Sitting of 16 December 1958

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received your Address praying that the International Sugar Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1958, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
I will comply with your request.

PETITIONS (COTTON INDUSTRY)
Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I beg to present a Petition, signed by 6,245 of my constituents in the Borough of Stalybridge in the County of Cheshire. The Petition calls attention to the serious plight of the cotton industry, the closing down of factories, the unemployment and the under-employment. This is a matter of very great concern to my constituents in Stalybridge, which had such a tragic history of unemployment between the wars.
The Petition is of the opinion that depression has returned to the industry because no effective action has been taken to prevent or limit the import of cheap textiles produced under unfair competitive conditions.
The Petition ends with the prayer:
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take effective action to secure the stabilisation of the textile industry. so that the textile workers may be assured of reasonable security of employment.
And your Petitioners. as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.
Mr. Blackburn: I beg to present another Petition, signed by 3,600 of my constituents in the Borough of Dukinfield in the County of Chester, which is
920
also still very dependent on the cotton industry. Like the previous Petition, this one also deals with the present serious plight of the cotton industry and calls attention to the fact that the depression materially affects not only those employed in the industry but the town as a whole.
The prayer is as follows:
Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable House will take effective action to secure the stabilisation of the textile industry so that it will be prosperous in times of peace and capable of meeting the country's need in any time of emergency, and so that the textile workers may be assured of reasonable security of employment.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.
Mr. Philip Bell: It is my duty, Mr. Speaker, as Member of Parliament for Bolton, East, on behalf of 33,883 inhabitants of the County of Bolton, to seek leave to present to this Honourable House a Petition which, after calling attention to the present condition of unemployment in Bolton and the apprehension of further unemployment in the future, petitions this Honourable House to take action to assist the cotton industry and encourage industrial firms to establish new factories in the County Borough of Bolton.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.
Mr. Kenyon: I beg to present a Petition on behalf of 4,200 persons resident in the Borough of Chorley.
The purpose of the Petition, which closely follows the lines of the petitions from Lancashire towns which have been previously presented, is to instance the manner in which the cotton industry is declining in the Chorley area. The Petition expresses the fear that unless immediate steps are taken in the way of Government action to arrest the decline, many more people will suffer.
The Petition continues:
Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable House will take action without delay to limit the import of cheap textiles produced under unfair competitive conditions and will devote itself to saving the cotton towns of Lancashire from becoming derelict by taking prompt action to stimulate and revive the cotton industry.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound. will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Longton Brook, Stoke-on-Trent (Flooding)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will cause an investigation to be made into the cause of the flooding created by the Longton Brook in the City of Stoke-on- Trent, the damage done in houses, on land and roads, with a view to the payment of compensation from public funds to the occupiers of houses who have suffered through the floods.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. HenryBrooke): No, Sir; this a matter for the city council, which, I understand, is preparing urgently a scheme for the alleviation of this flooding and will submit it for my approval as soon as it can. As regards the last part of the Question, I am not aware of any provision under which compensation to householders could properly be paid from public funds.
    Mr. Smith: Does not that mean that compensation can be paid extravagantly to well-placed, rich officers in the Army and the Navy but that ordinary people who produce the coal with which the nation carries on must be left in this position?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot speak of the much wider issues which the hon. Member has raised. He asked me a Question. and I told him the facts so far as I am aware of them.

    Land Subsidence, Stoke-on-Trent
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will cause an investigation to be made of the effect on houses, sewers and roads caused by the changing levels of land, in Longton, Blurton, Trentham and Trent Vale, estimate the prospects of future changes in the level of land. and issue a report.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Stoke-on-Trent Corporation has access to expert advice
    922
    on these matters, and I do not think that it is necessary for me to arrange an investigation.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister reconsider his reply from this point of view? Does he accept the statement that in this area during the next 15 years many parts will sink 15–30 feet? As many people have purchased their own homes, does this not create a serious responsibility which calls for joint action by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Power?
    Mr. Brooke: I agree about the importance of the responsibility, but I believe in responsible local government, and in this case I am advised that the city council has experienced technical officers and also engages a mining consultant when necessary.
    Mr. Smith: While the municipality is officered by some of the finest, most able and most conscientious men in the country, are not its rights limited by legislation? Has not the time arrived when the right hon. Gentleman, together with the Minister of Power, should recognise the national responsibility and implement it so that the locality shall not be left in this position?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not aware of having received any representations from the city council to that effect. It was certainly my impression that it already had all the expert advice which it needed.

