be involved in exempting these people from the extra £1, which would mean that they are in fact saying that the Treasury either is not able or is not willing to surmount the difficulties which will be presented. That should be the least of the difficulties. Therefore, I add

    1473
    my plea to those of my hon. Friends to the Chancellor to look favourably on the Amendment and to give to these people the concession which is asked for.
    Mr. Collins: I do not view this from the standpoint of asking the Chancellor to give anything but of asking him to change his mind and not to take away. I am sure that every hon. Member in the Committee will agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) that we ought not to be put in the position of having to ask for these things. In our society, people such as those mentioned in the Amendments, handicapped people and the aged, ought to be in a financial position which will enable them to enjoy a reasonable standard of existence. Unhappily, the country has not yet discharged that moral obligation, and therefore we say to the Chancellor, "Please create conditions so that we can say to these people, 'Show us your sores and we will give you alms'." If these Amendments are accepted, as I hope they will be, that is exactly what we are asking the Chancellor to do.
    I have spent the whole of my working life in connection with handicapped people, and I can say with certainty that they would not have come here to ask for what we are now asking in their name. That is all the more reason why we should ask it. Those who have come into contact with handicapped people, particularly the crippled and the deaf, know that they are in the best sense of the word the proudest and most independent people there are.
    It is only when they are in extremis— and not perhaps even then—that they ask anything of anybody. It is a most pitiful thing to see the brave and gallant way in which crippled and handicapped people deliberately ignore their disabilities and decide to ask nothing of anyone if they can possibly avoid it. By these two Amendments we are asking the Chancellor not to injure people who, in general, have one thing in common. It is that they are poor. If they are pensioners, of course they are very poor, and, if they are crippled or handicapped they are also very poor, and usually not very mobile. Therefore, it is beyond question that if they have television sets, whether provided out of their own resources—which is not very likely—or by relatives or a
    1474
    charitable society, this extra £1 Excise Duty is going to be a burden.
    In the case of elderly people, we know that tens of thousands or even millions of them have not a penny after Wednesday. They do not count their means in shillings; they count them in pennies; and much the same thing applies to handicapped people. Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out quite rightly that a good family makes sacrifices in order that the lot of any crippled or handicapped member of the family will be made lighter. Of course they do. I ask the Chancellor to ask himself what happens in that family when the parents get old or die.
    I know of a number of families in my own division where there is, perhaps, a mentally deficient child. 0ne case is that of a man of 45 who will always have the mind of a child who enjoys on television the adventures of "Noddy" rather than some more adult programme. The mother and father are still looking after him, although they are themselves old-age pensioners and would, therefore, also qualify under the second of these Amendments. We have all seen at times and marvelled at the tremendous love and affection which exists in families where there is a child such as that or any particularly handicapped child. When I have seen a mother going about with such a man the thought always arises in my mind: What is going to happen when she is no longer there to help? These people, if they can enjoy television, although they are tied to the home, can nevertheless travel the world, and although it is impossible for them to take part in any sporting activity, they can have a better view of sport than many of the people who attend the events.
    I am not going to pretend that most of these people because of this extra £1 will be deprived of their television. I think that the money would be found for them somehow. But that is not the point. I hope that the Chancellor will tell us two things at least when he comes to reply, namely, how much revenue he thinks would be lost if this concession were granted to the handicapped people mentioned in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), and how much would be lost if it were granted also to the pensioners? Let the Committee and the country know the cost, so that if these

    1475
    concessions are not granted the extent of the Government's parsimony may be known, and the hypocrisy of any statements they might make of sympathy towards the handicapped people and the old-age pensioners. We are merely asking for a measure of justice.
    Before the Chancellor replies I ask him to have these people in his mind's eye. If he has ever been to a gathering of deaf people he will have seen the vivacity and joy with which they talk to each other. It is impossible to imagine a livelier set of people. He may have seen a gathering of crippled people, not one of whom has been able to attend without some assistance from a wheelchair or some other appliance, talking together as they do in the organisation of which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham is president. These people are deserving not so much of our sympathy as of our heartfelt admiration, and I hope that the Chancellor will add his little tribute to them by saying that he will accept the Amendment.
    7.30 p.m.
    Miss Elaine Burton: I shall not detain the Committee for many minutes, but I want to tell the Chancellor a few things about old people, because it is the old people who have been to see me in connection with this matter. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee were very distressed when the old-age pension was not raised in the Budget. I think I am correct in saying that when the Chancellor broadcast on the day of his Budget speech he rather implied—in evading a direct question put to him— that the Budget was not the proper place to increase the old-age pension. If the Budget is not the place to increase the old-age pension I submit that, equally, it would hardly seem to be the place for taking something away from the old-age pensioner.
    We have not yet heard the Chancellor speaking about the old-age pensioners. I hope he believes what hon. Members on this side know—and I am quite sure hon. Members opposite also know—namely, that the old people just have not got this extra money. It is not a case of being sentimental or anything like that. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) said that by the middle of the week old-age pensioners
    1476
    have no coppers left at all. I know that we cannot discuss the cost of living on this Amendment, but I can assure the Chancellor that when a few coppers are added, for example, to the price of bread or milk each week, the old people in Coventry—and this must apply to old people everywhere—just cannot afford to pay those few extra coppers; it really is an impossibility.
    I want to read part of a letter which I have received from an old-age pensioner. She writes:
    " Do you think the old-age pensioners should pay £4 for their wireless and television licence? I for one, out of many, have a television. My husband bought me a View-master five years ago. As I am an invalid I have not been able to get about for twelve years. Three years ago he was killed going to his work. My grandson lived with me up till last July. Now he is married and buying his house. He used to pay the licence for me. Now it means that the only pleasure I get I shall not be able to afford. I think it is a disgrace. If I pay it it will mean two week's pension."
    In all seriousness, and not as a party political point, I suggest to the Chancellor that people in that position must be helped. I have tried various funds and I cannot get any help. The National Assistance Board in Coventry does a very good job and gives help to the maximum of its capacity but, as the Chancellor doubtless knows, its capacity does not include paying for television licences.
    Whether we think of this old woman of 72 or of other old people, I very much hope that the Chancellor will not deprive them of something which means even more to them than it does to us.
    Mr. Willey: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), I do not anticipate the Chancellor providing for these exceptions; that would be taking too rosy a view of the Chancellor. When he is providing for additional revenue it is unlikely that he will at the same time provide for the exceptions. Now that the Amendment has been moved, however, I expect him to accept its spirit. I agree that the burden was upon us to demonstrate the worth of the Amendments which we are considering, but having done that, I hope that the Chancellor will accept them.
    I am sure that he appreciates the work that many of my hon. Friends have done for handicapped persons and aged people.

    1477
    I say at once that I do not suggest that this matter divides the Committee. If hon. Members opposite have not spoken it is probably because they are concerned about their Whitsun bonus, and not so much because they are unconcerned about the problem which we are now considering.
    If the Chancellor is to oppose the points which have been raised in the Amendments he can do so only upon one of two grounds. First, he can argue that this is administratively impossible. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) in this matter, and I hope that the Chancellor will not try to defend his position on that ground. I know that he is always perfectly briefed in these matters, but he must recognise that it is quite possible, administratively, to provide for these exceptions. The exceptions can be identified and defined, and they are permanent exceptions. He cannot say that there is any difficulty on that score. Secondly, he cannot have any financial objections. The loss involved to the Exchequer is not sufficient to upset his calculations.
    There are no administrative difficulties which cannot be overcome, and no financial difficulties which would embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. We are therefore faced with the simple political problem. It is a fact—and if the Chancellor rejects the Amendments he does no more than demonstrate the fact—that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have a far greater concern for handicapped and aged people than have Members of the Government. I believe that the Financial Secretary said that he was handicapped. He may be handicapped politically, but I was speaking in broad terms. There is a difference in emphasis in the regard and attention that we pay to the needs of old people and handicapped persons. I am not trying to make an unfair political point. I concede at once that many hon. Members opposite have a deep personal concern about this matter, and support many charitable bodies.
    Whatever his views may have been twenty or thirty years ago, surely the Chancellor realises that we can no longer rely upon charity, if for no other reason than that the high level of taxation which has been continued by the present Government means that sources of charity
    1478
    are not now available on the scale required. We ourselves therefore have to provide for aid to be given to old and handicapped persons.
    I agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) said about it being our primary obligation to see that proper provision is made. I am sure that the Chancellor would agree that that provision is not made today. We do no more than set out to provide for meagre standards of subsistence. The need is there. In view of many of his activities I should have thought that the Chancellor had as much experience as anyone of the fact that if need exists today it is amongst this class of person. If there are people living in difficult circumstances today, they are particularly the handicapped persons, and, on occasion, the old-age pensioners. I should have thought that the Chancellor would at any rate concede that there is evidence of need. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham; I do not think that the Amendment would provide for that need.
    Much more has been done, but if we express any regard for the handicapped persons and old-age pensioners, this is an issue which we have to face. We are driven to recognise that there is need to take advantage of every opportunity to help them. That is all that we are asking the Chancellor to do. We are saying that he is imposing a charge on people generally. We know that in many cases, particularly in the case of handicapped persons, television sets are provided, but the maintenance, upkeep and charges are borne by the people themselves. In these circumstances, surely it is right and proper to say that, apart from the major question of making proper provision for people less fortunate than ourselves, we should pay regard to and recognise the fact that they are people less fortunate than ourselves, and we should take the opportunity of making this small concession.
    I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor will give way on this matter. The fact that he has not intervened earlier probably indicates that he is not persuaded that he should accept these Amendments. Now that the matter has been brought to his attention and now that the condition and circumstances of the old people and the handicapped persons has been stated, I hope that he will give this measure of

    1479
    his good faith and say, "Whatever I may do later, involving much greater considerations, at any rate I have the power to take advantage of this opportunity to make this special concession to people who are less fortunately placed."
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We have had a fairly full debate on this series of Amendments and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have spoken with great sincerity about the desire to do what we can to look after the unfortunate. In particular, I do not think that anybody could have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) without being moved by what he said. I agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said. It is true that at the end of his speech he indicated that he supported the Amendments, whereas I shall be advising the Committee not to do so, but the hon. Gentleman was entitled to say that. He was doing it as a second best. In fact, the tenor of his argument should be considered by the Committee, that whatever one's sympathy for the aged or infirm, this would not be the right way to help them. That was indeed the tenor of the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
    In these Amendments we are asked to exempt from the duty people who are either old or infirm, without laying down conditions as to means. That is the tenor and purport of all four of these Amendments. I believe that an attempt to help these people by relief from Customs and Excise taxation is an inequitable, hazardous and indiscriminate way of trying to give assistance, and I do not believe that it would work. I think that it would cause a great deal of ill-feeling. I concede that it has been attempted in the case of the tobacco scheme. I do not propose to debate the tobacco scheme, but its fiercest advocate would not say that it is not open to criticism by the people closely associated with the working of it.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Edward Evans: How does the right hon. Gentleman relate that argument to the exemptions for radio licences in respect of the blind? What ill-will has been occasioned by that? It has commanded universal approval. It is unlikely that those persons who register under the provisions of the National Assistance Act would want welfare if they could maintain themselves in social life.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman made his speech with a great knowledge of these matters, and he is right to say that in the case of the blind there was an exemption from the licence altogether. If it is held—I am not debating it one way or another—that a television set is essential for the aged, let us face it squarely and take away the licence altogether. That would be the honest way to approach the matter. But to seek to say that there is a wide range of old people and a number of infirm people who somehow should be exempted from Customs duty is not a right or sensible way of dealing with the matter.
    I think that the Economist put the point extremely well last week in an article which stated:
    " The worst possible way of aiding pensioners would be to give the better-off groups of them special exemptions from indirect taxes, of the sort that the smokers (or alleged smokers) among them get already. Half the families in the country might suddenly decide that their television sets really belong to grandma."
    That puts rather pithily the kind of problem we are up against. I would go even further. One could borrow grandma for this purpose because a television set is not tied to the premises. Anybody's grandma would be sufficient for this purpose. When we think of the number of grandmas there are, the Committee will see that any arrangement of this kind would be quite unworkable.
    The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) asked what would the cost be. Were it limited to these two types of people the cost is not an issue and it would be very small. The point about this is that it would be an unworkable arrangement.
    Mr. Collins: I asked the Chancellor two questions. One was the cost of the concession to the handicapped, the people mentioned in the Amendment, and the other—a separate question—the cost of the concession to the old people. The cost to the handicapped people is ascertainable. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: In either case the cost is negligible. I am not worried about the cost in cases of this kind. If it was a sensible and workable arrangement where, at a small cost we could help, no Chancellor would be concerned

    1481
    about the cost. My case is that the proposal is unworkable.
    The arguments that I have used about the aged people apply equally to the infirm. They could apply to anybody who falls within the category defined in Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948:
    " persons who are blind, deaf or dumb, and other persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped, by illness, injury, or congenital deformity or such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Minister."
    That wording was for the purpose of deciding the category of persons who could be helped. In that Statute the definition was very rightly cast in the widest possible terms, and any arrangement of this kind would mean that anybody who fell within that very wide category should be exempt from paying this television duty.
    The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) cast the definition even wider to include people who would have been entitled to retirement pensions had they in fact fulfilled the conditions required. In considering matters of that kind we should encounter considerable administrative difficulties, apart from any other consideration. But the whole criticism here is that this would mean that a television set would not go to the poor people we have been talking about, but to people like retired judges and colonial governors. They are the people who would benefit. I have nothing against retired judges and colonial governors, but I cannot think that it is the purpose of the Committee to pass a special exemption from television duty in cases of that kind.
    Mr. Edward Evans: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to read the terms of the Amendment. We are referring to those persons who come on the register of the local authority. We cannot imagine retired judges would register as persons in need of the welfare services of the local authorities. It refers to the persons on the register of the local authority for whom welfare services are provided.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Different methods to solve this problem are undoubtedly dealt with in different Amendments. I was dealing, at that moment with the retired person and saying that it is an
    1482
    illusion to think that if the Amendment were accepted we should be able to help people who are living on their old-age pension and nothing else. Let us be honest with ourselves in this Committee. People in those circumstances are not able to afford television sets, nor the licence. It is idle to pretend that they can do so. Their circumstances are very far removed from that.
    Someone said that charity was no longer possible. But I think the evidence given to the Committee is rather to the contrary because I think there are cases where people in those circumstances have had television sets provided by neighbours and friends and the admirable associations which seek to help them. They supply amenities of that kind, and the licence and the 4½d. a week, or whatever the duty amounts to. That is a different category of people from those considered here. Here, as the Economist said, we should be concerned with the better-off people who could afford a television set. I would seriously advise the Committee, whatever it may feel about the need for help, or however hon. Members have been moved by the words of the hon. Member for Tottenham—as I think we all were—to recognise the real purpose of his argument. If we want to help people who are sick or old there are much better ways of doing it than by trying to fiddle about with Customs and Excise duty.
    Mrs. White: I think we have all been slightly shocked, if not surprised, by the attitude of the Chancellor towards these Amendments. One must bow to the Ruling of the Chair that they must be discussed together, but the right hon. Gentleman has completely failed even to mention some of the special points raised by my hon. Friends and which were included in certain of the Amendments.
    If the Chancellor had been able to indicate to us that it was in the mind of the Government to make a really substantial increase in the retirement pension, even if he was not at present in a position to mention a precise amount—had he given some indication that that was coming in the near future, I am sure that my hon. Friends who put forward the Amendments dealing with old-age pensioners would have been prepared to consider that, but we have had no indication from the Chancellor that Her

    1483
    Majesty's Government have any such step in view. I think that all of us would be of one mind that really adequate pensions for old-age pensioners would be better than particular concessions. We are not quarrelling with the right hon. Gentleman on that as a matter of principle, but about the practice of this Government.
    Even if one were prepared to grant that, however, I believe that there is still a strong case for making some gesture towards the handicapped people about whom the greater part of our discussion tonight has been concerned. I ask the Chancellor the straight question: holding the views which he has enunciated tonight, why has he not put down an Amendment to the Finance Bill to withdraw the concession from blind persons? If he really holds the views which he has expressed that such special concessions are bad public policy, it was his public duty to take the opportunity of this, his first Finance Bill, to put that matter right. Why has he not put in a Clause showing that he believes it was a mistaken act on the part of his predecessors and that he now wishes to withdraw that concession? That is the only logical conclusion to the opinions that he has expressed.
    If he is prepared to continue the radio licence concession to blind persons without alteration, surely it is equally logical for my right hon. and hon. Friends to suggest that there are other handicapped persons to whom a television set has come as a great blessing. All of us would agree that to many handicapped people television has brought a new interest and a new joy in life. I have a very special sympathy for deaf persons. Sometimes I think that they are much more cut off from ordinary life than are the blind. For them television has made a very great difference. There are a large number of deaf people. In the six North Wales counties and the adjoining County of Cheshire there are 500 registered deaf persons. Many of us have known the very great pleasure which television has brought to persons who are so handicapped.
    In dismissing in a summary fashion all these Amendments with very little differentiation between them, the Chancellor has really paid no attention to the force of the arguments employed on our side of the Committee concerning handicapped persons in particular. I repeat that if he believes what he says he should take immediate steps—there are still further stages of the Bill and I dare say that it could be done within the terms of the appropriate Financial Resolution—to withdraw the concession which is now made to blind persons. The arguments in respect of television for other handicapped persons is based entirely on the same principle.
    The right hon. Gentleman tried to deride the speeches of my hon. Friends in this matter by suggesting that we could all go around borrowing grandmothers.It is true that every one of us has had a grandmother —
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Two.
    Mrs. White: Yes, that is correct. Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that we should go round borrowing spastics? Does he suppose that people would try to defraud the Revenue in such a very undignified manner? I do not think that even he would suggest such a thing.
    I suggest to the Chancellor that even if he is not able to accept all these Amendments which we have been obliged to discuss together he should be prepared to make some concession, at least for this particular group which my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) very properly said is a very easily recognisable group and a small group. It is one in respect of which I submit there would be no administrative difficulties. It is clearly no use arguing any longer with the right hon. Gentleman Therefore, we shall bring this matter to a close and support our Amendments in the Division Lobby.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted: —
    The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 179.

    Division No. 115.]

    AYES

    [8.0 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Benson, G.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Albu, A. H.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Balfour, A.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

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

    Brockway, A. F.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Clunie, J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Cove, W. G.

    Janner, B.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Cronin, J.D.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Deer, G.

    Kenyon, C.

    Ross, William

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Ledger, R. J.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Fienburgh, W.

    Logan, D. G.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Finch, H. J.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fletcher, Eric

    McGhee, H. G.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

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

    George, Lady Megan Lioyd(Car'then)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Gooch, E, G.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Tomney, F.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mason, Roy

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Viant, S. P.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Weitzman, D

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Hale, Leslie

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Monslow, W.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Moody, A, S.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Hannan, W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hastings, S.

    Moyle, A.

    Willey, Frederick

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Healey, Denis

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

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

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Oram, A. E.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Owen, W.J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Holmes, Horace

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Woof, R. E.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Paton, John

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Pearson, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pentland, N.

    Mr. Short and Mr. J. Taylor.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Popplewell, E.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Alport, C J. M.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hurd, A. R.

    Ashton, H.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Fell, A.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Balniel, Lord

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Barlow, Sir John

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Barter, John

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Freeth, Denzil

    Keegan, D.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Glover, D.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Godber, J. B.

    Kimball, M.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Kirk, P. M.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Lagden, G. W.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gower, H. R.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Black, C. W.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

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

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Green, A.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

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

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Gurden, Harold

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Burden, F. F. A.

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

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hay, John

    McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Cooke, Robert C.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

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

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Maddan, Martin

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    1486

    1487

    Marshall, Douglas

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Temple, John M.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Redmayne, M.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Morrison, John (Sallsbury)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Thomton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Neave, Airey

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Shepherd, William

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Oakshott, H. D.

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

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

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

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

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Wade, D. W.

    Page, R. G.

    Speir, R. M.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Spent, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Partridge, E.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Storey, S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Pitt, Mist E. M.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Mr. J. H. Harrison and Mr. Bryan.

    Pott, H. P.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Amendment proposed: In page 4, line 36, at end insert:
    " or to any licence issued to a person who proves in such manner as the Postmaster-General may direct that for the week during which the licence is issued he is receiving a retirement pension under the National Insurance Act, 1946, or, if he satisfied the relevant contribution conditions under that Act, would
    be receiving such a pension, or is receiving an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936."—[Mrs. White]
    Question put, That those words be there inserted: —
    The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 182.

    Division No. 116.]

    AYES

    [8.7 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hastings, S.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Albu, A. H.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Healey, Denis

    Oram, A. E.

    Balfour, A.

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

    Owen, W. J.

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

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Benson, G.

    Hobson, c. R. (Keighley)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Holmes, Horace

    Paton, John

    Blyton, W. R.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pearson, A.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Pentland, N.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Popplewell, E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Price, J. T, (Westhoughton)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Clunie, J.

    Janner, B.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Ross, William

    Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Shlnwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Kenyon, C.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Cronin, J. D.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

    Lawson, G. M.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Ledger, R, J.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lee. Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Logan, D. G.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacColl, J. E.

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

    Fienburgh, W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Finch, H. J.

    McKay, John (Waltsend)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Fletcher, Eric

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    George, Lady MeganLloyd(Car'then)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Tomney, F.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mason, Roy

    Viant, S. P.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Weitzman, D.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mellish, R. J.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    White, Mrs. Elrene (E. Flint)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Monslow, W.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Hale, Leslie

    Moody, A. S.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Willey, Frederick

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Hannan, w.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams. Ronald (Wigan)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Woof, R. E.

    Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Haroid (Huyton)

    Zilliacus, K.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Neave, Airey

    Aitken, W. T.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Gurden, Harold

    Nugent, C. R. H.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Arbuthnot, John

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

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

    Ashton, H.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Atkins, H. E.

    Hay, John

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

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Page, R. G.

    Balniel, Lord

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Partridge, E.

    Barter, John

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Pott, H. P.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Howard, John (Test)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Black, C. W.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Redmayne, M.

    Body, R. F.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Hutchison Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Brooman- White, R. C.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Shepherd, William

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Jennings, J. c. (Burton)

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

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Keegan, D.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Cooke, Robert C.

    Kimball, M.

    Speir, R, M.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Kirk, P, M.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Cunningham, Knox

    Lancaster, Col. C. G

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Storey, S.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Temple, John M.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Luoas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Fell, A.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Fisher, Nigel

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

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Maddan, Martin

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Glover, D.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Wade, D. W.

    Godber, J. B.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Marshall, Douglas

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Gower, H. R.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison and

    Green, A.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Mr. Bryan.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: As I have a pressing engagement with the electors of Hornsey, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if, after opening this debate, I take my leave in order to pursue my political duties elsewhere.
    1490
    We have made a number of attempts to improve Clause 2. Unfortunately, those attempts have been unsuccessful, and it may be useless at this stage to continue the struggle. Nevertheless, there are certain disadvantages about this proposed television duty which I feel it my duty to bring to the attention of the Committee.

    1491
    I find this a surprising tax. I say "surprising" because I have no recollection of the Conservative Party at the last General Election pronouncing officially in favour of a tax upon television.
    My opponent at the election certainly did not mention in his address that the electors of Rossendale would be compelled to pay an additional £1 on their television licence as a television duty. Indeed, the general impression that right hon. and hon. Members opposite gave at the last Election was that they represented the party which was to cut taxes. Indeed, in order to create that impression, they gave a very dangerous inflationary boost on the very eve of the General Election itself. I have not the slightest doubt that this television duty will be removed on the eve of the next General Election, and that the Conservative Party will seek to claim credit for having removed it.
    8.15 p.m.
    I hope that the Government have considered all the implications of this present proposal. This is a tax on entertainment, instruction and enlightenment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said earlier, television is now a part of the life of the people. However inadequate and unsatisfactory many of us may find the television programmes from time to time, most of us, I think, would not be ashamed to admit that, whenever opportunity permits, we are keen followers of television.
    I confess that I do not go so far as the reader of the Daily Mirror who wrote to say that he or she could not understand people who were annoyed at the noise from neighbours' houses, and went on:
    " I welcome the sound of B.B.C. television through one wall and I.T.V. through the other. It really cheers me up."
    I have some sympathy with the reader in the Spectator who talked about television having laid
    "… the medium grey cloak of its medium grey standards over our lives,"
    but I have even greater sympathy with Mr. Samuel Goldwyn who, in the course of his last visit to Britain, said:
    " Why should people go out of their homes to watch bad entertainment when they can see it sitting in their armchairs? "
    Whatever we may think, this is a subject upon which all of us must at any rate try to be objective. Whatever our
    1492
    own views may be, this is really almost the only form of recreation available to many of our constituents. I was interested to discover the other day that in my constituency, the total number of television licences is now 10,303, as against 9,387 radio licences. When the Holme Moss transmitter opened only five-and-a-half years ago, Rossendale had only 92 television licences, so in the course of that time there has been a very striking development in that area.
    The effect of this new duty means that my constituents will be mulcted to the tune of £10,000 every year, and be mulcted of that amount in spite of the fact that, from time to time, I have had to complain to the Postmaster-General of very bad reception in parts of my constituency. I think that members of the public who find it difficult to receive one or both of the programmes properly, or who, as is the case in some parts of the country, have only the one television programme, will feel very seriously aggrieved that they are being expected to pay this additional £1 per year.
    Although our constituents are all generous people who will no doubt welcome the contribution that this additional money will make towards preserving the living theatre and helping sport, I am quite sure that they would have preferred this money to have been found by less generous treatment of the Surtax payers. After all, we should not overlook the fact that those possessing television sets have already paid a very large amount in Purchase Tax on them. On a set costing £63 6s. 0d., a tax of £20 2s. 8d. has already been paid. One would have thought that the holder of a television licence had already contributed a reasonable amount towards helping the Treasury out of the difficulties into which it has got under the present Administration.
    There is another aspect of the problem which I wish to bring to the attention of the Government and of the Committee before this Clause is finally accepted. We have two television systems in this country. Since I, like some hon. Members on both sides of the House, have from time to time done a small amount of work for both, I hope that I can be reasonably impartial in what I say. One system, of course, is that provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the

    1493
    other is the commercial system. Already, one programme contractor at least describes the programmes which are put out on the commercial system as, "Your free television service", intending, presumably, to give the public the impression that they are contributing to the B.B.C. through the payment of the £3 licence fee, whereas the commercial programme is being provided free.
    At the moment, 20,700,000 people can receive television, and 9,455,000 can receive both commercial and B.B.C. programmes. The point I want to make is that the addition of this £1 will be especially unfair to the B.B.C, because people will believe that all that additional money they have to pay is going to the B.B.C. for the financing of its work and programmes.
    The truth of the matter is that the British Broadcasting Corporation's finances are gravely stretched already so far as television is concerned. In 1956, the net combined licence income of the B.B.C, that is, for both television and sound, was £9,476,000. Of that amount, £7,033,000 was spent on the television service. Out of the money which the B.B.C. receives from licences, all its development expenses have to be met. The B.B.C. is at this disadvantage compared with the commercial television service in that it, as a public service, is providing a television service, or seeking to provide a television service, for every part of the country, whereas the commercial television companies, it is reasonable to suppose, will attempt to cover only those areas where the density of population is sufficiently great to justify commercial advertising. It may well be that the less densely populated parts of the country will not be covered by the commercial system, but the B.B.C. will continue to have to serve them.
    Another difficulty is that, at present, the Postmaster-General—whom we are delighted to see in his place—limits the number of hours during which the television service can be on the air each week. The present figure is fifty hours a week. I understand that every extra hour that B.B.C. television runs every week costs £150,000 a year. If, by any chance, the Postmaster-General decides to increase the number of hours that television is permitted, the B.B.C. will
    1494
    have to find, for every hour, £150,000 a year out of the finance which we vote it.
    The commercial companies, on the other hand, are in a favoured position because they are able to recoup their expenses from the advertising revenue they receive for the extra hours they are working. Associated Rediffusion, for example, charges £475 a minute between 6·55 and 7·25 on Thursday and Friday, and the figure drops to £150 a minute on Monday. Associated Television, on the other hand, charges as much as £1,100 a minute for advertising between 8 and 9 o'clock on a Sunday evening.
    It is clear that, if the Postmaster-General should decide to extend the hours from, shall we say, fifty to fifty-five hours a week, that would place a very severe burden upon the British Broadcasting Corporation. I hesitate to say that the Government would not be reluctant to see a strain of that kind imposed.
    One should, I think, argue that, if the licence holders can afford to pay this additional sum every year, they are entitled to say that the additional sum should be used exclusively for developing the services which the B.B.C. can provide. It is instructive to see how the licence money is at present used. The figures I propose to give to the Committee are approximate, and taken from the annual report and accounts of the B.B.C. for the year 1955–56. In 1954–55, 6½ per cent. of the money collected in licence fees went to the General Post Office for the expenses of collection.
    To the Treasury went 9 per cent., and to the B.B.C, for the development of its. services, went 84½ per cent. In 1955–56, the proportion which went to the General Post Office had risen to 7 per cent. The proportion which went to the Treasury had risen to 10½ per cent., and that which went to the B.B.C. had fallen to 82½ per cent. If we take the proportions for 1955–56, and take into account this additional £1 now to be charged to the holders of combined licences, we find that it would mean that 5 per cent. will go to-the General Post Office for collection, 34 per cent. will go to the Treasury, and only 61 per cent. will go to the B.B.C.
    If one expresses that in terms of money instead of percentages, it means that in 1954–55 4s. of the licence money went to-the G.P.O., 5s. 5d. was kept by the

    1495
    Treasury and £2 10s. 7d. went to the B.B.C. In 1955–56, 4s. 2d. went to the G.P.O., 6s. 5d. was kept by the Treasury and £2 9s. 5d. was received by the B.B.C. It we take into account the £1 which is now to be added to the combined licence in the form of a television duty, it will mean that 4s. 2d. goes to the General Post Office, £1 6s. 5d. is retained by the Treasury and £2 9s. 5d. is received by the B.B.C. That seems to me to be a wholly disproportionate state of affairs.
    I know that the Government's argument is that this amount will balance the losses which the Exchequer is sustaining in view of the changes in Entertainments Duty, but I should like to remind the Committee that in the case of television we are not considering something which is merely light entertainment or even drama.
    One of the redeeming qualities of Independent Television, for example, has been the high level of feature production, the kind of programmes for which people like Miss Caryl Doncaster have been specially responsible. I hope that Members of the Committee saw the recent programme on "Warhead" on commercial television, which was the kind of production for which a television undertaking ought to be responsible, in the sense that it was intelligent, courageous and sensitive in the very best sense of the word.
    I think that hon. Members on both sides would agree that Independent Television News has set, on the whole, a very high standard for the presentation of news to the public. Programmes of that kind, which are not light entertainment, rank with programmes like "The Hurt Mind" by the B.B.C, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was responsible. There are, of course, other outstanding B.B.C. programmes like "Panorama" and the B.B.C. news bulletins which immediately occur to our minds.
    8.30 p.m.
    It represents the Government in a rather curious light that they should be seeking to tax people for watching serious, instructive and enlightening programmes of that kind. We ought to remember that it is now 102 years since the House of Commons repealed the tax upon newspapers. What the Government are really seeking to do now is to
    1496
    recreate a tax of that kind by taxing, not merely light entertainment, but also programmes of instruction, education and enlightenment at the same time.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends will await with interest to see what reply the Government give to the criticisms of many of us against this proposed television duty. I have already expressed my regret that I shall not be able to hear the whole of the discussion, but I shall hasten back as quickly as I can to hear the Government point of view. At this stage, I content myself with deploring the harsh and unsympathetic response that we have had so far from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the various arguments that we have advanced.
    The Chairman: I was asked to give an indication of how far it would be in order to consider local grievances such as that referred to in the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), in page 4, line 35, after "Britain", insert:
    " elsewhere than in the counties of Durham and Northumberland or in the county boroughs comprised in those counties".
    I think that this is a fair and correct Ruling. It will be permissible to argue that the tax on television is unfair as some parts of the country do not get the full service, but hon. Members cannot go into details of local grievances.
    Mrs. Mann: Does that Ruling apply also to my Amendment in page 5, line 4, concerning Scotland?
    The Chairman: Yes. It refers to that type of Amendment. It can be argued that some people are not getting the service for which they are paying, but to go into local grievances would be out of order.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would it be in order, Sir Charles, to argue that the proceeds from the new tax should be devoted to improving the services in the local areas? Surely, that is permissible. Perhaps we may be allowed to see how far we can get with it.
    The Chairman: I am doubtful whether that is permissible. The thing to do is to try and to see what luck one has when the time comes.
    Mr. Grey: I accept your Ruling, Sir Charles, and as my hon. Friend the

    1497
    Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has suggested, I must wait to see how far I can keep in order. It is a question of interpreting what is a sense of grievance and what is not. The Amendment in page 4, line 35, was put down with the intention of excluding Durham and Northumberland from payment of the duty, but it was not selected. I was rather expecting that when we reached the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we might be able to expound this grievance.
    Most of the debate on the Clause has been devoted to trying to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some relief for old-age pensioners and the disabled, and no one could have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) without being moved by the plea which he put forward for the relief of those people. As I listened to him and to other speakers I could not help but feel a certain inferiority complex about my own Amendment as being less important, but after thinking over the past twelve years and of the great injustice meted out to quite a number of people in a certain part of the country I felt more justified in seeking to speak.
    It seems to me that the debate on the Finance Bill is our last resort. We have continually questioned the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General and they have remained wooden. We cannot get any hope from them. Even as recently as yesterday I thought that the Postmaster-General had a sense of frustration and that he expressed irritation because he could not give us a satisfactory answer. He is now on the Front Bench, and I am sure that he will advise the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of what has transpired between him and those who are interested in this problem.
    What more can we do? My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) tried to put a Question to the Prime Minister, asking for some kind of inquiry, but that was referred again to the Postmaster-General and my hon. Friend obtained not satisfaction. The only thing that we can do is to seek some redress, and we have tried to suggest that people who live in the area where we say there is cause for complaint should not be required to pay the extra £1 on the licence.
    1498
    I know that it would be completely out of order if I dealt with sound broadcasting, although it must be remembered that many people have sets which combine television and wireless. There are many such people in the North-East, which is a vast area, and indeed the most important part of the United Kingdom. It is not so local as all that, Sir Robert. All those people who have television and wireless sets combined get pleasure out of their sets, provided that they can receive the right programme. Some prefer sound wireless and they receive the Northern Region programme. When they switch on they hear nothing but programmes from Northern Ireland, which might be good for the people of Northern Ireland but is of no use at all to people in the North-East. I have in my hand a copy of a full week's programme of sound broadcasting.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I cannot allow the hon. Member to discuss sound broadcasting on this Motion.
    Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order. Although the licence that we are discussing is called a television receiving licence, it is a licence to receive sound broadcasting as well. When a person pays £4 he is to get a licence which may be called a television licence but in fact is a licence to receive both sound and television.
    The Temporary Chairman: We are only discussing the extra £1, which is for television.
    Mr. Short: The point is that it is an extra £1 on a licence which authorises the holder to receive sound and television broadcasts. The purpose for which the licence is obtained is to receive either. It may be that the £1 is added to the cost, and it is called a television duty, but the licence covers both sound and television.
    Mr. Grey: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert, and before you reply, may I say that I am dealing now not with people who have separate television receivers and wireless sets but with persons who have these combined. They cannot say that they will take out a wireless licence and not use the television. They have to pay the full £4. I was also saying that if they want to

    1499
    hear the Northern Region radio programme they are disappointed if they get Northern Ireland programmes instead. However, I will not pursue that point any further.
    I have made my point, that this is a source of grievance which has been felt by the people in the North-East for over twelve years. On top of that grievance I was amazed at the indignation displayed after the Budget. When I went back to the North-East the weekend afterwards, one would have thought that I was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that I was charging the extra £1 for Television Duty.
    You know what people are, Sir Robert, when they feel they have been treated shabbily. They complained that it was a double form of injustice. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said earlier that it was the last straw that breaks the camel's back, and I think he was right. Here there has been this one injustice for twelve years and now there is another form of injustice in having to pay the Television Duty without having an alternative programme.
    Let me make myself clear. I thought that the Government were wrong in accepting the principle of I.T.V. I spoke about it on platforms. Most churches had the same objection to it as I did. However, there are some people who like it. There are some in' my constituency whom I have not been able to educate and they have said that they want an alternative programme. The B.B.C. has failed to achieve that. I do not know whether it will try to provide one. Perhaps the Postmaster-General will speak in this debate and tell us? At the moment, however, there is no alternative programme, and yet these people are asked to pay an extra £1 for something which other people have got and they have not. That is their main objection.
    We have been arguing today that the old-age pensioners, the disabled, the people who have not got big incomes, should not pay the extra £1. Yet they will have to do so, and in the North-East they will do so knowing that they cannot get the same kind of service as is given to the rest of the country. We have a right to explain to the House the sense of injustice and frustration felt by the people
    1500
    in the North-East. They want to be treated more justly. They are tired of being treated as nitwits. They want to feel that they are an important part of society and that they are equal to anyone else. I am sure that their grievances are just as they realise that they are paying £4 for a television licence and are only getting one service whereas other people are paying £4 and getting two services.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Chetwynd: I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), who has been fighting this crusade on behalf of listeners and televiewers in the North-East for a long time without any apparent success. It seems to me that we in the North-East are the forgotten people of broadcasting and television. So few of us have the opportunity of putting our views on the media that we have to make up in the House for that failure.
    I want, first, to deal with a wider aspect. I am totally opposed to the Clause standing part of the Bill, because I consider this tax an unjust burden to place on many people. For instance, if we set it against the background of the Budget we find that certain people have done extremely well in the Budget but that those who get nothing from it, those who are not paying Income Tax and who have no concessions in the Budget, are the people who suffer, for if they have a television set an extra tax of £1 is imposed upon them. The least well-off section of the community has been penalised by the Budget, whereas the more well-to-do have obtained benefits from it.
    Why has the Financial Secretary proceeded in this way? Why has he made it a separate tax on television rather than adopt the more straightforward way of increasing the licence fee? If he wanted an extra £1 for the B.B.C. service, a case could be made for it, but I can see no case for increasing the national revenue by £6 million to make up for what has been given away in relief of Entertainments Duty and other reliefs. One does not follow automatically from the other. I should like an explanation why the Government have proceeded by means of a tax and not by means of an increase in the licence fee.
    What is to happen to the proceeds of this extra tax? I do not know how many

    1501
    millions of pounds it will bring in during a year, for no one knows how many television sets there will be in the future. Clearly a considerable sum will accrue to the revenue each year.
    That brings me to the problem of the North-East, where we are receiving an unsatisfactory sound broadcasting service. It seems impossible for that to be put right. We have to suffer or enjoy sharing the service with Northern Ireland; it is a marriage of convenience, or perhaps a shotgun wedding, but we should like a divorce from Northern Ireland as quickly as possible. If we cannot put Northern Ireland with Scotland or Wales, or put Scotland with Wales and have our own independent service, and if we are to have this extra burden of Northern Ireland in sound broadcasting, then I think we are entitled to ask for a better television service.
    The North-East is one of the areas where it is extremely difficult to get good commercial television reception. Some people may think that there is no harm in that, but if the rest of the country can have a reasonable commercial television service when we have not even an alternative sound programme, we should have some priority in the North-East about the development of commercial television.
    I understand that the B.B.C. television programme from Pontop Pike has solved one problem and that V.H.F. has solved the problems of sound broadcasting for those people who have been able to get new V.H.F. sets, but in the North-East there are many thousands of licence holders who do not possess new wireless sets and who have to make do with the old. I argue that we are entitled to demand that the proceeds of this new levy, this new impost, should be used almost entirely for improving the services available to the people in the North-East and for generally improving the broad-casting services throughout the country.
    I cannot believe that there is any logic in the argument that in order to relieve the theatre and sport of Entertainments Duty it is necessary to put a tax on the home viewer. One of the main problems in past years has been to keep people at home, and television has been an excellent medium for doing that, provided that it has been used in moderation and with some wisdom. To put a tax on it may
    1502
    result in driving people to see pictures which they do not really want to see. That seems to be wrong, and I cannot understand why we should penalise the T.V. viewer to benefit Mr. James Arthur Rank and his associates. That is not the right kind of priority.
    Is it intended that the tax should become a permanent feature of our fiscal system? It is very easy once a tax is imposed to double it in the following year when more money is wanted, and so it goes on, like Income Tax, temporary in the beginning and then becoming permanent and reaching outrageous proportions. We should like some guarantee from the Treasury that it does not look on this as a kind of perpetual tax to soak the television viewer year by year.
    What form will the new licence forms take? Will they be issued in two parts, licence and duty, separated by a perforated edge, or will the two be on one document? For administration it is obviously much better to have the two on one piece, but that raises certain problems about the mechanics of the way this is to be done, about which we should be told more.
    Finally, I want to stress that the Clause is bad. It is unnecessary, but if we must have it, I stake a claim with my colleagues from the North-East that the major part of the proceeds from the new duty should be used for the benefit of the people of the North-East to give them a much better service than they are now having.
    Mr. Popplewell: I oppose the Motion, because the Clause is an additional imposition which is obviously purely for revenue purposes. It has nothing to do with television or sound broadcasting, but is an attempt by the Government to bolster their finances because they have removed entertainments tax from sport and other forms of entertainment and want compensation for the loss of revenue.
    This is a very great injustice, because television is not just entertainment in the way that the other forms of entertainment which were taxed were. Television and sound broadcasting have a dual role, entertainment and education. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred to the tax which 102 years ago was removed from