    House Doves and Pigeons
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will initiate legislation extending to the remainder of the country the power granted to sanitary authorities in London by Section 121 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, to deal with nuisance, annoyance or damage caused by house doves and pigeons.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): My right hon. Friend sees no prospect of initiating legislation for this purpose for some time to come, and he is not aware that local authorities generally want the power. The particular Section is, of course, chiefly aimed at conditions in towns. But if authorities do feel that they need

    923
    additional powers my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider their representations.
    Mr. Page: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that there are many towns which would like to exercise the rights London has to abate the nuisance from pigeons, particularly my constituency? Will he take the opportunity of squeezing a Clause into some convenient Bill to give the provinces the same power to deal with this nuisance as London has?
    Mr. Bevins: The Government have a Public Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in preparation at the moment, and if the feeling in local government generally is that something should be incorporated into it, we will gladly examine the matter.

    Air Pollution
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on the smoke and sulphur dioxide content of the air in Salford during the November fogs and what effects it has had or is estimated to have on people suffering from chest complaints.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is informed that daily measurements taken by the local authority during November showed high levels of smoke and sulphur in the area. I am advised that the amount of sickness in Salford during November showed the normal upward seasonal trend. Figures were lower than in November, 1957. and there were no sudden increases associated with fog.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that the bronchitis death-rate in Salford is double the national average and that there are 1,200 chronic bronchitis cases in the city? Does he feel that the present measures are good enough?
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in attempting to deal with the matter of the obnoxious fumes being emitted from the factory at Salford he ought to look at a map? Salford is a very long way from the factory; I happen to live within the orbit of the fumes.
    Mr. Bevins: I think the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question relates to the next Question.
    924
    What the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) says is no doubt true, and it serves to emphasise the importance of the clean air policy being made effective both by local authorities and the Government.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the matter is brought to the notice of the Minister of Health and he is told that the high incidence of chronic bronchitis in Lancashire is related to polluted air, he always refers us to the Minister of Housing and Local Government? Will he tell the House what measures he has taken to ensure that the Clean Air Act is implemented?
    Mr. Bevins: We have a number of Questions subsequently on which, perhaps, I might take the opportunity to give that information.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the fears of neighbouring local authorities of chemical pollution from the chimney planned at Petrochemicals Limited, Carrington, which would emit over 36 tons of sulphur dioxide daily; and what action he proposes to take following the recent inquiry.
    Mr. Bevins: I understand that the neighbouring local authorities expressed their views at the recent inquiry. The report of the inspector who conducted the inquiry will be ready soon, and my right hon. Friend will study it carefully before reaching his decision.
    Mr. Allaun: Since at the inquiry one medical officer of health has stated that we must reduce pollution if we are to avoid the danger of a disaster such as the 1952 disaster in London when 4,000 people were killed, does the hon. Gentleman think that the Clean Air Act and the proposals to increase the alkali inspectorate are being implemented quickly enough? Also, will he ensure that in future inspection of works of this kind takes place at night, since I am informed that many works carry out their most dangerous practices at night and thus avoid detection?
    Mr. Bevins: In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I will certainly see what

    925
    we can do in that respect. With regard to the first part, there has been a striking increase in the number of schemes for smoke controlled areas which has been submitted to my right hon. Friend during the last few months. Perhaps I might be allowed to say that we are currently pressing all local authorities to get on with this job more rapidly than at present.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reports he has received of the amount of sulphur dioxide and smoke content in the air in the City of Stoke-on-Trent during the recent fog periods; what was the amount and effect of other forms of air pollution; and if he is satisfied with the progress made since the Clean Air Act. 1956, came into operation.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has as yet received no reports of the amount of pollution in the air of the city during recent weeks, but he is informed that during November there was nothing abnormal about the increase of illness or the number of deaths. A start is being made in reducing air pollution in the city. Four smoke control areas are under discussion and the difficult problems of industrial pollution are under active investigation.
    Mr. Smith: While appreciating the work which has been done by enlightened manufacturers who have modernised equipment and cut out pollution, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is a minority about whom action should have been taken long ago? Since the Act has been in operation for so long, is it not time that this was treated as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Bevins: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is being treated as a matter of serious urgency by the alkali inspectorate, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if the pollution of the air at Scunthorpe by the emission of fine iron-oxide dust from the steel works has been brought to his attention; if he is satisfied that the provisions of the Alkali Order, 1958, are being complied with; if he is satisfied that all practical means are being adopted
    926
    to abate the nuisance and injury to health which this emission causes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is aware of this difficulty. In pursuance of the 1958 Order it is the duty of his alkali inspectors to ensure that the hest practicable means to control the emissions are found and used, and they are energetically pursuing this problem. I am afraid, however, that no easy or immediate solution is likely.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this difficulty has increased by 100 per cent. in the last four years and that the pollution of the air in Scunthorpe itself is far worse than in the surrounding districts, as shown by the incidence of respiratory diseases? In view of the expense which will obviously have to be undertaken to overcome this difficulty, is it not time that the Government themselves took steps to help to overcome the expense? Is it not indecent in the circumstances that the present controllers of the steel works, who spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on anti nationalisation propaganda, do not even take the trouble to safeguard the health of the workers and their families?
    Mr. Bevins: The Question has nothing to do with propaganda; it refers to the Clean Air Act and related matters. These responsibilities only came under the national alkali inspectorate in the current year, and at both national and local level we are doing all we conceivably can to improve the position.
    Dr. Summerskill: As the hon. Gentleman has given similar Answers to all Questions on air pollution this afternoon. will he tell the House exactly what he means by "taking action"? What has he done? What is the form of the letters he has written? What does he do in the way of visiting local authorities?
    Mr. Bevins: I have given similiar Answers because the Questions themselves have been similar. Since these responsibilities came under the direction of the alkali inspectorate, we have strenthened the inspectorate and we are making more frequent visits to factories scheduled under the Alkali Act. We are also engaged in discussions at national level with trade associations to try to improve matters quickly.

    Clubs (Rating)
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he proposes to take to ease the financial burden imposed on some amateur cricket and other clubs by the recent rating revaluation.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, protected many clubs from any increase in rates upon revaluation. The Committee on the rating of charities and kindred bodies is considering their future treatment for rating, and I must await its Report.
    Mr. Holt: May I take it from that answer that the Committee will consider a change in regard to playing fields which are only covered by Section 8 (1, c) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, provided that they do not charge for admission at the moment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Heaton Cricket Club in my constituency is an amateur club whose ground has been considerably improved, largely due to the personal efforts and labours of the members, and whose assessments have been greatly increased? This is an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs and not the way to encourage amateur clubs to continue in being.
    Mr. Brooke: I am afraid that without notice I cannot reply in regard to a particular case, but I know that the Committee to which I referred has received memoranda from a number of representative bodies, and I think that it would be as well to await its Report before deciding what further action is desirable.
    Mr. Ede: Can the Minister give us any indication when he is likely to receive the Report?
    Mr. Brooke: I hope that it will be early next year.

    Household and Trade Refuse (Salvage)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to instal machinery in order to extract recoverable materials from household and trade refuse.
    Mr. H. Brooke: A general encouragement to local authorities to instal plant and machinery for this purpose would not be justified, because the cost would in many cases be more than the salvage was worth. But I am always prepared to look at individual cases on their merits.
    Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that a number of local authorities bury their refuse and thus lose much valuable material, such as metal? Surely the proceeds from the recovery of the metal would offset to a great extent the cost of the machinery?
    Mr. Brooke: It may or may not do so. Many local authorities find that the most economical way of disposing of refuse is by controlled tipping, but I am always ready to look further into any case in respect of which my hon. Friend feels that something is not right and where we might be able to help local authorities.