    1503
    newspapers because in those days newspapers were educational—although today they may be classed as entertainment or sensationalism. That is a very fair comparison with the television duty, because whether we like it or not television is playing and will continue to play a very great part in educating the people.
    We have recently seen a number of national and other newspapers going out of circulation for a variety of reasons. One of the most important has been the increase in newsprint costs and so forth, but another is that television has taken advertising revenue from the newspapers and, as such, is a form not of entertainment but of education, in that through I.T.V. advertisements are trying to educate the people to buying a particular brand of goods. From that point of view alone it is very wrong to approve the Clause. As was said by my hon. Friends, once this additional payment of duty—termed a "duty" in the Bill, but we all know that it is another word for additional licence—is made, there is very little likelihood of it being taken off.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: So we should divide against the Clause.
    Mr. Popplewell: The old-age pensioners, the sick and the blind, have this additional imposition put upon them, while at the other end the Chancellor very freely and gladly grants easement to the Surtax payer of £12 a week and over. But these poor, sick souls will have to pay an extra £1 per year television duty in order to assist the Chancellor to recoup the losses he has made by the entertainments tax concessions. From that point of view this is a very unjust Clause indeed, and I sincerely hope that further thought will be given to it with a view to taking it out of the Bill altogether.
    I have also a particular constituency and local interest in this matter. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and other hon. Members representing the North-East Coast, I feel that the people in the North-East have a further grievance because, if they are being asked to pay £4 for a licence for television and sound radio, they are surely entitled to equal treatment with the rest of the country.
    1504
    For twelve years people in that area have been suffering an injustice. Possibly it is inevitable, with the difficulty of wavelengths agreed internationally, that we cannot have all the wavelengths we desire and that someone has to suffer an injustice from time to time. The teeming millions in the North-East, which is providing coal, steel and engineering products so vital to the economy of this country, while they do not desire any preferential treatment in any way, feel that after a period of twelve years, if easement cannot be given to them, they should not be asked to bear this additional burden. They feel that like other parts of the country they should have a wavelength which will entirely cover their local point of view.
    We all know that this has been pressed for by North-East Members of Parliament for a considerable time. I think that the Postmaster-General, who is present, feels that we have a case because of his observations earlier this week, when he said that he had at least two interviews with the Director General, or at any rate with the B.B.C. personnel, in connection with this matter. Having gone into this twice so recently, he will probably feel that there is an injustice attaching to our particular area of the country. Therefore, if nothing can be done immediately, the Chancellor ought to come to the aid of the Postmaster-General and also the people of the North-East. If an additional wavelength cannot be allocated he ought not to ask these people to pay the increased television duty. They should receive equity of treatment with people in the rest of the country.
    On the ground, first, of the general injustice to the least fortunate sections of the community—the sick, the blind the old-age pensioners and those people who look to television for some little comfort because they cannot get other entertainment—and, secondly, of the particular injustice to those people of the North-East who are constantly having to pay their full dues but are still refused the benefits enjoyed by the rest of the country, the Chancellor should accept the Amendment.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I want to read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when he announced this tax to the House. He said:
    " On the other hand, there have been many changes since the duty was introduced in 1916

    1505
    and, indeed, since it was last revised in 1954. Some forms of entertainment are expanding. As they expand they affect the profit of the other types. In particular, television has, in recent years, grown to be a powerful competitor with other entertainments and I have had to consider whether it is bearing a share of taxation comparable with its rivals. I have not overlooked the fact that anyone who buys a television set pays a substantial amount of Purchase Tax upon it. But there is no tax on its use comparable with the tax on the admission price to a cinema. I am satisfied that a fairer balance in the taxation of these competitive entertainments is desirable.
    I accordingly propose that an Excise duty of £1 should be levied on each combined television and radio licence which at present costs £3."
    I want you to notice those words, Sir Robert. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that this was a levy on each combined television and radio licence. In spite of the rubric to the Clause being confined to television, that was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman described the provision, until the draftsman got hold of these words, and, as usual, had to put in something which the Minister did not have in mind. The Minister went on:
    "There will, of course, be appropriate rates for the comparatively few cases where television licences are issued at something different from the standard charge. This new duty will not, of course, apply to licences for sound reception only. The new duty will operate from 1st August and I estimate that it will yield £6¼ million in this financial year and £8 million in a full year."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 9th April. 1957; Vol. 568, c. 989.]
    It seems to me that the whole excuse for this tax—the right hon. Gentleman cannot say there was any reason for it— is based upon a fallacy. No one will go to the cinema rather than pay this extra tax, and the cinema people will not get anything out of it, although the Chancellor will get £8 million a year. To argue that these two forms of entertainment are competitive and that because he is getting something out of the cinemas he must therefore get a little more from television viewers, seems to me to be a complete fallacy. This is not robbing Peter to pay Paul; this is robbing Peter to have an excuse to rob Paul as well. It seems to me that this is hardly a policy which can be justified even by a Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    I represent one of the county boroughs on the North-East Coast. I do not know
    1506
    why the people who drafted the Amendment should talk about
    " county boroughs comprised in those counties."
    The one thing about a county borough is that it is not in the county.
    Mr. Chetwynd: My right hon. Friend will recognise that he was instrumental in stopping a non-county borough becoming a county borough.
    Mr. Ede: Because I thought it appropriate for it to be in the county. The "big boys" do not want a lot of "small boys" cluttering up their playground. My hon. Friend should know that from his experience as a schoolmaster.
    Mr. Chetwynd: We have boys and girls.
    Mr. Ede: We do not want "small girls" in the playground of the "big boys." The hon. Gentleman must think of a better excuse.
    I have no objection to Independent Television. The only thing the B.B.C. asks me to do is to deliver obituary notices, for which it pays nothing in spite of the strain on one's conscience when one is preparing them. I had a nice set prepared for all the Members of the present Government. But when I read them over to my sister, she said, "You really cannot give any of these because the motto regarding obituary notices is de mortuis nil nisi bonum and therefore the only thing to do about obituary notices for Members of the present Government is to remain completely silent." But that would not satisfy the B.B.C. Independent Television does on occasions pay me a reasonable fee and therefore I have no objection to it.
    It is not fair on my constituents that they should not have the same service as other people who are mulcted by this tax. They grumbled enough about the sound broadcasts, because if there is one place which is not like Northern Ireland it is the North-East Coast of England. There are other places which are like Northern Ireland, but certainly those two places are completely distinct, and it is a genuine grievance that they are supposed to have a common television service.
    People on the North-East Coast quite rightly feel that until they get the same service which is available to other parts

    1507
    of the country, there should be a differential in the tax which is levied. The excuse of the Chancellor is that, because it is an entertainment, everybody should pay the same. After all, a person who goes to the cinema pays tax in proportion to the seat he gets and the comfort he enjoys at the cinema. Surely, therefore, the tax on television should have some relationship to the actual service provided. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the justice of this and that, if he cannot do anything at this stage, he will on Report attempt to put right this grievance.
    I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the feeling about the matter on the North-East Coast is very strong. The people there do not mind paying on the basis of fair shares, if they are getting an equal return for their money. But they have every right to protest against being asked to pay the same amount as people who are getting the full service when they get only half of it. Are the cinema tax and the television duty linked in his mind now in the way they were on the day he introduced his Budget?
    It is quite clear that taxes on entertainments generally are on the way out. The only reason for not abolishing the whole of the cinema tax was, I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in the week, that he could not afford to give up the whole amount, at any rate this year. Let us assume that next year he finds it possible to reduce or abolish the cinema duty, will there be corresponding reduction or abolition of this extra £1?
    Mr. Cherwynd: He will increase it.
    Mr. Ede: I would ask my hon. Friend not to think that he can get into the mind of a Chancellor of the Exchequer a year ahead. After all, last year it was not the right hon. Gentleman opposite who promised us that all the taxes on entertainment would come under review. With the rapid changes which take place in this Government, goodness only knows what the right hon. Gentleman may be by this time next year. His conscience might take him right outside the Government altogether.
    Mr. Collins: His conscience might bring him over to this side of the Committee.
    Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend must not get too optimistic.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman quite seriously, are these two things now linked in his mind and in the mind of the Treasury? This tax is put on because there is a tax on going to the cinema. That was the only reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave for putting it on. I believe that it was only an excuse, but he put it forward as a reason. As the cinema duty declines—I do not think anyone imagines that it is going to increase in future—or is abolished, will this extra £1 disappear?
    I wish to ask a question about subsection (4) of this Clause. The Financial Secretary made two efforts at explaining it to the Committee. I should like to know exactly how it works. I pay my duty in this matter on or about 1st May. Therefore, at present I have a licence which will expire on 30th April, 1958. If I am away from home and the place is closed down for three or four months during the present year, can I give notice to the Postmaster-General that I shall not be using my apparatus, and, if necessary, will give him a certificate that it has been properly dismantled? That could be done by a great nephew of mine who would take great delight in doing it, and when I came back he would take equal delight in putting it together again. On the assumption that it would then work— a pretty rash assumption—would the period begin to run again then?
    I gather that subsection (4) was designed to enable tax to be made proportionate to the use made of the apparatus. I want the right hon. Gentleman to understand that the break in the use is to be in such a form, that the Postmaster-General can have a guarantee, in whatever form he likes, that the apparatus will not be used during that period.
    What happens when my licence becomes due on 1st May, 1958? Do I have to pay for only eight months in 1958–59, or can I have the fee for the four months during which I have not used the apparatus reimbursed to me at the end of the current year? I assure the hon. Gentleman that the kind of explanation that he gave merely drives one into abstruse mathematical calculations as to the way in which the matter would be adjusted.

    1509
    I hope my hon. Friends will go into the Lobby against the Clause. I do not believe that there was any ground for the excuse put forward by the right hon. Gentleman linking this up, in the astounding way he did, with the retention of a tax on the cinema. I can only hope that this tax will be short lived. In fact, if it is stillborn, so much the better.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Short: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Popplewell) in opposing this vicious imposition. It is an imposition, because television benefits most the sick, lonely and aged; in other words, the people least able to afford the additional charge.
    The additional £1 is imposed on everyone, and our Amendments to provide relief have been resisted by the Chancellor. When the Government removed subsidies, they did so because they said it was unfair to pay subsidies to the rich as well as the poor. In the case of an imposition like this, it is apparently fair to apply it to the poor as well as to the rich, and so the earlier argument does not apply the other way round.
    I should have hoped that there would be a little more extensive opposition to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals from my hon. Friends. I am glad that there has been some very weighty opposition to them in the last few minutes. I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, and I hope that my hon. Friends will not allow the imposition to go through on the nod.
    As the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, it is an extra £1 on the receiving licence—a licence for receiving both sound and television. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, I represent a constituency in the North-East. I represent 55,000 people in Newcastle, the great metropolis of the North-East, the greatest county borough in the North-East. [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend wish to interrupt me?
    Mr. Ede: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was attempting to put my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) in his place.
    Mr. Short: My hon. Friend will probably do that later. The people whom I represent are hard-working people. They build great ships, tractors and tanks, and they hew coal. Incidentally, they send many Labour M.P.s to the House of Commons, and that may be the reason why they get no satisfaction of their grievance. They are 55,000 of the most hard-working people in the British Isles, and I should have thought that a Government Department and a public corporation like the B.B.C. would have tried to serve them well, for of all the people in the British Isles they ought to be given a good service and value for their money.
    What shall we get for the £4 for a receiving licence? I have already pointed out that it is a licence for receiving sound and television. First, we shall get the worst sound broadcasting service in the British Isles. I see the Assistant Post master-General shaking his head, but we shall be the only people in Great Britain who do not have a full regional service.I think that that is unjust. We are the only people in Great Britain—
    Mrs. Mann: Apart from Scotland.
    Mr. Short: Scotland has a whole regional service. We have only part of a regional service. We share it with Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has said, we share with a region that is hundreds of miles away from us with which we have no community of interest. Very often we do not know what they are talking about. Their dialect, idiom, folk songs, mean nothing to us, and some of their programmes are quite unintelligible to us.
    For years we have pressed the Postmaster-General to rectify this situation. What does he do? What did he do at Question Time this week? To say the very least, he treated the complaints of hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent, I should think, almost a million people, with disdain—almost with contempt. At least four solutions are possible and the Postmaster-General has refused seriously to consider any one of them. All he does week after week is to repeat from the Dispatch Box the silly excuses of the B.B.C, which will not do anything. It is not that it cannot do anything—as I say, there are solutions—

    1511
    but it will not do anything at all. That is the picture of sound broadcasting in the North-East.
    What do we get for the rest of our money? Television. Nine people out of ten who have licences for television have two programmes. We in the North-East have one. Both for sound broadcasting and for television we are part of the B.B.C.'s submerged tenth. On this side of the House, we did not want I.T.V. We opposed it as hard as we could, both here and in the country. I think that I.T.V. was wrong, but it was the only way in which the Conservative Government were prepared to provide an alternative programme, and whether we like it or not it is here as that alternative, and as it is here, and as it is the best that the Government provide, I think that the people in the North-East should have it, just as have the other nine-tenths.
    I do not want to take up any more time, but we who represent constituents in the North-East would not deserve their confidence if we did not protest very strongly against this raw deal. We do protest against it, we shall keep on protesting against it, and we shall keep on protesting against it whenever the rules of order of this House allow us to do so. The Assistant Postmaster-General can tell his right hon. Friend that our protest will go on rising to a crescendo which will, if he does not do something, remove him from office.
    Mr. Willey: With everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) has said, except with reference to Newcastle, I agree, but in view of his very justifiable strictures upon the Postmaster-General I think that I should say a word in the right hon. Gentleman's support. I think that he has been disgracefully treated today. He has been on the Front Bench, gagged. I make no protest at all about his not being in the Chamber now. I think that he has done the only thing that a Minister could honourably do when treated in this way by the mandarins of the Treasury. But at an early stage he could have helped us considerably.
    I think that this is a bad Clause, first, because parts of it are incomprehensible to me, and probably to others. I heard the Financial Secretary's explanation, but the Postmaster-General, who
    1512
    can usually express himself with sufficient lucidity to expose the faults of his argument, was not allowed to speak. That is a pity. I hope that the Government will pay attention to what has been said earlier, and that we shall have an opportunity to study the contribution of the Financial Secretary, and that the Chancellor will indicate that we are not to complete our consideration of this Clause tonight.
    That is my first reason. I do not think that we should accept this Clause when we do not really understand what parts of it do. I think that we should be open to criticism as legislators if we legislated on something which many of us cannot understand.
    Secondly, the Clause is bad because it imposes avoidable hardship upon handicapped persons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I regret to say, disgraced himself by the flippant way in which he replied to a very good debate. He showed a complete lack of sympathy for unfortunate handicapped persons, and all he could do as regards old-age pensioners was to hold up the spectre of our grandmothers. What was particularly disgraceful was his suggestion that we are a nation of "fiddlers". That is what he was saying, and I think that he is the last person in the world who should say that.
    The reputation of the British people stands high; there is not, I believe, any other people in the world which conducts its tax affairs with such integrity as we do. Yet the only answer the Chancellor could give to a well-informed, serious debate—unsupported from the Government Benches, but let that pass—was to say that advantage will be taken of our proposal by dishonest people. With a smirk and a sneer, he castigated us as dishonest. He did not answer the challenge that I put, that our proposal was not difficult to administer. He conceded that, as far as administration went, it was quite practicable. But he said, of course, that if he were to allow this concession to handicapped people or old-age pensioners, advantage would be taken of it on a wide scale, and for that reason he did not want to do it.
    That answer will not do, and I hope that between now and the Report stage the Chancellor will read what he said, realise the unfortunate impression that he

    1513
    created upon the Committee, and think again about it. I express disappointment about it because it unfairly reflected upon the Chancellor himself. I do not think that he is nearly so bad as the impression which his contribution to our discussions would lead us to believe. I hope that, in order to save his own good name, he will see to it that before the Report stage he removes the unfortunate impression created by that contribution of his, look at the matter again very seriously, and consider whether he could not make a charitable and human concession to handicapped people, many of whom are in particular need at the present time.
    Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend has made his point with so much lucidity and force that I venture to hope that, if he will move to report Progress, that being the normal method of preventing us from coming to a conclusion tonight on this Clause, it will give us all an opportunity of considering the implications of the events which have taken place today.
    Mr. Willey: If you feel that that would be the proper step for me to take, Sir Robert, I will, of course, accept my hon. Friend's invitation and forthwith move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    The Temporary Chairman: I could not accept that Motion at the moment.
    Mr. Willey: I rather anticipated that answer, Sir Robert, and I thought that I might not have quite the success which my hon. Friend seemed to expect. I rather feel that I have let him down.
    Mr. Hale: No; my hon. Friend certainly impressed me.
    Mr. Willey: At all events, it is a matter to which we can return. We have made out a case for consideration, and the Government have not given any indication yet of their intentions. I am optimistic enough to believe that they have no intention of obtaining this Clause tonight.
    I now wish to add my support to my hon. Friends from the North-East in protesting at this unfair imposition upon the people who live in the Counties of Durham and Northumberland, including the county boroughs. I will give an illustration to show how unfair it is. When the representatives of the cinemas
    1514
    approached us with regard to Entertainments Duty, one of the points that they made with regard to the North-east was that they were not—and they produced facts and figures to prove it—as badly affected at the present moment as cinemas in other parts of Britain. The reason is that television viewers do not have the choice of an alternative programme. It is anticipated that if such a choice were given, there would be a falling away in cinema attendances. That, surely, demonstrates that the attractiveness of television is less in the North-East than in other parts of the country.
    9.30 p.m.
    I do not see why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with the ingenuity that he showed on Clauses 3 and 4, which, I understood, had something to do with proportions, should not have worked out a formula to determine the proportion to be paid by the North-East. He must concede that we should not pay it in full. In other parts of the country, when the B.B.C. is showing something that they do not like, people can turn to commercial television, and when they find that that is equally objectionable, they can turn it off. That is obviously an advantage over people in the North-East, who can only turn their sets off. They have no alternative programme. The Financial Secretary is good at working out things of this sort. He could easily work out a formula, explain it incomprehensibly and leave it at that. Had he done that, we would have felt that our position was appreciated by the Government.
    The other point is that we cannot divorce viewing from listening. I do not want to repeat the arguments and further embarrass the Assistant Postmaster-General, but he knows that the whole of the North-East Coast is seething with discontent about this. We have put up with this situation for far too long and we ought to receive at least some monetary compensation. Instead, we get the kind of reply which does the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) no good at all. This has become a political issue in the North-East. We are being discriminated against in every matter which arises. We have had all the trouble about the Tyne tunnel and only years of protestations have got it restored.

    1515
    We cannot go on being treated like this in the North-East. I should have thought that the independent Member for Sunderland, South would have been here to support me tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I hope that there is still time for him to come and support me. This is the sort of issue which might help him. In politics, he seems to have put himself at some disadvantage, and it is on matters such as this that he could show that he has the interest of the North-East Coast at heart. He could take advantage of his independent position to come and speak for us on the North-East Coast who are suffering in this way.
    The Chancellor has the opportunity to do something. I hope that before we complete our consideration of the Clause, he will say that he has given careful consideration to the pleas that have been made on behalf of the North-East Coast, that he appreciates the reason why the Postmaster-General has felt obliged to leave us, and that he will make easier the position of the Postmaster-General by announcing that before the Report stage he will work out a formula whereby we in the North-East will feel that we are receiving monetary compensation for the disadvantages that we are at present suffering.
    Mrs. Mann: I want to protest at the outset at the imposition of the extra £1. I spoke on this matter on Second Reading and I do not want to go over the same argument again, but I have the evergrowing fear that television and broadcasting in general are the milch cow for the Government—whichever party it may be—to help to pay for the welfare services. I say "whichever Government" because I was disappointed beyond measure at hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about two weeks ago, announce that he knew that the £1 would not be opposed by Opposition Members. That was something I did not know.
    We are supported in this view. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has shown how in his constituency the number of television sets rose from 92 to 10,000. On every one of those the Government of the day received £20 in Purchase Tax. One would have thought that as television sets multiplied and production was
    1516
    speeded up, the article would become cheaper, but it is not so. Television sets are dearer than when production started. The great multiple production of sets in their thousands fails to contribute towards reducing costs, and the Government have a hand in the till all the time.
    It comes as a shock, in particular to working-class people who, in the main, are owners of television sets, that when a set breaks down it is just another excuse for the Chancellor to get his greedy hand into the till. He receives anything from £5 to £9 in Purchase Tax whenever a tube is replaced according to the size of the screen. It is bad enough to be in the hands of a monopoly, about which the Chancellor has done nothing at all.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I would ask the hon. Lady to address herself to the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
    Mrs. Mann: The Government already receive all this money on repairs and replacements.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that that does not arise on this Motion.
    Mrs. Mann: This is one reason why the Government should be content with the present £3 for the licence and should not impose an extra burden. The more sets the more Purchase Tax, and the more sets the more breakdowns of tubes.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Surely my hon. Friend must appreciate that if the Chancellor is to give the poor £10,000-a-year man a rebate of £12 to £14 a week on Surtax, he must get the money somewhere. This is one means of getting it—by charging the old-age pensioners an extra £1 for the licence.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting very far away from the Motion.
    Mrs. Mann: I understand my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) to say that the Chancellor must get the money somewhere. I object to the right hon. Gentleman taking it from Scotland. That is why I have an Amendment on the Order Paper to provide that the extra charge of £1 shall not apply to areas not yet covered by commercial television. I object to his taking it from Scotland because Scotland is not receiving

    1517
    the full service that most of England receives. We have no alternative viewing programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lucky."] We are promised—some people would say threatened—with commercial television at the end of August, but we find that half the population of Scotland and two-thirds of the area of Scotland will be excluded from commercial television.
    Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that she is really fortunate, because on a Sunday she will not have to suffer viewing the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby). Think what she would have to suffer if she had to watch that programme.
    Mrs. Mann: May I point out to my hon. Friend that it would not cause me suffering to see the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire or any others who take part in the programme "In the News ".
    Mrs. Slater: "Free Speech."
    Mrs. Mann: I hear something about "Free Speech." I have not the opportunity of looking in and do not know all these programmes. I know, however, that when it comes to a matter of free speech—I hope I may have the attention of my own Front Bench—the parties in this House have done their best to stop it on the B.B.C. We know that the spokesmen on either Front Bench intervene time and again if they think a person is too popular with the rest of the country—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Lady is getting very far away from the Clause.
    Mr. Lewis: It is very interesting.
    An Hon. Member: But quite untrue.
    Mrs. Mann: I have tried to explain why I do not think there is much to choose between one and the other. After all, for this extra £1 we want selective viewing, and we cannot always have it, particularly when it is laid down that the only M.P.s we shall hear are those selected for the dullest of all programmes, party political broadcasts. We want to be able to turn them off and have another programme, because some of the commercial programmes are very good, just as some of the B.B.C. television programmes are very good. Then we would
    1518
    be getting the best value for our money. But until we in Scotland can get that free choice, I do not think the Chancellor has any right to ask us to pay an extra £1. I hope, therefore, that he will have second thoughts and exclude Scotland from this imposition.
    Mr. William Ainsley: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising my voice in protest on behalf of my constituents against this tax. Mention has been made of the North-East area and its genuine grievance. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, this tax is for television and sound broadcasts, and therefore in my constituency there is a genuine double grievance. As regards sound broadcasting, we are receiving in the North-East half of the wavelength. As regards television, we receive only the B.B.C. programme in the main part of my constituency, although it is true that we are on the fringe of I.T.V.
    I want to give you, Sir Gordon, an idea of my constituency. It is composed of two large rural areas on the undulating ground of the hills of Weardale. On the calm side of Pontop Pike, there is a booster station. On television receivers I have seen the B.B.C. programme fading away. These people have no hope of getting I.T.V. In the greater part of my constituency we are left with only half of the sound programme and we are able to get only one of the television programmes—and at times the reception of that programme is poor.
    9.45 p.m.
    I want to look at the problem from a larger point of view. I regard this tax as an attack upon the social services, because television and broadcasting have become an integral part of our life today. Just as we progressed from the use of the stage coach in carrying messages to the reading of the daily newspaper, so we have progressed from the daily newspaper to the B.B.C. news, which comes to us from all parts of the world. When we think of how the world has contracted and how the problems which at one time were so far away are now very close at hand, we realise how essential it is that we in our homes should be conversant with the news which reaches us from day to day by wireless and television.

    1519
    In the County of Durham we used to house our old people in large buildings. They were a legacy which we had from the old Poor Law days. We have, however, evolved a scheme by which in the new housing estates we built homes and hostels for aged people. We took them there in small groups. Through the generous organisations which we have in the North-East, television sets have been given to these homes.
    This comment also applies to children. We had 250 children in the Mensley Cottage Homes, but in the county we have developed arrangements whereby we take them to homes in new housing estates and, to give these children some semblance of home life, we put eight, nine or ten children with foster parents. Again, these organisations have given television sets to the foster parents in these homes.
    The local authority will now be saddled with the responsibility of carrying this burden, or it may fall on the foster parents or the matrons and masters of these homes scattered throughout the County of Durham. They are to be penalised. In my opinion, therefore, this tax is an attack upon the Welfare State and the standard of living of the working class in the county. This is particularly the case when we make comparisons with the concessions given by the Chancellor in the Budget to people earning over £2,500 a year. I must therefore protest against the injustice against the workers and their standard of life which is caused by the acceptance of this Clause as part of the Bill.
    Mr. Wedgwood Bean: I feel sure that the Committee will not believe the first thing that I say, which is that this is the first time I have ever spoken on a Finance Bill. I had a letter this morning beginning,
    "Dear Mr. Benn.
    This is the first time I have written to a Member of Parliament…"
    and I did not believe him either. It is true that I have never spoken before on a Finance Bill, and I must therefore ask the indulgence of the Committee.
    My first reaction on looking at the Clause was to notice a gleam in the eyes of both the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). Both had that rather special
    1520
    gleam which a man responsible, or in our case hoping to be responsible, for the country's finances has when he spots a new tax. I think that before the Committee agrees to this new tax, or even reaches the point where it has to decide on it, it should think very carefully about it.
    Like most hon. Members, I must declare an interest in that I have and greatly enjoy my television set, and I am one of those who believes that television is a very important force in the community. We are, of course, tonight dealing with a very large section of the public. The figures available show that about 11 per cent. of the total population are listening to radio at any one time every evening and 15 per cent. of the population are watching television at any one time.
    Although I know that that shocks some people, because they think that television is undesirable, there is little doubt that this tax is not designed as a deterrent. Some taxes are intended to reduce expenditure—the taxes on alcohol and so on. This is not to reduce expenditure, and I think that we may say that what we are discussing is not a deterrent tax. My grandfather was brought up in a very strict Calvinist home on the West Coast of Scotland, and at the end of the day he would be ushered to bed with the words, "Come along, Daniel, you have had enough pleasure for one day". That was the general view, that if one had too much fun, life had gone wrong. This tax is not a punishment for fun, but undoubtedly an attempt to cash in on an expanding industry.
    I am one of those who believe that the growth of television, far more than the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has produced the general changes in our entertainment pattern. Greyhound racing, although I have representations from my constituency every year, has not been as greatly affected by the tax upon it as by the growth of television. Similarly, I think that the cinema has been more badly hit by television than by Entertainments Duty. We must accept these changes, as it is undoubtedly true that television will continue to grow.
    This new tax will therefore become a permanent feature. Indeed, if the tax had been described as a temporary tax, I should have been certain that it was

    1521
    permanent, but as it is described as a permanent tax, I must have some doubts about how long it will last. I want to talk about the financial structure on which the new Television Duty is to be imposed. If we are looking at this matter in a long-term sense, as we must, it is very important that we should examine the existing structure of the finances and see exactly how the new tax fits it. There are three elements in the television industry. There is the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., which are the two output elements, and there is the viewer himself. I want briefly to direct the attention of the Committee to each of those three elements in turn.
    First, the B.B.C.; supposedly the licence revenue, which an ordinary person pays when he buys a television or radio set, is to finance the B.B.C. programmes, but a moment's examination will show, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) said, that it is not true that that money or even the majority of it, is used for that purpose. The Post Office takes £2 million a year in return for services rendered.
    I have always been extremely doubtful about the basis on which those figures were assessed. The Post Office takes£2 million which it says is justified by the collection of the duty. Of course, the Post Office does not collect it. We go to post offices and buy the licences. The Post Office is not a pedlar going around collecting the duty from us. The other reasons are that the Post Office checks interference and, presumably, finances those little vans which go round deciding whether the people in this or that house have a television licence. This anti-pirate business is an important element of the functions of the Post Office.
    At all events, whether this£2 million is a fair or unfair assessment, it is taken from the licence revenue and it is, of course, just as much a benefit for the I.T.A. as for the B.B.C. Anyone who has a television set on which he can receive both programmes but who watches only I.T.A.—it is conceivable—still benefits from the service of the Post Office, and therefore it is a mistake to think that the B.B.C. gets the full benefit from that.
    The second element in licence revenue is the £2¾ million which the Treasury gets
    1522
    for no very good reason other than the fact that it thinks that there should be some yield from the licence revenue, and that is in effect the existing television duty which ran to £2¾ million, last year. That, of course, is a very high proportion, about 20 per cent, or a little under, of the total licence revenue.
    Thirdly there is the Income Tax which the B.B.C. has to pay. This has always been a highly controversial point The B.B.C. has always argued that if one is in receipt of public money for public purposes and there is already a tax taken on that by the Treasury it is quite wrong to be charged Income Tax on supposed profits which are not distributed.
    Sir Ian Fraser: The B.B.C. pays tax only on its earnings and not on the general licence duty, for instance, on what it receives from sales of the Radio Times.
    Mr. Benn: At the same time, a fairly large amount of money is paid by the B.B.C. in Income Tax and, as it says, profit is scarcely the word to use when it is not distributed in the ordinary commercial sense I think that the B.B.C. has a case. It is a point which, as nobody knows better than the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who has had long and distinguished connection with the B.B.C., the B.B.C. has taken up constantly with the Lord Commissioners of the Treasury without success.
    I am now trying to estimate the balance of the finances of this industry. One can see that out of the money which is raised from the television licenses £2 million goes to the Post Office which is really in part a subsidy for I.T.A. as well. The Treasury gets £2¾ million and there is also the Income Tax to pay.
    Mr. Collins: I think that the position is even more serious than suggested The B.B.C. in fact also pays Income Tax on what it sets aside as capital. If it spent all its revenue it would pay no Income Tax.
    Mr. Benn: That is perfectly correct. The difficulty is that if none of the profits can be put aside on capital account one is bound to have to pay Profits Tax on it.

    1523
    At any rate I hope that the Committee will not take this matter too far because I am trying essentially to draw a comparison between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and to show exactly what is the position. When we look at the B.B.C. position we see that it makes not only a very considerable contribution to the Treasury and the Post Office but, in regard to the Post Office, is actually financing from B.B.C. licence revenue part of the work of I.T.A.
    Now let us look at the second output unit, which is the I.T.A. itself. It falls into two groups. First, there is the Authority, which is in receipt of a £2 million loan—at any rate that was given under the initial legislation—to enable it to provide the capital equipment necessary to run the alternative station. That money was provided by the Treasury, as is the £100,000 a year now made available under the provision of the Television Act itself. So we find that I.T.A. is a net gainer from the Treasury whereas the B.B.C. is a net loser.
    Finally, I turn to the companies themselves, and here is the origin of all the money available for commercial television. It is money made available by those companies that show the advertisements. All the companies that show advertisements are allowed to charge their advertisements against their expenditure and, therefore, get an annual tax remission from the Treasury for every £1 they spend on advertising.
    10.0 p.m.
    We find that, in contrast to the B.B.C. —in respect of which a constant stream of money goes to the Treasury —the I.T.A. receives money coming from the Treasury. I do not want to go into the question of who really pays for advertising because I know that there is a glorious myth, shared by hon. Members opposite, that advertising money creates itself. They are always saying, in relation to our Welfare State, that we get something for nothing, and in the case of commercial television they tell us that it is a free television service, which seems to imply that the public are getting something for nothing.
    This is largely an illusion, although advertisers are getting something for their money, because they get a tax remission in respect of the expenditure of
    1524
    every £1 of their business income. An example was the renewed activities of the petrol advertisers when rationing ended.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member is getting away from the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Benn: I am sorry, Sir Gordon. Nothing could be further from my mind. I am now considering that part of the television industry which actually receives money from the Treasury. I was arguing that the I.T.A. was in that position.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That does not come within the terms of the Clause.
    Mr. Benn: I have in fact passed from that point now, and I shall not return to it. What I was trying to say was that we should very seriously consider the justice of asking the viewer to pay more when other sections concerned with television are getting something for nothing.
    I turn now to the position of the viewer. Let us assume that he pays £60 for his television set, which is the price of a rather smaller set than would now be average. Of that sum about £20 goes in Purchase Tax. I understand that the average length of life of a set is only six years. Many cathode-ray tubes fail in a much shorter period, but six years can be taken as a fair average for the life of a television set. That means that the depreciation is about £10 a year. With the present rate of Purchase Tax on a television set this means that the person with a £60 set is already paying £3 a year in tax to the Treasury for the pleasure of watching television programmes.
    Although I am not a mathematician, I want to try to break down the average cost per day to the average viewer in respect of his television set. I calculate that with the cost of the television set broken down as between purchase price and Purchase Tax, as I have indicated, a £60 set means a cost of about £7 a year—which is very roughly 4d. a day—and £5 in tax, made up of £3 in Purchase Tax, £1 paid out on behalf of the B.B.C. to the Treasury and the Post Office and the new imposition of another £1 a year.
    In fact the viewer is paying £5 a year in one form or another to the Treasury

    1525
    as a result of the new provision. Up to now he has been paying £4 a year, and now he has to pay an extra£1. That works out at about 3d. a day, which is a very heavy tax to levy upon the ordinary television viewer. I am not saying that for the value of the programmes available that price is too high. I think that at 7d. a day the average viewer is not getting at all bad value for his money, when we consider that a television programme costs about £2,700 an hour to put on.
    I would not rule out the possibility of an entertainments tax on television. What I am saying is, however, that I hope the Committee will not pass the Clause because to impose this tax, operating as it does upon this industry, financed as it is, is an absolutely lunatic thing to do, because it will be a permament tax. No doubt when I am an old man people will say of me, "He remembered a time before the television tax came into operation," just like those old people who boast that they knew the days when there was no Income Tax [Laughter.] Am I wrong about that?
    Mr. H. Wilson: Income Tax was first introduced in 1799. It was suspended in 1815; revived by Sir Robert Peel in 1841 on a temporary basis, for a period of four or five years; Gladstone announced in 1853 that it would go in 1860; he fought the Election of 1874 on that issue, and was defeated. That is the history of the matter.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is very interesting but far from the subject matter of the Clause.
    Mr. Benn: I am sorry, Sir Gordon, that you have ruled my right hon. Friend out of order because he transgressed only to keep me in order.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: My right hon. Friend might have said that the Liberals voted against it.
    Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is tempting me still further. I merely say, as a relatively young Member with a great respect for the older Members, that some of them actually look as though they do remember.
    The point that this Committee has to consider, the sole point that we have to consider, is whether in the present
    1526
    circumstances we should impose this tax, and there are many reasons why we should not do so. Before there is further revenue from television, there must be an improvement in the services in those areas of the country where the service is bad. My right hon. and hon. Friends have referred to the North-East Coast and elsewhere and, there is a strong rumour that in another place those noble Lords who listen with earphones are really listening to Radio Luxembourg. The idea of an alternative service through the loudspeakers is one which might be considered as a way to get a better attendance. I believe that hon. Members representing constituencies where there is not good reception have a real claim for consideration.
    The second thing I wish to urge is that there should be a re-examination of the financial structure of television generally. I is monstrously unfair that the B.B.C. should be subsidising the Treasury to the extent that it does and that I.T.A. should draw money from the Treasury in various ways and at the expense of the licence payers, and then advertise its programmes as being the only free television service. In those circumstances, and when one considers the way in which this tax will bear on many people in the community, I am hopeful that, while maintaining the right in principle to tax television, my right hon. Friend will indicate what i believe to be the correct course and urge the Committee not to follow the Government in the Division Lobbies tonight.
    The Rev. LI. Williams: I oppose the retention of this Clause in the Bill for many reasons, some of which have been forcefully adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). I also feel that a strong case can be made out—as it has been this evening —for opposing this Clause because of the injustice which will be caused to many thousands of old-age pensioners, for whom this extra £1 television duty will prove iniquitous.
    We have heard moving pleas on behalf of the handicapped people, and if they did not succeed in touching the hearts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, surely the second appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) should have done so. There is

    1527
    another reason which I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee, and it relates to the position of Wales. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in the North-East have complained, and rightly, about the lack of service which they have received both in regard to sound and television reception. But they cannot complain at the way in which they have been allowed to state their case this evening. It has been left almost to the last before the voice of Wales is heard.
    With all respect to the North-East, I believe our case is a much stronger one, because after all we are speaking not for a region but for a nation—a proud nation in which 800,000 people still speak a language which is the oldest spoken language in Europe. In recent months we have suffered an injustice in television reception in the Principality. We were receiving programmes at a good viewing hour, between six and seven at night, when our workmen had returned from their occupations, our housewives were usually free to relax for an hour or so, and children were free to participate in the pleasures of television.
    That hour has been taken from us, and the only Welsh television now being received in Wales is at the very awkward time of 1 p.m. to 1.45 p.m. on a Sunday. We are very much concerned, because during that period we are having our dinner or luncheon. This is a real injustice. We also suffer from a tremendous amount of poor sound reception which occurs in those regions of Wales where the language is at its strongest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
    Mr. Ellis Smith: The Chancellor has gone out.
    The Rev. LI. Williams: When I refer to the language being at its strongest, I refer to its strongest vantage point from the standpoint of those who love the country.
    With reference to sound reception—I shall anticipate you, Sir Gordon, before you rule me out of order, the extra £1 on the licence, as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) and accepted by the Chair, covers both television and sound. I think your predecessor in the Chair admitted that that
    1528
    came into the scope of this discussion. There are areas in Wales where it is almost impossible to hear Welsh programmes distinctly at all.
    Sir I. Fraser: What a wonderful thing.
    The Rev. LI Williams: That is typical of the cloddish English mentality that Welsh people have to put up with. Sometimes I marvel at the strangeness of the English sense of humour. I do not think it is particularly funny to other people. It might account for the approach to small nations sometimes being particularly unpopular. We have had a sample of the reason for that unpopularity abroad.
    In the evening, we have perpetual interference from some station which I believe is in East Germany, and we have a mixture of Welsh and German. German is a proper language to understand and listen to, as is Welsh, but a mixture of both is not particularly pleasant or helpful. If constituencies in the North-East harbour a sense of grievance, and it is obvious that they do, that grievance is mainly based on the fact that hitherto they have not received I.T.A. programmes.
    I do not know that we in Wales are particularly concerned about that, but we believe that the Welsh form of entertainment is something worth preserving. We believe we are being deprived because of the unwillingness of the authorities— and we fear the future unwillingness of the authorities, despite this extra £1— to make it possible for us in the Principality to have more hours of television and sound broadcasting, and a more varied type of programme.
    10.15 p.m.
    If I were allowed to decide for myself, my opposition to the extra 11 is so strong that I would force the matter to a Division, but in some cases, perhaps, we are not allowed to decide these things for ourselves.
    Mrs. Mann: I would decide it for myself.
    The Rev. LI. Williams: I have always accepted the guidance of those who know best in these things I am trying to show that my opposition is not "phoney." This is not a debating point I feel deeply that Wales has not had a fair crack of the

    1529
    whip. It is gross injustice to impose an extra £1 charge on television viewers and wireless listeners in Wales. The Financial Secretary is a Welshman; the Economic Secretary represents Flint, West; the Assistant Postmaster-General represents a part of Liverpool, a city with more Welsh people in it than in any large town in North Wales; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also represents a Welsh division. Surely between them they can do something about the principality in this matter.
    Mr. Collins: As the debate has proceeded we have heard expressed a unity of interest between Scotland, the North-East of England and Wales which is likely to prove invincible. I support the pleas which have been uttered that people should not be compelled to pay for something which they do not get. My hon. Friends have put an unanswerable case.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ross-endale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred to one of the most important and significant things, certainly in the long-term, with regard to the Clause. It is the fact that the tax of £1 is an Excise Duty imposed on a licence. I wonder whether the Economic Secretary can quote any precedents. I cannot immediately think of any. There are no such precedents in the case of dog or gun licences.
    I should like to know whether the Government's proposal creates a precedent. If so, it is a very dangerous one, particularly for the future of broadcasting and television. The most dangerous aspect is that, however much we may say that the licence fee is £3 and the Excise duty £1, the attitude of people will be that it costs them £4 for their television and wireless licence, and in return for the extra £1 they will expect something in the way of better or more varied programmes. However, it seems to me that not a penny of the extra revenue will go to the B.B.C.
    In fact, the imposition may well serve as a barrier to the further improvement and expansion of the television programme. If the demand by the public results in decisions to expand the service, more revenue will be needed. What is the next step? If more revenue is needed then the cost of the licence will probably rise to £5. The Government should do all they can to make it clear that the B.B.C. will not get any more revenue as a result
    1530
    of the tax. Indeed, in so far as the addition may, at least temporarily, curtail the demand for licences, the B.B.C's revenue may actually fall.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) pointed out, for the next few years the B.B.C.'s income is to be 87½ per cent, of the net licence revenue; that is, the revenue from the £3 licence after deducting the 8½ to 10 per cent, which the Post Office will take for management, and after deducting the further 12½ per cent. which the Treasury will take. Therefore, the expansion which we all want to see can be paid for only out of an increased licensed revenue. Here the B.B.C. is at a disadvantage with commercial television, which is independent of the Treasury, although subsidised, and which has no limit to its income except what the advertisers are prepared to pay.
    The B.B.C. is quite rightly regarded as a public service. It is expected to carry the considerable cost of developments and of what, for want of a better term, I would call public service programmes. First, there is the completion, of which we have heard so much tonight, of the coverage of the present television service. That will be extremely costly. Secondly, there is the extension of facilities for the provision of television programmes in London and the regions, the introduction and development of V.H.F. broadcasting, and the development of the full scope, variety and quality of programmes in sound and television.
    In October, the B.B.C. will start a school television programme which, by 1958, will mean five programmes a week at a cost of well over £100,000. I think that that is a very necessary public service, but it is on a totally different basis from commercial television, where school programmes are being put on in order to get extra advertising in the evenings. Again, in October, the B.B.C. will be doing a televised agricultural programme. That is a very useful public service, but it bites very deep into the B.B.C.'s budget. In addition, there is the very high cost of Eurovision. All this is in the face of at least £500,000 extra cost of salaries and wages resulting from competition with commercial television, and an additional £600,000 arising from the necessity to increase television hours up to some 55 a week.