    Community Centre, Hatfield
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what decision he has given on a proposal for the building of a community centre in the Hatfield new town, attached to a public house which is to be financed and built by a brewery company as one building; and what is his policy on the development of community centres in new towns.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I have approved the proposal mentioned in the first part of the Question. In answer to the second part, I am anxious to see the provision of community centres in the new towns, and I would expect that they would as a rule be provided, as they are elsewhere, either by local authorities or by private organisations and individuals.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that the agreement which he admits having made for the building of what is called a community centre attached to a public house is strongly opposed by a large body of public opinion? Is he further aware that experience shows that community centres have to be kept away from public houses if they are to be successful? Will he not reconsider his decision and tell the brewers in Hatfield that they cannot have permission to build an imitation community centre attached to a public house?
    Mr. Brooke: Frankly, this seemed to be a public-spirited experiment. There were precisely four objections levelled against it. A local inquiry was held and, as a result, it seemed to me desirable to give approval.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is it not about time that the Government did this job out of their own finances instead of going cap in hand to a brewery which will make a pretty penny out of the proceeds?
    Mr. Brooke: No, I do not hold the Socialist view that the State should never receive any assistance from the public.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "experiment"? Is it an experiment that a community centre should be turned into a public house?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is as closely acquainted with this matter as I am, but I am sure that generally my decision has given satisfaction in the locality.

    River Severn (Pollution)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the great and growing pollution of the River Severn due to a discharge of untreated sewage from Gloucester City; and whether he will authorise the building of a modern sewage plant to remedy this.
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that damage is being done to the salmon fishing in the lower reaches of the Severn through the discharge of untreated sewage from the City of Gloucester into the river; and whether he will take steps to enable the corporation of the City to accelerate the sewage disposal works which have been begun.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is aware of the pollution of the River Severn at Gloucester. A scheme for new works has been approved in principle and will go ahead without any delay on his part, as soon as satisfactory tenders are received.
    Mr. Kershaw: Will my hon. Friend push on with this matter with all speed? Is he aware that there is not only a danger
    930
    to health in areas below Gloucester City, but that the salmon fishery has fallen by one-third in the last few years, which is causing a great deal of loss to my constituents?
    Mr. Philips Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present scheme, which includes only screening of sediment, is quite insufficient for dealing with the pollution of the river and that what is required is something which I understand is called biological filtration, which is very much more effective although, I admit, costing more? Will he consider this very important matter?
    Mr. Bevins: That has been considered by the Gloucester Corporation. The existing scheme, which has been approved, will cost£1¼million. A scheme on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman would cost a great deal more and would involve a delay of probably two or three years before it could be brought about The best thing to do is to allow the present scheme to go forward as rapidly as possible and then to see what conditions are like.

    Road Charges
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what special Government assistance will be given in the case of unadopted roads, where the frontages are owned by old-age pensioners who are not in a position to pay councils their charges for making them up if they adopt them.
    Mr. Bevins: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 18th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine).
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost per foot frontage in 1939 was 25s. and that today it is about£4 10s.? Can he not do something more to help those people who bought their houses in 1939 and who as old-age pensioners would find even a few shillings a great expense? Can he do something to help them?
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend recognises that there are hard cases in this matter, and we are currently examining various categories of hard cases with a view to seeing whether it is desirable to take action.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is there not a great deal to do with unadopted roads which needs to be considered?

    Alkali Inspectors, Manchester
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many alkali inspectors are employed by his Department in Manchester.
    Mr. Bevins: One district inspector is based on Manchester at the present time. My right hon. Friend hopes to appoint an additional inspector for Manchester next year.

    Petrol Station, Frinton
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) in the case of a petrol station to be built on the Kirby road, near Frinton-on-Sea, what evidence of need was produced to show that this petrol station was necessary; and what were his inspector's conclusions on the question of need;
    (2) when considering the question of a petrol station in Kirby Road, near Frinton-on-Sea, what account he took of his circular No. 25/58, issued on 1st April, with particular regard to ',he question of need.
    Mr. Bevins: The inspector who held the local inquiry reported that there was no strong evidence of need for the petrol station. The point at issue on the appeal was not, however, whether a station on this site was necessary, but whether it would be injurious to amenity; and on that point, as my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend did not feel that refusal of permission would be justified.
    Mr. Ridsdale: In view of my hon. Friend's undertaking, given in the Adjournment debate last week, can he say whether his right hon. Friend the Minister has studied this case again? Is my hon. Friend aware that his replies to date have convinced people that a mistake has been made which he is trying unsuccessfully to cover up? Is there any sign yet of the Minister thawing from his frozen attitude of unwillingness to revoke this decision?
    Mr. Bevins: I said in the Adjournment debate that my right hon. Friend would
    932
    study what my hon. Friend said on that occasion. My right hon. Friend has done that and has decided against revocation of the decision.