    1531
    That means that the B.B.C., which is not badly off at present, will be in a position of extreme difficulty. Expansion is to be stopped, there is to be great difficulty about finding the money for programmes which the public very rightly demand, and for services in various parts of the country which have been men-tioned in this debate, and which the public will expect. But, whatever we may say here, the public will believe that they are paying the extra £1 for television and are not getting anything for it.
    That is why I say that this is an extremely dangerous precedent. It will place a halting hand on the development of television and broadcasting, and I think that it is a very stupid thing to do. We all know, for example, what has happened to the Road Fund. The Chancellor's predecessors have regularly raided this Fund, which was originally provided for roads, and now we have not any good roads. If television follows that example, I am afraid that we shall not have any good programmes.
    I should like the Economic Secretary, if he is to reply, to say whether he has considered this aspect of the matter, and what his attitude is likely to be if some of the forecasts I have made are justified, as I think they will be, in the next twelve months or so. The B.B.C. has a capital programme of some £5 million a year, and it plans for five years ahead. Well, within the next five years, a decision will have to be taken as to whether there is to be a second television programme. Where is the money to come from for that; for it will, indeed, need more money? Will that mean another £1 on the licence? Will the public have to pay again? As regards colour television opinions vary, but it seems absolutely certain that it will come as a possibility for the public—I know we have already seen a demonstration of it here—within the next five or six years.
    The step which the Chancellor has taken in imposing an Excise duty on a licence is a wrong way of going about it. If he had to have extra revenue in this way. he should have gone about it so as not to put this artificial barrier in the way of the development of sound and television broadcasting in this country. People have a right to expect that they will be permitted to enjoy these great
    1532
    discoveries and not be frustrated by artificial tax barriers.
    The whole Committee was shocked by the Chancellor's dusty answer to the pleas which were made from this side for relief for handicapped and old people. He said, first, that the cost would be negligible, and then rode off on the excuse, which convinced no one, that the matter would be difficult to arrange, adding an insult to the whole people that, if relief were given to the elderly, everyone's television licence would be in the name of his grandmother.
    Unless we get a more satisfactory answer from the Government, we shall signify the displeasure with which we have received what has already been offered to us in the proper manner in the Division Lobby.
    Mr. Willey: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I have your guidance? For some time now, we have been discussing television in the absence of both the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General. Is there any way in which we can convey to the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General that we do not wish to continue the discussion without their being present with us?
    The Chairman: That is not really a point of order for me.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order. It is quite unusual, I think, for the House of Commons, on a Finance Bill, to be debating any industry when the Minister responsible is not present. The point has often come up in connection, for instance, with the cotton industry; the President of the Board of Trade has always been most courteous in attending whenever he could. As it has turned out, the debate we have had on this particular Clause has, to a large extent, related to the quality and service of television broadcasting, and, although I am sure that the Financial Secretary will pass matters on to the responsible Ministers—I see one of them arriving now— it is not really good enough, if I may say so, for things merely to be passed on in that way. I welcome the arrival of the Assistant Postmaster-General, and I shall not now find it necessary, Sir Charles, to ask you to accept a Motion to report Progress.
    Mr. Powell: I ought to put on record that, during the whole of this debate except for a minute or two, one or other of the Post Office Ministers has been present on the Front Bench; they have been here for a very much greater part of the debate than has the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).
    Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. Sir Charles. Were the points of order replied to?
    The Chairman: To start with, there was really not a point of order, and, if there had been, it rectified itself, I thought.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: Some six weeks ago, in the Budget debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said:
    " I think we are bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman"—
    that is to say, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
    " that we do not see anything very unfair in the proposed impost on television."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1957; Vol. 387, c. 1151.]
    He did go on to reserve his position in regard to old-aage pensioners, bedridden people, and so on: but on the principle he stated on behalf of the party opposite that he saw nothing very unfair in the proposed impost on television. That has not been the point of view which has been heard from the opposite side of the Committee in the course of this debate. It is true that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) made a valiant attempt to get his right hon. Friend out of the difficulty; but the fact is that this is not the first occasion when a right hon. Gentleman opposite has found himself deserted by his troops when he recognised the Tightness of what was being done by the Government.
    The fairness of this measure was clearly set out by my right hon. Friend in the Budget debate where he pointed out that television had come
    " to be a powerful competitor with other entertainments …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 989.]
    and particularly with the cinema, and that it could not be regarded as fair that of two forms of entertainment so closely comparable and competitive as the
    1534
    cinema and television one should bear a quite substantial duty and the other none at all.
    It has been suggested several times in the debate that the new duty will be unfair to the B.B.C., in that it will be viewed as an increase of the licence fee to £4; in other words, an increase of what the viewer is paying to the B.B.C.
    Mr. Hale: I do not want to delay the Committee—I do not want to make a speech—but the hon. Gentleman really has quoted the Chancellor somewhat incorrectly. What the Chancellor said was that some forms of entertainment are expanding and that as they expand they affect the profit of the other types. He then justified this tax by saying that, because one was expanding and the other was not, he was going to transfer the tax. Apparently, the theory was that people would sell their television sets because, of course, unless they sold their television sets they would have £1 a year less to spend on the cinema.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman first quoted a different point from my right hon. Friend's speech, and then he inserted an argument of his own. I was referring to my right hon. Friend's statement in column 989 of the OFFICIAL REPORT about the competitive position of these two entertainments and the unfairness of the situation in which one was subject to a duty and the other was not.
    Reverting to the point of unfairness to the B.B.C., great care will be taken to keep absolutely distinct these two payments and to cause it to appear upon the face of the piece of paper which the viewer will receive that the sound and television licence fee remains as heretofore at £3 and that there is a quite separate duty of £1 imposed upon that payment. In fact, the figure "£4" will not appear in the document at all.
    A good deal of the debate has been directed to the argument that, because in some areas there is bad reception of sound broadcasting and because in other areas there is an absence at present of an alternative television programme— which I notice is described in the Amendment on the paper as an area
    "… not yet covered by commercial television "

    1535
    —therefore there ought to be some proportionate or corresponding reduction in the duty. In the first place, it would, of course, be quite impossible in collecting a duty to vary the amount according to the reception which might be expected by the person taking out the licence. One would have to endeavour to draw boundaries of regions in which different degrees of reception were obtained, in which different programmes were audible and, of course, there would be the greatest indignation and unfairness caused by the attempt to do so. But apart from this technical absurdity in the suggestion, the licence fee itself, on which the duty is imposed, is not related and never has been related either to the quality of the reception or to the programmes that are received, and it is clearly right that on a fee which is the same in all circumstances the same duty should be imposed.
    After all, in levying the Entertainments Duty on admissions to the cinema one charges the same duty on a seat of the same price, whether the film is a good one or a bad one, or whether the seat is in such a position that the film can hardly be seen at all. Therefore, there is no case whatever for connecting with the amount of the duty the reception in different parts of the country or the programmes which are available in different regions.
    Mr. Ainsley: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is the responsibility of the Postmaster-General to see that where people who live in outlying districts have suitable television sets they should be provided with coverage in that area?
    Mr. Powell: That is certainly a question for the Postmaster-General. What I have just been saying is the answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in relation to subsections (4), (5) and (6). Under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts— and I shall refer to these three subsections of Clause 2 in order—the Postmaster-General has the right, for special reasons, to issue a licence normally issued for a year for a shorter or longer period than a year instead; he has the right, upon the surrender of an unexpired licence, to issue another licence in lieu of it; and he has the right—and this refers to the
    1536
    third of the three subsections—to accept the surrender of an unexpired licence and to make some reduction on it.
    Those being the powers of the Postmaster-General in relation to these licences, it is clearly necessary that in levying the duty one should provide that where he exercises those powers the duty is equitably varied accordingly. What the circumstances are in which the licence fee is varied, or the issue of the licence is varied, is entirely a matter for the Postmaster-General. What I am concerned with is to ensure that where he uses his powers to vary the fee or conditions or character of the licence, the duty is equitably adjusted accordingly.
    A substantial point has been made by hon. Members opposite of the criticism that to levy a duty on a television licence is in a sense to put a tax upon education in view of the educational character of many television programmes. Indeed, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) went so far as to say that he regarded television as an element in the social services. That is in a sense true, but it applies equally to the competitive and comparable entertainment of the cinema. Indeed, forty-eight hours ago we were saying in this Chamber that it was difficult to deny to a great many cinema entertainments an educational character, and we were asserting that the cinema in many parts of the country performed a social function. But it has always been accepted by both sides of the Committee that admissions to the cinema were a proper subject for taxation, and the Party opposite, in the last year of its office, increased the duty on admission to the cinema by the; same amount as that by which it has now been reduced.
    Therefore, whatever hon. Members opposite have said in the debate, it is generally recognised, outside as well as inside the Committee, that television viewing forms a suitable subject for the imposition of duty; that this duty, which will amount to approximately 4½d. a week, is one which will not, in fact, cause anywhere any appreciable hardship, and that it is a duty which can very properly replace the revenue remitted on sport and the theatre.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I do not intend to detain the Committee long, but a number

    1537
    of substantial points have been raised in the latter stages of the debate on which, I think, something ought to be said from this bench. First of all, there has been some disposition during the debate to relate this tax to the growth of commercial television. I am bound to say that I am a little doubtful about this. I expressed the view earlier today that those who have to watch commercial television should, perhaps, be compensated for it rather than taxed for it.
    There is a point about commercial television that the Committee ought to bear in mind which has a bearing on the arguments used. It is that the whole country, in fact, is paying for commercial television on a considerable scale, because, of course, the cost of some of this fantastic advertising is entering into the cost of the advertised goods which we buy. Therefore, there is some support for the argument that this is making the viewer pay twice or three times over.
    It has been pointed out that the viewer is paying by his licence and by the payment of Purchase Tax. As my hon. Friend pointed out in considerable detail, the viewer is also paying on the cost of the goods which are advertised on television and he is now asked to pay on this.
    I said during the Budget debate—and the Financial Secretary quoted me quite correctly—that I did not see anything very unfair in this tax though, of course, I reserved the position of old-age pensioners, bedridden persons and others who have been the subjects of debate earlier today.
    I wish to deal in particular with three points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in his very persuasive and amusing speech, made a great deal of the question of Purchase Tax. A very heavy rate of Purchase Tax is involved when a television set is bought, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) demonstrated with the very graphic figures which she gave, there is, of course, a further element of Purchase Tax whenever a substantial repair becomes necessary. The argument as far as that is concerned is, of course, in favour of a reduction of Purchase Tax rather than an argument on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    1538
    While I would not even dream of getting out of order by talking about subsequent Amendments, perhaps I may point out for the benefit of my hon. Friend that the Opposition have already tabled an official Amendment on that Purchase Tax group which includes television sets.
    Having said that, two substantial points remain. Both points have been made many times both in this debate and in debates on earlier Amendments dealt with by the Committee. The first is one on which all of us on this side of the Committee feel extremely strongly. It is the question of old-age pensioners, disabled persons, bedridden persons, the deaf and dumb and the particular interest of blind persons even in television.
    We have voted on that question today. We gave the Government notice the day after the Chancellor announced his Budget that we were going to pursue the point. It is a matter of regret to all on this side of the Committee that the vote today went the way it did, and I must inform the Committee that we shall pursue the matter further at later stages of the Bill. We strongly urged this afternoon that there should be a special exemption for the groups that featured in the various Amendments moved by my hon. Friend and which, unfortunately, were voted on without success.
    10.45 p.m.
    The second substantial point which has been made by hon. Members from many parts of the country is that there are certain areas which do not get either very good reception or very good programmes, or the substantial point that certain areas have no alternative programme. It has been suggested by hon. Members on behalf of the North-East Coast, Scotland and Wales—and to some extent other areas are affected, too—that it is unfair to impose a tax on those areas when they are not getting adequate service in return for the licence fee which they already pay.
    I think the whole Committee will understand the feelings of my hon. Friends who have made this point, which is a substantial point. It was a matter of regret to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, Sir Charles, that you did not feel able to select for debate the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member

    1539
    for Coatbridge and Airdrie, because that was specifically directed to this point. There was an Amendment down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and others, although unfortunately that was confined to two geographical counties and the boroughs within those counties and it would not have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie or hon. Members from Welsh constituencies; whereas the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie would have dealt specifically with the grievance which has been raised on behalf of all these areas during the debate on this Question.
    I cannot ask you your reason for not selecting that Amendment, Sir Charles, and if I asked you would not reply, because it is always understood that no reply need or can be given to such a question.
    The Chairman: I should not, of course, give the reason, but if hon. Members put down Amendments after I have had my conference, it makes it very difficult for me to deal with them.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept that without hesitation, Sir Charles, but, with great respect, we have our Parliamentary rights if we have a grievance. There is a logical step to take in respect of that grievance.
    The Chairman: Yes. Put down a vote of censure on me.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: If I did that it could not take effect until next week. There is action which we could take tonight without implicating you at all, Sir Charles. If the grievances are legitimate, we have our Parliamentary rights to take them to the logical conclusion. Is not that so?
    The Chairman: If an Amendment is not selected it cannot be discussed.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept that, and I have proved over a long period that I accept Rulings, but there are two Division Lobbies.
    Mr. Wilson: It is not often that I find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent.
    1540
    South (Mr. Ellis Smith), but if the step which he has in mind for dealing with the fact that you did not select the Amendment, Sir Charles, is to propose that you do leave the Chair forthwith, I should be glad to join him in it, as I am sure you would, because we remember the previous experience when you were moved out of the Chair on a Finance Bill, with disastrous results for the Bill. Nothing would give greater satisfaction to the Committee than that you should be moved out of the Chair and that the Bill should fall.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. We could use our Parliamentary rights to ask your permission, Sir Charles, to move, That the Question be now put.
    The Chairman: I should not accept it at the moment, but I think we are coming near to that point.
    Mr. Wilson: The Question would have been put but for the points of order of my hon. Friend. I was saying—and I say to my hon. Friend in order that he can decide how to exercise his Parliamentary rights—that it was a matter of regret to many of us that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie was not selected. I had reason to think, and you have confirmed, Sir Charles, that that was because it had been put on the Order Paper rather late.
    However, as I have already said, it will certainly be the desire of the Opposition to press the point further in the appropriate way, and the appropriate way is to ensure that my hon. Friend's Amendment is tabled again on Report, when we shall press very strongly that it be selected on that occasion and when it will have been tabled in plenty of time.
    That, I suggest, is the way to deal with the very strong grievance of my hon. Friends from the North-East Coast, Wales, Scotland and elsewhere. Not having had an opportunity to deal with the specific problem today, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to deal with it on Report. If that is done, I think that there is no case for now dividing the Committee on this Motion.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(CONTINUATION OF EXPIRING DUTIES ON HOPS, ETC.)
    Motion made and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Willey: We should not allow the Clause to go by without making some inquiries. I am not completely satisfied that the Clause is necessary. Its purpose is to continue the present duties on hops, which hitherto have been continued for a temporary period.
    As the Clause refers to the origin of the duties, I want to remind the Committee of the circumstances in which they were first imposed. I remind my hon. Friends that here was a Division upon the proposal made by the Government. The Government proposed that we should impose the duties for a period of four years. The Opposition divided against that on the ground that it was unnecessary to impose the duties for a period longer than a year.
    It was regarded as a temporary measure, as I am sure the Chancellor will appreciate, because the duties were imposed for a specific purpose. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) said:
    " The essence of control is that it is temporary and is to continue only for such time as the hop farmers would be able to re-establish the hop gardens which they had grubbed for patriotic reasons during the War."
    The then Minister of Agriculture expressed himself less graphically. He said:
    " It is designed in the interests of growers to enable them to resume the position they occupied before the war."
    The war of which they were speaking was, of course, the 1914–18 war. We all know that it upset hop-growing in this country.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: It made it.
    Mr.Willey: The hon. Member can join our discussion later. It was understood at the time, in 1925, that the protection was needed because the hop industry had been upset by the 1914–18 war. It was not disputed that this was a measure to aid the hop growers, but whereas the Government said that they envisaged a four-year period, the Opposition then thought that a one-year period was sufficient.
    1542
    The other reason which the Opposition gave was for opposing the imposition of these duties for four years was, again to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland:
    " The Government can adopt more effective measures than this miserable duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1925; Vol. 184, c. 2158–9.]
    That has become a matter which is no longer one of contention because effective steps were subsequently taken to assist the hop growers. The first marketing scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, was the Hop Marketing Scheme, 1932. I imagine that it is commonly assumed that the hop marketing scheme has been a great success. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) would suggest the introduction of free enter prise to the hop-growing industry. I think that this industry —
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is extraordinarily failing in his researches in the matter. He has evidently neglected to refer to the important debates we had on this topic on 19th May, 1953, when, as the representative in this House of the second largest hop-growing constituency in the country, I made my position perfectly clear in this context.
    Mr. Willey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear again. Of course, I am fully aware of that discussion.
    We are dealing with the duty, and I want to make clear the circumstances in which the duty was first imposed and the steps which have been taken subsequently. With apparently the exception of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, everyone is agreed that the hop marketing scheme has aided the industry and the controls which are exercised have benefited the industry. It is in these circumstances that I ask whether the Government are convinced that the continuance of this duty is really necessary. This protection is obviously worth far less than in 1925. It is not an ad valorum protection. If this is justified on the grounds that the conditions are the same notwithstanding the creation of the Hop Marketing Board, I should have thought that there would have been an argument for substituting he present provisions by an ad valorum duty. But the Chancellor does not do hat, and it seems to me that this is an example of the endemic laziness within

    1543
    the Treasury. They are merely wishing to avoid the review of the duty.
    Mr. Hale: I hope that before he concludes my hon. Friend will say something about the public interest in this matter, and when I refer to the public interest I do not mean the public houses but the general public. This beastly substance was introduced into British beer in the eighteenth century to turn it into modern deer.
    Mr. Willey: I am happy to note that my hon. Friend evidently desires to take part in the debate—
    Mr. Hale: I do not desire to engage in anything.
    Mr. Willey: —but I wish to make my own speech in my own way.
    This duty if it is to be justified is to be justified as being in the interests and necessary for the protection of the industry. The first point I wish to put to the Chancellor is a simple one. How can the duty remaining at the same rate as in 1925 now be of any real protection to the hop industry, and is it a fact that the Chancellor is doing this because it is the easiest course for him to make permanent a duty which is no longer serving any real purpose?
    I put these three further points to the Chancellor. Will he give us the figures for the import of hops over recent years. What are the figures of the quantities of hops that we have imported over the past few years and the value? Has the Chancellor borne in mind the fact that if this protection is necessary to the interests of the hop-growing industry, then, on the face of it, it seems inadequate? Is it a fact that over the past few years we have had a considerable export trade in hops running to about £1½ million in value? What are the views of the Chancellor on the export trade in hops? Does he regard it as a valuable trade that we should encourage? If so, does he not think that the continuing of a protective measure which is not serving any real purpose is the sort of factor which will adversely affect our trade?
    The Chancellor is the chairman of a working party which is discussing the vexed question of agriculture in the Free Trade Area. There are all sorts of rumours about that, and I do not wish to
    1544
    press the right hon. Gentleman about them tonight. For instance, there are rumours about what may be done with regard to wine. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that in the context of these discussions he may not be helped if he proposes to make permanent a measure which is unnecessary.
    I should like to know whether the Chancellor considered these matters and weighed their importance in the balance before introducing the Clause, or whether the Clause has just slipped in because a lazy bureaucracy has taken the easiest course of making permanent something which it is not justifiable to make permanent.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am sure there is no lazy bureaucracy associated with my right hon. Friend's Measure. I rise at this late hour only for a moment to defend as vigorously as I am able the very constructive proposal contained in the Clause. It is a matter of considerable interest to my constituency. Large acreages of western Worcestershire are devoted to hops, and mine is the second largest hop-growing constituency in the country, the largest being in Kent.
    In 1925 a protective duty was introduced for hops. In the terms of the statute of that year, it was renewable every four years. It has been renewed on no fewer than seven occasions up to and including 1953. In 1953 the Socialist Opposition moved against the proposal to renew for four years, and suggested in an Amendment that the period should be reduced to one year. They were defeated by the narrow margin of ten votes. It is significant that the Amendment of 19th May, 1953, was moved by a Socialist Opposition Member, notorious for his antipathy towards the brewers, the then Member of Parliament for Horn-church, Mr. Geoffrey Bing.
    All of us who know anything of the activities of the hop growers recognise that the Hop Marketing Board, created in 1932 as the first attempt at organised marketing under a statute of the previous year, was a means of assuring constructive, good and orderly marketing for the products of this important industry. It should not in any way be associated with the measure of protection against continental hops which it was thought in 1925 that our hop growing industry ought,

    1545
    because of its depressed state, to be given by means of a proper tariff. I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the Committee have ever quarrelled with the principle of the tariff, but only, as in the case of 1953, with the duration of the period of renewal.
    Today we seek in the Clause to make the tariff permanent. It is a measure which will give long-term security to an important industry, one which in the terms of the Anglo-American Productivity Report on hops, published several years ago, is generally acclaimed as being one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient, among the hop growing industries of the world; and we are not the only beer-drinking nation in the world, though we like our beer warmer and generally stronger in gravity than many of our foreign competitors. I hope the Committee will give an enthusiastic welcome to the permanent protection to the hops industry which is suggested in the Clause.
    There is one point about the future of the duty which was touched upon lightly by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey). I should like to know whether we may be quite sure that there will be no alteration of the tariff in the event of the European Common Market coming to fruition. I think there can be no alteration, because in col. 1890 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 19th May, 1953, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred to hops as an agricultural product. So long as my right hon. Friend is in a position to confirm that hops are an agricultural product and would, therefore, be excluded from the arrangements with respect to the European Common Market and any agreements that we make with Western European countries under it, I think all hon. Members in the Committee may rest assured that a permanent duty and degree of protection will be given to this very important industry, important to my constituency. and also supremely important to the British way of life, the British character and the distinctive taste and strength of British ales.
    Mr. Powell: This short debate has at any rate produced one novelty, and that is the attachment of a very unusual adjective to the Treasury. One is used to it being described as "flint-hearted," "stony," and so on, but it is unusual
    1546
    and refreshing to hear it described merely as "lazy." The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) pointed out that the context of this duty has completely changed since it was first imposed in 1925. Indeed, the very fact that it has been renewed every four years from that time to this is evidence of the entirely different purpose which it has come to serve over the years since then.
    That change of purpose is associated with an entire change in the legislative treatment of the agricultural industry, and certainly dates, so far as hop growing is concerned, as far back as the establishment of the Hop Marketing Board in 1932. The reasons for renewing and making this duty permanent today are the same as those for renewing it under the party opposite in 1949 and under the present Government in 1953. The duty performs a useful function in its present form, and neither the Hop Marketing Board nor the brewing industry have made representations for it to be increased or reduced.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) asked what would be its position in relation to the European Free Trade Area. I can assure him that statements referring to agricultural products most certainly cover the hop.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am much obliged.
    Mr. Willey: I am also obliged to the Financial Secretary for his reply, though I am still not entirely satisfied, because the absence of representations from both sides of the industry would seem to indicate that the duty is not playing an effective part, because it is obviously of far less value as the monetary value of the duty has declined. My main concern was that this may aggravate our export trade, but the Financial Secretary has not replied to this. I hope he will, at any rate, bear this in mind and see that the export trade be builtup and not prejudiced. While expressing my appreciation to the Financial Secretary for his reply, notwithstanding the fact that he is making permanent the provisions, I hope he will keep the matter under review.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4.—(AUSTRALIAN TRADE AGREEMENT.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I cannot let this Clause go by without a word of protest about the method of enacting the Agreement with Australia. What has really happened is that the major changes being made in Commonwealth preference between us and Australia are in a White Paper and not in the Bill. This is a great departure from the practice of 1951, for when a somewhat similar agreement was then made with Pakistan it was set out in great detail in Schedule 4 of the Finance Act, 1951. It seems much better that these things should be in the Finance Bill, where we can see the whole thing in one place, and, incidentally, where in future years it can be seen in a single Finance Act rather than in a White Paper.
    The White Paper (Cmnd. 91), is really not very informative, because Schedule B is only intelligible if one has in one's possession the Australian Customs Tariff. This is the part that affects us in this country—the reduction of Australian preference on British exports to Australia. One cannot deduce from this White Paper, what those changes are to be without getting hold of the Australian Customs Tariff, which is not something very easy for Members of this House to do. There are a number of specific references that could have been translated at that date into clear statements of what the effect would be. In the case of the Pakistan Trade Agreement that was done—it was included in the Finance Act, 1951. The exact amounts of the preference rates and so forth were set out.
    Of course, the effects have been set out at somewhat greater length in the Board of Trade Journal of 23rd March last, but it really is not good enough to legislate by reference, first, to a White Paper, and then to a Board of Trade Journal. It is very important that these things should be available to people now and in the future. I hope that the Chancellor will give serious consideration to inserting, on Report, an Amendment which would put a Schedule into this Bill equivalent to that which
    1548
    was put into the 1951 Act concerning the Pakistan Trade Agreement. It would be useful.
    Now I turn to the merits of this Agreement. Of course, its essence is that we maintain our preference on Australian exports to this country, and Australia reduces her preferences on British exports to Australia. It is, of course, an unfavourable agreement in that we lose preferences that we now enjoy, or have them reduced, whereas we continue to give the same preferences to Australia as we do now.
    It is, of course, quite clear and true that, as Australia has argued, the original Ottawa Agreements have worked out somewhat to her disadvantage, and more than was intended by both sides at the time. None the less, I think that this Agreement is worse than we need have had. We could have had a better one.
    Here, I should like to echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey)—who I see, is no longer with us—and say that this is an example of the laziness of the Treasury. Australia protested for several years about this movement of the Commonwealth preference system to her disadvantage, and made it clear that she wanted better preference, of one sort or another, for her exports to this country, and only wanted a reduction in Australian preference on British goods as a last resort.
    This was not taken seriously by the Government. It dillied and dallied, and the consequence is that Australia was forced to resort to what she really did not want to do, namely, the reduction in the preference on British exports to Australia. I have no doubt that we could have saved our preference in Australia, at any rate to a greater extent than is the case now, had we been prepared to do the sort of things that Australia wanted two or three years ago, namely, to give by other means, such as long-term agreements, proper preferences in our home market here on Australian goods.
    The Government cannot argue here that we cannot have long-term agreements because they would lead to rationing, State retail trading and all the rest. We have a Commonwealth sugar agreement with Australia, and we have a Common-wealth

    1549
    meat agreement with Australia, and neither has led to rationing or State retail trading. If we had had long-term agreements with Australia, particularly for dairy products and, above all, for wheat, we should not have had so unfavourable a trade agreement as we have now.
    The Government do not like long-term agreements. They keep them as few in number as they can, and they are now paying the price on the preference on British goods to Australia. And all they can do by Article VI of the Agreement is to give a very vague and embarrassed undertaking to Australia to increase the intake of Australian wheat into this country—that our Government will consider sympathetically any measures which may be found practicable from time to time, having regard to their international obligations to improve the opportunities for the sale of Australian wheat in the United Kingdom. That is a feeble offer to Australia compared with the sort of agreement which we have for meat.
    11.15 p.m.
    Then, in Article VI, it is affirmed that it is our desire and expectation that we will import 750.000 tons of wheat from Australia. I should like to ask the Government how far that undertaking is working out. It came into operation towards the end of last year and the period began during that year in which we said that we would import 750,000 tons instead of the previous half a million. How is this aspiration, this desire and expectation working out? After all, it is no substitute for any long-term agreement such as would have given Australia the sort of compensating arrangement which would have enabled her to continue preferences in her own markets.
    We read in the newspapers today the details of what this Agreement will mean. In The Times and the Financial Times there are short accounts of Mr. McEwen's speech to the Australian Parliament in Canberra, and it appears that there is to be a reduction in the United Kingdom's preference margins on more than 800 items worth last year about £A160 millions. We are told that among the 800 items on which tariffs have been reduced are drugs and chemicals, tinplate, agricultural and mining machinery,
    1550
    tractors, generators, and many other things, including goods of one sort or another from carpets to high-tension cables.
    What does this mean in terms of cash to British exports? How much does the Government expect our exports to decline as a result of these reductions in preferences? Mr. McEwen said that one purpose in the Australian mind in reducing these preferences was that it would help the competitive position of countries which had been good customers of Australia; those which have bought more from Australia than they had sold her. These include Japan, France, Germany, and Italy, so that these competitors of ours will be encouraged to sell to the displacement of quite important exports from this country into the Australian market.
    This all part of an alarming pattern that is developing. Over and over again we find that the Government talk about our great interest in Commonwealth trade and so forth but when it comes to deeds it will not do those things which will really help Commonwealth trade, but, on the contrary, do those things which lead to these unsatisfactory and rather alarming agreements.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Birch): The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that this Agreement is not in the Schedules to this Bill and asked that it should be available. I would remind him that the heads of Agreement were in HANSARD on 12th November last, and that it is available in a fairly handy form in Cmnd 91. At the same time, we will see whether it would be a reasonable thing to put such an Agreement in the Schedules, but I do not want it to be taken that I am committing myself on that.
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke rather unfavourably about this Agreement and appeared to think that if we had acted differently the Australians would not have wanted to reduce preferences; but they did so for the simple reason that they wanted to get their capital goods cheaply. The effect of the Agreement is that on capital goods we have a minimum preference of 1½ per cent. and there is a minimum preference on other goods of 10 per cent. Those preferences cover 90 per cent. of all our exports to

    1551
    Australia. Not only that, but under the Agreement these preferences are fixed for five years, whereas under the Ottawa Agreements they could be terminated on six months' notice.
    I would say that the new Agreement gives us a very good chance of competing over the next five years on very reasonable and quite favourable terms. The right hon. Gentleman, I thought, was hankering after a bulk-purchase agreement for wheat, and he questioned how far this Agreement between the millers and the Australian Wheat Board for taking 750,000 tons a year was working. It has not been going for very long, but as far as I know it is working well. He then drew attention to the news in the papers that the Australians, very naturally, are using this Agreement as they intended to.
    I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any details, because the full details arrived in London, I am told, only late tonight. No doubt if he wishes to ask any Questions on that, he can put them down to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Hale: It is a classic example of the ham-handed way in which we handle Commonwealth affairs that we discuss an important Agreement with one of the most friendly and co-operative of the Commonwealth Territories commencing at ten minutes to eleven and that the Minister rises to close the discussion the moment one speech has been made. Really, if we are to retain the respect and the co-operation of Commonwealth Territories, which has been given in abundant measure in years gone by, we ought to treat them with a little more courtesy than this. Trade arrangements with them are matters which need deliberation.
    I have had the good fortune to make one visit to Australia. It was while the Labour Government were in office and, because I propose to make criticisms, I say frankly that we made mistakes and sometimes we were confronted with the choice of two comparative evils. I was tremendously impressed, in the course of five or six weeks' travel all over the Commonwealth, by two things. One was the wealth of affection and the desire for understanding that prevailed throughout
    1552
    the Commonwealth, and the other was the complete misunderstanding of our varied commercial points of view which existed then. There were all sorts of petty grievances at the time.
    They were treating us with very great generosity at the time, as hon. Members will remember. Loans of money and cargoes of goods were sent by individual Australians to individual Englishmen whom they did not know, and so on. They were trying to help us in our shortage, and they wondered why we were exporting chocolate to them. I am bound to say that I wondered, too. They were trying to send us meat, but they were short of tinplate, and they wondered why they could not get tinplate from us. Of course, there were substantial reasons for that, but it showed that if we wish to retain the great understanding between the Commonwealth countries, which is one of the most powerful forces for good in the world today, we ought to have far more constant consultation than is contained in an occasional Prime Ministers' conference or in hard bargaining between officials over trade agreements.
    I do not want to detain the Committee now—it is very late and many people have trains to catch; indeed, I myself am in that position—but I have from time to time suggested that if we can have a consultative Council of Europe we can have a consultative Council of the Dominion Territories. If we really want to retain the co-operation and the good will of the Commonwealth—and certainly in Australia and in Canada one finds it existing in quite an abundant measure—then the constitution of a consultative council which would face these matters would be of the greatest possible value and one of the greatest forces for good.
    I do not want to be facetious about an agreement. I appreciate the difficulties. I appreciate that in every trade agreement there will be gains and losses on either side. I appreciate, too, that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the President of the Board of Trade, when negotiating these matters, has to have a very close regard to the interests of Great Britain, he obviously has to show an understanding of the problems of the other side. The very essence of negotiation involves the necessity for understanding on either side.

    1553
    I would ask the Committee to consider one point. The one agreement that we preserved and did not exclude is contained in Schedule H of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, and this is now brought up at this late hour without much consideration and without much explanation, because, with respect to the President of the Board of Trade, the statement made on 27th February, after the conclusion of the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement was necessarily short. After Questions one does not have an opportunity for prolonged examination.
    The declaration in Schedule H of the 1932 Act states:
    " 1. The present wholesale prices of frozen meat are at a level which has resulted in grave depression in the livestock industries of the United Kingdom and the Dominions. This depression is likely, if continued, to bring about a serious decline in production and consequent ultimate injury to the consumer.
    2. Such a position is so serious that it is essential to take whatever steps may appear feasible to raise the wholesale prices of frozen meat in the United Kingdom market to such a level as will maintain efficient production."
    Does anyone say that is really meant today?
    I do not criticise the Australian Trade Agreement and its effect. It is perfectly good. We talk about a lazy bureaucracy. I do not think it is fair, but it may be a symptom of the fact that Ministers are overworked that we permit these things to be said. I do not want to raise acute political issues. The Minister knows that we on this side of the Committee feel very strongly on the question of bulk purchase and long-term contracts. Had more of that been done in years gone by and had there been consultation we would have seen Australia grow as one of the great raw material producing areas of the earth instead of being reluctantly forced to industrialise itself because the prices of raw materials could not be maintained.
    Here is this great fertile country, greatly under-populated, which has to turn to industrialisation, largely financed by American capital, mostly in New South Wales. It has altered its economy and essentially altered its outlook as a nation in world affairs. A policy of encouraging the raw material producer on long-term contract might have
    1554
    avoided all this. I say it as a Member for a comparatively poor, low-wage constituency, and I have said it on the political platform in my constituency, that though cheap food is, of course, the object of every Government here, to reduce the cost of living, cheap food is driving the producer out of business, as always. We have said that ourselves in 1945 in relation to this country, but we cannot carry out that policy alone if we believe in the integration of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth is to be a force in world affairs.
    There have been days when we have been in sight of the whole of this friendly, unbonded association showing a tendency to disintegrate. That is why it is important that we should not discourage a process of long-term buying, stabilisation and maintenance of prices. They are a great contribution that we could make to a cause which does not mean only the prosperity of a nation. They are a contribution to the strengthening of world peace that we should have a balanced economy growing throughout the world.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has told us that we should have a 7½ per cent, or 10 per cent. preference minimum. What sort of cut does that involve in the preference we now have? He gave the impression tonight that we were doing very well out of all this, but what we are getting out of the Agreement is a reduction in the margin of preference. How far is that margin being reduced? It has been on the whole higher than 7½ per cent, and 10 per cent.
    I am also not satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman said about taking into consideration giving us more information. Even this White Paper is really extremely uninformative compared with the schedule to the Pakistan Agreement, which we had in 1951. We cannot work out the effects of this on British industry even in the terms of the Agreement without getting hold of the Australian Customs tariff. It is really putting too much on hon. Members for the Government to say that we have got to get hold of the Australian Customs tariff to understand what we are doing in Clause 4 of our own Finance Bill.

    1555
    11.30 p.m.
    We really must have the information available and reasonably handy to us. It was not a satisfactory answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would just think of it. He must put it into a Schedule to the Bill, or explain it in another White Paper—to which I would strongly object—so that we can have at least as much information as we had in 1951 about the similar Agreement with Pakistan.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that the facts were just coming in, tonight. It will not be very easy, by ordinary question and answer, to get much information about so complicated a matter as this. The neatest and simplest way, of course, would be to adjourn the debate now so that we could start off next time with this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman would then be in the position, having digested the complicated facts which are coming in by telegram, to give us the information. There is surely no other way short of having another day's debate on it. Question and answer is quite useless for elucidating the details and complications of a very great number of tariff changes.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5.—(DUTIES AND DRAWBACKS ON COMPOSITE GOODS.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Hale: This is an innocuous Clause. It is a curiosity of our procedure that we pass a Clause which empowers one to use a Schedule, and then, in a week or two, we come to a complicated Schedule. Although we all understand the necessity for the Clause and understand that if there is a combined material such as a hair oil which consists of 99 per cent. alcohol, one has to do something about it, because, otherwise, a lot of hair oil would have that alcoholic content.
    This goes back to our old friend the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913. Under that Act we have to pass the Resolutions within four days, the Second Reading within ten Parliamentary days of the introduction of the Budget,
    1556
    and the Finance Bill within four months of the Budget, because, otherwise, the implementation by the Statute of the Ways and Means Resolution that we pass on the day of the Budget will cease to have effect. We should have the difficulty of sitting during the grouse and salmon season and enacting the respective financial legislation to correct the difficulties.
    Mr. P. Thomeycroft: Is this on Clause 7?
    Mr. Hale: I am on Clause 5, which provides for the collection of a combined tax.
    I know that I am out of order in referring to the Schedule —
    Mr. Thomeycroft: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hale: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's apology with the magnanimity that I always like to extend to him in these circumstances.
    All I want to ask—because we do not know to what extent this procedure is now used—is to what extent are Statutory Instruments passed in accordance with this Clause to provide for the special measure of collecting combined taxes. I gather from the expressions on the faces of the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they do not know. If they do not, then that is a good reason for adjourning the debate now.
    Mr. Powell: The purpose of the Clause and the Schedule is to bring this procedure into force for the first time for a whole range of goods, but—and this answers the question—a similar procedure is already in force in respect to sugar which was effected by Section (9) of the Sugar Act, 1956, and that special case is also operated by means of Orders in the same way as this general machinery.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Although the hon. Member has explained the purpose of the Clause, there is one important constitutional point which should be raised even at this time of night. I apologise for having to raise it at this time of night, but it is a very important constitutional point which at other times could well occupy the House for many hours. I hope it will not tonight, and I hope that I shall be given the assurances for which I shall ask.

    1557
    On the Notice Paper there are two Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead). I gather that these have not been selected and that my hon. Friend has been so informed. That is why he was not here to attempt to move them. But the principle contained in them is important constitutionally.
    The House has always been extremely jealous of its rights in relation to the taxing power. It has been a cardinal principle of British democracy for hundreds of years that the House of Commons, and only the House of Commons, can initiate taxation, and that no tax may be levied or collected except by the express decision of the House of Commons, nowadays, of course, on the recommendation of one of Her Majesty's Ministers.
    Under the Clause, as I understand it, the Treasury may make an appointment by Order. The words are:
    " As from such date as the Treasury may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect."
    It would be out of order to debate the Second Schedule, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) rightly said, but that Schedule would come into force, and that would affect taxation.
    We submit that when the day is nominated by the Treasury for this Order to come into force, a new tax system will be in operation over a very wide range of goods. It would not matter if it were only a narrow range of goods. Even if it were only the hair oil to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West referred, and which he uses so much, the point would still be the same. Whether it covers a wide or a narrow range of goods, if a new system of taxation is to come into force then it should come into force only by the authority of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Hale: It would also incorporate Section 59 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, which provides that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise can appoint that the tax can be collected anywhere. The Commissioners could lay down the method of collection and payment of the tax by their own order, outside the Statutory Instrument.
    Mr. Wilson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that point, which had escaped me and I am sure had escaped most hon. Members. It is certainly the case that under this Clause, if it is not amended, virtually a new taxation system will be introduced without the authority of the House. I am sure that that is the last thing that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee want to see occur, and I am quite sure that if we were in office and made this proposal, there would have been a very large number of Conservative hon. Members saying that British constitutional rights were in danger—rights going back to the Magna Carta. They would have thought nothing of keeping the Labour Government up until five or six o'clock in the morning discussing this point. We show much more consideration to Her Majesty's Ministers, knowing how overburdened they are, than to keep them up, even on a point of this kind.
    I hope that the Chancellor will tell us that he will look at this again. He has not had an opportunity of replying to the Amendments. I have no doubt that very adequate briefs were prepared for him in the Treasury. We shall certainly want to come back to the matter later, but we will be prepared to let the Clause go now if the Chancellor will give us an assurance that he will consider the point. I am sure that he is as jealous as anyone else for the constitutional rights of the House of Commons and that he will consider the matter again and will, if he feels that the point is substantial, introduce an appropriate Amendment on Report.
    Mr. Powell: There is no question of the Clause or the Schedule introducing a new taxation system otherwise than by the express authority of the House of Commons, or introducing a change of taxation otherwise than by that authority. It is true that a change in the taxation system, a minor but useful change, is embodied in the Second Schedule, but the Schedule is given its effect by the Bill.
    All that the Treasury Order, to which Clause 5 refers, does is to appoint a date on which the new system incorporated in the Bill will come into force. That is all the Order does. It is convenient to be able to know the date on which this will become operative, rather than be dependent on the chance date of a Royal

    1559
    Assent. Under the Second Schedule the composite rates and the simplified duties are to be prescribed by Treasury Order, but it is specifically laid down that resultant revenue collected and the resultant duties shall not differ in any substantial way from those enacted by Parliament.
    Mr. Hale indicated dissent.
    Mr. Powell: If the hon. Member will look at the first paragraph of the Second Schedule he will find that it is very closely defined with a view to ensuring that the net effect of the new system is not to vary the weight of the duty to any appreciable extent. I refer him to the wording of the first paragraph. The Orders are subject, exactly like the Orders which I have already mentioned under Section 9 of the Sugar Act, 1956, to annulment by the House. I suggest to the Committee that the constitutional proprieties have been preserved by the manner in which the Schedule and the Clause are drawn.
    Mr. H. Wilson: We cannot debate the Second Schedule, but merely make passing references to it. It appears to us that there are several ways in which the Treasury could make an Order affecting this or that trade. I agree that some are circumscribed in saying that where it is more convenient to do it, and where there is no material advantage to the Revenue, of the persons involved, and so on and so forth. But the Orders which can be made certainly appear to alter the taxation system.
    Mr. Powell indicated dissent.
    Mr. Wilson: We shall want to be satisfied on this and that may take a long time. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will take a long time to satisfy.
    I should much prefer the Government to agree to look again at the matter to make absolutely certain that there is nothing in our case. Perhaps they would be prepared to make a fuller statement at a later date. I am sure that the Financial Secretary is sincere and genuine when he says that he is convinced that there is no change, but we would like to be satisfied about it. I know that we shall be able to debate the Schedule, but it
    1560
    will not be as easy to move Amendments to the Schedule as to move Amendments to Clause 5 to require positive and affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Powell: The negative procedure for the Orders we are talking about is laid down in the Schedule itself, so that we shall have the opportunity of discussing that again, if the Committee desires, when we come to the Schedule.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  CONSOLIDATION, &c, BILLS
  Mr. Graeme Finlay discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee appointed by the Lords on Consolidation, &c., Bills; Mr. Ronald Bell added.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. George Darling added.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

  THERMAL INSULATION (INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  s
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the thermal insulation of industrial buildings, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which, under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act. 1954. as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act. 1956, are payable out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Powell.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  COLLIERY SPOIL HEAPS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]
  11.47 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: I wish to raise a matter of considerable concern to all people who reside in or near coal mining areas in the country, namely, the uncontrolled extension of colliery spoil heaps. I am glad to be able to raise this matter in spite of the lateness of the hour. Many hon. Members have mentioned that they have missed their last bus or train. I have already missed mine and at the conclusion of this debate I shall be faced with a long walk through the City of London. That is one of the trials and tribulations which face hon. Members who try to stick to the archaic traditions of this House. I am sorry about it, but it is one of the things that we have to put up with. I am pleased that we have present tonight not only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power. It shows that his Department and the National Coal Board are taking an interest in this matter.
  The situation is becoming increasingly serious as more dirt is being extracted and spilled over the countryside than ever before. The position has been reached when we can say that matters are getting out of hand. The area general managers of the National Coal Board are aware of it. In fact, I think that they are sympathetic to the view that all these spoil extensions should be controlled. However, there is no directive from the Coal Board and therefore they dare not act. The nasty, brutish-looking black heaps are completely dominating the scenery in the mining areas, many times creeping up to within a few yards of houses. They spill over on to the main roads, and when there is a heavy downpour of rain, avalanches cascade over the roads, causing much unnecessary inconvenience. The tipping causes a cloud of dust to settle periodically on the mining villages, and with the smoke which comes from many of these burning stacks, life is very unhealthy and grim, as may be imagined.
  1562
  Public desire and planning knowledge has now reached the stage when we need not tolerate their existence in their present form any longer. Another point is the unscrupulous way in which these spoil heap extensions are gobbling up valuable agricultural land which will be lost for all time. The Minister is now aware of the problem, and I am grateful for his interest and for accepting my invitation to view the problem at first hand. I am grateful also to the Sheffield Telegraph for assisting by publicising the campaign to rid the coal fields of these terrible eyesores. The tour was planned by a West Riding County Council officer, Mr. Arthur Bates, who has done a tremendous amount of work on this problem by experimenting in various ways to find the best method of tackling the growth of spoil heaps and also the elimination of abandoned ones.
  In the West Riding playing fields and even sites for factories have been reclaimed from small derelict spoil heaps, contrasting with massive uncontrolled heaps 150 ft. high covering many acres and spoiling the natural beauty of the mining valleys. In the area of Feather-stone the Minister saw a derelict heap 40 ft. high running through the town alongside the road for 1½ miles—a monstrosity. At little cost it could be graded into a protective bank, grassed over, and planted with shrubs and flowers, so that it would transform the district into one of beauty.
  A large South Yorkshire colliery has a site of 70 acres, and it is tipping at the rate of 1,000 tons of dirt a day. This rate will soon be increasing to 1,500 tons a day. The heap sprawls right out into the countryside. The Minister saw it, and we agreed that it was an appalling sight.
  There are scores of these instances in Yorkshire. Throughout the country there are hundreds. In the West Riding alone there are 96 pits producing about 42 million tons of coal annually. The Board estimates that the waste output is about 30 per cent. of the saleable coal, which means that 12 million tons of waste will be deposited on spoil heaps in Yorkshire each year.
  The total acreage of the heaps already amounts to more than 4,000 acres, and it is increasing at the rate of 150 acres a

  1563
  year. In England and Wales there are about 51,000 acres covered by spoil heaps, and the area is growing at the rate of 500 acres a year The figure is rapidly increasing as we are mining thinner and dirtier seams than previously.
  Control is now an urgent necessity. At present there is planning control over new spoil heaps only. There is none whatever over extensions which have taken place and are continuing to take place since the issue of the General Development Order of 1950 which authorised continuation of tipping on land comprised in a site used for the deposit of waste material or refuse on 1st July, 1948.
  In the West Riding about one-third of the tips have come under planning control, but the remaining two-thirds continue to operate under the provisions of Class XX of the General Development Order. We should like the Order revoked or amended so that planning permission must be sought for the extensions. That is our first, immediate aim.
  The Board has co-operated with a few small schemes, but these are a drop in the ocean compared with the ever-growing scale of the problem. Many local authorities are sorely disturbed at the lack of planning control, so much so that conferences have recently been held to discuss the problem. I now understand that deputations from the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association are to visit the Minister.
  We are asking the Board to accept a measure of control over the use of land which already applies to ordinary people. We have no intention of interfering with any of its existing plant or machinery. Our primary object is to bring under control land not at present used for the deposition of waste. In that way the Board will be brought into line with the ordinary citizen, who cannot change the use of land without applying for planning consent. All we ask is that planning consent must be sought for extensions to pit heaps on virgin ground. We should then require the Board to remove the top soil and either stack it for subsequent replacement or—this is much more sensible and it would not cost much more—directly replace it on some part
  1564
  of the heap already made but now disused, and put it to immediate good use. The Minister must agree that that is the most sensible course.
  There is another very important reason why the control of future tipping is necessary. In the light of Section 18 of the Clean Air Act, 1956, the Board is now under an obligation to adopt the best practicable methods to avoid the firing of its tipping. Generally that will involve a reduction in the use of high ridge tips and conical tips, which are particularly prone to burning because of the large surface which they present for the ingress of oxygen. In other words, flatter tips will be the future design instead of mountainous ones. The danger here is that larger sites will be required, and therefore, because of the demands of the Clean Air Act, the demand for the control of these tips at this time is also most opportune.
  Having dealt with the need for control at the present, what of the future? As I said earlier, there are 4,000 acres of waste heaps in Yorkshire and 51,000 in the country. Although I am measuring their size in acres, make no mistake about it, their ghastly appearance, distortion of landscape, and depreciation of area value, can never be truly measured. Only those who live among these grimy hills fully understand how depressing they can be.
  It is my desire to see all these derelict and abandoned heaps treated in such a way that they virtually vanish from the scene. That can be done, but it depends, of course, on the will of the Ministers concerned. This is a national question, and a plan to deal with it on such a scale must be devised. From the many experiments conducted in the West Riding an estimate of its cost can be made. They have shown that the cost of bulldozing these derelict heaps to reasonable levels and making side slopes of not more than 1 in 3 would average £150 per acre. The cost of seeding these tips without putting on a layer of top soil would be a further £50 per acre. On that basis we could rid the West Riding of the old tips at a cost of £100,000 per year over eight years. Nationally the cost would be £500,000 a year for the next eight years. That represents ½d. per ton on the price of coal. I doubt if anyone would quibble at such a price to get rid of these scars on our landscape.

  1565
  I therefore ask the Minister quite frankly if he will assure me that he is willing to consider this suggestion with his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, and forward me their observations at a later date.
  Those, then, are the two aspects of the matter: first, the urgent desire to obtain control over all extensions of colliery spoil heaps in just the same way as control is exercised over new ones; and, secondly, the desire that a national effort be made in order to get rid of all the old abandoned spoil heaps. I hope that the Minister will tonight go some way to relieve our anxieties and at least announce his intention to introduce planning control.
  11.58 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Finch: My hon. Friend has done a service in calling the attention of the House to the increasing spoilation of mining areas by these spoil heaps. He has referred to Yorkshire, of which he has an intimate knowledge, but what applies to Yorkshire equally applies to other coal fields. In Wales we are in the unenviable position of having 1,235 colliery site heaps, covering 11,859 acres at present. It is not only a question of marring the landscape. These heaps are dangerous to health, for the airborne dust blows across the towns and villages in Wales, with all the evil that accompanies it.
  Apart from that, many of these spoil heaps are liable to spontaneous combustion. Further, they impair the activities of the local authorities in trying to improve amenities in mining districts. We know that many of these tips are adjacent to the main roads and dwelling-houses, and some are near to the centres of towns and villages in the mining districts.
  In these circumstances there is growing dissatisfaction among all sections of the community in the valleys of Wales, and among all sections of the Press, which are commenting frequently about this unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Press frequently views with alarm the increasing number of these tips. The Western Mail, in South Wales, has had informative and instructive articles on the problem, as has the South Wales Argus.
  There are three categories in which the problem can be put. The first consists of the new tips, but as those are subject to
  1566
  the control of the planning authority we can leave them out of this consideration. The second category is the main problem—the extension of tips in use on or before 1st July, 1945. They can be, and are being, extended without either planning or control.
  The 1950 Development Order allowed the National Coal Board to continue to extend those tips without consulting the planning authority, and although I recognise that the Board has in most cases co-operated with the planning authority, the fact remains that the whole purpose of the Town and Country Planning Act is being frustrated by that Order. My main point, therefore, is that that Order should be revoked.
  The third type referred to by my hon. Friend are the derelict tips. The Miners' Parliamentary Group and various authorities have discussed the matter, and we have had expert advice. This job could be done with bulldozers, and the mountainous heaps made more like plateaux. There could be afforestation, and what a great difference that would make to the valleys of Wales. It would also add to recruitment to the mining industry, because these places are depressing chiefly because of the presence of these ghastly tips and the lack of amenities.
  I hope that we shall hear that the Government will take steps at least to start a campaign to get rid of the rubbish tips in the Welsh coal fields, as well as the others in the country, and so help recruitment and help to bring into the valleys those amenities which have for so long been necessary, and lacking.
  12.3 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I am sure the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for raising this matter tonight. I dare say that there are some people, especially those who do not live in the mining areas, who are inclined to look upon these spoil heaps as part of the industrial scene and, in some mystical way, to regard them as symbolical of the industrial greatness centring on the coal fields. But I must say, having had the opportunity, at the invitation of the hon. Member for Barnsley, of making a brief visit to the Yorkshire coal field, that I came away quite convinced that the Government

  1567
  certainly have a duty to do what they can to deal effectively with the problem.
  It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member has said, that some of these heaps are situated in villages, and literally overhang the houses of the people working in the mining industry. It is equally true that some of the most beautiful valleys in Yorkshire are despoiled by these black monsters that seem to grow in their midst. I agree that that sort of thing simply mocks at our modern conception of planning.
  My right hon. Friend was recently in South Wales, and he has asked me to say that both in his capacity as Minister in control of planning and as Minister for Welsh Affairs he feels very strongly about this problem, and certainly means to do all he can, but I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen will agree with me when I say that there is no easy or quick solution. Various ideas have been tried in the past. There has been the idea of underground stowage of the spoil material, but very often that is not practicably possible. In certain places this spoil has been dumped into the sea, but certain of the waste material often returns on to the nearby beaches. Thirdly, of course, efforts have been made to get rid of it by burying it in the filling-up of disused pits and quarries; but there, transport costs prohibit frequent action of that sort.
  Several of the county authorities have done very useful work, some of it of an experimental nature. Lancashire County Council has seeded shale tips direct with good results, and has experimented in tree planting. About 200 of these spoil heaps have been more or less satisfactorily planted with trees. In the West Riding of Yorkshire there has been a successful grassing experiment; there is at least one, and perhaps more, but in one case I know that the grassing has been done so well that the site is now used as a sports field for children.
  This problem, as the hon. Gentleman has said, falls under three heads. First, the disused and abandoned heaps which cannot reasonably be regarded as the responsibility of the National Coal Board but are rather the responsibility of the local authorities. About a quarter of these are in or near built-up areas, and in many cases we feel that it would be
  1568
  practicable for them to be used for building or for playing fields. But although that would be a costly job and obviously cannot be done overnight, it is a matter to which we should like the local authorities to apply themselves. The other three-quarters are in country districts where reclamation of land is less important than doing away with the bad effect on the countryside; and there we should like to see trees or grass or shrubs.
  The Government are most anxious that the local authorities should take energetic action in this matter.
  Mr. Finch: They must have help.
  Mr. Bevins: Yes; I shall come to that point.
  The Forestry Commission is prepared to help with technical advice, and, in some cases, with financial assistance in selecting and planting suitable trees. On the question of financial aid, the position is that the Minister is prepared to consider the giving of monetary help under the planning Acts, but it must be made clear that so long as financial stringency continues, it may not be possible to give all the help that we should like to do. At the same time, that does not mean that the local authorities should delay the preparation of schemes which they regard as desirable. We should like to see schemes prepared so that, as soon as may be, we can do what we can in the way of financial aid.
  Next, there are the new tips, about which I do not think I need say anything; and so we come to the most contentious part of the problem—the extension of existing heaps. It has been said, and quite rightly, that the General Development Order allows unconditional tipping on a site used for that purpose in 1947 or before. It is suggested by the hon. Member that that provision should be repealed altogether, but I am advised that if that were done, we should need to consider planning applications for the very large number of individual spoil heaps in use and that the planning authorities which required changes in methods of tipping would be liable to pay compensation.
  I admit that it is arguable that the repeal of the appropriate provision in the Development Order could perhaps be so framed as to enable tipping to continue until the nature of the planning

  1569
  permission in each case had been settled between the National Coal Board and the planning authority, but our present view—I put it no higher than that—is that before any steps are taken on those lines we should want to know a good more about the practical possibilities.
  What rather causes anxiety in the mind of my right hon. Friend is that so much of the work which has been done so far by the local authorities, although it promises to be successful, has been very largely of an experimental character. We do not feel absolutely convinced at the moment that we should be right to accept that suggestion on the basis of present experience. My right hon. Friend is, therefore, not convinced that that is the right method of approach.
  The alternative is for the various planning authorities to issue directions withdrawing the permission for particular spoil heaps, followed of course by the granting of a new planning permission on terms acceptable to the planning authority. That seems to my right hon. Friend to be a more practical approach, because it would enable us to tackle, in the first place, those heaps which are the most offensive and Which we know it is feasible to improve. These cases could be discussed and agreed with the National Coal Board before any legal steps at all were taken.
  We believe that a few actual operations like that would give us a great deal in the way of experience and supply us with some of the important information which we lack at the moment. We
  1570
  are inviting the West Riding County Council to submit evidence about a dozen of these cases, so that we can examine the proposals put forward, as well as their financial implications, before we discuss them with the Ministry of Power and the National Coal Board.
  Of course, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said, this problem is not limited to the Yorkshire coal field. My right hon. Friend would welcome views or examples from other parts of the country. The problem was, I think, touched upon in our recent debate on Welsh affairs. I realise, as does my right hon. Friend, that the problem in South Wales is in some respects different from the problem in Yorkshire.
  It may be that there are other means of getting to grips with this part of the problem. My right hon. Friend is very ready to consider any other proposal. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend's mind is not closed to the possibility of a suitable amendment to the General Development Order. He will certainly consider very carefully what has been said in this short discussion tonight, but we are so much in earnest about this problem that we are anxious to take early action without delay, and that is why I have said what I have said. May I, in conclusion, again express my personal indebtedness to the hon. Member for Barnsley for his co-operation?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Departments (Redundant Workers)
  Government Departments (Redundant Workers)
  Purchase Tax (Musical Instruments)
  Purchase Tax (Musical Instruments)
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Anglo-Egyptian Economic Talks (Delegation)
  Anglo-Egyptian Economic Talks (Delegation)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Roads (Improvement Schemes)
  Roads (Improvement Schemes)
  Export of Live Cattle (Inter-Governmental Discussions)
  Export of Live Cattle (Inter-Governmental Discussions)
  RADIOSTRONTIUM
  RADIOSTRONTIUM
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  ATOMIC ENERGY (PEACEFUL USES)
  ATOMIC ENERGY (PEACEFUL USES)
EDUCATION
  Horwich School (Air-Raid Shelters)
  Horwich School (Air-Raid Shelters)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  United Kingdom Emigrants
  United Kingdom Emigrants
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rents and Rates
  Rents and Rates
ROADS
  Accidents, Ongar
  Accidents, Ongar
CYPRUS
  Central Prison, Nicosia (Complaints)
  Central Prison, Nicosia (Complaints)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Treaties (Aden)
  Treaties (Aden)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mental Deficiency Act (Section 8 Orders)
  Mental Deficiency Act (Section 8 Orders)
  Driving Offences (Drunkenness)
  Driving Offences (Drunkenness)
  Police Information (Official Secrets Acts)
  Police Information (Official Secrets Acts)
  Betting and Lotteries
  Betting and Lotteries
TELEVISION
  Mid-Tyrone and Fermanagh
  Mid-Tyrone and Fermanagh
EMPLOYMENT
  Brierley Hill Office
  Brierley Hill Office
BRITISH ARMY
  Corrective Establishment, Colchester (Released Soldiers)
  Corrective Establishment, Colchester (Released Soldiers)

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

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
2.35 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE SUEZ CANAL
2.37 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to draw attention to Her Majesty's Government's statement in this House on May 14 with regard to the Suez Canal and matters relevant thereto; and to move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I hope that I shall not be accused of "rocking the boat", or whatever the correct phrase is. Actually, I imagine that no senior, or fairly senior, Minister has ever left the Government and been at less pains than I have to explain my motives or justify my action. And may I assure your Lordships that it was not because I had nothing to say or was given no opportunity. I was offered innumerable chances of speaking, on the radio, on television and through the other media of modern publicity which are open to a retiring Minister. But I refused them all. And I refused because I did not want to "rock the boat."
If, then, I have put down this Motion to-day on the subject of Suez, it is merely because the noble Lords on the other side of the House, for reasons which no doubt seem good to them, were unwilling to table a Motion themselves, and because it seems to me that there are things that ought to be said and questions that ought to be asked with regard to the momentous
1148
step which the Government have taken, and that Parliament is the proper place in which to say them. For this decision to accept Nasser's terms for the use of the Canal, whether under protest or not, whether as a temporary arrangement or a final settlement—and of that I shall have something to say later—is, let us face the fact, a decision of the most important kind, and one which may have the most far-reaching repercussions. It is right, therefore, I submit, that we in this House should take stock of the position as we see it today, in the light of what has occurred, for the purpose of avoiding similar experiences in the future. The number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak this afternoon seems to indicate that in tabling my Motion, I was correctly interpreting the wish of the House.
In discussing this question, I think it is necessary first to draw a differentiation, as I did in my speech in your Lordships' House on December 11 last, between the two crises with which the Suez Canal has been concerned during recent months—the crisis arising from Colonel Nasser's seizure of the Canal and the crisis arising from the outbreak of war between Israel and Egypt. These two crises, as I then pointed out, though, of course, they are inevitably closely allied in our minds, were, in fact, different and required different treatment. To that assessment I still adhere.
With what I may call the Israel crisis, I do not propose to deal to-day, except to make this one comment—and in saying it, I strongly agree with what was said by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last week: that whatever else may be said about our intervention there, it certainly did achieve a number of valuable results. For example, it stopped the conflict between Israel and the Arab States, which might easily have spread and imperilled the whole peace of the Middle East. Secondly, I believe that it was the main cause of bringing the United States into the Middle East. Mr. Gaitskell, in a speech in another place last week, seemed to think that that was a bad thing. He said, rather scornfully:
" We invited them to come in."
I must say that I thought that that was a rather strange doctrine in the mouth of a Socialist. I did not know that they

1149
believed still in Imperialist spheres of influence. I should have thought that anyone would have been glad to see the United States intervening in the Middle East, instead of leaving us to carry the whole burden in that area, as we have done ever since the war. Actually, as I think we all know, Her Majesty's Government had been hoping for a long time that this very result might be achieved, but they had been continually disappointed; and I am sure that it never would have come about but for what happened last autumn.
In saying that, of course, I do not suggest that that was why we acted. We all know that we acted simply to stop the war between Israel and Egypt. But I think that we can at any rate register satisfaction at this by-product of our policy, which I am sure we are all glad to welcome. I imagine that all of us, on whatever side of the House we sit, are in favour of what has come to be known as the Eisenhower doctrine; and the main regret in most of our minds is not that it has been promulgated now, but that it was not promulgated two years before. It would, I believe, have made a very real difference to the situation in the Middle East if it had been. Many of the difficulties which to-day afflict the world might, I believe, have been avoided; and, indeed, the Suez Canal might never have been de-internationalised at all.
However, the Canal was de-internationalised; and that, of course, produced the other crisis, to which I have already referred. And over this, I am afraid I must say quite frankly that it is difficult to register any satisfaction as to the results that have been achieved by the efforts of ourselves and the other free nations concerned. In saying that, I can assure your Lordships that I am not trying to make Her Majesty's Government the scapegoat for the present situation; I am not using this Motion, like some retiring Ministers in the past, as an excuse for having a "whack" at my old colleagues. Not at all. Whatever one may feel about their latest decision to advise British shipping to use the Suez Canal on Nasser's terms—for that is what their statement amounts to—I do not mean to suggest that they, any more than the late Government, have been responsible for Nasser's success.
The responsibility for that, as I see it—and it is a heavy one—must be shouldered mainly, first by the United Nations; secondly, by the Government of the United States; and thirdly, and by no means last, if I may say so, by Her Majesty's Opposition in this country. Of the United States Government it is not for me to speak. It is their duty to do what they think best for their country. That duty, I am quite sure, they always carry out as their conscience directs them, and it is certainly not for us here to criticise them, however hardly their decision may have borne upon us. Nor should I speak to-day of the United Nations—there will be other occasions for that. But I am not, I think, inhibited in speaking of Her Majesty's Opposition, and I hope that I shall be forgiven by noble Lords opposite if I state frankly the views which many of us hold about their attitude at this crucial moment in the world's history.
As I said last week, I can understand very well why noble Lords opposite preferred not to table a Motion in this House; and I have somewhat wondered at the hardihood of their colleagues at tabling one in another place. For if ever, in our long history, any body of men did their best to ensure that the policy of the Government failed, it was the Labour Opposition in another place. Here, I agree, noble Lords opposite were far more temperate—as indeed they frequently are. I am not referring to the attitude of their Party towards our landing in Egypt: that, as I have said, is part of another story, with which I do not propose to deal to-day. But long before that, practically from the beginning of this crucial period, the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters embarked on a course of action which they must have known could only bolster up the morale of Colonel Nasser at the expense of their own country.
We were told last week by the Leader of the Opposition in another place that Her Majestys' Government could have got better terms last October than they could get now. Personally, I do not believe it. I should be very surprised if noble Lords opposite could produce any evidence to-day to that affect. But in any case, even if better terms were obtainable at that time—and I repeat that I do not believe it—it was certainly not because of any support which the Labour Party

1151
were giving the Government to obtain them. Every speech, or practically every speech, made by members of the Labour Party during that period could only have had the effect, as I have already said—and they must have known it—of weakening Britain in the eyes of Nasser and of the world. And that, no doubt, is why all the speeches of Mr. Gaitskell in another place, with, of course, the exception of the first speech, were consistently relayed by Cairo Radio, an honour which was not accorded to speeches of Sir Anthony Eden.
That being the case, to suggest that the Government are the main villains of this particular piece is, I think, mainfestly absurd. They are undoubtedly a Government—and we all know it—who have been striving to do their best to do the right thing in very difficult international circumstances. The only doubt that some of us have is whether, in fact, with the best will in the world, they have done the right thing over their latest decisions about the Canal. It is over this that I believe a good many noble Lords, like myself, have most serious anxieties.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in their speeches in another place last week, gave the reasons which actuated the Government in reaching their decision. No-one could complain of the clarity of those speeches; they were lucid and they were straightforward. Next morning, The Times described the Prime Minister's first speech as a "practical approach "; and that no doubt it was: practical and businesslike, as one would expect. But as I read it, I could not help asking myself: Is a practical approach all that is required in circumstances like these, when the whole principle of international good faith, on which civilisation itself rests, is in jeopardy? Is there not something more needed if we are to retain that moral leadership that is essential for the maintenance of our influence for good in the world?
As I read the debate, my mind went back to those stirring days of 1940. At that time, too, we were facing a successful dictator. At that time, too, we stood alone—far more alone even than we do to-day. But at that time, when I suppose to an outside observer our situation must have seemed absolutely hopeless, the
1152
country was given very different advice from what it had last week. And, as always, the country rose to the level of its responsibilities. Undaunted, at whatever sacrifice, it stood firm; and gradually the free nations of the world rallied to our side. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that that might equally have been the result if we had stood firm now. American opinion is already, as we know, moving rapidly in our direction. Moreover, even with no-one else, France and ourselves control over one-third of the tonnage which passes through the Canal. I personally believe that others might well have joined us if they had been given a strong enough lead, which I am afraid they were not.
In such circumstances, I am bound to say that I have found it rather difficult to accept the suggestion which was made in another place last week that a partial boycott by one or two countries would have been completely valueless. On the contrary, the moral effect might have been considerable. We should have established the supreme importance which we attach to the principle of good faith between nations, which seems nowadays to be somewhat "under the weather "; and by so doing we should, I believe, have regained what we have rather lost—the moral leadership of the world, a leadership which the United States seems rather reluctant to take up.
The late Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, had no doubts at all about the importance of this issue from the moral and material point of view. The House will remember the unequivocal terms in which he spoke of it on this point last autumn. He laid it down as a primary object of our policy that the Canal must be free from the unfettered control of any one man or any one nation. Those, my Lords, were no mere unguarded words, thrown off in the heat of the moment. They were carefully weighed. They had the approval of all his colleagues, the present Prime Minister, and most of the present Cabinet. They, and I myself, were equally bound by them. It is surely impossible, therefore, for any of us who had subscribed to those words now to describe what has happened as a mere "episode."
For that reason, I must confess that I personally should have been infinitely happier if, instead of taking a decision

1153
in the opposite direction, the Government had given the strongest possible lead at the last meeting of the Suez Canal Users' Association, in conjunction with France, for a continuation of the boycotting of the Canal. I believe that the country as a whole would have preferred it. Indeed, I believe, if I may say so with all deference, that in not doing so the Government have seriously underestimated the courage and toughness of the British people, who, I am pretty sure, would infinitely have preferred to pull in their belts than submit to what they regard as a bitter humiliation at the hands of Nasser. That, I think, is strikingly borne out by the results of a remarkable Gallup Poll in the Daily Express of May 16, which showed 64 per cent. in favour of continuing to go round the Cape, and only 28 per cent. against. But whether I am right or wrong about this—and I certainly do not claim to be infallible—I must recognise, and we must all recognise, that that is now out of the question. The decision has been taken, and we must accept it. In these circumstances, the last thing I want to do is to take up a purely negative position. The question now before us is what, if anything, can be done now to build up a stronger position for the future. It is of that, if your Lordships will bear with me for a few more minutes, that I should like to say a word.
There seems to be a comfortable doctrine in some quarters that it is perfectly safe to make a temporary arrangement about the Canal, however unsatisfactory that arrangement may be, on the assumption that the final settlement is certain to be better. But, my Lords, why should we assume that? My grandfather, Who had a long experience of foreign affairs as Foreign Secretary at the end of the last century, and was by nature a realist, had a phrase that he used to use about this form of wishful thinking. He used to speak of, "My old enemy the long run." Do not, I pray you, let us fall into that error to-day. The reason, after all, why we have not got a better arrangement now is that Nasser would not agree to a better arrangement, and I cannot see why that situation should change unless we take some positive measures to see that it does. Unless we take such measures, I gravely fear that either we shall be obliged in the end to accept a
1154
final settlement that is little or no better than the present arrangement, or—and I think this is yet more probable—no settlement will be reached at all, and the present position without a settlement will become a permanency.
Herein, as I see it, lies the importance of the future policy of the Government about which, with all deference, I should like to ask for a little further information. The Prime Minister, in his speeches last week, lifted the curtain for a moment and disclosed something of what was in the mind of Ministers. He said, first of all, that the Government proposed to support France in taking the whole question of the Suez Canal again to the Security Council—a step which, of course, has already been taken. We shall all of us, I am quite certain, warmly applaud that decision. Indeed, I think it is the least we could do for France, who has stood so loyally at our side throughout this business. Moreover, of course, it seeks to reaffirm our position, which is always a good thing. But we must not, I am afraid, expect that any appeal to the United Nations at the present time will lead to really substantial or substantive effects. The Prime Minister himself, in last week's debate, in a reference to Egypt's apparent acceptance of the Six Principles of the Security Council's resolution as far back as October of last year, made the dry comment—and I am now quoting from his speech [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 570 (No. 109), col. 429]:
" …anybody who would think that that was anything approaching an acceptance has had no experience of any negotiations, or must have a very naïve view of what was likely to happen. The Egyptians were obviously relying…on the Russians being able to veto any effective resolution, and, of course, on the feeling…that they would be quite safe to elude and evade the real issue, because they believed that no effective action would be taken against them."
I hope the Government will bear those wise words in mind now. They seem to me to have considerable relevance to the present position.
Now I refer to another point about which the Prime Minister spoke. He told us something about the policy of the Government regarding the building of tankers. He gave a number of extremely interesting figures about the tanker position now and in the future,

1155
and he made the announcement that Sir Matthew Slattery had been appointed to assist the Government in facilitating and increasing the flow of oil from the Middle East to this country. I am sure that that announcement will be welcomed in all quarters of the House. It is quite excellent, so far as it goes; and so, indeed, is the further statement that the Government favoured the construction of additional pipelines to reduce the dependence of Western Europe on the Canal. He did not go into any details about this and I am not going to press the Government spokesman to-day, for I imagine that it is at present a question of some delicacy on which it would be quite premature to make any public statement. I will therefore merely say that if such pipelines can be built that is clearly all to the good.
Where the Prime Minister was less definite was how far it was to be our settled policy to use the Canal at all in future, especially for the transport of oil; and yet I think that, clearly, is of the first importance. It seems to me that our policy in this matter can take one of two forms. We can say, "Our intention is to use the Canal to the full in the future just as we did in the past, but we are taking steps to make ourselves less dependent on it in the event of Nasser misbehaving again." That is one of the lines that we could quite properly take. Or we can say, "It is our settled policy not to use the Canal more than is absolutely necessary from now on, and, in particular, we intend, as our settled policy, to route all shipments of oil round the Cape as soon as we are in a position to do so; and we are taking the necessary steps to make this policy effective as soon as possible."
I rather had the impression, reading the debate in another place, that the Government favour the first of those two courses; for, speaking of the accelerated programme in tanker building, on which I understand we are now embarking, the Prime Minister used these words:
" They will be fast, modern tankers designed for economic operation not only through the Mediterranean "—
I emphasise those words—
" but round the Cape."
Personally, I should feel a good deal happier if he had gone all out for the second policy and had said something on
1156
these lines: "They will be fast modern tankers, designed to make it unnecessary in future to make any further use of the Suez Canal for oil transport. For Her Majesty's Government believe that, in the light of Colonel Nasser's recent actions and present policy, this is the only course compatible with the interests of our country and the principles for which it stands."
No doubt, that policy could not be carried out all at once. It would take, as I am sure I shall be told, several years to bring into full operation. It would involve, first, the construction of new tankers; it would involve a widening and deepening of certain harbours and it would, I believe, both give Britain greater security in the future and make clear to Nasser and to all the world, here and now, what happens when a country destroys the confidence of other nations by a unilateral repudiation of its international engagements. It would, I suggest, be a firm policy and I believe that it would be a practicable policy; and it would have the immense advantage that no one, not even the Leader of the Opposition, could say that it involved an infraction of the United Nations Charter. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Prime Minister's speeches; and perhaps that is precisely what the Government mean to do. If that is so, no doubt the Leader of the House or my noble friend Lord Hailsham will tell us. It will come, I am sure, as a great relief to many noble Lords in this House, and, I believe, to the majority of the people in the country. But I am afraid that anything less will appear to many of us to be inadequate to the situation in which we find ourselves, and will be so regarded by the British people.
There are a number of other questions that I should have liked to ask the Government to-day. What will be the position if Colonel Nasser makes unacceptable demands for compensation in the negotiations which we are about to begin in Rome? What will be the attitude of the Government in the position that has been created by the decision that we shall use the Canal? What will be done to forward the claims of British refugees from Egypt for whom so many of us feel we have some moral responsibility? I do not propose to press for an answer to any of those three questions this afternoon, for I realise that to do so

1157
might prejudice the delicate negotiations which are just beginning. The Government, I am sure, will recognise the grave anxiety with which these particular points are viewed by many noble Lords in this House.
And now, my Lords, I have done. But, as this is my first opportunity of addressing your Lordships since I resigned from the Government, there are one or two things that I should like to say, in conclusion, of a more personal character. It has been my privilege to lead the Conservative Party in this House now for nearly sixteen years. I should like to thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for their consistent kindness and consideration over the whole of that long period. All that, of course, is now past. I am now over sixty and it is, I suppose, unlikely that I shall hold office again. I took my decision and I do not regret it. But there are two reflections I should like to leave with your Lordships. I have served in Governments, on and off, for over twenty years, and two lessons, at any rate, I have learnt which I believe to be all-important for those who are embarking on the shifting seas of politics and, I submit, have a special relevance to our present situation. The first is this. Any foreign policy to be effective must, as I see it, have two essential attributes. It must be firm, and it must be consistent. The main anxiety of some of us, as we have looked at recent events, is whether our present foreign policy takes as full account of those two attributes as perhaps it ought.
I will give noble Lords two instances within the last month or so of what I mean. The first relates to the release of Archbishop Makarios, the issue on which I resigned. I am not going into the whole of that story, because it certainly is not the right time or the right Motion on which to do so; but I should just like to make this one point. In the case of Archbishop Makarios, the Government were at pains to make clear to the Archbishop the minimum terms that were necessary for his release. The Archbishop rejected those terms and the Government immediately released him. Similarly, in the case of the Suez Canal, the question we are discussing to-day, the Government were at pains to make clear to Colonel Nasser our minimum terms for the safe use of the Canal. He
1158
rejected those terms, yet we immediately instructed our ships that they could use the Canal. Were the impression to get about that we were going to make it an ordinary practice (which I feel sure the Government do not mean to do) to switch about like that, I believe that a situation of great danger would inevitably arise, for other countries would come to think that we were always bluffing; and then, when a time came, as it would come, when we felt obliged to stand by what we had originally said, the other party to the dispute might have gone too far to retreat, and then war would be very near. I hope, therefore, that this country will always, so far as possible, stand by what it has first said. I am sure that is the best way of ensuring enduring peace.
The second lesson that I have learnt—and it is one which I think is equally important—is that the true greatness of a nation is not to be measured by the extent of its territories or by its material wealth. It is to be measured only by the spirit which inspires and informs it. That means, in plain words, that a nation, if it is to be great, must always be ready to risk severe material sacrifices, if that be required, in defence of the principles in which it believes. For that, I believe profoundly, is the only way in which ultimate victory for those principles can ever be secured. This, my Lords, is in particular, I believe, true of this country, with its long history and its great traditions. On our recognition of this fact I am quite certain that the survival of our greatness will mainly depend. I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I am sure that we have all listened with intentness, and some emotion, to the concluding passages of the noble Marquess's speech, because he referred to the services—the great services—he has rendered to this House and this country in leading this House over a great number of years. We all hope that in the future—if there should be future Conservative Ministers, he will be among them. If not, I should hope that he would be prominent on the Opposition Benches. I am bound to say that I had rather hoped that in his speech we should have had a little more light shed on the situation.
During the last ninety years, members of the House of Cecil have resigned office