    Council Meetings (Press Admission)
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the outcome of the discussions which his Department has been having with the local authority associations with regard to the admission of the Press to council meetings.
    Mr. Bevins: The discussions are not yet concluded.
    Mr. Woof: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Whickham Urban District Council in my constituency is denying reasonable facilities to the local Press by automatically taking council meetings in committee? Is he also aware that the senior officials are being deprived of the monthly reports which contain their work? What is worse and disgusting for these conscientious officials is the humiliation in being kept in suspense waiting outside the council chamber to be called to answer questions put by the councillors. Does the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary approve of these methods, or are they prepared to use their influence to bring about a better mode of conduct and behaviour?
    Mr. Bevins: Obviously, my right hon. Friend cannot deal with a question of this nature piecemeal on the basis of one local authority here and another there. What we have done is to have conversations with the Association of Municipal Corporations, which is taking evidence from its members. My right hon. Friend has also received a deputation from the Press, and we hope in the near future to come to a policy decision in this matter.
    Mr. Lindgren: My hon. Friend's supplementary question, which admittedly was rather long, introduced something new, from which, I understand, council officials are now being excluded from council meetings. Surely that is very undesirable?
    Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree. If the hon. Member will give me that information I will gladly have it looked into.

    Departmental Savings
    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what savings he has made in the cost of running his Department in the current year, as compared with 1956–57, by improved efficiency and the use of new techniques.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The cost of running my Department in the current year will be more than in 1956–57, after taking account of certain pay and other cost increases applicable to the whole Civil Service. The increase would have been larger if the organisation and efficiency of the Department had not been kept under constant review. Despite increased work and a particularly heavy burden of legislation, the number of staff employed has been reduced by 27 over the past year or so.
    Mr. Reynolds: Is the Minister aware that a reduction in staff of 27 represents hardly any saving at all as compared with the total cost of running his Department? As the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to the exact saving, by what right does he say to local authorities that they can avert increases in expenditure and avoid them falling on the rates due to the operation of the block grant by making savings of this nature?
    Mr. Brooke: Surely, the hon. Member knows that it is not possible to quantify every single saving. Since 1956–57, however, we have abolished our regional organisation, which cost£109,000 a year, we have introduced mechanisation into the accounts branch, we have introduced a new decentralised registry system, and we are constantly on the lookout for possibilities of savings in cost.

    Local Government Commission
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement on the work of the English Local Government Commission set up under the Local Government Act, 1958.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Commission expects to announce early in January the areas with which its review will commence.
    Mr. Moss: Does the Minister know whether the Commission has received any replies from local authorities wishing to be considered without delay?
    Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. I understand that the Commission asked for the replies by today. Having received them—that is, after today—the Commission will try to frame its programme.

    Caravans (Inquiry)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will request Sir Arton Wilson, who is to conduct an inquiry on his behalf into the nature and extent of the use of caravans as residential accommodation, to include within his inquiry the special problem of the Romany caravan dwellers.
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. As the hon. Member indicates, the Romany caravan dwellers are a special class and my right hon. Friend does not think that they create problems which require a national investigation. In any event, I am afraid it could only complicate and prolong Sir Arton Wilson's investigation to include them and that my right hon. Friend is not willing to do.
    Mr. Beswick: I am bound to say that I am rather surprised at that answer. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the local authorities throughout West Middlesex who asked to see him on the special problem of the itinerant caravan dweller have been told that no purpose can be served in seeing him because the inquiry is to be conducted by Sir Arton Wilson. Surely, the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the problem which the local authorities have brought before him.
    Mr. Bevins: I do not agree. The major problem with which the House is concerned is the normal caravan problem rather than the gipsy problem. The inquiry would only be complicated and prolonged if it were extended in the way suggested.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in the course of his inquiry into the use of caravans as residential accommodation, Sir Arton Wilson will be taking evidence from local authorities; what invitations are being sent to such local authorities; and when the invitations will be sent.
    Mr. Bevins: I understand that Sir Arton Wilson proposes to invite evidence from local authorities and my right hon. Friend would prefer to leave the arrangements in his hands.
    Mr. Beswick: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say how his right hon. Friend proposes to deal with this other difficult problem of the Romany or itinerant caravan dweller, which constitutes such a nuisance, especially on the outskirts of the Metropolis? Is the Minister simply shirking the issue, or does he propose to do anything about it?
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is not shirking the issue. We want to confine the inquiry to the major problem. The Romany problem is not a national one but varies from area to area.