1159
on four occasions. On each occasion there was some big moral issue. There was the great Lord Salisbury, when he resigned from Disraeli's Government; there was Lord Cecil of Chelwood, when he resigned from the Lloyd George Government; and there was the noble Marquess himself, when he resigned a few years before the Second World War. I am bound to say that this resignation seemed to me quite different. In effect, what has offended the noble Marquess has been that the Government of the day has had to face the results of its own folly. The complaint of the noble Marquess is that they will not persist in that folly. He gave the instance, which I need not deal with at length to-day, of the talks with Archbishop Makarios. I recall in this House warning the Government that if they took the action they did with Archbishop Makarios they would have a year of murder and executions, and that in the end they would have to talk. That is exactly what has happened. The noble Marquess wished to carry on that same business which has always proved wrong. It was proved wrong over Ireland and has proved wrong everywhere—it is the idea that if you have something of this kind you can carry on a kind of guerrilla warfare interminably. You have always got to talk, exactly as has happened in regard to the Suez Canal crisis.
One would have hoped that the noble Marquess might have resigned when the act of folly of going into Suez commenced. Not a bit of it! All he resigned over, or objects to, is the clear results that everyone foresaw of this folly. He then, naturally, tried to turn the attack on the Opposition. The Opposition warned the Government of what would happen if, departing from the principles of the United Nations, they insisted on "going it alone" with France. They "went it alone"; they "went it" without consulting anybody. I do not know whether they consulted the noble Marquess—I think he was away at the time.
I noticed that to-day there was great insistence that the Government were unanimous. I have always thought that Governments were always supposed to be unanimous. I can never recall that the Cabinet of which I was head was anything but unanimous; it was always assumed that that was so. I recall that
1160
if anybody challenged any course that the Government took it was usual for him to resign. Apparently, if the noble Marquess had been present on this occasion there would not have been that unanimity. It is a curious matter that the unanimity rather suggests that he was not there. We have been told that the whole threat was started by an intimate group. I do not like "intimate groups" in a Cabinet. I think all Cabinet Ministers must take their full responsibility and give their full advice and assistance.
The fact is that what has happened is something which we all deeply resent, and it is the result of the folly of an action which was both wrong and foolish. The attempt now is to make out that there were two crises, when the whole thing was part of one. The fact was that the Government thought that they could act in the kind of way that Lord Palmers-ton acted many years ago. But he could not do it in the modern world. The fact is that this was a supreme folly. The Government refused to consult anybody. They were constantly attacking the Opposition. How much did they try to get Opposition support? Of course, they told them in advance—ten minutes before! That is what we had from the Foreign Secretary in another place. Ten minutes beforehand, they told the Labour Opposition what they were going to do. They did not consult the Commonwealth; they did not consult the United States of America. There could not have been any greater folly than to go ahead with this plan. Now, they turn round and say that it was all the fault of the Opposition. Suppose the Opposition had stepped in. Would it have made any difference to the attitude taken up by Canada, by the United Nations, by India and Pakistan, and by most of the people of this country? The fact is, that here was an act of folly.
Last night, at a public meeting I was addressing there was an extraordinary person who spoke about a "stab in the back." That is a good old Hitler phrase. If a Government goes into a war that we think is wrong, that we should not say so is quite contrary to the traditions of this country and of this House. It was Lord Chatham who stood up in this House, when we were making war on the Americans, and actually expressed the hope that they won, and said he would never give

1161
in. Through the years it will always be found in this country—and I hope that it will always be so—that if the Government of the day is doing a wrong act the Opposition will not be ashamed to get up and say so. We considered that the act was wrong; we considered it was foolish, and that it was most ineptly carried out. We had every right to say so. I know perfectly well (although I was out of the country at the time) that there was a general feeling of satisfaction that this was only the work of the Government and was not the work of the whole British people.
I am not going over the pitiful story of the advance and the withdrawal. The result was that we got the worst of it all the way round. There was no negotiated settlement. You get the same sort of thing in regard to the termination of a strike. If a strike fails and work is resumed on the old terms, it is not a settlement; it is an enforced surrender. That is all that this is. The Government could not do anything else now. We have lost every point in the game. They have done nothing else but surrender. It is no satisfaction whatever to us that, as the noble Marquess said, we have lost the moral leadership of the world. That should have been thought about earlier, because these imponderables count.
The noble Marquess is quite right in saying that this is not only a matter of arms and ships and territory; it is a moral issue. This action did lose us the moral leadership of the world because all Governments, hitherto, have stood for the reign of law. I do not suggest that the United Nations is satisfactory—it is not; but it is all we have in the way of an international organisation. After all, we are pledged to it. Instead of using it, there was this futile attempt to "go it alone," dragged in with France (which dragged the other in, I do not know)—in fact one of the mysteries of this whole business is who instigated this unfortunate adventure. I cannot find that it was responsible people in Whitehall who advised it. Who advised the late Prime Minister to do it I do not know. We do not even know who were the intimate section of the Cabinet that were in favour of it. But we do know the results. We have to face those results, and only time and the advent of a different Government will expunge those results. The fact is that this Government have destroyed a
1162
great deal of our moral leadership in the world. I can remember three occasions on which this country has stood ill in face of all the world. One was the Boer War; another was Munich and the third is this. It is unfortunate that Conservative Governments, who are supposed to have some conception of the dignity of this country, should invariably drag it in the dust.
3.21 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to preface my speech by supporting the words which have fallen from the noble Earl in tribute to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to whom the whole House, in every quarter, owes so much. We shall miss him from his central position on the Front Government Bench, but we hope, nevertheless, to hear him often from the Bench rather further to the right that he has now adopted.
Having heard two extremely good speeches, your Lordships will not need to be reminded that for about nine months this country has been divided from end to end by various opinions about the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in the Middle East: whether initially it was right or wrong; whether the subsequent advances or retreats or sidesteps, either in action or policy, were good and well-advised, or bad and ill-advised. Genuine criticism and genuine pleas of justification have been advanced; and less worthy moves, based on Party or partisan interest, have, unfortunately, not been absent from the scene. All this makes good Press copy but it is not helpful, and I, for one, am heartily tired of this atmosphere of post-mortem inquiry and recrimination.
The Party which I have the honour to lead in your Lordships' House—small in Parliamentary numbers but, in my humble opinion, of growing size amongst electors who are not always revealed as Liberals—has condemned in no uncertain terms the action taken by the Government led by Sir Anthony Eden, who, incidentally, we are all glad to hear is now in such improved health. We have given our reasons and we consider that subsequent events have justified our condemnation. What matters now is the present and the future; and I am not prepared to go over, again and again, the regrettable actions of the past—whether of last year

1163
or of last month—which we on these Benches consider were not approved, and are still not approved, by most of our fellow citizens in this country.
Since the past cannot be recalled or reshaped, is there any reason, other than that of mere poetic justice, to advocate now the replacement of the present Government, to whom we sit in conscientious opposition, by a Government of another complexion—presumably of Socialist complexion—to whom our conscientious opposition would be of similar intensity? We in the United Kingdom may be unfortunately close to having a two-Party Parliamentary system, but I am convinced that in the minds and hearts of the people of this country no such simple dichotomy exists, and that the voice from these Benches, particularly in regard to Suez, is a representative voice when it says, "A plague on both your Parties!" What we want is that Her Majesty's Government should concentrate upon repairing the damage that has been done; that they should set to work, with our brothers and sisters of the Commonwealth and with our friends and allies of Western civilisation, to get on with the job. Internationally, for centuries past, we have acted from strength, not from weakness. What has happened so tragically in the Middle East seems to be that our Government have failed to keep abreast of the times and to realise that unilateral action, on the scale envisaged by them as being action from strength, is to-day as unpractical for a leading nation—as we still are and will continue to be—as it would be for the smallest and newest State in the world; or even for America or Russia, acting virtually alone in face of world opinion.
To-day, unfortunately, Her Majesty's Government have to recognise a position of some national loss of face. There are two ways of exacerbating this unenviable position, and there is one way of improving it. The two unhelpful ways are, first, that the critics of the Government should continue to cry from the housetops what a miserable situation we are in; and, on the other hand, for the Government to continue to be so "stiff-necked," so preoccupied with their amour propre that they cannot or will not admit that things have gone wrong under their direction and that a new outlook must be adopted. I am totally unwilling to be
1164
a party to prolonging this miserable quarrel at home when so much is waiting to be done in every field of domestic and overseas activity.
The way to improve the position is obvious. Each of the three political Parties has the same aim in regard to the Suez situation. Each wants to see achieved a fair and just solution of a situation which is, at present, not only unfair and unjust but highly inflammable and dangerous. We have before us quite clearly the course of pursuing, soberly and responsibly, the Six Points which are accepted by responsible nations throughout the civilised world as a proper statement of minimum requirements. But all this will take time, and I would plead for greater tolerance between the two major political Parties in this country, so that a sorry situation can be progressively put to rights without the delay and the indignity, both at home and abroad, which continued recrimination and ill-feeling must inevitably create.
3.28 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I have taken part in the whole series of these Suez debates, but up till six weeks ago in the rôle of "follow my Leader"; and as I listened to the noble Marquess I could not help wishing that he had been sitting beside me to-day, because as he spoke I thought how much more effective his reply to his own speech would have been than that which I can hope to achieve. But I was not alone in feeling unhappy and in feeling a gap on the Front Bench, because his humble reference to the service which he was able to render to this House touched us all, and there is in the whole story of Parliament no Leader from our side of the House who has given such distinguished and brilliant service.
When the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, got up, the tone of the debate was slightly lowered. When he said that he never remembered getting up to say that his Cabinet was unanimous the House took his point at once. The only complaint that I have against the Opposition—and I believe it is a legitimate one throughout this series of debates—is that they have never said what they, the Opposition, would do when a free country, a member of the free world, is faced with a situation in which its vital interests and even

1165
its life are threatened, and when the system of collective security which was devised to protect International Law and order simply does not work. In that situation what would the Opposition do if they were the Government of this country? Up till now, they have simply sheltered-behind the label of collective security, when they know that collective security has no substance in fact. If we were to accept the situation that in no circumstances, even to protect its own vital interests, the country concerned should ever use its power, then Communism and barbarism would overrun the free world. If that is the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition then I shall work harder than ever to prevent the domestic catastrophe of the return of a Socialist Government to rule over us.
EARL ATTLEE: No one has ever said that from my side. The Government side have never yet made out the fact of this wonderful danger that is supposed to be hanging over us all the time. They have never managed to produce any evidence whatever of that.
THE EARL OF HOME: Perhaps I shall be able to produce that evidence to the noble Earl's satisfaction this afternoon. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I hope that this is the last of the post-mortems. Inevitably we must retrace our steps to some extent, and I agree with my noble friend that we must recognise that there were two separate crises. It is worth remembering, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, reminded us, that the dispute over the Suez Canal had its origin in a flagrant breach of International Law by Colonel Nasser when he destroyed the Convention of 1888 which was the instrument which gave confidence to the users that the Canal would be treated as a truly international waterway.
The picture has since become so confused that for the sake of historical accuracy I think it worth recalling that the answer of the United Kingdom and France and the other users to that act of piracy was not force; it was to request the Security Council to exercise its authority and to insist that the control of the Canal should rest not with one country but that there should be an internationally guaranteed system for the Canal. After much toil, the Security Council produced the familiar Six Principles as the minimum requirements of the customers and
1166
the minimum basis for a permanent settlement. The Opposition has claimed—I heard the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition make a claim the other day—that in October last we could have got better terms. The Opposition are perfectly entitled to speculate as to what might have been, but there is no evidence whatever to support what the noble Viscount has said. Nasser at that time was negotiating, as he has done ever since, both with the Americans and with Dr. Hammarskjoeld, on the Russian pattern, with the Russian veto always behind him.
The United Kingdom and France and the other users have from the start been consistent over this question of the use of the Suez Canal. We have sought a settlement within the international machinery provided by the Security Council, but we have said that Colonel Nasser has upset the balanced system that existed and he has merely put in its place a regime of his own in which control of the Canal is a purely Egyptian affair. To that, we and the other users are not prepared to agree. There are certain limited signs that the Egyptian Government is beginning to realise that the Canal is not much of an asset to Egypt unless it meets the requirements of the users. Under persistent pressure, Egypt has modified her original declaration in some respects. Tolls are not to be increased in any one year by more than 1 per cent., except by negotiation. A reasonable sum, 25 per cent. of the receipts, is to be put aside for development. Compensation for the old Suez Canal Company is to be fixed not by Egypt but by arbitration. And Egypt has declared that she intends to respect the 1888 Convention and that she will register the Declaration with the United Nations.
Those points go some way towards meeting the Six Principles, but of course there are many obscurities left. The representative of the United Kingdom on the Security Council only last Monday asked some specific questions which must be answered before the Declaration can possibly be converted into a permanent settlement. For instance, how is the compensation to the Suez Canal Company, which may be fixed by arbitration, to be paid? What sanction will Egypt admit upon which the users can rely against unilateral amendment by Egypt of the

1167
Declaration, or, indeed, unilateral withdrawal? These questions could be answered if there were good will. Colonel Nasser could have answered them long ago.
Unless the Egyptian people are blinded by Colonel Nasser's narrow nationalism, they will surely see that Egypt's future interest lies in a fair and permanent agreement with the customers. I have quite deliberately at this point mentioned the Egyptian people, because our quarrel has never been with them, and still less with any other Arab country. We are bound to many of them by ties of alliance and friendship. Substantial benefits have flowed already to the Arab countries from good relations with the great maritime Powers, and there are many of them who set great store by relations of confidence and good faith with the Western world. It is just that rare and precious flower of confidence, of which the noble Marquess so rightly reminded us, that Colonel Nasser has shattered, and this has to be remedied by positive acts of Statesmanship before the unilateral declaration by Egypt can be turned into a permanent settlement. The Egyptian people will, I hope, realise that until confidence is restored the future for Egypt will be dark indeed.
So as far as this part of the question, which deals with the agreement covering the use of the Canal, is concerned, I would reply to the noble Marquess that, by every means—through the Security Council and by every diplomatic means—we shall seek to turn this unilateral declaration into agreement. As he rightly says, and as I shall endorse in a minute, no one can say whether that can be achieved. Although it is well to remind ourselves that we did not intervene in Egypt in a military sense in order to impose the Six Principles, nevertheless it was evident that Nasser's act of seizure of the Suez Canal was only a prelude to much more ambitious plans of conquest. Not only were his plans directed against the United Kingdom and the rest of Western Europe but, as is now evident, against other Arab countries as well. His ambition was a danger not only to Europe then but to the Middle East. And whereas in the whole setting of the Middle East the Canal is an important feature, nevertheless the vital elements in the situation for the United Kingdom and for Europe
1168
were that the sources of oil should remain intact and that the countries of the Middle East should not be brought under Communist domination.
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in one of our debates the other day was counting the cost to the 1957 Budget of the Suez enterprise as somewhere between £30 million and £40 million. Has he ever calculated what would have been the cost to this country if not only the Suez Canal and its transport facilities but also the sources of oil had fallen into enemy hands? If Israel had been annihilated and if Colonel Nasser had taken control from Iran to the Atlantic, as was his boast, not only would Western Europe have suffered greatly but the ruin and suffering falling on the Middle East and Africa would have been beyond calculation. Therefore, in striking the balance sheet to-day—and that is what the noble Marquess set out to do and what I seek to do before I come to the future—I would invite your Lordships to keep your eyes always on the political and strategic objectives of the United Kingdom which I dare to identify with the objectives of the free world.
What is the position roughly, nine months after the October intervention? Russia and Egypt are not in control of the Middle East; the Baghdad Pact has grown in cohesion and purpose, and it has recently had an injection of strength by America becoming a member of the Military Committee. There is no Arab unity under Nasser. He has been exposed to the Arab world as being politically unreliable, economically bankrupt, and militarily a squib. The Americans have committed themselves to maintaining the political independence of the Middle East under the Eisenhower doctrine which we so warmly welcome. Does anybody believe that America would have acted as she did in the recent Jordan crisis if it had happened six months before the United Kingdom's intervention? America has now decided to sustain these countries of the Middle East against Communism. That is a clear gain. The United Nations is on the spot with a force. So far, as I said earlier in my speech, collective security has not been much more than a label; but here is the chance for the United Nations to impose collective security and to sustain

1169
law and right. If there is determination, if they can "grasp the nettle," there is the opportunity to direct a settlement of this problem between Israel and the Arab countries which plagued the world for so many years before the Suez incident.
My Lords, I have never concealed from myself, and I have always thought it certain, that the most promising point of attack by Russia upon the West was through the Middle East. They were baulked in Europe by the Berlin Air Lift and they were held in the Far East, both in Korea and Malaya, and on both occasions, I would remind your Lordships, power was used before Russian intervention was held. That they would launch a plan to disrupt the Middle East and to deny oil to Europe was a certainty. I am not defending every aspect of our intervention in October; but, given that the United Nations had proved itself helpless in the situation, and given that at that time the United States was unable to appreciate the deadly significance in Nasser's moves in alliance with Russia, I doubt whether there was any ideal way to prevent the Middle East from being overrun and plunged into chaos.
But I believe most profoundly that when the historian comes to write the history of the struggle between Communism and the free world he will record that the date of the Anglo-French intervention was the date when Russia was given notice to quit an area of vital significance to the Western world, and I trust he will be able to record, too, that the new unity between the United States of America and the United Kingdom which was born in Bermuda turned the act of the United Kingdom and France into one of the decisive victories of the free world in the cold war.
Those were the two situations: that of the operation and use of the Canal and the attempt to find a Canal settlement through the machinery of the United Nations, and that of the fate and future of the Middle East. We are at the end of these chapters of a story which, as the Prime Minister said, is not yet completed. The immediate cause of this debate has been the reopening of the Canal and the decision of the United Kingdom Government and of the users, with the exception of France, to allow their ships to go through and to use it under protest. The noble Marquess does not like the decision, and there have been
1170
other critics of the line which the Government have taken. I believe that I am justified in asking the critics what is their constructive alternative. Would the noble Marquess really have carried out a boycott conducted by the United Kingdom alone? Would he have prevented United Kingdom shipping from carrying cargoes by the shortest route? Would he have seen custom diverted to our competitors, paid the necessary compensation to the shipowners and financed over an indefinite period the purchase of oil with dollars—dollars which we should have to borrow? To decide not to use the Canal when it was opened would have been a decision fraught with very heavy responsibility for the Government.
The plain truth is, I think, that there were only two practical alternatives: either an international agreement, which we are seeking by every possible means and under which the Canal would be fully developed and fully used as an international waterway serving its customers, or a de facto arrangement under which we should pursue by every means open to us the object of making this country less and less dependent on this Canal. The noble Marquess said that his grandfather was always afraid of the "long run"; he called it "the old enemy, the long run ". It is not by any means certain that even in the long run in our dealings with Colonel Nasser or other Egyptian leaders we shall get a settlement to which we can subscribe. Therefore we must study all the means open to us to minimise our dependence on the Canal.
We must do so by all the means in our power: by new pipelines; by new and larger tankers, for which plans are well under way; by increasing our capacity to produce more steel; by increasing stockpiling of oil in this country and on the Continent of Europe, and by stepping up the search for oil, and for this there is certainly scope in Canada, in North Africa, including Libya, in Latin America and in Europe itself. The Prime Minister has appointed Sir Matthew Slattery to concert and direct the joint effort needed so that substantial independence of the Canal may come within a reasonable time. I hope that this is an answer to my noble friend. It is difficult to be more precise, but my noble friend did not ask me to give more precise details of when we should have

1171
the extra tankers, pipelines and the rest. I think that mention of the appointment of Sir Matthew Slattery on these terms of reference—to give us substantial independence of the Canal within a reasonable time—is the furthest I can go today.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, does the noble Earl mean that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that we are to put ourselves into the position that we need not use the Canal, or that we should put ourselves into the position that we will not use the Canal for these purposes?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that we can use the Canal so far as it suits us to do so and at the same time by these means reach a position in which we do not need to use the Canal if we do not wish to do so. The Egyptian Government and the Egyptian people have a choice which is plain before them. There can be an international agreement, which means the confidence of the users, in which case the Canal can remain a significant artery of commerce, but if Colonel Nasser and the Egyptian leaders prefer to play politics, then the Canal will inevitably dwindle in stature and performance into an insignificant local waterway.
Our action in October, and all that we have done since, has been condemned by some as an intervention—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in effect, said this—outside the stream of twentieth century practice and fashion. But I would ask your Lordships to face up to this position: when so much of the world is practising the law of the jungle, and when the system of collective security is patently not working, there must be occasions on which a nation must use its power, and we have proved in our past history that this power can be used for high purpose. I believe that the time has come when all of us—the Party opposite, if I may say so, the Americans and the United Nations—must study this question of collective security and so organise it that collective power can effectively support International Law and order and right. To-day they are not doing so. And it is because we could not induce them to do so on the occasion in October that we felt bound to use our power to protect our rights and our life.
1172
Therefore, although I feel with the noble Marquess and, I expect, with all Members of your Lordships' House, the frustration of the present—because this country has been frustrated; America has been frustrated and so has the United Nations, and all by a petty dictator under Russia's control—I cannot feel any shame or any repentance because we acted in October in order to save the Middle East and the world from a catastrophe. If we warned off the enemy; if we alerted our friends that international Communism must be met by power (and we devoutly hope that it will be effective, collective power); if we have stimulated the United Nations out of their passive, negative paralysis to accept a positive obligation to promote justice, law and order and the upholding of the right; if, though we find the situation to-day frustrating, or even almost unendurable, as the noble Marquess said, we can show tenacity and endurance, as the British people have done through so many of our long crises, then out of the present frustration, twilight and gloom, hope for mankind may dawn.
3.56 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, there are many noble Lords who wish to take part in this debate this afternoon, and therefore it is not my intention to deal with the wider issues involved in the Government's decision to allow British shipping to use the Suez Canal. The apprehensions which I and some of my noble friends feel have already been voiced, far better than we could voice them, by my noble friend Lord Salisbury. So, in an endeavour to be brief, I will confine what little I have to say this afternoon to the question of the financial talks which I understand begin to-morrow and to the claims of British subjects who have been evacuated from Egypt.
The question of British refugees from Egypt has already been discussed on two occasions in your Lordships' House, and normally I should not have wished to raise this issue in a general debate on Suez and Egypt: I should have preferred to put down a separate Motion. But I cannot forget that the financial talks begin to-morrow, and that the claims of British subjects are to be considered within the ambit of these discussions, so that the matter may be disposed of, for either better or worse, long before I have

1173
any further opportunity of raising the matter in your Lordships' House. For that reason, I feel bound to take advantage of this opportunity to-day to draw your Lordships' attention to the plight of these people.
I have studied what the Prime Minister said in another place but I am still not clear about the scope of these discussions. I am not clear, for example, whether they are to cover the question of compensation for the Suez Canal Company and the expropriation of Government assets in Egypt as well as the claims of individual British citizens. I do not wish to embarrass the Government by asking too many questions about all those matters this afternoon. I would say merely that I am left with the impression that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to press all claims against Egypt, whether they be claims of Her Majesty's Government, of the Canal Company or of private individuals. Certainly this is the impression that has been gained by many of the individuals concerned, and this is causing the gravest anxiety. Perhaps at this stage I should declare an interest, in that I happen to be President of the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society, a charitable organisation which tries to help these unfortunate people in the sad predicament in which they find themselves.
I must confess that I do not know what chances Her Majesty's Government think they have of doing a satisfactory deal with Colonel Nasser. Clearly, Colonel Nasser has been much inconvenienced by the freezing of Egyptian assets and by our boycott of the Canal. Having won hands down on all other questions connected with the Suez Canal, he is anxious to unfreeze his assets and to get traffic moving again through the Canal. I am surprised that Her Majesty's Government should have selected this particular moment to start using the Canal. I appreciate, as we all do, the difficulty of continuing a boycott when many other nations are not willing to do the same, though I confess that on this particular issue I was impressed by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Salisbury. But even if the Government decide that, because they cannot get others to support them, they must eventually cease boycotting the Canal, it seems to me an odd procedure that they should give Nasser
1174
one of the things he most wants only a fortnight before they are to start financial negotiations with him. I should have thought that this was bound to weaken our position at the negotiating table.
In any case, however successfully we negotiate, we surely cannot expect that all the claims will be met in full. Nasser is bound to advance counter-claims in respect of the damage that was done during the Anglo-French intervention at Port Said, and he may well suggest that the claims and counter-claims be written off one against the other. Even if Her Majesty's Government were successful, and if, on balance, negotiations ended in Egypt's paying some compensation, this, too, must surely fall short of the total sum claimed, the global sum. This probability, I know, is causing acute anxiety to British subjects having claims against Egypt. In the circumstances I have just outlined, they fear that either the claims will be written off one against the other, and they will receive nothing, or, at best, their claims will be prejudiced by Egyptian counter-claims arising out of the military operations at Port Said. This, they consider (and I am entirely in agreement with this point of view), would be totally unjust, for there can be no doubt that the sequestration of their property and their expulsion from Egypt were directly due to the action which Her Majesty's Government felt bound to take last year.
In saying this, let me emphasise that I am not in any way criticising the action taken by the Government at that time. I was then a member of the Government; I fully supported that action then, and I support it to-day. What I am saying is that one cannot escape the conclusion, however much one may wish to, that the plight of British subjects is one of the consequences of the action of the Government. These people, therefore, feel that their claims should not be prejudiced by any Egyptian counter-claims, which lie, as they see it—and I agree—against the Government; and, in the event of the compensation received from Egypt falling short of the global sum demanded, that the loss should fall upon Her Majesty's Government.
There is another matter in respect of these individual claims of British subjects which I hope Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind. Most of these claims

1175
arise out of the sequestration by the Egyptians of property, or businesses, or other assets; and it may well be that the Egyptian Government will try to escape their proper liabilities by merely offering to de-sequestrate this property without the payment of any compensation whatever. Such an arrangement would, of course, in the majority of cases, be entirely inequitable. In most cases the property will have deteriorated through neglect; stock will have been looted, and inevitably there must arise such questions as loss of profits, loss of goodwill and so on and so forth. Therefore, I hope that, if any such suggestion is made to the Government, they will, on behalf of these people, who must depend on the Government to put forward their claims, because they are unable to do it themselves, stand up for their rights and refuse to accept any such bargain, which in my opinion would not be in their interests.
At this juncture, I do not expect from my noble friend Lord Hailsham any reply or further information this afternoon. I realise that on the eve of negotiations it would be quite unreasonable to expect him to give a reply. However, I felt it right and proper to put forward in this House this afternoon the views and feelings, as I understand them, of these British refugees from Egypt. They have suffered much hardship in the last six months: they have been driven from their homes; they have been deprived of every possession they had in the world. I know that Her Majesty's Government have done a good deal to help them—and here I should like to pay tribute to the work that has been done by the Board under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Colyton. Nevertheless, the power of the Board to help is, inevitably, extremely limited, and the only thing that can ultimately solve the problems of these people is that they should receive the fullest possible compensation. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will make a special effort in these negotiations to secure the interests of these people. For if, in the outcome, it were to appear that these people had been "sold down the river", there would, I believe, be great indignation not only in this House but throughout the country at large.

ADMIRAL SIR DUDLEY NORTH
4.6 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I should like to make a statement which has just been made by the Prime Minister in another place—and I will use his exact words:
" I will now make a statement on the question raised by several honourable Members regarding the circumstances which led to Admiral Sir Dudley North's relief as Flag Officer, North Atlantic, in 1940. After careful study of all the papers, questions and debates concerned with this affair, I am bound to say that there does not seem to be any difference as to the facts of the case. The orders that were given and the signals that passed backwards and forwards are on record. It has been suggested that there should be a new inquiry into the facts. But the facts are not really in dispute. The question at issue is the interpretation that should be put upon these facts and the wisdom and justice of the decisions reached by the authorities at the time. I must recall to the House that the period was one of perhaps the most acute danger that has ever beset this country. The Battle of Britain was at its height; the French fighting power had collapsed, and grave uncertainty existed as to whether the powerful French fleet might pass into enemy hands, which, had it happened, would have turned the whole balance of naval power against us.
" It is only fair to recall the memories of those anxious days in order to put ourselves in the position of those who had to make the great decisions. In the circumstances of that period the authorities concerned formed the view that they needed a different naval Commander at Gibraltar. I must insist upon the constitutional rights of the Admiralty, and indeed of all those in positions of supreme responsibility, to choose officers in whom they have confidence at moments of supreme crisis. Any other system would be dangerous in peace and fatal in war.
" A careful examination of the records has led me to the conclusion that, so far as concerned the passing of

1177
the French ships through the Straits of Gibraltar, Admiral North cannot be accused of any dereliction of duty. He obeyed his orders as he interpreted them and some blame must rest on the fact that they were not drawn with complete clarity. Nevertheless, in those dangerous days the Admiralty felt that they required at Gibraltar an officer who would not content himself with strict adherence to his orders but who would be likely to show a greater degree of resource and initiative in an emergency.
" I am convinced that, while we all have a deep understanding for Admiral Sir Dudley North in what must have been a great disappointment to him at the height of his career, it is essential in the Services to maintain the principle that the authorities of the day should have unrestricted discretion in deciding to whom they will entrust high command. I very much deprecate the use of the word "dismiss" or "remove" or, still worse,"sack". These are phrases which are quite inappropriate to those difficult decisions in conditions of war. Many officers of high rank in all the three Services were superseded in those harsh days by others who were regarded as more likely to be able to cope with the immense problems and burdens that confronted them.
" In my view a general distinction must be drawn between two things. On the one hand are definite charges of negligence and the like or charges which reflect upon an officer's honour. Any charge of this kind against Admiral Sir Dudley North could not be sustained and I believe that this is generally recognised. On the other hand, the Board of Admiralty have the right and the duty to decide on broad grounds whether an officer possesses the qualities necessary for a particular command. These qualities are not easy to define. One of them is the confidence reposed in an officer by his superior. The degree to which an officer possesses these qualities can never be a subject of an inquiry. It can only be a matter for the judgment of his superiors. And
1178
I must add that the country owes an immense debt to the whole Board of Admiralty, political and professional, as it was constituted in that dark period which led to ultimate victory.
" I am satisfied that Admiral North was not the victim of Service or political prejudice. He has nothing with which to reproach himself. He had 44 years of long, distinguished, and devoted service in the Royal Navy and there is no question of his professional integrity being impugned.
" In these circumstances I do not see that anything is to be gained by an inquiry regarding facts that are well documented and undisputed."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, for letting us have the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I think that the statement as a whole correctly puts forward what ought to be recognised as the proper procedure and practice for dealing with the replacement of officers for reasons of an accrued lack of confidence with regard to a particular post, and I have no quarrel with it at all. On the other hand, there are phrases—I will not refer to them in detail—in this statement made to-day which are somewhat weaker than the case which was so adequately stated by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in July, 1954. But I gather that it is felt that some little concession has to be made to Admiral North to set his mind at rest on things, and therefore these words have been included in the statement.
I have nothing to add to or detract from what was said in 1954. This matter is now seventeen years old, the principal professional participants in the decision are dead, and the only two to whom you can look for any comment upon it are the former great War Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, and myself, who was First Lord of the Admiralty. So far as I am concerned, I take full responsibility for the actions of the Board of Admiralty at that time, and I think the decision taken at that time in regard to Admiral North was completely justified.

THE SUEZ CANAL
4.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, all your Lordships listened with the closest attention to everything that fell from my noble friend below me when he introduced the Motion to us this afternoon, and with nearly everything that he said your Lordships will either have agreed or disagreed, according to all the influences that operate on all our judgments. But there was one observation which fell from the noble Marquess with which every one of your Lordships, wherever he sits, found himself in the sharpest disagreement. That was the observation that my noble friend made in that part of his speech which went right home and touched on our hearts, when he anticipated that he would never again hold office in any Government. I am quite sure that all your Lord-ships would deplore it if that turned out to be a true prophecy, and I shall, with the majority of your Lordships, hope that circumstances, time and events may so conspire together as to make my noble friend, in that respect at least, a false prophet to whom the people need not too seriously listen.
I wholly agree with the noble Earl who leads the House in hoping that this may be the last Suez post-mortem. Post-mortems are never very agreeable things, and although these debates are entirely consonant, of course, with the rôle and duty of Parliament, I think that, on the whole, we shall be glad when we have seen the last of them. It was quite evident from the fashion in which my noble friend introduced the Motion, that a debate such as this was bound, from its inception, to carry somewhat of a double character. It was bound to deal to some extent with the causes that have led up to the action that he deprecates having been taken by Her Majesty's Government, because it was impossible to judge whether that action should or should not have been taken without reference to what had gone before and which, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, made it necessary.
I do not doubt that every one of your Lordships, wherever he sits, is conscious of what my noble friend who leads the House emphasised when he talked about
1180
the feeling of frustration that is general at the present position. I do not myself believe, with respect to him, that it is possible for anybody to bring out anything but a pretty gloomy balance sheet as a result of all that has happened in the last ten months. Even though it may be hoped that there is some sign to-day of a declension in Nasser's popularity and power; and even if, as it may also be hoped, there is an improvement in certain directions in the Middle East, I should like to be convinced, as I am not convinced to-day, that those things are the direct consequence of the action taken by Her Majesty's Government. In my view, it would savour of wishful thinking to assume that the declension in Nasser's power or popularity has yet represented any positive regain of British influence in the Middle East. This sense of frustration and irritation, I suppose, comes from the feeling that, the way things have gone, we have finished by getting the worst of both worlds. The fact that we have suffered, as we have, from the failures and the defections of friends may be true, but it does nothing to relieve our own lacerated feelings.
As I see it, looking over the whole picture, public opinion has been, and to some extent still is, confused over the whole affair. One of the reasons for that confusion, I think, is that, while this sense of irritation and frustration is almost universal, it arises in different quarters from widely different reasons. I imagine that there was general agreement, if I may speak perfectly bluntly, outside Her Majesty's Government that their handling of the United States and the Commonwealth during the critical days before the Port Said landing left much to be desired. But there has never been anything like the same unanimity of opinion upon the other principal criticism that was made by Her Majesty's Opposition, that of the moral loss inflicted by the use of force, in contradiction of the spirit, as they maintained, if not of the letter, of our commitments to the Charter of the United Nations. I say that for the same line of thought as was evident in the admirable speech which the noble Earl who leads the House made to us a few minutes ago.
I happened to be at San Francisco for months with my noble friend Lord Salisbury, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee,

1181
and Sir Anthony Eden, working on the Charter of the United Nations. We all lived with the Charter, night and day, as it slowly but steadily, through many setbacks and many delays, took shape. I am sure that my noble friend below me would agree that there was no question that we asked ourselves more insistently than what might be the effect of the Veto on the future which we were trying to predict and protect. It was obviously impossible then to make any complete answer; and the nearest that anybody could get to the answer was that if the great Powers were agreed, anything would work; but if the great Powers were not agreed, no paper scheme, however perfect, would redeem the loss. And that is, of course, at the heart of what my noble friend who leads the House put to us this afternoon.
Since then, it has, of course, been obvious that the great Powers are not likely to agree and, therefore, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cherwell, has more than once pointed out to us in this House, that no plan of running the world by way of majority voting or abstract notions of equality was likely to be very convincing, continuous or successful. The shape in which the feeling of ordinary people has crystallised, as I see it, on this side of the business is not, therefore, so much one of condemnation of disrespect shown to the United Nations—for this was obviously a very blunt and imperfect instrument—but rather that those who decided on military action, and abandoned it a few days later, could hardly, as we saw it, and see it, have thought out fully the conditions of a successful issue from the venture on which they had embarked.
Everybody can make his own guess at which was the cause of that sudden change of plan. The sharp Party division excited here; the official reaction in the United States; the normal opprobrium that the world so hastily attached to the appearance of an insult to the United Nations; the pressure of finance—whatever the cause, it was to many of us the main ground of difference with Her Majesty's Government that those difficulties should not have been adequately measured and foreseen so that we might have avoided the discredit of a course of action which we could not, in fact, carry through.
1182
My noble friend Lord Salisbury said just now some very strong words about the secret of a strong foreign policy. He said that a strong foreign policy, to be successful, had to be consistent and had to be a policy for which people (the noble Marquess will correct me if I am misquoting him) were prepared to make sacrifices. No doubt, all that is true. But there is another condition too, I think, and that is that no foreign policy is likely to be very successful unless, in fact, you and the people you lead are strong enough to support and carry it out. That seems to me to have been the element that was lacking. Therefore, that miscalculation once made, everything else—the frustration, the getting the worst of both worlds, the humiliation of Colonel Nasser's present terms—seems to me to have been in natural and unavoidable sequence. There is an old French proverb which, as my French accent is not impeccable, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to render in English. The proverb is this:
" He who wills the end wills also the means."
I think it is equally true that he who condemns the end must equally condemn the steps that made the end inevitable.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury was a member of the Government that took those steps, and if he was, as no doubt he was, a convinced believer in that action, I should have thought that the right time for him to resign was when those gears were put into reverse; because, as I see it, that was the moment which decided that Colonel Nasser would be able to get himself transformed before the world from an aggressive gangster into a kind of injured innocent. That was the time. But since he did not resign then, I am bound to say, with all respect to my noble friend, whose judgment I nearly always admire and follow, that I cannot see what is gained now by an attempt on his part to find fault with his late colleagues for making the best of a bad job.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Only on a question of fact, what was the exact moment which the noble Earl had in mind?
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: The exact moment I had in mind was when the military action was suspended and we ceased fire; when we began to come back, and all the rest of it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl would do me the honour of reading my speech of December 11, he will find out exactly—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We cannot hear what the noble Marquess is saying.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:—what I said. I will not trouble the House with it now, but if he would like to wait until the end of the debate, I will tell him then.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: I am always anxious to hear what the noble Marquess may be able to (tell me.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: So are we, but we did not hear what the noble Marquess said.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: I am afraid that I did not hear that. With all respect to the noble Viscount, I am not sure that whatever he is likely to say on this matter, has every relevance to the point I am trying to make; I will judge better when I have heard what he has to say.
A comparison and contrast may, of course, be made between the terms that were propounded at the Security Council last October and the terms set out now by Colonel Nasser, to which, under protest, Her Majesty's Government have advised shipowners and shippers to accede. I suppose it is probably fair to say, as I think was hinted the other day in the Prime Minister's speech, that if anybody but Colonel Nasser had put forward his terms, they might have been judged to merit some discussion. As it is, we are generally agreed that they are unacceptable but, none the less, under protest, are to be accepted as a temporary measure.
It is obviously right to use any means that we can (I was delighted to hear what my noble friend said from the Front Bench) to press Colonel Nasser further towards the acceptance of what I may call the Security Council Principles; and it may well be—and here I agree also with my noble friend—that, as time goes on, there will be means that do not exist to-day of putting further pressure upon him in that direction. Nevertheless, to my mind, that is a different thing from saying that Her Majesty's Government are wrong to-day to advise British shipping in the sense that they have.
1184
I do not quarrel, therefore, with their decision; nor, I understand, does any country of the Commonwealth, and I see very small advantage in making the present position more gloomy by "cutting off my nose to spite my face". When I have but few cards in my hand, and when everybody in the game knows that I have but few cards, there seems to me to be strict and stern limits to the bluff that it is profitable to put up. I venture to suggest that such fundamental weakness is not to be cured and overcome, either by resignation in this House or in another.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must interrupt the noble Earl. He seemed to imply that I resigned on this issue. That is not so.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then who has?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, on a point of order, we on this side of the House should like to take part in this interesting conversation, which seems to be conducted entirely sotto voce.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: It is a most enjoyable debate. I was not able to hear everything that fell from the noble Viscount opposite. But with regard to the question the noble Marquess asked me, I had based myself, perhaps wrongly, on the observation that he made when the Suez statement was made, when he said that he regarded these terms as almost "unendurable". In my own mind, perhaps wrongly—and if so I apologise to him—I had supposed from that that if he had not resigned on one thing he would have resigned on another. If I am wrong about that, as I have said, I apologise.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is what would be called in another place "hypothetical".
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, that was not all I had to say. For the rest, I was basing myself upon some observations that I read, and which were made in another place by Lord Hinching-brooke. I observe that in one debate that took place in another place he said that he thought the situation demanded resignation or resignations, and that this

1185
would do much to restore honour, and the rest of it. That is really what I had in mind, and why I said that I did not think the situation could be so easily cured.
My Lords, may I now come back to what is really the kernel of my thought on this particular matter? How often over the last few weeks there must have come into our minds the wise observation of Bishop Butler—was it not?—who said:
" Things are what they are; the consequences are what they will be. Why then should we deceive ourselves? "
Therefore I would judge it futile on all grounds—political, economic and financial, to refuse to use the Canal, even on terms that admittedly leave much to be desired. But I would add to that judgment two not unimportant riders. First, as the noble Earl said to-day was the policy of Her Majesty's Government, I would do everything in my power, while working for the more acceptable settlement, to promote those developments that might make me less dependent upon the Canal and upon Colonel Nasser. Secondly (this point has not so far been mentioned in the debate, so far as I have heard), we should give Israel all the support in our power in the matter of securing passage through the Canal for her ships—and I am delighted that such support has already been announced by Her Majesty's Government. I shall be greatly surprised if, with patience and persistence, the forces of peaceful suasion that it may be within the power of the United States and the British Commonwealth, acting jointly, to exert, do not make that question a good deal more tractable than it may appear to-day.
For the rest, my Lords, I hope that, when Parliament has concluded these debates, it may decide to look forward, rather than back, and that present differences on these issues, whether between the political Parties or within the Parties, may yield to the prior importance of all countries coming again to know that this nation can, on international affairs, speak with a single voice in the councils of the world.
4.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I hope that I may begin by asking the House to accept an apology, because it so happens that, this debate having
1186
been arranged at fairly short notice, I have an engagement tonight from which I cannot extricate myself. I therefore trust that those noble Lords who follow me, especially my noble and learned friend the Deputy Leader of the House, will absolve me from any discourtesy.
My Lords, I suppose that there has been no more wanton and foolish manifestation of hyper-nationalism in the world than the destruction by the Port Said mob of the statue of de Lesseps at the entrance of the Suez Canal. Here was a man who, by his courage, vigour and determination, overcame a great deal of opposition and obloquy, not least from this country, and made an immense contribution to the welfare of Egypt. His offence now is that he was so misguided as to be a Frenchman and not an Egyptian. Although the statue may have disappeared, I am told that the plinth remains, and on it is still to be deciphered the Latin inscription "Aperire terrain gentibus"—" To open the world to the nations."
That terse inscription surely exactly embodies the whole purpose of the 1888 Convention for the preservation of the free navigation of the Canal and for ensuring that the shipping of all countries should not be interrupted even in the event of war. That great international instrument and great international doctrine has survived the hazards of two wars, and was sternly maintained in 1935 in face of great pressure upon the League of Nations to close the Canal to Italian troop and supply ships during the invasion of Ethiopia. It was left to the Government of Egypt to violate that doctrine quite a number of years ago, and to follow up their original violation in a mood of injured insolence last July by the nationalisation of the Canal.
It was exactly the principle underlying that inscription and that Convention that was the inspiration of the words used by Sir Anthony Eden to which my noble friend Lord Salisbury has already referred: that the Canal must not be left under the unfettered control of any one country. It did not stop there, for, after all, that principle was again singled out amongst the Six Principles decided upon by the Security Council in October last, when it laid it down as one of the acceptable terms that the operation of the Canal must be insulated from the politics of

1187
any one country—a phrase which, if my memory is right, owed its origin to the ingenuity of Mr. Dulles.
That was, and is, the position. I think that however many veils of conditions and qualifications people may wish to hang over the basic principle, we must not let that recollection escape us: that in all this matter we have to come back to that essential principle of the freedom of navigation by all countries of the Suez Canal. Until that principle is not only asserted but effectively guaranteed, the Egyptian Government may have got their dues but we shall not have got ours. I say "effectively guaranteed" because, after all, this is not a matter of yesterday. My noble friend referred to the Israeli shipping. That situation has now obtained since 1949. The fact remains that those ships have been prevented from going through; and although, no doubt, the position was exacerbated by the fact that they were Israeli ships—since the mere existence of Israel was anathema to the Egyptian Government—nevertheless, if it be Israeli ships yesterday and to-day, it may just as well be British or any other ships to-morrow and the day after.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, from that not unimportant point of view, we cannot afford to turn away our eyes. It is a matter of great moment. The whole position has now been before the country for a long time and has been meticulously dissected in debates in a series of post-mortems. Like other noble Lords who have already spoken, I would hope that this may be the last one. It has been my task to take part in and to bear some share of the responsibility for expounding and defending the policy of Her Majesty's Government in a number of debates on this subject. The position as I see it now and the immediate decision come to by Her Majesty's Government which has evoked this debate is one which, in my view, is inescapable.
For my own part, I cannot understand how it can be argued convincingly that we, in the economic position in which we find ourselves, could afford the luxury of splendid isolation in regard to the user of the Canal by our ships when our competitors were availing themselves of all the advantages of time and distance which
1188
the Canal was originally designed and carried out to provide. The Prime Minister has said that this decision marks only a stage; and I, and I believe all of us, profoundly hope that that is true and that that stage will not be allowed to crystallise into permanence; because we have not yet re-established the basic principle to which I have referred.
My Lords, I believe that the present position that we have adopted in deciding to support the French in bringing the matter back to the Security Council is right, although one is bound to say that experience of the Security Council in this matter hitherto has not been overwhelmingly reassuring. But I am not satisfied that we have all the time in the world to handle the matter. I observed a statement in the Press this morning, made, I believe, by a spokesman of the Israeli Foreign Office, that Israel was proposing to send a ship through the Canal "at the appropriate time." It is for Israel to judge whether she takes that action and for her to judge what the appropriate time may be. I say no more on it than that. But that same statement contained another indication. It said it might be that Egypt would take the matter to the International Court; and even in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, I want to say a word about the position of the International Court in the whole of this affair, because the suggestion that that Court should be brought into service in some form and used to promote a solution of these difficulties has been considerably canvassed in various organs of the Press and in different countries.
There is this to be said about the International Court: it is one to which, of course, every member of the United Nations has the right to belong; but that does not mean that the jurisdiction of the International Court can be compulsorily imposed upon an unwilling member of the United Nations unless that member has already declared that it will accept compulsory jurisdiction. It would be not uninteresting to know whether Egypt has made that declaration. The position is that if Israel were to bring the matter before the Court, Egypt would not be obliged to present herself before the Court or to argue her case unless she had accepted the compulsory obligation.
A position which we ought to bear in mind is this, too. Suppose the International Court pronounced a judgment

1189
which was unfavourable to Egypt. How many of us would have confidence that, in those circumstances, the Egyptian Government would be prepared to accept that judgment? After all, ever since July, 1951, there has been a finding of the Security Council which Egypt has flatly refused to recognise and upon which she reserved her position even when it was pronounced; and although we often point out in the course of discussion that the Security Council condemned Egypt over her interference with Israeli shipping in 1951, we do not always remember, perhaps, how specific and cogent were the terms in which that condemnation was couched. The members voting were this country, France, the United States of America, Brazil, Ecuador, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Yugoslavia—eight for the resolution. There were none against and only three abstaining—China, India and the U.S.S.R.
Your Lordships will remember that the Egyptian claim is, and always has been in regard to this position (and here I am dealing in general terms, with no particular reference to Israel but referring to the whole condemnation), that she was forced, or at least entitled, to take these actions because they were taken in defence of Egypt. What the Security Council found on that was that:
" The practice of interfering with Israeli shipping cannot, in the prevailing circumstances, be justified on the ground that it is necessary for self-defence."
That is a complete rejection of the main Egyptian contention on this point. The other finding of the Council was in very stern language. It called upon Egypt:
" to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping and goods through the Suez Canal, wherever bound, and to cease all interference with such shipping."
While that was directed specifically towards an Israeli situation, at the same time it is general in its application. That, I think, we ought to bear in mind in pursuing this matter further before the Security Council.
About the position of the International Court I only want to say this further word. I am not quite clear what action the International Court is supposed to take. If it is only an advisory opinion that is required—an advisory opinion on a matter of fact—it will not be of very much value. Moreover, it is rather a strange situation if the Security Council
1190
is now going to ask the International Court for an advisory opinion on a matter of fact which was the basis of the decision it took some six years ago and has repeated on various occasions ever since. I confess that I find it difficult to see where the law appears in this matter; it seems to me outstandingly a question of fact which ought to have been dealt with by the Security Council.
I would call the attention of the House to this point. Supposing the International Court does pronounce a judgment against Egypt; supposing the not very unlikely sequel that Egypt rejects that judgment and fails to act as prescribed, Article 94 of the Charter deals with the situation. It states:
" If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party…"
—that is, the party having successfully got a judgment from the Court which the guilty party refuses to carry out—
" may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment ".
So you have gone round a complete circle—starting from the Security Council, and coming round, by devious and prolonged methods, back to the ultimate goal of the Security Council from which you started. That is why, without the least disrespect to the International Court, I venture to doubt whether reference to that Court in these particular circumstances is likely greatly to advance matters.
There remains, of course, the Security Council. One of the tragedies of the post-war years is that the United Nations has failed to unite the nations. We have gone on, perhaps inescapably, at the United Nations with countries taking a subjective view based on their own immediate national interests, rather than a more objective view which would be framed in the United Nations outlook. It may be that this is inevitable in the circumstances. We cannot forget, however, that over the whole of the deliberations of the Security Council there broods the shadow of Russia with the Veto always poised in its hand. I have heard it said by not a few people (I think it was said by the Leader of the Opposition the other day in a debate in another place) that the time has come when we should recognise the arrival of

1191
Russia in the Middle East and come to an accommodation with her. That, again, seems to receive the assent of some part of the Front Bench opposite.
What is the position? Russia is not in the Middle East because she desired to do commerce with Egypt: she is there as the result of a deliberate policy of intrusion, in order that she may, so far as possible, interfere with and discredit every move made by the West. One cannot simplify the world to-day to the point of saying that Communism is the whole source of subversive and disturbing movements which affect the peace and tranquillity of the world. None the less, it is the dominant factor. If anyone doubts that, let him put to himself the test question: What would happen if to-morrow the Russians declared, in circumstances which gave some probability that that declaration would be maintained, that the doctrines of Communism were from now onwards an export reject; that they would be retained for the delectation of the people of Russia; that they would be no longer put into circulation for the benefit of the people of other countries? If that declaration were made, it would transform the world overnight. I realise that the possibility is, in the circumstances, sufficiently remote, and I put it only to point a test of what I had in mind. It may perhaps be permissible to make a suggestion to Mr. Bulganin in the words of a couplet of Dr. Johnson's:
" Deign on the passing world to turn thine eyes
And pause a while from letters to be wise "
But it is, I fear, too deep in the ethics of Leninism for us to hope that anything of that kind can take place—anyhow for the time being.
But what are we being asked to do if we are being asked to make an accommodation with Russia in this sphere? Many of your Lordships will have seen a statement by the Prime Minister of Iraq, only a few years ago, on the subject of his fears of the effect of Communism on the people for whom he is responsible. Your Lordships will realise that the dynastic quarrel which has persisted for so many years between Saudi Arabia and Iraq has been greatly mitigated, if not altogether expunged, by their common fear of Communism in their countries.
1192
There is, again, Lebanon. There are, moreover, the Rulers of the Gulf Straits and, going further North, Iran and Turkey. Does anyone imagine that we are going to be able to make any accommodation with Russia, of a satisfactory kind in that part of the world which would not involve the destruction of the Baghdad Pact. That is a price which I, for one, should be wholly unprepared to pay. It would be, I think, too great a sacrifice of the interests of those who, even though they may not always be prepared to collaborate with us (at least in their less balanced moments) understand our position and share many of the doctrines which are of such vital importance to ourselves. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be in many ways a betrayal of their position if we were to set about attempting to make an accommodation with Russia in the Middle East. We must go on making every effort that we can to bring back, with the assistance of all those who agree with us, a state of affairs in which, above all, we can once again establish this principle of the sanctity of passage through the Canal.
My Lords, I should hope, in spite of all that has been said, in spite of all that may still be said, in spite of the immediate acerbities of this particular controversy, we may in the future, in endeavouring to come to a solution which will be of lasting benefit to us, and not only to us but to all those who share our views and partake of like interest, move towards it, not alone but with the united support of other parties in the country, who will give to our efforts their combined and compelling strength.
5.1 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, my first duty is to apologise to the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader that I shall be unable to be present at the conclusion of the debate as I have an appointment with a national charity this evening. When I knew that the noble Marquess was going to raise the Motion on the statement of May 14 this month, my only fear was that a statement which should be strictly confined to the immediate issue of the Canal would spread out and spill over into the surrounding confusion of the Middle East. So far we can congratulate ourselves that that has not been the case: but I say with respect, that

1193
my pointed criticism and my quarrel with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is that he did do just that, as he attributed the Middle East crisis not to the events of October 26 last year, but to those of October and November last year, and that was, I think, entirely to distort the origin of this quarrel of ours over the Canal.
I have always held that the Arab world received scant justice from the world when the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which promised a National Home, ended up by the creation of a national State; and it is against that background that I have in this House on several occasions contributed to debates covering the Middle East. But the time has come, it seems to me, when we can perhaps isolate our difference with Egypt over the Suez Canal from the enduring problems, and that is why I now intervene in this debate. Egypt was, in fact, never included in the area in which Arab independence, was promised after the First World War. Nevertheless, we had to accept as a fact that Egypt was accepted by the Arab League as the official focus of all their interests. Now, quite suddenly, Egypt's position in the Arab League seems to be open to doubt, for the first time for several years, and I feel justified in approaching the Suez Canal problem as an isolated problem and judging the situation on its merits.
When the noble Earl, Lord Home, on May 14 repeated in this House the statement by the Prime Minister, my first reaction was that Her Majesty's Government were "trying to get it both ways": on the one hand the Canal was to be used, and on the other the status quo ante was still to govern the situation. I do not dispute the decision to refrain from advising shipowners not to use the Canal. I have come to the conclusion that one cannot dispute the wisdom of the decision, all the more so, perhaps, when one studies the statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in his capacity as President of the Chamber of Shipping. I have come to the conclusion that in all the circumstances the decision was inevitable. But because, in certain circumstances, a decision is inevitable it does not seem to me that one should resist the trend; and it is because, as I see it, certain Members of another place have revolted against the trend that I think
1194
the time has come to see what should be the next step. A general trend is something which can surely be distinguished from a decision which is thrust upon one in certain circumstances; and so I ask what the next step can be.
The Prime Minister, in another place, said that this is not a satisfactory settlement, and the reason is that it is not a settlement at all; it is a unilateral declaration by Egypt which can be changed by Egypt at will. In particular, the most fundamental of the Six Principles, which said that the Canal should be isolated from the politics of any country, has not been met. I join with the noble Marquess in deploring the shameful way in which an international agreement has been torn up; and it is in some bewilderment at this late moment in the story that I venture some comments on the legal aspects of the case, as it seems to me that perhaps they have not yet been sufficiently exploited. If I attempt to follow the noble Marquess who has just commented on the position of the International Court I do so with some trepidation; but in fact I am hoping to comment not on an application to the Court regarding the right of Israeli ships to go through the Canal, but on the actual status of the Canal itself.
Now I am told that if the question of the status of the Canal could be put to the International Court, it would, in fact, probably support the view that the Canal is not French or international but is Egyptian. But it by no means follows that for that reason the nationalisation of the Company, as decreed by the Egyptian law of July 26 last year, is lawful, because we then enter the sphere of the rules of International Law which govern private property, and, as I understand it, those rules are extremely obscure.
Your Lordships will remember that when we debated this matter in August last year, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor drew our attention to the fact that the Preamble to the Convention of 1888 linked that Convention indissolubly with the Firman of 1866 which governed the Concession; so that when the Convention of 1888 was signed, it was signed in the firm belief that the Concession would be honoured and would run its full course till 1968. That view was supported by the noble Lord, Lord McNair.

1195
Now we hold that the 1888 Convention has already been broken. But Egypt—and this is where I may be enlightening the noble Marquess—as I see it, on April 24, in paragraph 9 of her unilateral declaration said that she was ready to take any differences regarding the 1888 Convention, any quarrels over its application, to the International Court. This is what the Egyptian Government said:
" Differences arising between Parties over the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention of 1888 shall be referred to the International Court of Justice if they have not been solved by other means. The Government of Egypt shall take the necessary steps to accept the decisions of the International Court of Justice, which are binding according to the provisions of Article 36 of the statute of that court."
My point is this: that, so far as I know, Egypt has not yet accepted the compulsory clause of the International Court and is still, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the Court. That position was put to the Security Council by Sir Pierson Dixon the other day, and so I ask this question: should we, or should we not, now insist that the Security Council hold Egypt to her promise in this matter?
In all humility I ask, what is the next step that we should take? Apart from all the legal pros and cons of this case, there is surely no need to be prisoners of our doubts about the legal interpretation. The fact is that for eighty-seven years the nations of the world used the Canal in the belief that it would pass to Egyptian ownership through a rational smooth process governed by the various concessions. Surely there is all the difference between such a gradual, and indeed amicable process of transition, leading to a completion in 1968, and the sudden and shameful blow we received in 1956. It seems to me incredible that there is anybody who is willing to support the Egyptian case. The nations of the world are not intended to be slaves of the law at the expense of international justice, and it would be a sad day, if through a recognition of a nation's right in law to nationalise the Canal, we should ever reach the point when no nation would dare to sign an international bilateral understanding with another nation—because, as I see it, that is exactly where this process leads to.
I pin my faith on the statement made by the noble Earl the Leader of the
1196
House on May 14, when he gave us the assurance that the Six Principles laid down by the Security Council would be adhered to at all costs, even though, in the interim, we might have to keep the Suez Canal Users' Association in being. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 203 (No. 67), col. 641]:
" …it is through the Security Council…that we should endeavour, in every possible way, to secure the Six Principles, so that a unilateral declaration may be turned into a permanent agreement."
Since then, France has taken the initiative. We all know how the Security Council can fail—we have had our attention drawn to that this afternoon—and it is tempting to shrug one's shoulders and say, "Here is one more failure round the corner." My own feeling is that we have reached a very critical stage in the evolution of international affairs, a stage when we have either to make or break the United Nations. We have to take a decision some time, one way or the other, and in these circumstances the wise thing seems to be to work the Security Council to death; to work it so that it will either prove itself or break down. In this case, it has to satisfy the Users' Association that any formula that is produced will be near enough to the Six Principles to permit us to pass from an interim arrangement to a permanent agreement. If that fails, then, I repeat, the day seems to be very near when the great Powers will have to get down to discussing ways and means of regulating the United Nations system—which might envisage anything from revision of the Charter to abolition. If, every time we meet, we are to be up against this frustration, it would be much better to put the clock back and not meet, but to try to rebuild the world on a framework of regional arrangements.
I have one other comment—that is, that it would surely strengthen our hands in the United Nations if it were understood that we and the French could state our views before the Security Council not only on our own behalf, but also on behalf of those other members of the Users' Association. There was a passage in the noble Earl's statement on March 14, which seemed to indicate that that was the position. It would be reassuring to hear that the Users' Association are still regarded as an effective and active body, still exercising their right of negotiation from an agreed and common

1197
approach. So I ask: What is the position of the Users' Association to-day? We all know that a team of eleven is something much more than the sum total of eleven individuals, and I ask: what measures are being taken to hold the team together? I have added these comments not in a spirit of commendation or censure, but only in a spirit of inquiry, because I believe that that is a spirit that is going to be most helpful to the future development if we are to secure our rights under the Suez Canal arrangements.
5.16 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, it is with a sense of sadness that I rise to support my noble friend's Motion; sadness because I was proud of the greatness of our country, proud of its achievements and its position in the Middle East and its influence for good both there and elsewhere. Now I am sad because of our ignominious climb down in regard to the Canal Zone. Our action in the Middle East, though belated—and it was belated—was based on sound policy, not only on account of Nasser but because of the danger of Russian penetration in Egypt. Our mistake was the great failure to go on in spite of the United States and the United Nations. What I believe nearly all of us want to know is: Is this process of slither to go on?
We have made a series of mistakes, beginning with Abadan. Then we should have insisted on the Canal being passable by shipping of all nations, including Israeli shipping. Then a grave mistake was made in evacuating the Canal Zone. It was probably due to United States influence, particularly business and oil influence, that we were squeezed out of Abadan and subsequently out of the Canal Zone. No doubt we have many individual friends—I repeat, individual friends—in the United States; but the United States State Department's action has been definitely hostile to us, and United States business influence has been anything but friendly. Then there is U.N.O. which, influenced by the United States, has been very far from friendly indeed.
In the opinion of many of us, the Government should recognise the seriousness of the situation and the humiliation which is involved in it. There is the maltreatment of British nationals in Egypt, which has been very serious, and, in addition, there are the charges that
1198
are being made against four of them. The Government should take the opportunity of taking the strongest possible attitude regarding this matter. So far, Nasser has scored heavily; and in the East "Nothing succeeds like success". It does not matter whether a policy is right or wrong, just or unjust, if it succeeds and its author "gets away with it". The converse also holds good: if you try and do not succeed you are thought to be no good and a failure.
Our attitude towards Nasser should be one, I do not hesitate to say, of utmost hostility, particularly financial hostility. Not a sixpence of frozen sterling should be paid to Nasser. From those credits, British subjects who have been robbed and expelled should be compensated. There should be no help, financial or otherwise, to Nasser, and any help by the United States should be regarded by us as being an unfriendly act on their part. There should be no question of assistance to improve the Aswan Dam, nor of any other use for Egyptian purposes of the upper waters of the Nile. It is probably too late now, but we should have dealt with Nasser as we dealt with Arabi; that is to say, by the use of armed force. The position now is that we may be cut off not only from the Persian Gulf, Aden and East Africa, but also from Malaya, Hong Kong, India, Australia and New Zealand. The historic central position of our Navy in the Mediterranean is a thing of the past. Is there any Government proposal for improving the situation?
Then there is the question of our relations with France. The British decision to accept American advice over Suez has put France in a very difficult position. Part of our difficulties is due to our having prematurely recognised the Neguib-Nasser régime. Any obligations we may have had towards a legitimate Government in Egypt were certainly not applicable to a revolutionary one. We have heard a good deal of nonsense talked about Nasser's right to nationalise the Canal. I suggest that he had no such right. The Suez Canal Company is an international company. The Canal was constructed by foreign, and largely French, skill and enterprise across a barren strip of desert which in those days had practically no inhabitants. A very large shareholder in the company is Great Britain. I wonder what the United States' reaction would be if there were a proposal

1199
to nationalise a company in which they were a large shareholder.
Then there is the matter of the Sinai Peninsula. This does not, I suggest, belong to Egypt, either by right, or by law. The old boundary of Egypt ran from Suez north-eastwards to Rafa. A very close watch on Suez and the Canal could be maintained if the Sinai Peninsula were taken over by Great Britain, as I suggest it might well be. The Gulf of Aqaba could, in that case, be kept open by us. Then, surely, Her Majesty's Government should try to rally all Canal-using nations against Nasser, and should make it known that there will be no financial help for Nasser of any kind. If necessary, I suggest that we should blockade Egypt both from the Mediterranean and from the African side—that is, of course, only if Nasser is completely hostile and if we can get no concessions of any kind.
Surely, Her Majesty's Government should act. It is action that is required, and we should not sit down either under United States' or United Nations' direction. If they do not like our action, let us resign from the United Nations, which is, in any case, completely useless and powerless. The United Nations Organisation is a conception of a former President of the United States who, like many other Americans, knew nothing about the world outside the United States. The United Nations include many petty and semi-civilised States, but all have equal voting rights, which is a hopeless state of affairs. No nation takes any notice of the United Nations if it does not pay it to do so, or if it is inconvenient to do so. One has only to recognise the action of the United States as regards the Panama Canal Zone, and her action against Guatemala; one has only to realise the action of Nehru against Kashmir, and last, and the worst case of all, the action of Russia as regards Hungary. Nobody takes any notice whatever of the protests of the United Nations. We want to be friends with the United States, but not dependants, and, still less, obsequious servants. If they want to be friends, they should endeavour to see our point of view, and work with us, and not merely we with them. I hope that we are going to see some Government action, and strong action, as regards affairs in Egypt, and particularly our relations with Nasser.
5.26 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My noble friend Lord Halifax said that he found in the public feelings of frustration and irritation. I think he is entirely right there; but I would add that, wherever one goes round the country, one finds a feeling of deep humiliation. Having said that, however, one need not in any way connect that with condemnation of the actions or the policy of Her Majesty's Government that has led up to this situation. Every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate has started off by saying that he hoped there would be no more post-mortems. Each noble Lord has then spread the corpse upon the table, has taken the knife and has done a pretty good dissecting job; and my noble friend Lord Halifax wielded his knife with such skill that I think he exposed every vital organ of the political corpse.
The only probe I wish to make is this. If one has to search for criticisms of the actions of the Government—and whether one is an opponent or a supporter, all of us search for the weakest points, in order that we may learn our lessons for the future—I would say that the criticism to be made is that at the end of phase I the Government relied too much on the immature and the ineffective. They relied on immature American support, moral and practical; on an America which is immature in political matters in the Middle East, where successive British Governments have during the last twenty-five years been the only Power that has tried to support that rather crazy structure. Then they have relied too much upon the ineffective, in the form of the United Nations Organisation, which has certainly not measured up to the responsibilities which its supporters and advocates hoped it would. From those two criticisms we undoubtedly have lessons to learn for the future. The chief lesson, it seems to me, is not one which we shall debate to-day, but one which is appropriate for consideration by your Lordships' House on some future occasion—namely, the reorganisation and strengthening of the United Nations, which, as my noble friend Lord Halifax said, was founded in San Francisco in 1945 in the hope of creating a better world; though, unfortunately, as subsequent events have shown, that has not come about.

1201
The only other little probe I would do in the post-mortem relates to the, to me, rather unctuous rectitude of the Party opposite, who seem to disclaim all responsibility and claim all wisdom—" hindsight ", I believe, is what the Americans call it—in respect of the Suez situation. Noble Lords opposite and their Socialist Government must bear their share of the responsibility. They were in power in 1951, when Egypt defied the 1888 Convention and forbade the passage of Israeli ships. I grant that nothing has been done by the United Nations since that time, so that successive Governments must equally share the blame. But do not let noble Lords opposite say they are pure in heart because of that.
LORD PAKENHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, surely he cannot say that the responsibility for what occurred last year must be equally shared. That is, if I may say so, a travesty of the usual attribution of responsibility.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Shared between the two. I am not allocating exact proportions. What I am saying is that to come and say, "We have no responsibility; our policy has been right; our forecasts have been right, and our actions in the past have been entirely pure ", is a political hypocrisy which does not go down in the country.
LORD PAKENHAM: I gather that the noble Lord has retracted the word, "equally" which he used just now. He is now apparently anxious to give us the impression—will the noble Lord allow me to finish? He has been kind enough to give way to me, and I will lapse into silence in a moment. He now wishes to give the impression that he has withdrawn the word "equally".
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Not at all. I used the word "equally" as meaning "both"—both sharing a responsibility, not necessarily in equal proportions. I do not think noble Lords can avoid their share of responsibility. In the words of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, the Opposition "bolstered up Nasser's prestige." There was the deplorable visit by a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council to Nasser, and also the visit of Dr. Summerskill, which I think as a nation we deplore, even though some sections of her Party may approve.
1202
Enough of the post-mortem, so far as I am concerned. I should like, for a few moments, to turn to the future.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury put this question: What can be done to build up the future? What does the future hold, and how are we prepared to deal with it? It seems to me that there are two possible broad approaches. First, you can believe in accommodation with Nasser, and that, having gained his purpose, he will respect the obligations, which he says he is going to do. I think there is a danger of the United Nations Organisation drifting into the position that where what is a temporary and unsatisfactory position may become a permanent settlement. The second alternative is that you can believe that Nasser is a dictator, with all that that implies in terms of distrust and chicanery, and that he is right to use any means to retain his position. I must say it is an extraordianry position that he has attained, with a Navy that surrendered, an Army that did not fight and an Air Force that would not fly. Yet here he is, riding high politically. If you believe in the latter alternative, as I do, that you cannot deal with this dictator, you must prepare your policy accordingly.
Then we come to the next question: What should be our policy? We cannot "go it alone ". I do not believe we can rely on going to U.N.O. in its present state. Here, if I may be allowed to say so, I come to the one point which I felt was inadequate in the speech of my noble friend Lord Salisbury. Not one mention was made by him of the Commonwealth. I should like to see us try to "go to it" as a British Commonwealth and Empire unit. As world political and economic troubles surround us, we see to our cost, as each situation arises, the lost years of opportunities for closer links in defence, economics and politics with the Commonwealth. I know that I shall be told that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers are coming soon, and that we are all very close and friendly. I do not believe that is enough. I believe that, so long as there exists in U.N.O. the American bloc, the Afro-Asian bloc and the Western European bloc, we should try to get a British Commonwealth bloc (excluding those parts of the Commonwealth that are already committed to the Afro-Asian bloc), which would have

1203
a tremendous moral influence, as well as material power, in the councils of the United Nations.
It seems to me that we have never tried to act together with what I term a "full head of steam" in the Commonwealth. With regard to defence, there are rumbles of discontent about the cohesion of Commonwealth defence. Economically. I must say that we do it very half-heartedly. I am always reading Ministers' speeches on how much pride they take in assuring Europe that we are good Europeans; and we have the Strasbourg Assembly and the project for a Free Trade Area. Why not let us take the offensive, instead of the defensive, in Commonwealth affairs, and hear Ministers' saying that we are good Commonwealth men, rather than giving a priority to saying that we are good European men? Why not have a Commonwealth Assembly like the Strasbourg Assembly? Why not have greater stimulus for trade? If we tried to combine more closely in the Commonwealth, I believe that we could talk to Nasser, both directly and through the United Nations, with a Commonwealth voice, which must be much more powerful than a single British voice.
We could shape as a Commonwealth policy, and not as a single unit, a policy that would avoid dependence on the Canal in the way of ships and docks. We would seek justice for British nationals, not as a single unit, but as a Commonwealth unit. We would seek to make treaties—and that is one of the tasks we have to tackle with the Arab countries in the future—so as to ensure supplies of oil, apart from their transport. We would try to do that as a Commonwealth. We could as a Commonwealth enter into the unsettled question of Israel-Arab relations. We could as a Commonwealth approach U.N.O., and reproach U.N.O., for its own impotence.
My plea is that it is not too late, but that there is little time remaining for a big Commonwealth effort. Mr. Shinwell, in another place, made a most remarkable speech the other day. I am not allowed to quote him, so I must paraphrase his speech. He said that people talked about this country being no longer a great military Power, and he agreed that it was not. He said that no country
1204
could be a military Power in the nuclear age, but he did say that, when it comes to our economic potentialities, associated with the Commonwealth of nations we are still a first-class country with remarkable possibilities. He said that he disliked intensely this denigration of our country, and that it can do us no good at all. Commonwealth matters are not Party matters. They rise far above Party, and I believe this is almost the last chance we shall have of trying to make a Commonwealth unity. But if we make the effort, we can approach the Suez problems, the Israel-Arab problems, in a way which has a prospect of success far greater than if we try to "go it alone," and not as the centre of the Commonwealth.
5.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think this debate has been about equally divided between recrimination about the past and disagreement about the future. As my noble friend has just said, post-mortems may be very unsavoury things, and perhaps they may become even more unsavoury as the corpse becomes less capable of being resuscitated. But our dislike of post-mortems or of recriminations should not allow history to be falsified, and it should not allow the understanding of the grave dangers which face the free nations—which faced them last year, and still face them to-day—to be obscured.
In the debate on Suez in another place last week, it was reiterated—and it is still widely believed in the United States of America, and also by some people in Great Britain—that last October the British Government entered into some kind of conspiracy with the Israeli Government, in order that we might have an excuse for imposing our own particular solution of the Suez question by force of arms. That is still widely believed in the United States and here. It seems to me that the really serious thing about this kind of rubbish is not so much that it may reflect discredit on one particular British Government—because all Governments are bound sometimes to be misunderstood—but rather that it reveals the kind of ignorance, which may very easily be fatal to peace, about what was going on then and about what is going on now in the Middle East.

1205
Long before October, it had been known that Egypt intended to attack Israel. Colonel Nasser, of course, had frequently said so himself, but Western public opinion paid very little attention indeed to what he was saying. It was also known that large quantities of Russian and Czech arms were being supplied to Egypt. That was stated by Sir Anthony Eden more than once in another place, but again Western public opinion took little interest in it. What I do not think was ever officially stated by the British Government before the military intervention—and I wish that it had been stated more plainly long before—was that the Russians were training a force of, I believe, some 50,000 volunteers, who were to be sent to Egypt and Syria in the event of war, so that the Egyptian soldiers, who are not at all good at using the Russian weapons or, indeed, at using any kind of weapons, might be assisted by Russian soldiers who could use them without involving Russia in belligerency.
The basic fact about the present Middle Eastern situation is this: that for some time it has been, and it still continues to be, the main object of Russian diplomacy to create a war in the Middle East between the Arabs and the Israelis. The reason the Russians want to do that is that they think that, once this war starts and becomes general, it will then become very difficult for the more moderate Arab Governments to survive, and that the strength and enthusiasm of Arab militarist, nationalist feeling will be so great that nationalist Governments, favourable to Communism, will be established throughout the Arab world, either under a military empire under Colonel Nasser—so long as he remains useful to Russia—or under any other leader who may equally serve the purposes of Russian policy.
That, I think, is the basic fact about the Middle Eastern situation at the present time, and although this was not at all clearly appreciated by Western public opinion last October, it was well understood by the Israeli Government. In the middle of October, the Government of Israel had come to the conclusion that Western foreign policy was too weak and too divided to give them any effective aid against aggression. Your Lordships will remember that, at the beginning of October, there had been a
1206
general election in Jordan which, by an overwhelming majority, returned a pro-Communist Government to power. That Government immediately announced that it was going to integrate its military plans with those of Egypt and Syria and to place all three armies under one single command.
The Israeli Government decided that the only hope of survival for Israel was that Israel should act on its own before the Russian volunteers were ready. They knew that the Egyptians would not be able to fight very well against Israeli troops without the aid of these volunteers, and it may well be argued that, if Great Britain had done nothing, if we had allowed the Israelis to go on, destroy the whole Egyptian Army, capture all the Russian war material and occupy the Suez Canal Zone, we should now be in a much better position than we are. But the British Government took the view that, even if we waited for a week or a few days, the Russians might act, and the purpose of the Russian intervention would not have been to stop the war; it would have been to extend it.
In your Lordships' debate on December 12 last, at which I was unable to be present, my noble friend Lord Home quoted from a broadcast which had lately been delivered by the Egyptian Commander-in-Chief, in which he stated that on October 29 the armies of various other Arab countries, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, were actually beginning to move and that, when British intervention took place, those orders were countermanded. So that we did stop the war at that moment from becoming a general one. I am certainly not questioning the good intentions or the sincerity either of the Labour Opposition or of the Government of the United States in taking the line against the British Government which they did at that time. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested that, even if the Opposition at home had taken a different view, it would not have had the slightest effect on the policy of the American Government. I do not know whether or not that is so. All I know is that, during November and December, all the American newspapers were filled with large headlines and long verbatim reports of everything which had been said here by the leaders of the British Opposition, showing how right the Americans were and how wrong the British Government

1207
were, while very little space was given to British Government speakers.
I myself have always believed that if we had gone on, if we had delayed our acceptance of the "Cease fire" of November 6 by another forty-eight hours, if we had taken possession of Suez and had cleared the Canal speedily by British warships, we should not have made ourselves any more unpopular than we did, and our opinions would have been treated with respect, instead of being treated with contempt, by our American friends. I think it might also have been possible that, when the United Nations had come in, their attempts to retrieve the situation in these circumstances would not have been quite so futile as they have, in fact, been. But I quite understand the reason why the British Government decided to stop on November 6. Their reason was precisely because the object of our intervention was not to impose our own settlement of the Suez Canal question by force; the object of our intervention was to stop a general war in the Middle East, and that object was successful. The Government have got very little credit, either here or abroad, for stopping a war in the Middle East, although I believe that their action in doing so was of vital consequence to the free world and to the Western Alliance. My anxiety that that should be recognised is not so much to do credit to the Government; it is rather because I do not think that the free West, the nations of the free world, can succeed in preventing war unless they have a proper understanding of the causes which are threatening peace.
Since our abdication, as it really was, to the United Nations and the United States, it seems to me that the United Nations have carefully and systematically done everything possible to put everything back as it was so that this war may start all over again. Your Lordships may perhaps have seen the report in The Times of yesterday from their correspondent in Syria, who states that the Syrian Army has become entirely Russianised; that large quantities of Russian and Czech-war equipment are being accumulated in Syria; that there are many hundreds of Russian and Czech instructors in the country, and that these things are openly admitted and spoken to by Ministers in the Syrian Government. It is also believed that in Egypt the amount of
1208
Russian and Czech war material which has accumulated in the last three or four months is about equal to what it was before the outbreak of hostilities last October.
Communist policy has suffered one serious setback. The war party in Jordan has overplayed its hand in trying to dethrone the young King, and they have been defeated partly by the resolution of the King himself and partly by American gunboat diplomacy. American gunboat diplomacy is shockingly immoral when it is used by Great Britain to protect the oil supplies of Europe, but it is perfectly respectable when it is used by the United States to preserve the institution of monarchy in the kingdom of Jordan. Another possible setback that Communism may have received—I do not know—is that the King of Saudi Arabia appears suddenly to have woken up to the fact that Colonel Nasser is not a monarchist. Now that this idea has got into his head, I think it will very likely stick there. But I am not sure that the Government's view is correct, that Colonel Nasser's prestige and standing, which has been so sedulously enhanced by the United Nations, has fallen quite so low as we hoped. We still have this same danger to peace—the possibility of an outbreak of war supported by Russia.
What we all want to do, in all Parties, is to establish peace and prosperity in the Middle East, because peace and prosperity in those countries is of primary interest to the free world from every point of view, including that of oil. Perhaps the most important thing that we have to try to do is to solve the question of the Palestinian refugees. So long as these refugees remain supported only by occasional doles, without permanent occupation or homes, in a state of wretched impoverishment, kept where they are by the hope that they will be resettled in Palestine when the Jews are driven into the sea, they will continue to be the strongest possible incentive to the spread of militant Arab nationalism; and so long as this situation continues it will be politically impossible for the moderate, more peaceful, Arab Governments, whom it is in our interests to support, to appear to be less anti-Jewish than the Arab nationalists. It is not humanly impossible that these refugees should be found work

1209
and homes outside Palestine. It is perhaps the particular moral responsibility of the United States that something should be done to that effect, because it was due to the United States interference with the Labour Government's policy under Mr. Bevin, and their insistence on setting up the sovereign state of Palestine, that this terrible refugee problem was created.
Then there is the settlement of the Canal question. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that there were two separate crises in the Middle East: the crisis of the Canal and the Israeli crisis. He spoke only of the Canal, and we all greatly wish that he had gone on to say something about the other crisis too. But I wonder whether the noble Marquess was altogether right in drawing this distinction between them. I do not believe that Colonel Nasser seized the Canal because he wanted to get more revenue; he could have got far more revenue by not seizing it. I think he seized it because he wanted by so doing to whip up Arab nationalist enthusiasm for Egyptian leadership and to strengthen the military position of Egypt in preparing to invade Israel. It was like Hitler's seizure of Austria or Czechoslovakia—only a comparatively small, preliminary stage in the campaign of aggression which was contemplated. Of course, Colonel Nasser is of no account and would be of no danger by himself, but he is of account and he is a danger to peace as the tool of Russia. In my view the seizure of the Canal was not carried out for economic reasons, but primarily for military and political reasons, which are very closely and intimately connected with the Israeli crisis.
I think that now, in the present circumstances, the Canal question can be solved only by the United Nations. We always said that it could be solved only by international agreement. I am sure only of this: that it will never be solved by weakness, by giving in to injustice. That is why, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, pointed out, the position of Israeli shipping is now so very important, because the Israelis, who have obeyed the decisions of the United Nations, have been persuaded to give up all the advantages which they gained in their effort to preserve their own security. They have withdrawn from Gaza and Aqaba on the strength of assurances from the United
1210
Nations or the United States that they would be justly treated. Now, if Israeli ships are going to be denied the use of the Canal, we cannot possibly blame Israel for acting on the assumption that Western assurances are unreliable and therefore not to be trusted, and, what is perhaps even worse, we cannot blame the Arabs for acting on the assumption that Western diplomacy is contemptible and therefore need not be regarded. You will never achieve a satisfactory solution, either of the Canal question or of the Middle East situation as a whole, by giving in and trying to appease the forces of Arab nationalism.
Finally, my Lords, and perhaps most important of all, we must endeavour to bring about closer accord between the foreign policies of ourselves and of the United States. I think that is even more important than the forming of a Commonwealth bloc which my noble friend suggested. It is of paramount importance that we should act well in accord with the United States. I was therefore glad and most interested to hear my noble friend Lord Home say that, as a result of the Bermuda Conference, a new unity had been born between us. I was particularly glad to hear him say that, because, as your Lordships and as my noble friend will remember, the communiqué issued after Bermuda stated that, although we had agreed on a large number of questions, we had not agreed about the Middle East. Therefore, I hope we may take it from what my noble friend said this afternoon that, although we may not have achieved complete agreement, we have at least less disagreement than we had before, and that perhaps final agreement may be in sight; because I think that most of the reverses which the free world has suffered in the Middle and Far East and everywhere else since the war have been due to this shocking lack of coherence between British and American foreign policies. It seems of little use to have these military arrangements for co-ordinating our fighting forces, if our foreign policy is completely divided and unco-ordinated.
It always seems to me that Britain and America in their foreign policy are like two partners at bridge who are both dealt very good cards but whose systems of bidding and methods of play are so completely different that their opponents, who have very much worse cards, always win.

1211
It is often said about the Middle East that American interests are not so closely concerned as ours. So far as the supply of oil in peace time is concerned that may to some extent be true, but American security is vitally concerned in maintaining the strength of Western Europe and a strong N.A.T.O. alliance. It is to the vital interest of America that her Allies in Western Europe should be strong. If sources of oil in the Middle East were to fall under Communist control, not only would Europe be economically starved in peace time, but in war time Europe would be useless as a military ally. You cannot fight a war without oil. It is therefore to the primary interest of the United States, as well as to ourselves, that we should both reach some kind of settled agreement in principle on our Middle East foreign policy. If that were to fail and Russian policy were to succeed, then North America would be left isolated in a Communist-controlled world.
6.2 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, we have just listened to a most illuminating speech, replete with wisdom and sound advice, and I look forward to reading it tomorrow in Hansard and studying it rather more closely, because it was full of sound analysis and obvious knowledge of the Middle East area. I do not propose to follow into all the aspects of that very difficult problem, tempting though it is to do so, except to say, first of all, that I agree very much with what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said. But I trust your Lordships do not think that the present lull in the Middle East is anything but a lull, for it can be nothing more than that. Owing to the intervention of an outside Power, and the attitude of the King of Jordan, we have for a spell comparative quiet. I doubt greatly whether that will last; I rather feel that we shall again be faced with extremely difficult and complex problems which will be extremely hard to meet as and when they arise.
I had not meant to get drawn on to the high political side of this debate except to say, in regard to the actual words of the Motion before the House, that I felt when we accepted the decision to withdraw from Port Said that we must surely have realised that the decision had certain consequences; that the ball was placed
1212
at the foot of Nasser. I am not arguing whether it was right or wrong—personally, I supported the policy of Her Majesty's Government, though I said that it was the right policy at the wrong time in the wrong place. But we should not have shut our eyes, when we withdrew, to the almost inevitable consequences of that withdrawal.
One consequence must be that Nasser could more or less do what he liked about the passage through the Canal. I do not see that we can get past that. I dislike as much as anybody this complete surrender over the terms on which we go through the Canal, but unless we could have got a complete boycott—which I wish we could have done—I cannot believe that it was wise, sensible or even sense to have only a partial boycott of the Canal. I do not see that we could have done anything else than we have done. It is a horrible surrender, but what else can we do? We cannot penalise our own shipping, nor, so far as I know, have the Government any legal power to stop ships from going through the Canal; and if other national shipping goes through we can clearly do nothing to stop it.
But, having said that, I would add that, like several other speakers during this debate, I very much hope that there will be no question of "bolstering up" this wicked man, and no repetition of the absolute folly of the Aswan Dam. I am completely baffled as to why we ever did that. I know that the Americans went in first, and that we joined, and that when they and we withdrew from that scheme our action gave a pretext for the Canal affair. However unwillingly we may use the Canal, do not let any of us now help Nasser. It is that of which I am afraid. For strange things do happen. It has always struck me as odd that we should have rushed in on the Aswan Dam as we did. I have never seen that action argued on its merits. I trust that we, and not only we, but others also, will have had an object lesson and that we shall avoid such mistakes in future.
The real reason why I rose to speak today was to touch on something quite different, which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, covered very adequately early in the debate—I refer to the plight of these unfortunate people who have been driven out of Egypt as a result of our policy. There can be no question that came as a result of our policy. Whether it was

1213
wise or unwise, one result was that these innocent sufferers were driven out. I had hoped that we need not necessarily have talked about this at all to-day, but could have had another day on which to raise it as a separate subject, for it deserves a separate day to itself on which it would not be submerged into the high political sphere. But the matter has been raised in a debate in another place, and I should hate to be told afterwards that we let it go by default during to-day's discussion, for that is certainly not our intention.
I say that all the more because to-day, May 23, is the day on which the financial discussions begin in Rome. We do not know what they are about or their precise nature, but I am very apprehensive about these claims of our evicted nationals. I know that the claimants themselves, too, are very apprehensive. The fear is that their claims will be flooded in some Governmental book transaction and that they will be left lamenting on the beach. I do not suppose that is at all the idea of Her Majesty's Government, but such things do happen. I speak for all these claimants in saying that they are very nervous about anything of that kind happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, brought the matter out earlier, and I think we need not cover it more fully except to say that if these claimants believe, as they are inclined to believe, that Her Majesty's Government are "dragging their feet ", we cannot be surprised. After all, these people were expelled about November 5—quite a long time ago—and I raised the matter in your Lordships' House on December 5, though it may have been raised otherwise; and we have had two debates. Then on March 28 we were told, during a debate, that it was unreasonable to press this matter until these claims had been properly collated and so on; and we said "Oh, yes". It was then going to be done within six to eight weeks. Some of us thought perhaps that the Government might have got busy on the matter before—but let that pass. Later on, we were given an assurance—I think it was by the Prime Minister on April 11—and he talked about four to five weeks. Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Home, on May 2 came down to two or three weeks more. That brings us down to to-day May 23. My point is that if the unfortunate claimants, in many cases people
1214
deprived of all their possessions, feel that there has been somewhat of a delay in this matter, one cannot be surprised.
Lest there be any doubt about it, I have here an answer typical of the answers which these unfortunate people have been receiving from the Foreign Office. It is an official letter from the Foreign Office, dated April 29, and it begins:
" I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lloyd "
so there is no doubt that it is an official letter. It acknowledges receipt of a letter of March 29 written by the man to whom this letter is addressed. One of the first points to note is that this answer was dated April 25. The note which it answered was dated March 29. That seems rather a long time to take to answer a letter. The Foreign Office communication proceeds:
" In reply, I would point out that it is the Egyptian Government which has sequestrated your property and in the event of any loss or damage any claim will lie against the Egyptian Government, though Her Majesty's Government will give you such assistance as may be possible in prosecuting a claim. There can, however, be no question of Her Majesty's Government paying compensation for losses which may have been inflicted by the Egyptian authorities."
Another paragraph in the letter states:
" Your letter puts forward a request for immediate payment of individual claims, but, as I have explained above, these claims are against the Egyptian Government, and there are no arrangements at present for advances by Her Majesty's Government against asserts held in Egypt "
The letter ends up with a reminder—well-intentioned no doubt—that there is a Resettlement Board if this poor gentleman likes to go there. As your Lordships know, these unfortunate people live in camps, and they get 1s. 10d. a day. This man happens to have been a director of a company. He lived in Cairo and he has lost everything. I only quoted that letter because I think it is hardly calming to those whose claims are dealt with in that callous way.
I come back to my original point. Of course the Government will say they must see what is happening in Rome. I personally have had some experience of these things—especially of the Egyptians. I have no doubt as to the type of claim they are going to produce. It will include damage to Port Said, and this, that and the other; and the total will be colossal. Therefore I am afraid that these fears on

1215
the part of the claimants to whom I have referred are not likely to be unjustified. My intervention is for the purpose of entering what I believe is known as a caveat on behalf of these unfortunate individuals who, since they have been expelled from their jobs, are still dispossessed.
Your Lordships will remember the extraordinary matter about National Savings Certificates. I still cannot follow the explanation about that. These were certificates bought for the war effort. The certificates were issued in the name of the individual buyer and therefore were not transferable. For safety's sake they were lodged here by the purchaser, who happened to live in Egypt, when he got them. I admit that I encouraged him to buy them. He comes here now, penniless, and he is not allowed to touch even one of these certificates. He is forbidden to do so. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I think it was, explained this away on some legal ground, but I do not think that he himself was convinced that it was very sound. These people cannot bring an action against the Bank of England or any organisation of that kind. My Lords, I think I have said quite enough, and perhaps too much. My whole object in getting up was to ensure that in to-day's debate we did not pass over the problem of these unfortunate people who were expelled from Egypt.
6.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I rise as a wholehearted and unrepentant supporter of Sir Anthony Eden. That does not mean that I wish to take up your Lordships' time with post-mortems. I think we have had enough of that—in the press, in Hansard of another place; and, indeed, I believe we have had enough of it here to-day. I feel that it must have been the intention of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, when he tabled his Motion, to make this debate as much as possible forward-looking; and with that view I entirely agree. I cannot see that anything is to be gained by recriminations over the past.
Perhaps a useful purpose has been served to-day by analysing what happened and by trying to draw the moral, by trying to learn how we may possibly have miscalculated or made mistakes. If I
1216
may, I should like to allude to one particular thing which was said by the Prime Minister on May 15. He said this:
" I believe that if they "—
He was referring to the United States—
" had understood the situation sooner and better we would have been spared many of these troubles."
These are strong words indeed, and I am certain that the Prime Minister weighed them up very carefully when he uttered them. I am not here to accuse or to criticise, but I cannot help saying—indeed I should be dishonest if I did not—that I believe there has been a very unsatisfactory situation between this country and the United States; that our liaison has been very far from what it should have been.
I happened to be in the United States shortly before Christmas. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who has also been in America recently, has, I think, voiced there views which I am going to express. I travelled about in America and spoke to innumerable Americans of different sorts and kinds. Few of them were what one might describe as very important people in the political world, but many of them were citizens of substance. I did not find on a single occasion unwillingness to discuss the Suez Canal situation, and I never received anything but a sympathetic hearing. But I was surprised to find how ill-informed the people to whom I spoke appeared to be. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in attributing blame (I did not mean to talk about blame) places it, first, on the United Nations; secondly, on the United States of America; and thirdly, on the Opposition. With all respect, I feel that some of the blame must be placed on Her Majesty's Government. And I believe that the blame is largely to be directed in this one channel—I refer to the inability somehow (perhaps the effort was made) to explain our case clearly and in good time to the people of the United States of America.
I should like to talk a little now about the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand. I was in Australia shortly after our intervention between the Israelis and the Egyptians, and, naturally, in the course of our travels through Australia we had innumerable conversations on this difficult subject. Here, again, there was nothing but sympathetic conversation; no

1217
bitterness, no loss of temper, no quick judgments and no snap ideas without proper consideration. But underlying all these conversations was this: that somehow or other they felt they did not know enough about it and they wished they had been allowed to know more. In New Zealand I had a luncheon in honour of the Commonwealth Parliamentary delegation of which I was one, and at this meal—and I am sure you will not mind my quoting it—Mr. Holyoak used these words,
" England, right or wrong ".
It was very moving to hear that. But when it came to my turn to reply, I felt that I had in honesty to say that that spirit, "England, right or wrong", is not really quite good enough. Surely if the Commonwealth means anything at all (and I believe, my Lords, it means a very great deal) we must not expect our good friends to have to follow us blindly; they can come with us when the matter is discussed and explained among us. I felt I must say that to your Lordships.
There is a further point, on which I must, I am afraid, disagree with my noble friend Lord Salisbury. I think he has tried to draw the line between high principles and what perhaps one might call practical business. I have the greatest respect and admiration for Lord Salisbury, but, with all humility, I feel that somehow on this occasion his judgment is a little at fault. I cannot see that any breaking of principles exists in our using the Suez Canal now, nor can I see that any useful purpose would be served by not using the Canal now. As Lord Halifax explained to us, if you are going to have a policy, it is essential to have the means to carry out that policy. We have not now, as your Lordships all know, the means to carry out the boycott of the Suez Canal; therefore I feel that nothing whatever would be gained by holding up our shipping from going through the Canal.
But, my Lords—and surely this is the essential part of everything we are saying to-day—we stand pat on the Six Points, and my noble friend the Leader of the House has said that these Six Points are our minimum requirements and that those Six Points we must have. Now if, by some misfortune, we have difficulty in achieving those Six Points—and I think it may well be difficult—surely then comes
1218
the time, when we have taken the necessary steps, to bring our boycott into operation, and then that boycott will be effective. As has been said many times in this debate, the Canal is useful to Colonel Nasser and to Egypt only so long as it is used by the shipping which at present goes through it. Then if we are unable to come to terms with Colonel Nasser (and I am not personally pessimistic about this), that surely is the time to employ this boycotting arm; that surely is the time to see whether we cannot get the collective security which I was sorry to hear Lord Home say was not working.
I should like to say one further thing, and that is that I do not personally feel this terrible sense of frustration which has been spoken of; and I believe I speak for those of my age. I think we have got (if I may use a vulgarism) the guts to see this thing through. Indeed it is something which is extremely unpleasant; but I believe that, given the ordinary British qualities of sense, patience and perseverance, we shall see it through. But we shall not see it through unless we try to co-operate as closely as it is humanly possible with the Commonwealth, the French, and the United States of America.
6.25 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I wall not detain your Lordships long, but I am very anxious to leave a constructive idea with regard to the whole situation which has been so adequately debated to-day. First of all, I feel that the people of our own country are rather in the same position as the people of Australia to whom my noble friend has just referred: they are very confused with regard to what is the situation and I think our public relations officers might do a very good job of work in letting them know what the real position is.
Now I am going to make a suggestion which may be looked upon as perfectly ridiculous. I can remember many years ago now when we were in rather the same position as we are to-day, having the right wing politics on one side and the left wing politics on the other, and that was not working at all well in the interests of this country. I am going to put to your Lordships what was said in those days by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. He begged that a national council should be formed of all Parties

1219
to deal with the situation; and I put forward that idea now to your Lordships. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the action of these—what shall I call them?—irresponsible politicians, I am afraid particularly on the left wing of politics, who get a visa and go off to various countries and interview people who are not friendly towards us, without going to the embassies or the officials to find out what is the background of everything there, has been very detrimental to us and has made our position considerably more difficult than it might have been.
So long as we have these votes of censure in the other place, and the continual reference to the disaster of Suez (which I do not believe is a disaster at all)—even Lord Pethick-Lawrence a day or so ago when speaking on economics could not keep off the Suez Canal altogether; he had to refer to "the disaster of Suez "—and so long as we have this spirit of antagonism between the two great Parties of the country, I believe we shall never get the confidence of America or any other country. Therefore I put this point for the consideration of the Government, to see whether we in this country cannot get closer together. We on this side of the House have said hard things about the Opposition, and hard things, very hard things, have been said by the Opposition about us. Well, let us wash all that out and try to get something in the nature of what I will call a national council, to deal with the very serious situation in which we find ourselves. If we can get rid of these irresponsible people who go about the world interviewing people whom we know to be unfriendly to us and who have been attacking us, I believe a new spirit would be engendered, not only in this country but also in the world amongst our friends.
These people of whom I complain say that it is all done for the sake of liberty. Absolute nonsense! There is no liberty about it at all. It is simply done for political reasons, and we want to get rid of that to-day. Unfortunately, the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury is not here to-day. I wonder whether he went and had a talk with the Government before he made a particular speech on the subject of Archbishop Makarios. If he did not,
1220
why not? Why come out with these speeches which do not do any good at all and only encourage our enemies?
Now, "Master Nasser"! We saved Nasser. He knows it perfectly well. My noble friend Lord Halifax referred to force being used. But if we had not used force at that moment, what would have happened? It is quite easy to see that if we had not gone in and stopped the war which had already started the Israelites would have been in Cairo in a matter of hours. Then what would have happened? I asked the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, one day in this House about his criticism, "Would you have done nothing in those circumstances?" He did not answer me. We had to operate. We had to take the whole question seriously and stop what would have turned into a major conflagration in the Middle East perhaps in only a few hours.
We have the situation of the British refugees—a matter to which my noble friends Lord Killearn and Lord Lloyd have referred. I have a Motion on the Order Paper on that subject for "No Day Named," which will be discussed later. Can we see any evidence whatever at the present time that Nasser has altered his character? I cannot see any indication whatever that he has become what I will term a better man, able to face up to the sort of situations we have and to treat them seriously and with some sort of statesmanship.
There are one or two other noble Lords who wish to speak, and it is getting late. But I make this one suggestion. Let us try to get together here, bury the past and all the rows we have had over this appalling question and see whether we cannot go forward into the future with a completely combined action on the part of all political Parties in this country. Of course, we cannot expect the Communists to do it, but I hope that members of the Opposition will take this idea seriously. I feel that if we could get it going, that would establish a feeling of confidence, not only in this country amongst our own people but also among the other nations of Europe and of the world. I beg the Government to consider this simple suggestion. I am most grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for initiating this debate, because I feel that I can agree with almost every word he said.
6.35 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think that it was almost too much to hope that this debate would produce agreement between the two sides of your Lordships' House on which were the consequences of the Suez action itself and which were the consequences of the build-up of the situation, prompting that action. It seems to me that illusions are still clogging and confusing any constructive argument. So I set myself to meet one or two of them. I think that the main illusion under which the Opposition is gratuitously lingering is their belief that the Port Said operation was unpopular in the country. I am persuaded that the landing at Port Said had the overwhelming support of the country at large. I think that that support, which at one time worked in favour of the Government, is tending, or at least is liable, to begin working against the Government. I take the view, I hope not too unfriendly to noble Lords opposite, that it is more important for the Government to have the confidence of the nation than to have the confidence of the Opposition.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, emphasised the importance of having a firm foreign policy, and I believe that that is exactly what the country itself now demands of the Government. There is an impression existing, and I believe growing, that the conduct of our own foreign policy is slipping out of our own hands; that it is being entrusted more and more to the United Nations Organisation. It seems to me that never was there a worse time to entrust our foreign policy to that organisation.
I enter this argument, self-propelled by my own convictions, and with some feeling that to a certain extent I am authorised to take it up. Because there cannot be many Members of your Lordships' House who have served in action under the United Nations flag. In the late summer of 1950 I was sitting in the far south of Spain, writing my third book, bathed in sunshine, with a carafe of sherry not far from my hand, when up the hill came a postman with a letter. It was a charming one, it began, "Dear Rowland" and ended, "Yours ever, ' Jumbo '. "It asked me to rejoin the Army for a year, to go and fight in Korea. I want to make it absolutely
1222
plain that I am glad I did so. And I did so at the behest of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as he is now. I assure your Lordships that I am not introducing this personal element for any purpose of self-advertisement: I mention it because I believe that it is we (and in that pronoun I number myself with every Member of your Lordships' House) who believe most in the United Nations, who are most disappointed by their performance in recent months.
My noble and gallant friend Lord Jeffreys referred to the record of the United Nations in recent months. While he was speaking, I was reminded of an incident which occurred in the Korean campaign during the withdrawal from the Yalu River. I must ask your Lordships to imagine a squadron of Centurion tanks on rising ground, overlooking a great broad plain, across which we had recently withdrawn. Suddenly, on the other side of that plain appeared a great cloud of dust. It was quite impossible to tell what was inside it. It crossed the plain at enormous speed, and as it moved closer it might have been some fantastic Chinese secret weapon. Whatever it was, it was likely to endanger an entire brigade on the road behind us. We moved across its path the biggest movable object in Korea, a Centurion tank. About ten yards in time, this projectile drew to a screaming halt. We observed that it was one of those vast American trucks as high—I nearly said as high as your Lordships' House, but that would be an exaggeration—but very high, indeed.
Staring out of the lofty cabin at us, through the swirling dust, a great, "round moon" face appeared. An officer standing nearby me said, "Where the devil do you think you're going! "Then from that round face there came the reply:" Sir, we don't think where we're going; we're just retreatin'." I am sorry to say that that was the predominant mood of a United Nations Force in the late winter of 1950; and I am far sorrier to say that it is the predominant mood of the entire United Nations Organisation to-day. That first situation was corrected by General Matthew P. Ridgeway, a somewhat theatrical, but very effective individual. He came in with his grenades hanging from his shoulders; he reinspired

1223
and re-animated the entire Army, sending it in a new direction—forward!
I think we must ask: Whom have we to perform that far greater task for us to-day? We have the devitalised Viking, the unhappy Mr. Hammarskjoeld. Mr. Hammarskjoeld became Secretary-General of the United Nations just in time to sign the Korean armistice. Since that day not a single international dispute has been solved by the agency of the United Nations. Mr. Hammarskjoeld tirelessly flies in every direction, round in circles, landing at places which, we must confess, might just as well never have seen him; and I must say that, if that ineffectual record is to be kept up, by the end of his term of office Mr. Hammarskjoeld will have won the imperishable and insufferable title of "The Umpire on whom the sun never sets."
I do not suggest either disbanding or abandoning the United Nations. I am not so fickle as to fight for an organisation one moment and to turn my back on it the next. But I think we should make plain that our membership is not necessarily permanent or automatic, as some people belong to a more expensive club than they can afford because most of their friends belong to it. I believe that such a challenge, in which I think we should also be joined by other nations, would not weaken the United Nations, but would enable it to live. Because I suspect that that organisation, unless reformed, will be as dead as the League of Nations, and in a far briefer span. Because I believe in it as the proper arbiter of international disputes, I should like to see it saved from that extinction.
In the meantime, I cannot see how we can pretend to rely on the United Nations, I believe that we must rely upon ourselves. I firmly believe that it is because the country wishes us to rely upon ourselves that the Government have carried the country with them until now on the Suez issue. But I believe, too, that some uncertainty was injected last week. Government speakers have made it plain that they are not happy about the decision that was made last week. They have been very frank, and frankness is a quality that is not always possessed by Governments. But, as often occurs, the unhappiness of one man is the joy of another, and I believe that public opinion is concerned
1224
with this aspect. I believe that a large part of the nation is more sensitive to our prestige among other nations than some individuals in political life. That belief was crystallised for me last Sunday, when I was speaking to a Yorkshire neighbour, and he said: "He must be laughing in the Abdin Palace today." I believe those are significant words, and that they are words which, in one form or another, are being repeated throughout the country. I am bound to wonder how long the country is likely to give its patient support to a Government which permits it to be laughed at.
All I am attempting to-day—and I hope my noble friend who is to reply to the debate will appreciate this—is to touch gently the alarm in time, as I smell the smoke and hear the early crackle of disapproval, which I believe could grow into a great blaze of public exasperation; great enough to engulf this Government, or any other Government. I am positive that the Prime Minister took office with a great fund of good will and confidence throughout the nation, extending far beyond the orbit of normal Conservative loyalty. I well remember that pregnant morning when my noble friend who opened this debate, and Sir Winston Churchill, were being consulted by Her Majesty The Queen. I shall not speak of my own feelings, which were intense. But I believe that the overwhelming part of the country drew a huge breath of relief when Her Majesty's choice was known.
I feel that, to a great extent—to a very great extent—in the time which has passed since, the Government have reinforced and justified that confidence. I believe, also, that last week they drew very deeply and dangerously upon that fund, and upon their resources in that respect. It is a fact—and self-persuasion and wishful thinking by the Opposition will not undo it—that far more people in this country were able to understand and applaud our going into Port Said, than were able to understand and applaud our coming out. I note that not as a criticism of the Government's action, because the general public do not know, and certainly I do not, just what pressures were put upon the Government from outside and the undertakings that were given and then withdrawn by other Powers. But last week another decision was made, without

1225
any foreign pressure, the result of an inner economic pressure, which France was ready to resist and we were not. Again, perhaps the full facts are not known. But still the echo of laughter from the Abdin Palace remains, and I cannot believe that it has not penetrated your Lordships' House.
The question follows: Who is to stop him laughing and when? I searched the Government speeches in another place for reassurances. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 570 (No. 109), col. 433]:
" We shall, therefore, continue to do everything we can…. Meanwhile, we shall continue to use every method we can…. We shall do all we can, through the United Nations and our friends, to see that this happens."
My right honourable friend did not, as I read it, specify further what those methods were likely, precisely, to be. He said:
" This is not the end of the story."
It would have been pretty shattering for me, for one, if he had said that it was. However, he has not told us what the next chapter is to be, or who is to write it. Will it really be left to the polyglot team of ghost writers in Manhattan Island? If so, we must feel that, judging by recent events, it will be a long time before we read that chapter. Will it be written by the State Department? Then, I feel, it would be an expensive chapter for British interests. Will it be written by Nasser?—because I am not the first to suggest that we have no reason or room to think that he has made his last move.
My Lords, I am persuaded that what this country hopes to see is some initiative by us in this matter, whether through the United Nations or with America, or with other friendly Powers who feel equally strongly as we do. Delay serves only to endorse the profoundly false impression that this country is ashamed, rather than proud, of what it set out to do at Port Said. I believe that this country does look with hope to the Prime Minister, but I believe that that hope was given an ugly jolt last week. I also believe, and I expect to see proved, as most of the country longs to see proved, that Her Majesty's choice, on that day of judgment, was for the salvation of our prestige among nations and our belief in ourselves.
6.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise at this late hour in the evening to support the policy of Her Majesty's Government in taking the decision not to advise shipowners to refrain from using the Canal. Like the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, I think we must be realistic and accept the fact that, in the circumstances, it would be impossible for us to continue the boycott. I was glad that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, seemed to agree that now that the decision had been taken we must accept it. But a point which I feel we must remember is that at the time of our Suez action a great deal of highly responsible expert opinion in this country and abroad, while being completely opposed to the takeover of the Canal Company by Nasser, was also opposed to the kind of violent police action taken by ourselves and the French. That is what some people said. Some action at some time was certainly necessary, said these people, but should it have been so violently repressive?
I daresay that most of our French friends would say that it had to be, as only a short time before the joint action a distinguished French official in the Middle East told me that he thought the only way to settle the Nasser problem was to revert to the old and well-tried gunboat policy of the past, or its modern equivalent consisting of Mystère fighters and Vickers Valiant bombers. I do not personally like that kind of talk, but it was, I suppose, quite natural for this distinguished French official to express such a point of view, since it was in line with M. Mollet's policy, as one realised afterwards, and it was, of course, in line with the kind of action which the French took in the past in Damascus and Algeria towards the end of the war—action which, however justified it may have appeared in the eyes of the French, was certainly much criticised by all Parties in this country and elsewhere abroad.
However, in the case of this Suez crisis, while our troops were in action in Egypt, or still more or less in action, it seemed to me that the action should be supported wholeheartedly by everyone in the country, and that is why I urged such support, in company with your Lordships, in two previous debates in this House. I know that the justification for the kind of violent action which we

1227
took is that only by that means could we destroy the numerous Russian aircraft and tanks which had been imported into Egypt and which were, according to certain evidence, to be manned later on by Soviet paratroopers.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Earl, Lord Home, the Leader of the House, and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, have in definite terms mentioned what the Soviet intentions were. But it seems to me that more should be said of them. I remember reading a report, I think it was in the Daily Telegraph, probably last November, quoting some information from a certain Mr. John Baker White who, in a speech at Canterbury, gave details of the kind of operation—I think he actually said that it was called "Operation Mena "—which it was known the Soviet Union was intending to undertake. I do not know how correct that information was, but I do not think it was denied; and if it was reasonably correct I only wish more had been made of it in the country, because it is not only relatively uninformed opinion that has been critical of the action but also, as I say, some highly responsible and expert opinion. I find that in this country and elsewhere abroad, even to-day there are still people who are unhappy about it, largely, I think, because that important point about Soviet intentions had never been fully put across.
The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, has to-day and in previous debates emphasised the Soviet threat, but I hope that he, or rather the noble Viscount, the Deputy Leader, may be able to tell us even more about it and, above all, see that public opinion is really fully informed. I thought that the debate in your Lordships' House in February, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, was very useful. I felt that we should all support that Motion strongly, as well as certain suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, and the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, at that time.
I was glad to read yesterday in the newspaper that the report of Dr. Hill's Committee is nearly complete, and I sincerely hope, therefore, that funds for the Information Services in the Middle East and, what is to my mind equally, if not more, important, for the British Council, will be considerably increased,
1228
in order not only to put over political points but generally to explain the British way of life to those countries. I hope also that in doing this in the Middle East, we may also sweeten the pill. For example, as your Lordships know, the new medium of television has been introduced into the Middle East, and in addition to putting regular programmes over the radio and on television, I hope that this country may also be able to produce some good entertainment programmes, thus sweetening the pill. You cannot very well get people to look or listen in great numbers to dull documentaries and news bulletins. Although I admit here a certain interest as director of a television company which might possibly be affected, I am expressing entirely personal opinions in this matter.
Political messages can much more effectively be inserted in between really popular programmes. I am sure this point is fully recognised by members of Dr. Hill's Committee, but I think it worth mentioning since I do not believe it was precisely stated in the debate on Lord Strang's Motion, although I think the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, came near to doing so. I do not mean to say that we should drop the use of the more serious educational and informative broadcasts or documentary films—it is essential that they should continue and be increased—but if you want to reach the masses, it is surely necessary also to use the more popular method. When I was last in Baghdad I saw on various occasions as many as fifty or sixty adults and children voluntarily looking at one television set on which were being shown some excellent American documentary films, dubbed in Arabic, on questions of hygiene and child welfare. But when an entertainment film was shown, or some of their own live entertainment, the numbers were usually doubled, and you could not get near the receiver. At any rate, a much larger audience can be reached during these programmes.
It is most important that we should not again jeopardise our relations with those countries in the Middle East with whom, even if any of them are not our close friends, it is economically essential that we should do effective trading. We must also give them as much technical assistance as possible. I am glad to see that our grants under the Baghdad Pact

1229
have been increased. I am sure that even more can be done in this line. We cannot afford not to do business with the new oil-rich countries.
As a result of the Suez action, there has already been a tendency for some of them to turn more towards Germany, the United States and, of course, the Soviet Union and other countries (not Britain) in the matter of imports and technical assistance. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has described to your Lordships the latest developments in Syria in regard to Soviet influence there. All this happened for political rather than for technical or economic reasons. My belief is that even countries which have taken a strong line against us over Suez would often prefer our goods or technical assistance to those of other countries and would look more towards us were it not for the political breaches of the past.
Therefore, it seems to me that we must get back again on reasonably good terms with these countries, and I believe that Her Majesty's Government's new policy in that part of the world will contribute to that end. I do not believe that refraining from boycotting the Canal can be considered to constitute capitulation. In any case, it is not so much capitulation to Nasser that should be our real concern as the effect of the original action on Soviet intentions and what we did to Soviet equipment on the ground in that country. That equipment was destroyed, and therefore this Franco-British action can be considered successful. In the words of the noble Earl, it was a decisive victory.
There has been a tendency to think so much of the threat of Nasser and the difficulties of our own refugees, very important as they are, and the problem of the use of the Canal by Israel, that I feel that the real threat—that of the Soviet Union—has become a little obscured. But we must now also look to the long-term future in that area from the point of view of our educational and cultural efforts, technical assistance, information and trade. I hope that the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader, who is also Minister of Education and a poet, will appreciate this point as well as not be averse from sweetening the pill in the way which I mentioned. I am certain that, in taking such action, we must use the most up-to-date methods. Only so can we
1230
effectively implement this new policy. My Lords, we have not lost moral leadership. We have, I believe, enhanced it by this action, and we must still further enhance it in that part of the world.
7.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think it may be useful at the outset to say that I feel very satisfied with the course that the debate has taken after the strictures upon myself as Leader of the Opposition for not having put down a Motion of censure upon the Government. I am persuaded now that we have had a far better debate from a House populated in the way it is on the occasion of a Motion of this type which has been moved by the noble Marquess, than we could have had in any other circumstances. It is true that there have been a number of references to the attitude of the official Opposition elsewhere, of the Party to which I am very proud to belong—and the noble Marquess obviously wishes to indicate that he is still proud to belong to the Conservative Party. Foreign affairs have not in the past always been conducted on the basis of unilateral support in the country or in Parliament—I look back upon the affairs in relation to Abadan and other instances which have been mentioned in the course of the last few months. However, I feel we have had a reasonably good debate, and one which we can now bring to a successful conclusion.
I was very much moved by the end of the speech of the noble Marquess. I would say that everybody on this side of the House feels very strongly indeed how much we shall miss the authoritative and devoted leadership of the House which the noble Marquess has exercised for so long. I think, too, that it would be a very great pity (and in this I have the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, in agreement with me) if the noble Marquess should suppose that we would not like to see him back again in the House—although, naturally, I do not go all the way about being in office, as some people would, because I think it is about time we had a change of Government. Nevertheless, the noble Marquess has created so many friendships on my side of the House that I can assure him that, however much we may differ from him in policy—and we do seriously differ from him over this matter—we hope he will

1231
soon be back in more active service in the House.
I should like to say, too, that the noble Earl who leads the House now rather surprised me when, almost at the very beginning of his speech, he suggested that after the speech of the noble Marquess the debate had been lowered by my noble friend and colleague Lord Attlee. I want to say at once to the noble Earl that, in my view, it is not necessary for me to make a long speech to-night, because in ten minutes the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, completely smashed the case that had been put to the House.
THE EARL OF HOME: In case in a moment of political irritation I used a word in error which might be offensive to the noble Earl, of course I withdraw it and apologise at once. I have too much respect for the services which he has given to the country ever to suggest that a debate would deteriorate through his speaking, however much I might disagree with him.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is handsome. I am very much obliged. It is typical of the exchanges we have in this House. I think that that is a rectification which has been handsomely made. But, still, it really did annoy us at the time that it was said. I am grateful to my noble friend for the manner in which he made, in the short time he had, such a complete argument against the case which has been made so often on this matter.
I am sure that the noble Marquess is right in saying that he does not want to rock the Conservative boat. I should have thought that the speeches that we had from the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, and from some other noble Lords who seem to assume that the action taken by the Conservative Government in this matter has had the overwhelming support of the country at large, were not really borne out by the facts. I have not noticed such overwhelming victories for the Government in by-elections or municipal elections or a flood of correspondence to the national and provincial Press. I think the noble Lord is just whistling to keep his courage up. The real fact is in what the noble Marquess himself said—and it is partly in reply to the noble Earl, Lord
1232
Bessborough—" We have undoubtedly lost the moral leadership of the world ". That comes from the man who put this Motion down. He pointed out, of course, the necessity of taking steps to restore that leadership. We had better see upon which leg the Party opposite is really standing. For the life of me, I cannot make out how the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, Lord Home, can both me right. I felt a great deal more at home with the arguments used by the noble Earl, Lord Halifax.
LORD ST. OSWALD: May I intervene on one small point, if the noble Viscount does not mind? I was saying that more people in the country were able to understand our going into Port Said than were able to understand our coming out. I was speaking of the feeling in the country, or the feeling in Yorkshire, at the time of the Suez action, and not others.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Well, I am not quite sure how the noble Lord managed to get all this consensus of opinion matched in his mind so as to give the majorities for or against this, that or the other. I do not find it quite so easy myself; and having regard to the general political results in the country, I just do not accept the argument. I would say that the noble Marquess has done us a real service in coming at last to raise this matter. I am bound to say to him, however, that we have not had full details from him as to why he resigned. I think that is a part of his effort not to "rock the boat." I daresay that is true. But in the previous resignations referred to by my noble friend, I think in every single case we have had a detailed explanation as to why there was a resignation.
It was obvious from the noble Marquess's speech that he had strong prior objection to the action taken with regard to the release, and especially to the terms of the release, of Archbishop Makarios; but his resignation did not occur until the due change of policy by the Government in regard to Suez occurred. If the noble Marquess goes so far as he does to approve generally what had been done up to that date, and when he sees that all the members of the existing Government say that what they did up to that date was quite right, then it seems to me that there was not much reason for his resignation. However, that

1233
is a matter for his conscience and nobody else's, and he is perfectly at liberty to take that decision.
But I have seen from the speech of the noble Leader of the House to-day at least sufficient reason to begin to doubt all the statements that were made earlier about what was the real cause of the entry of Britain into the attack on the Suez Canal area. That is the real thing that I want to bring home to your Lordships. In view of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I do not propose to deal with much else in what I have to say to-night. I have been to check carefully over the tape—I hope that the tape was correct—what the noble Earl the Leader of the House said in the course of his speech. If he will excuse me, I will just quote the salient passages:
" Nasser's seizure of the Canal was a prelude to a much more ambitious plan of progress … . It was a danger not only to Europe but to the Middle East. If his boast had been realised, with Israel annihilated, and plans to take control from Iran to the Atlantic had matured, not only would Europe have been ruined, but ruin and suffering in the Middle East and Africa would have occurred beyond calculation."
I hope that I have read that fairly accurately.
The original reasons given for going into the Suez Canal were, it seems to me, certainly not those. We were going in as policemen because Israel had raised an attack upon Egypt, and because it was thought that, in consequence of that comparatively minor affair, there might be some danger to the Canal; and therefore we were going in to defend the Canal. We were policemen. But the more speeches that are made on the lines of the speech of the noble Earl to-day, the more it seems to indicate that what we in the Labour Party had feared for some time was right: that the Government had a much bigger plan of a military character, and that long before they gave the ultimatum they were building up a force which was far and away larger than would really have been required merely to form a kind of police force between the two sides. It is gradually being revealed to us that their aim was to go for the Canal to see that the Canal was not endangered, and, if necessary, to attack Egypt and not Israel.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said just now that one of the great results was that we had been enabled to shoot
1234
up the various pieces of military material which had been supplied to Egypt—shooting upon the ground. He said that this was a good result of our acting as policemen between Israel and Egypt. He did not seem to give much credit to the fact that Egypt was so badly led or so inefficient, from the military point of view, that the Israelis had already surged down towards that area and had captured, and not merely destroyed, large quantities of military equipment from the Egyptians. To my mind, the whole picture presented tonight seems to be that the Government had a much bigger and more major military plan in mind than was at first put over to this country. However that may be, there was something in that part of the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, when he said that their real intentions were not very well put over to the general public.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I said that it was the Soviet intentions that were not put across and not fully expressed to the people. Clearly, that is what I said.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: If that was what the noble Earl intended, I accept that at once. On the other hand, surely the ordinary person reading the newspapers, and reading speeches about the Soviet Union and the way in which they have so often dragged against the efforts made for peace, did not need to be informed of that. Numerous questions have been asked in another place about the quantity of arms which was being supplied by Russia. All these things were matters of public knowledge. But we in this country did not know that we were preparing what was obviously a set plan, although it was very poorly carried out, in its timing and transport, in order to cripple Egypt, who bad undoubtedly let us down badly from the legal and the international Convention point of view in nationalising the Canal without notice and without negotiation.
It is just as well, therefore, for us to remember what that true position is. We on this side cannot dismiss from our minds, after the speeches made from the other side of the House to-day, that there is still a feeling that where you are dealing not with a question of a great major war between, say, the Russians and their satellites and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers, but merely with a

1235
matter affecting Egypt or any other part of the world, what you need is to be able to say that you are stronger. That is the doctrine and the custom of so many Members on the other side.
Perhaps it is not a bad thing to remind the noble and learned Viscount who is to wind up the debate tonight of what he said on a previous occasion. We were talking then, on July 31, 1951, about Abadan. The noble Viscount was then speaking from the Back Benches, and I quote just a passage from Col. 104 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, (Vol. 173). He said this:
" Your Lordships may refer to the Persians and the Egyptians as unreasonable. They are nothing of the kind. Their reasoning proceeds from the sober, solid reasons of logic. They believe the British can be compelled by threats of violence and force. They wish to get what they want out of the British, and therefore they proceed to threats of violence and force; and until that premise of their argument is challenged—and it cannot be challenged only by words, it must be challenged also by deeds…"
That statement fairly indicated the turn of mind of the noble Viscount. But he went on to explain, a little later on, what he meant in that respect, for he said, of our Government at that time (col. 107):
" I should have liked to see on the part of His Majesty's Government—if I may quote Horace—"
and I am not going to attempt to quote the Latin, but the interpretation put upon it by the noble and learned Viscount:
" A little less of…that His Majesty's Government deeply deplore the attitude of the Persian authorities—and a little more of…that we are a great deal stronger than the Shah of Persia and our morale is a good deal higher."
Again a strong incitement to the Labour Government to use force over Abadan.
In that debate, which was opened by the noble Marquess who opened this debate to-day, there were continuous complaints that we had not been sufficiently insistent from the point of view of force. But the real point is that on this occasion, concerning this dispute in the Middle East, Her Majesty's Government failed to take steps which we had pointed out in the debate in July, 1951, over Abadan, they ought to have taken. They had no adequate consultation with our Allies—and not only those mentioned earlier, but those also in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Baghad Pact. They had no proper consultations with the Dominions. It is true
1236
that the Australian Prime Minister was available and at hand; and whatever may be our political views on the Middle East, I believe that we are all grateful to the Prime Minister of Australia for his willingness to act as he did. But at that time we had no adequate consultations with the Dominions and were very largely indebted to Mr. Lester Pearson's efforts for finding a way out of the morass into which we had got by our action; for it was his suggestion, on behalf of his Government, for the setting up of a United Nations Force which gave our Government a chance of withdrawing from the almost impossible situation into which they had fallen.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt him on this question of Mr. Lester Pearson? As I understood him, the noble Viscount left the House with the impression that Mr. Lester Pearson condemned the British Government's action. For the sake of the record, let us remember that he described it as a sincere effort to ensure the free passage of ships of all nations through the Suez Canal; so there was no condemnation by Mr. Lester Pearson of Britain's policy.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I too have studied the papers on the Canadian attitude on this matter. I appreciate the very kindly way in which Mr. Pearson has always spoken, but there is no doubt at all that in the United Nations Canada's attitude was not wholly for us. Canada was against the type of action we had taken, and it is no good trying to camouflage that. Nor was New Zealand wholly with us. They were exceedingly good and loyal comrades, and that we always appreciate.
What we need in government is a new mind upon these matters. I fully agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said about the necessity for having a real development of the idea of our Commonwealth, an expanding and numerically growing Commonwealth, but always with a basis whereby we can have the collaborating efforts of all the nations for a true peace based upon peaceful progress in the life and standards of their nation in the Commonwealth. That is the best means of progress. I am in favour of that.

1237
I am in favour of something else: that, before we begin to act as we did in our entry into Port Said, the nations should be taken more into the Government's confidence, and that such an operation should not take place, as my noble friend pointed out earlier, with only ten minutes' notice to the Leader of the Parliamentary Opposition. If, as you say, you want the country behind you in such an action, that is simply unprincipled. Above all, I should say, with great respect to Members of the House, that in these days, when we are already in a situation in which we are to depend mainly on nuclear weapons in the future, and even talk of using such weapons, for tactical purposes, up to the weight and power of the bomb dropped at Hiroshima, it is about time that this country thought of calling for a national day of prayer and giving real and serious spiritual consideration to the matter. Before we go into such extraordinary expeditions, in which we inflict injury and bloodshed on another nation, we should look to our own religious ideas and see that they take us in the right direction.
7.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I will not deny that I have looked forward with a certain degree of trepidation to my own part at the conclusion of this debate. For a relatively inexperienced Minister to wind up for Her Majesty's Government when so many and so distinguished Members of your Lordships' House have taken part in so important a debate is, as you may be sure, an ordeal. The temptation to come forearmed with the protective armament of a prepared speech was well-nigh irresistible, but it is my unswerving conviction that a Member who winds up for the Government or for one side with a prepared speech is not worthy of the confidence of this House.
If, therefore, I direct myself to the arguments which have appealed to me, or the reverse, without the splendid periods or even the sparkling epigrams of some of those who have taken part in this debate, I hope the House will not respect me the less and will realise that my rather homespun method of approaching an important subject it, not due to levity or want of consideration for your Lordships but quite the reverse. I myself was deeply moved by the appeal for no recrimination
1238
which came from the lips of the Leader of the Liberal Party, and I agree with him about that. I also agree with those noble Lords who have expressed the hope that this may be the last of the post-mortems and that future debates, however controversial they may be—and I, for one, am not sorry for controversy and see no reason that any man need apologise for it—will concentrate upon future policy rather than past disagreement.
I feel that in some ways I am a suitable member to reply to this debate. For a long time, when this situation was building up, I was on the Back Benches. During the critical phases I had the heavy and, as I believe your Lordships will believe, almost agonising responsibilities of being at the head of a Fighting Service. During the period to which the noble Marquess most deliberately referred, the present, I have been a member of the Cabinet. During those two periods of office, though in the earlier I did not originate policy, I took, of course, responsibility for it. Perhaps those of us who were not in the Cabinet, and therefore did not originate policy, had a more lonely and more difficult task than either the Government or the Opposition. These were not events about which one could hide oneself behind perfectly legitimate notions of Party loyalty, or even loyalty to colleagues.
I had to ask myself, as I know we all asked ourselves, in the solitude of our own rooms, what it was our duty to do at each successive stage of these painful events. I believe noble Lords will accept it from me that I did what I believed to be my duty. I was pained, but not surprised, to find that many old friends of different political persuasions thought that I had done wrong. Looking back on the occasion, I cannot regret what I have done or the support which I gave to Her Majesty's Government throughout, and I shall give my reasons for it. In particular, I cannot regret that, being at the head of a Fighting Service, I did my best to expound the views of this country at a time when the views of this country were not universally accepted abroad. And I tried to show, in unmistakable fashion, my loyalty to the Service of which I was at that time the head. I should like to say, in passing, that, however painful events may have been to me personally, the experience of

1239
working with the distinguished Navy officers and civil servants who form part of the Naval Service of this country was one that I shall never forget. Their calm, their loyalty, their helpfulness and understanding were beyond all praise. And I am glad, if of nothing else, of the opportunity this debate gives me of paying tribute to them.
I want to say at the outset of this argument—and it will be an argument—that I do not think any generation of statesmen, Government or Opposition, has had to face a situation more intractable or difficult to evaluate. That this was so has been shown by the fact, exemplified not least by to-day's debate, that real differences of emphasis existed not only between the two Parties officially but within the Parties and within the breasts of everyone of us. Speaking for myself, while I have been, and am, prepared to defend what the Government have done at every stage, I have never complained, nor shall I complain now, that others have taken a different view. I have never complained of members of the Government who resigned at the time of the intervention. I have never complained of the Opposition for opposing. On the contrary, if in such great matters conscience is to be the guide, it is part of the glory of Britain that persons whose consciences lead them to follow directly opposite courses can continue to respect one another with their heads held high.
There is only one qualification I would make to this—and I make it without either rancour or vindictiveness. I do so the more easily because I can specifically disclaim, in making it, any desire to refer to any Member of your Lordships' House. I must say that, while I have never complained of the content of opinions expressed by the Opposition, I have sometimes regretted their manner. Looking back on the events of last November, I feel no kind of resentment that the action of the Government should have been opposed with all their strength by those who thought it wrong. But I thought then, I think now and I feel it my duty to say, that the manner of the Opposition was often hysterical and irresponsible and reduced rather than improved the chances of rational discussion.
Moreover, it is easy to phrase criticism in such a manner as to damage the
1240
Government, as I think, on the whole, Mr. Bevan did, without doing so in such a way as to damage the country, as I think, on the whole, the present Leader of the Labour Party did. I wholeheartedly agreed with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he said that many of the speeches made by representatives of the Labour Party at that time seemed to him more calculated to damage the country than the Government; and had that effect. I cannot help noticing to-day that, excellent in quality as the two speeches from the Opposition Front Bench have been, they were the only two speeches, I think, from any quarter of your Lordships' House which contained no constructive suggestion—none whatever. I do not complain that those speakers did not utter a word of self-criticism—perhaps that is too much to ask of the Leaders of any Party under the Parliamentary system. But they made no suggestion whatever as to how they thought this intractable situation ought to have been dealt with, or what course we should take now for the future.
It is true that the noble Earl who led for the Opposition, made one constructive suggestion. It was that the country should trust his friends a little more than it has shown much inclination to do at the moment—and that after their performance last November, which, I must say, diminished rather than enhanced my respect for their powers of leadership. He did not tell us what he and his friends proposed should be done now, or what they would have done then. He issued a blank cheque which he invited the country to sign. I must say that, having seen what they have to offer—their almost total bankruptcy in moral and political ideas—I am less than ever inclined to listen to them.
I should like to join in the many tributes from all quarters of the House, and the many signs of welcome and affection which have been accorded to the noble Marquess who initiated the debate. I do not think I need say—though perhaps I may be permitted to do so—that the fact that he has left us, much to our regret, does not mean that the affection we feel for him, and the respect with which a stateman of his stature is rightly regarded in your Lordships' House, has dwindled in any degree whatever. I would join with my noble friend Lord Halifax

1241
in saying that I think the noble Marquess was premature in his expressed belief that he would not again take a leading part in office or on the Front Opposition Bench. He showed by his speech—that very remarkable and, if he will allow me to say so, very moving speech—that he is still a very young man. "Never" is not the kind of word one should use when one is a very young man. At any rate, we hope he is wrong; we believe he is wrong. I can only assure him that there is not a member of Her Majesty's Government who would not be happy and proud to serve with him or under him again.
I should like now to turn to what I, at any rate, regard as the crucial issues before the House. I do so in a spirit of post-mortem and not in a spirit of recrimination of self-justification. I think that this can best be achieved in asking— I hope dispassionately—and seeking to answer three crucial questions. First, what was the significance of our intervention last November? I say "what was the significance", because, with respect, one cannot begin to make up one's mind whether it was right or wrong, justified or unjustified, until one has got the right answer to the question as to why it was done and what was meant.
The second question is: What was the significance of our accepting the ceasefire so soon after the operation was begun and before its declared objectives were achieved? Because again, with respect, unless one understands its significance, one can hardly, I think, put oneself in a position to evaluate what were and what were not its necessary corollaries in policy. I think it is because I differ from the Opposition as to the answer to the first question that I differ from the noble Earl, and because, with the deepest respect, I differ a little in the answer to the second question, that I differ from my noble friend Lord Salisbury.
The third question which I shall seek to answer is: What ought to be our attitude at the moment to this baffling, intractable and painful situation? Because unless we can apply to the future these lessons of the last few months, I think our policy is liable to be both misunderstood and ineffective in itself. For I entirely agree, if I may say so, with the noble Viscount in that part of his
1242
speech where he said that it was necessary for any Government to try, so far as possible, to take the country into its confidence, so that the general principles governing its behaviour can be understood and so that, when sudden decisions have to be taken, the country can confidently accept them, knowing that the Government's general principles are not being transgressed.
I now turn to the question: what was the significance of the intervention? I think this matter is of crucial future importance to the confidence in which this country rightly desires to be held by other members of a free and civilised world. I believe that it has been misunderstood, and it was certainly misunderstood by the noble Viscount who has just spoken. Whatever else it was, this intervention was not a retreat from the principles which have governed our foreign policy of favouring the independence of free nations, of respect for international legal obligations, and of endorsement of the United Nations Charter. The intervention may have been right or it may have been wrong. Whatever else it was, it was not a reversion to colonialism or to the policy of the nineteenth century—not necessarily because we think the policy of the nineteenth century was wrong at the time it was taken, or in the context in which it was pursued. But we are living in different conditions to-day; we are the same nation, whichever "Government is in power, that gave independence to one portion of the old Colonial Empire and to India after another, either as members of the Commonwealth or as independent nations. That process has continued right through the Suez operation and is continuing to-day.
Secondly, I would say (and here I come closer to something which the noble Viscount opposite said) that there is absolutely no truth whatever in the suggestion that the intervention in November was to be regarded as a kind of act of retortion or retaliation for the nationalisation of the Suez Canal. I shall have more to say as I go on about that, as I believe, illegal act, and of the action which flows inevitably from it. But there is absolutely no truth whatever, so far as I am aware, in the belief, from which I think the noble Viscount appeared to suffer at one time, that what took place in November was in any sense either an

1243
act of retortion or retaliation; and it is a failure to grasp that essential fact which has been, if I may say so, befuddling many Members of the Opposition.
There are many people—I think that I myself am probably one of them—who believe that the United Nations Charter does not exclude acts of retortion and retaliation; and there are also people, like the learned Lord, Lord McNair, who think it does. But if I may at this stage venture a personal opinion about this matter, the view which I took at the time was that an act of retaliation or retortion, although it might have been justified immediately after the nationalisation of the Canal, can very speedily be lost, and was lost by waiver so soon as negotiations began. What remains true is that, for reasons which I am quite ready to expound, and some of which I think it will become relevant to discuss in the course of what I have to say, it was obvious to anybody who reviewed the position in the Middle East as it was last summer, after the introduction of Russian arms on a grand scale in Egypt, and after the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, that the situation was unstable, to say the least, and might at any moment easily explode in one way or another and become unpredictable.
It would, therefore, have been wholly wrong, at least in my judgment, for Her Majesty's Government not to accumulate certain forces in Malta against a contingency. It was utterly false, as I see it, and saw it at the time, to infer in any sort of way that, because that force was there, we were committed to the use of force against Nasser, or necessarily that we even thought at that stage that the use of force at all would be justified in the circumstances that existed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not want to overstress the point I made on that, but of course we are led into considering these things from the claims which are made by the Government. The noble Earl said to-day, "What has been achieved in nine months?—that Russia and Egypt are not in control of the Middle East; that the Baghdad Pact has grown in cohesion; that there is no Arab unity under Nasser, and that there has been set up a United Nations Force ". I should hardly think
1244
all these things would arise from a claim that a police force was sent in to stop a war between Nasser and Israel.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I endorse every word my noble friend said. But all I have said at the moment is that it is utterly false to suggest that the intervention in November was designed by the Government as an act of retortion or retaliation for the act of nationalising the Suez Canal. I think it is vital that that fact should be understood on both sides of this House, because we can respect one another only if we can correctly judge one another's motives. And it is important that our actions should be understood by people outside this House, in the country, and outside the country, in the world. I therefore welcome the intervention of the noble Viscount, not because he has it right but because he has it wrong and gives me an opportunity of putting the record right.
The noble Viscount recalled what I said in 1951 about Abadan. I do not retract a single word I said about Abadan when I was on the Back Benches; but what the noble Viscount failed to understand, when he quoted the portion of my speech, was that the whole burden of my song was that force and violence and unilateral settlement were bound to lead to disorder; and that I was protesting against the Egyptian Government at that date (I think it was then the Royal Government) because their acts were likely to lead to disaster in the Middle East. I said that we ought to oppose them by deeds as well as by words, and I venture to suggest that the noble Lord would oppose them by deeds as well as by words. I did not for a moment suggest, even in the moment in which I was quoting Horace, that those deeds should take the form of an act of retaliation or intervention, either in that place or in the form of the action which took place in October. I thought that my noble friend, in the speech which the noble Viscount was quoting, was really saying in substance the same thing.
I hope I may venture to quote from one of my own speeches—I do not do so out of any sense of vanity but simply in order to establish that what I am saying now I was saying at this time. I said in the heat of the Suez crisis in a by-election at Chester, having protested

1245
most strongly against the illegality of the seizure of the Suez Canal and said most clearly that we cannot disregard that as part of the context in which intervention took place, that
" If Israel had not attacked Egypt I, for one, feel quite certain that we would not have gone in. Right up to the moment of that attack I confess that personally I had been hoping for a peaceful solution of the dispute about the Suez Canal."
That has always been my stand. It may have been wrong, but we are now discussing that stand, and do not let us be misguided about what it is.
I feel that the significance of the intervention last November lay in this: that violence had been precipitated by the Israeli attack against Egypt and we were confronted with a situation in which we must do either something or nothing. We have yet to learn what the Opposition would have done. Of course, one cannot demonstrate what would have happened if we had done nothing. I can only say once more, perhaps not so eloquently as my noble friend, what I am certain would have happened. Noble Lords on the Back Benches, and certainly my noble friend Lord Dundee, in his admirable speech, referred to the fact that documents captured by the Israeli proved that concerted plans were in operation and would have been put into effect but for our intervention. It is always difficult to demonstrate what would have happened if a different course had been taken. One can speculate, as my noble friend Lord Teviot did, on the result of the operation on the Israeli if Allied bombing had not taken place. But, whatever would have been the result of the action, of one thing I am absolutely persuaded—that is, that there would have been a war involving at least Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and possibly Saudi Arabia, and I do not believe that, in such an event, either we or other countries could have long remained aloof, if that war had proceeded in the only way in which it could have proceeded.
I should like to know exactly what the Opposition think about this. Would they have been prepared to stand aloof from such a war? If not, the situation really amounts to this: we are debating not an important matter of international morality or law but an opinion about a matter of fact—namely, what would have been the consequences of doing nothing. I have never heard a confident opinion
1246
from the Opposition about what they think would have happened if we had done nothing, and I should be very surprised to get a confident opinion now. But if we are going to differ on that point, let us at least respect each other's integrity and sincerity about the views we form about that matter of fact.
I have absolutely no doubt that if we had done nothing at all—the only suggestion which I can even imagine to be the Opposition's view—we should have suffered every one of the evils, economic, political and diplomatic, which flowed in fact from the intervention that took place. In that larger war, I do not suppose for a moment that the Suez Canal would have been unblocked. I do not suppose for a moment that the oil pipe lines would have been unsevered. I can only speculate on how Europe would have got its oil supply last autumn. I do not know what the effect on our dollar balance would have been, but it could not have been in any way better, and we do not know whether at this moment we should have been at peace or at war. When, therefore, we are invited by noble Lords opposite to compose a balance sheet of the results of our operations, we can bear in mind what, at any rate in the view of the Government, would have happened if we had acted differently.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Viscount suggests that we invite him to produce a balance sheet, but I was referring to the balance sheet produced by the noble Earl this afternoon. I have been trying to link it up with the argument the noble Viscount is making. He keeps on asking what we would have done in similar circumstances. I say frankly that in similar circumstances we would have worked through the United Nations, and if the conflagration had grown and spread, as he said it would have done but for military intervention, we say that a United Nations force could have been produced quite adequate to deal with the situation, as it did in Korea.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount overlooks the fact that the only armed forces in the locality were our own armed forces in Malta. In the case of a general war of the kind which I was envisaging, it is really childish to

1247
pretend that a United Nations Force consisting of 4,000 persons, mostly not fighting troops and unsupported by any heavy armaments, could have played any effective part whatever, if it had not been supported either by the American Sixth Fleet or our own. Let us not hear any more about that. Let us rather say this: that, so far as we can judge, a general war would have had all the evil effects which have in fact flowed. It is no use saying that you would have worked through the United Nations, because either the United Nations would have acted on it, and, if it had, the same consequences, or possibly worse, would have flowed to the free world, or, if they had not acted, you are simply discussing inaction in another way.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that we should have consulted with the Commonwealth, with the Americans and with other people. That may or may not be a criticism of the way in which we carried out our policy, but it is not an alternative policy, because in the last resort every one of those persons, when consulted, would have had to face the choice between action and inaction. I must record my own conviction, based both on the published information and on other which I had at my disposal, on the question whether the charge that we should have consulted has been made out or not, that if we had complied with the wishes of all those whose good opinions and good will I desire as much as the noble Earl, the result would have been inaction and not action.
Again we are faced with the alternative: should we have acted or not? Looking back at it now, I can only say that knowing, as I do, that the cost to ourselves has been heavy in popularity, in finance and in many other ways, I still think that the consequences of a general war would have been very much greater than what we have suffered. If I had been able to compare my then estimate of the evil consequences which we should have had to face with those that we know ensued, I should have thought that things were going to be a great deal worse than they are.
I have tried to show what was the significance of our intervention. It was precipitated by an outbreak of violence. Your Lordships may do me the honour of remembering that at the time I made
1248
a speech in answer to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who was at that time Leader of the Opposition, in which I explained what I regarded as two juridical points. But (and I do not think in this case I say anything unduly controversial) if people accepted our estimate of the facts—that is, that a general war would have ensued from nonintervention—I do not think our policy would have been even impugned by the Party opposite. Therefore I turn from this subject with the same observation. We differ honestly and sincerely and, I hope, courageously, about an opinion of fact, and not about any ultimate question of morality or international law.
I turn to the next phase of the problem, which is: what was the significance of the cease fire? This issue was the one which, as I argued it out in the privacy and solitude of my own room, caused me the most difficulty. I confess that I saw clearly the argument the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, put forward this afternoon. I believed, and I believe now, that there was no military reason why we should not have prolonged the operation until it had resulted in complete success, and that it would not have taken the markedly longer time that he estimated. I am certain that we could have cleared the Suez Canal by the end of January. It may well be, as the noble Lord thought, that the unpopularity we had already incurred by our intervention would not have been increased by any further operations. As I say, I see the strength of all that.
But noble Lords will remember the case on the other side. It was, first of all—and nobody expressed it more strongly than the noble Marquess who initiated this debate—that, having gone in for the reason that I have stated, namely, because of an outbreak of violence, there could be no justification for the continued use of power a moment longer than the violence persisted. That was a powerful moral argument. There was also the argument, less tangible and less easily demonstrated, but none the less powerful, that all the time our troops were there we were building up in this country economic disadvantages and political difficulties, and that once the immediate danger of a general war had receded, the difficulties and disadvantages we have had to face subsequently would not, in the material sense, have been counterbalanced by the advantages we got there.

1249
Perhaps it is not possible for me to pronounce finally on the balance between these two arguments, but I have not heard anybody to-day, not even the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who was then a leading member of the Government, question that the Government were right to take the decision to order the cease fire. But—and this is the point at which I am bound to say I differ from the noble Marquess—it never occurred to me, once I had reconciled myself to the difficulties of the cease fire, that we should not have to withdraw our troops so soon as acceptable conditions existed in Port Said; that we should not co-operate in the clearance of Port Said with the United Nations force, and that ultimately a situation would not arise in which we should have to make up our minds as to the terms upon which we would use the Suez Canal. This is the point at which I really find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Halifax and with all my noble friends who have expressed this point of view, rather even than with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who appears to think that there was a point at which, having agreed and reconciled oneself to the cease fire, one could take some course of action different from that which we took.
I would say this, in examining this part of the case about the ultimate significance of the cease fire. I have already told your Lordships that a right of using force in a given situation would rapidly be lost by waiver; that is to say, once you had taken a course of action in which, by action or by word, the use of force was forsworn. I believe that to be good morals, and I am sure it is good law. I myself feel quite convinced that, once we had agreed to the cease fire, it became morally, legally and politically impossible for us to resume the use of force without renewed provocation of a most aggravating kind which would constitute a new justification altogether.
When I hear some of my friends in the country and in another place urging that at this stage we should, for instance, as one very close friend of mine suggested, send a warship through the Suez Canal with the idea, apparently, of tendering the dues to some authority other than that acceptable, and, apparently, use force to force the Canal, I can only say, first, that it is radically
1250
inconsistent with the policy involved in the cease fire, and secondly, that it would be totally ineffective, because either the warship would be resisted, or it would be accepted. If it were accepted, as it might conceivably be if Nasser had the sense to do it, every subsequent merchant ship could be refused; and if it were resisted, we should find ourselves in a position where, without any supporting forces whatever, we had to withdraw or cause the blockage of the Canal for a second time. I am bound to tell friends of mine in the country that when they are talking at the present stage about the threat to use an armed force, they are putting forward a policy which has no relation to realities.
I was glad to notice that when the noble Marquess who opened the debate made his impressive speech he gave no support whatever for that course of action. But he says, or he gave me to understand, that he would have preferred a boycott. To my mind a boycott, or, as I should prefer to describe it, a strike of customers, has many attractions, moral and economic. But to be used at all, it would have to be used with a reasonable prospect of success; and to enjoy a prospect of success (I agree with noble Lords who have expressed this opinion) it would be necessary for it to be universal. I further think—and this is a point upon which I differ from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—that if by any chance we had for any reason embarked upon a partial boycott, and had at any time had to withdraw from that, our position would have been far more humiliating and difficult to sustain in the eyes of the world, or public opinion here, than if we had not embarked on the boycott at all. I am bound to say that, viewing this matter as a practical proposition, I came to the conclusion that it would be utterly wrong to pursue a policy in which, for various practical reasons, I had no ultimate faith.
This leads me to the third, and what I hope your Lordships will agree is the most important, of the three questions which I pose; that is to say, the future. I cannot bring myself to accept a negotiated settlement on the basis of Nasser's unilateral declaration. I do not think we have accepted such a declaration. I agree entirely with the views expressed

1251
by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the original seizure of the Suez Canal was illegal and improper; and until that illegality has been put right, it is not possible to accept a negotiated settlement on these terms. I should like to say in a sentence, because I do not think it has been said sufficiently, either in your Lordships' House or elsewhere, why it is that I hold that the original act was utterly illegal. I think it was also the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, but I have no hesitation in repeating it, because it seems to me that it cannot be reiterated too often.
The actual technical legal case was, in fact, argued so entirely satisfactorily by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, on September 12 last that I do not want to reiterate it, but I want to put forward two simple points which appeal to me as a member of the Government and as one who has practised in courts of law for rather more than twenty years. In the first place, I deny that what took place was nationalisation at all. It was very well said in another place by an official spokesman of the Labour Party, although I had better not name him because of the Rules of Order. But it was said in words which I could not hope to equal or better. He said:
" If the sending of police and soldiers in the darkness of the night to seize somebody else's property is nationalisation, Ali Baba used the wrong terminology."
I agree with every word and syllable which fell from the spokesman of the Labour Party about that. The so-called nationalisation of the Suez Canal was an act of piracy, and not nationalisation, in the sense in which the term is employed by the Party opposite. Therefore, any analogy which was drawn from the action of the Party opposite in nationalising our own resources here with foreign interests is of no effect. The action which was taken last July was an act of seizure, and not of nationalisation.
Secondly, I would say quite plainly that although there is a wide body of opinion among international lawyers who believe that nationalisation, properly so-called, can be justified if it is accompanied by compensation (and I accept, with certain reservations, which are not material to the point I am now making,
1252
that doctrine), I would say beyond doubt that no respectable international lawyer could be found to suggest that one is bound to take at its face value promises of compensation when the conduct of the person making those promises excludes the possibility that he means them sincerely. I would say that the declarations of Nasser that he had seized the Canal in order to provide the finance for the Aswan Dam, made contemporaneously with the act of seizure, were such as to destroy any possible confidence that anyone could conceivably have in his promises of compensation. That does not destroy merely his political case. It would, I assert with the utmost confidence, destroy any vestige of a legal case he might have as well, because the whole basis of nationalisation—if there is a right of nationalisation, which is disputed by some lawyers—is based upon the existence of a genuine intention to compensate the expropriated owners. That is the position in International Law.
I would say that I wholly agree with the noble Marquess that, to accept terms which involve condoning an act of that kind, would, so long as the illegalities subsist, be an act which was wholly wrong. That was why I said what I did immediately before the Government announcement was made. Because the words have been misquoted, perhaps I may, without any degree of vanity, repeat them now. I said this:
" Let no one think that Nasser's terms will ever be willingly accepted in their present form by any loyal British subject. Nor will one Power forever be able to pursue her own way in such matters without consulting the wishes of the users or the obligations of international law. History has a way of being unkind to unilateral settlements and even less kind to dictators. Whatever temporary expedients may be adopted let us not lose our resolution to go on asserting our rights and obtain them in the end."
Those were not only my sentiments; I believe that they are the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this respect. I do not think that "abject surrender" is suitable language to describe a policy of that kind. We shall go on asserting what is right, and we shall go on in complete confidence that, sooner or later, we shall get it in the end.
I close—and I am afraid I still have a few more minutes to spend with your Lordships—with two reflections about this policy which I think is in danger of

1253
being misunderstood, to some extent, upon our own side of the House. If we abandon the use of force, and if we reject compliance with Nasser's terms as a form of negotiable settlement, what are we to do? We have, as I believe, ultimately two alternative conceivable courses to adopt. First there is that to which certain noble Lords inclined, for which, I believe, even the noble Marquess had a certain inclination, but which was most ruthlessly expressed elsewhere as the "hunt the rat" policy—the policy that, short of actual war, our intention was to use every means, economic and political, in our power to bring down the present régime in Egypt, at whatever cost to our own nationals or to other people who might suffer in the course of it. I do not know that such a policy is the right method, but I am absolutely certain that it would forfeit any kind of sympathy in the international world; and I believe that it would be ineffective.
I believe, on the contrary, that even now—and I speak as one who has had personal knowledge of the Egyptian and Arab-speaking peoples—we have the chance of showing the underlying facts of the situation to the Arab-speaking peoples of the Middle East in such a form that they will understand them and respect our position. I believe that a policy of unrelenting hostility to any one of those peoples would be entirely wrong, whatever we may believe about the Egyptian régime: and personally I believe that its character is such that at some date, which I cannot predict, the inherent instability and inherent vices of that régime are bound, at the hands of someone, to bring it down. I believe, on the contrary, that our right policy is to take whatever means are legitimate of continuing to assert our rights, yet to be extremely careful about the means which we adopt as bargaining counters, for we should always consider what loss they might inflict upon our own people, on the people in the Middle East and Europe, most of whom are entirely innocent of any wrong.
That brings me to the last part of my speech which consists in considering what are the underlying facts of the situation. The only point upon which I find myself, to my distress, differing from a number of my noble friends on this side of the House is in the description which they accorded to Nasser as "triumphant ". I do not believe that that is the case. I
1254
recognise to the full the painful decisions to which we have been put, as I believe, not through our own fault, but through defection of friends who we think were wrong, but whom we still respect and whose friendship we still desire to keep. But I do not think that what has happened has been a triumph for Nasser. Let me explain quite clearly why I hold that opinion.
In the first place, the present Egyptian régime came into being after its first leader had been destroyed by treachery, and he remains, so far as I know, in a humiliating position which he has done nothing to deserve at the hands of the present rulers of Egypt. But after the first leaders of the revolution had been destroyed by treachery, the present Egyptian régime put itself forward before the Arab world as one which would avenge the insult of 1949, when the Egyptian forces were defeated by the troops of Israel. The net result of the policy pursued by the present Egyptian régime has been, in the face of the whole Arab world (who are by no means unaware of the fact), to humiliate an Arab nation at the hands of the national enemy, Israel, as no Arab nation has ever been humiliated before.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was good enough to quote a speech of mine in which I said that Nasser's one positive result was to achieve, at the cost of £150 million worth of Iron Curtain arms, an air force which could not fly, an army which would not fight, and a navy about which the least said the better. I cannot believe that that can be the action of a Government which is in any sense triumphant about anything. But, of course, it does not stop there. A year ago Nasser wanted American capital on a gigantic scale, and he still wants it. The Aswan Dam is not built. His people still want it, but what chance is there of any intelligent nation with money to invest investing in a Government whose policy has yielded such results and whose methods give such little confidence to potential investors? Is that triumph? What is of great significance is that last year he was the ally of Saudi Arabia and the Arab kingdoms. To-day, only Syria, which with him has sold Arab independence for Communist support, stands anywhere near him. Not only ourselves, not only France, not only Israel, but every

1255
person of any persuasion, and in particular every member of the Arab world, who has tried to have anything to do with the present Egyptian regime has found it utterly impossible to deal with. Is that triumph?
Nasser wants, and the Egyptian regime would like, to erect Egypt into a sort of modern Caliphate to lead the Muslim world against Israel. They must understand, I think, that Israel has been recognised as a member of the United Nations and is therefore entitled to the rights which the United Nations Charter gives her. Every single Arab potentate or Arab Government which has come into contact with the present Egyptian regime has ultimately found that it cannot, consistently with its self-respect, pursue all its aims and methods. I was reading the other day a book of which I am very fond, a sort of Golden Treasury of Arabic wisdom, the Alf leilah wa leilah, the Thousand and One Nights. There was a character who was inclined to puff himself up by the name of Goha. He was from Cairo, too. He did not form a respectable figure. I would reasonably believe that instead of seeing in Nasser a modern Haroun el Raschid or Salah Ed Din, the wags of Damascus and Beirut will see in Nasser nothing but a 20th century version of this rather disreputable figure Goha.
My Lords, I should like to add this. As I see the problem of the Middle East, and as I think it is seen by Members on both sides of the House, the underlying problem is poverty. No one who has been there can fail to have that as the dominant impression—poverty, so age-long, so absolute, so abject and, I must say, so enervating that it sears the heart even to contemplate its prolongation. No other people in the world more require the end of poverty. How can they achieve it? Not by enmity with the West. They must have the confidence of the West if they are to achieve the aim which every single Arab heart desires. I do not know the ultimate division betwixt East and West in this matter. The old prophet of Islam referred to the peoples of the Book. In that phrase he included the Christian Church, the Jewish community and Islam itself. They must have trade; they must have the use of the Canal by the Western Powers. They need investment, and I
1256
would say humbly, but still firmly, there are a great number of Western social institutions from which they would profit in the war against poverty.
It would, of course, be open to them to buy a few of the institutions from behind the Iron Curtain. They know very well—at least, I think they do—that going behind the Iron Curtain would mean fighting Russia's wars for her, and that the price of Russian institutions would be, in the long run, to be numbered with Hungary rather than with China. These are underlying facts which I believe must (I know the noble Marquess will forgive the word), in the long run, despite the grandfather of the noble Marquess, tell in our favour. What we have to do is to go on asserting our rights, to refuse to compromise with evil when we see evil, and to go on telling the truth and doing our duty as far as we can according to the lights which have been given us.
A certain amount was said by the noble Earl, and indeed by the noble Marquess, about the moral leadership of the world. I would only say this about moral leadership. I myself am, and I know my colleagues are, profoundly concerned to do what we believe to be right at any given moment. To seek leadership in doing what is right is to seek a will o' the wisp. You must pursue duty for its own sake because it is right, and not because you will be the leader if you do it. We seek not only moral leadership, which is gratifying, but to do our duty. As a Christian I would say to noble Lords opposite—and to the noble Viscount who ended on a Christian note—that we seek moral discipleship rather than moral leadership. And, seeking that, and believing that we have done our duty in every respect so far as God gave us strength, I leave this matter before your Lordships tonight.
8.27 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have had, I think we shall all agree, a feast of oratory, and I am the last person to wish any noble Lords a surfeit of that diet, however palatable it may be. Therefore I will try to be extremely brief in replying to the debate. In the speech with which I opened this discussion, your Lordships may remember that I said that my aim in tabling my

1257
Motion was to give the House an opportunity to take stock of the position in the light of what had occurred, and for the purpose of avoiding similar experiences in the future. I hope the House will feel that that object has been achieved. I think we have had an interesting and valuable debate.
The ground has already been covered so fully by successive speakers that there is really nothing that I need add, though there is plenty that I could say. But there are one or two comments which, if your Lordships will bear with me, I think I ought to make. The first is on a pure point of elucidation. I think I ought to explain some words of mine about the moral leadership of the world which seem to have aroused some misunderstanding on the other side of the House. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, seem to have formed an impression that what I had in mind was that our past Suez policy had lost us the moral leadership of the world. If they will do me the honour of reading that portion of my speech in Hansard to-morrow, they will see that I said almost exactly the opposite.
I believe that our stand over Suez gave us back for the first time the moral position which we had enjoyed during the war—others may disagree with me but, at least, that is my convinced view—and what I feared was that this latest decision with regard to the use of the Canal, which will be represented at home and abroad by a number of people as a surrender to Nasser, will lose us that position. If we could have continued the boycott, I said it would have helped us to gain what this decision may possibly have lost us. I thought it was worth while to explain that in order to remove a misconception which had apparently arisen.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should have thought that I understood the noble Marquess better in his first comment this afternoon. Of course you have lost the moral leadership of the world, because practically the whole world has said so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If we began to argue about the loss of moral leadership, I expect we could say a good
1258
deal on both sides of the House, but I do not intend to begin it now. I should also have liked to say something on the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about the United Nations, which I found extremely intriguing, but time will not permit me to go fully into that. Therefore, I should like to proceed immediately, if I may, to two points which were made by the noble Earl, Lord Halifax. The noble Earl, who has always the respect of everyone in this House, made, I thought, an important point, though it has already been largely answered, and admirably so, by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, As I understood it, Lord Halifax could not quite understand why, having gone into Egypt, we then went out so quickly. As Lord Dundee rightly pointed out, it was the essence of our intervention, which was made abundantly clear in the ultimatum which was delivered to Egypt and Israel, that we went in to stop the war between the two countries; and when both sides had agreed to the cease fire—unconditional cease fire—and when, in addition, the United Nations had agreed to send an international force to the area, there really was no reason for any further military action. Indeed, if noble Lords opposite think our position has been somewhat immoral, I would say that it really would have been immoral if we had gone on with military action under those conditions.
I would agree further with what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has just said: that, once having come to that decision, we had to face the fact that we should have to withdraw our troops, because directly the United Nations Force arrived there was really no further purpose in our keeping them there. But where I think he went too far, if he will allow me to say so, and if I understood him correctly, was when he said that from the moment we agreed to the cease fire in Egypt we accepted the necessity for agreeing to the use of the Canal on Nasser's terms, as the Government have now done.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My noble friend, I know, does not intend to put words into my mouth. I never said "agreeing on Nasser's terms". I quite specifically said all along that that was just what I could not feel willing to do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Accepting as a temporary arrangement, and under protest—that from that particular moment when we agreed to the cease fire, we had to accept this final move. I do not think it is correct, if he will forgive me for saying so. As most of us in the Cabinet over that period will remember, continuous and most strenuous efforts were made throughout the early months of this year, by Mr. Hammarskjoeld, by the United States Government and by ourselves, to try to get a long-term settlement in regard to the Canal before the waterway was cleared. We were in fact, as we all know, defeated by the dilatory tactics of Colonel Nasser, who kept on putting off the clearance and thus prevented our getting on with the whole job. But it is only quite lately that we have been driven to accept that fact, and I do not think it is true to say that at that time last year all of us, in our heart of hearts, thought that this is what would happen. I certainly would not agree—perhaps I was shortsighted—that I had taken that very unpalatable decision for a moment. So much for that point.
The only other point to which I would speak is one also covered by the Leader of the House, Lord Home, in his speech. He asked, and quite properly asked, what alternative have those, if there are any, who agree with me, to the action which was taken by the Government. The noble Earl, Lord Home, has information at his disposal which I have not got. He tells me—and it is repeated by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—that the boycott by these two countries alone simply could not be maintained. That is the view they have in the light of all the information at their disposal, and I think I may say that that view is generally accepted on all sides of the House.
What I cannot quite feel is this, and I hope they will not mind my saying so: that every single possible effort was made to rally more general support for the boycott. I cannot help suspecting that the Government's mind was really made up before the Suez Canal Users' Association met for their latest meeting. I thought it most significant that the announcement of the agreement with Egypt about sterling payment of tolls was made almost, as I say, within a few hours of the ending of the Association's
1260
meeting. Therefore I believe—I think I am probably correct—that the Government, who were perfectly entitled to do it, had given up the struggle before that last meeting. I am sorry for that.
At the same time it is no good harping back into the past. On the future, I think there is a much greater degree of agreement between us all. In the other portions of the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Home, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, there was not much with which I disagreed, if I understood rightly what they meant. They seem to want pipelines to reduce our dependence on the Canal. I want pipelines to reduce our dependence on the Canal. They want tankers that can go round the Cape. I want tankers that can go round the Cape. The only question about which I am a little uncertain—it may be my stupidity—is as to the use that is to be made of these tankers. I challenged the noble Earl, Lord Home, on this point, and he very courteously gave me an answer. Even so, I am not quite clear what is in his mind. He said, so far as I could understand it, that the Canal would be used only as far as was convenient—" convenient "was the word he used. That may mean that it will be used a great deal or it may mean that it will not be used very much. I wish I could have had this point elucidated a little further.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It may be that the truth is that the maritime nations of the world will be watching the way in which Egypt puts into practice her unilateral declaration on the running of the Canal. It may depend to some extent on that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, I see that. But the point I was trying to make in my own speech was that I should like us to say now that we intend in future, and especially in regard to oil, to use it as little as possible, just to show the world what happens to nations who unilaterally repudiate their obligations. I do not know what the Government's view about it is, and I think they are not particularly anxious to make it clear. But if it were possible for them to make a statement of the kind that I have indicated, I believe it would be extremely welcome to the British people, and I also believe that it would be a wise and conciliatory act of statesmanship.

1261
Having said that, my Lords, I do not propose to weary the House any longer. In conclusion, I would merely, if I may, thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for the far too kind things that they have said about my leadership, and especially for what was said in his closing speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—it touched me deeply. I should like to thank your Lordships from the bottom of my heart, and to assure you that it will be my most earnest desire to serve this House to the best of my power in the future as in the past. My Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before the House adjourns, it might be for your Lordships' convenience that I made an announcement on the Whitsun recess. My right honourable friend the
1262
Lord Privy Seal has announced in another place this afternoon that we expect to adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess on Friday, 7th June, if good progress is made with essential business. We think it desirable for the Recess to extend over two weeks. The date of reassembly will be announced later.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Order made on February 6 last discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.