    Land, Berkswell
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has reached a decision on the question of restoring to agricultural use the land at Duggins Lane, Berkswell, in the County of Warwick, which was formerly the site of the Tile Hill Hostel, was derequisitioned on 20th September, I957, and is now derelict; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am considering the matter in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I will certainly inform the hon. Member as soon as a decision is reached.

  HOUSING

    Mortgages (Rates and Applications)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what representations he has received concerning the effect of Government loans on mortgage rates as a result of the meeting of the Council of the Building Societies' Association on I2th December last.
    Mr. H. Brooke: None, Sir.
    Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is in the same position as I am, for neither of us has had a reply? Would the right hon. Gentle
    936
    man feel able to ask the Council's secretary whether he would have the courtesy to reply to me, if not to him, or does he feel that the Council is ashamed of the decision which it has taken?
    Mr. Brooke: In my case, there is no question of a reply. I have not asked the Association a question on this matter.
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, before making a loan to any building society, he will ascertain that mortgages granted by the society as a result of Government loan are conditioned by the credit-worthiness of the applicant and not by the sex.
    Mr. H. Brooke: While I am sure that the majority of members of the Building Societies' Association do as the association says and make no discrimination between men and women applicants for mortgages, I intend, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in reply to the hon. Lady yesterday, to discuss this matter further with the association.
    Miss Burton: As it has taken some six weeks to catch the right hon. Gentleman, and as he will not surface again for at least another twelve, if I put down a Question on this important matter will he answer it on the date the Question appears even if it is not reached?
    Mr. Brooke: I should not like to give an undertaking like that without first seeing the Question. If the hon. Lady would care to give me any of the detailed information which she said last night she might feel able to give me to help me to pursue my inquiries, I shall be grateful to her.
    Mr. L. M. Lever: Is it not a fact that ladies applying to building societies for advances are consistently asked for a male guarantor?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. The building societies make some 300.000 advances a year and the hon. Lady has quoted 11 cases where a male guarantor has been demanded. This is a matter which I am anxious to discuss with the Building Societies' Association, as, I think, the hon. Lady would wish.

    Single Persons
    Mrs. Emmetasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress

    937
    has been made by local authorities in providing housing for single persons of working age; and what progress he envisages in I959.
    Mr. H. Brooke: All the records of houses provided by local authorities are based on types of dwellings, not classes of tenants. Local authorities are however building an increasing number of one-bedroom dwellings; the proportion is now about one in five, and is likely to increase. While most of these are used for old people, some are being let to single workers.

    Rent Books
    Lieut-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many landlords of furnished accommodation have been prosecuted under Section 12 (6) of the Rent Act, I957, for failure to provide a rent book.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I regret that this information is not available.
    Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that this Section of the Act is being flagrantly broken by landlords of small furnished accommodation, at any rate in Notting-ham? Will he consider consulting his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in order to consider the possibility of instructing managers of National Assistance boards to report to local authorities, who have the power to initiate prosecutions, all those cases where tenants of furnished accommodation who have applied for National Assistance have said that their landlords have refused to supply them with rent books?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. and gallant Friend is fully entitled to his view of what is happening. I explained to him that neither I nor anybody else had got the information to reply to his original question. I am sure that what he said in his supplementary question will be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.
    Mr. Mitchison: In view of what the hon. and gallant Member has said, would not the right hon. Gentleman find it quite easy to obtain returns from the local authorities showing how many prosecutions they have started?

    Premiums
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether in view of the wide extension of the practice of charging premiums for HOUSE-lettings. he now proposes to bring before the House proposals for strengthening the law to prevent this unfair practice by HOUSE-owners.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I have no evidence of any increase in demands for premiums as such. A Bill relating to excessive charges for furniture and fittings introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), received its Second Reading last Friday.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that that reply is completely contrary to everything that was said in last Friday's debate upon the Bill to which he has referred? Is he also aware that I have here a report published by a newspaper in his own constituency of two cases which occurred within the last week or two, in one of which the rent was£300 and the furniture and fittings were charged at£250. and in the other where the rent was£208 inclusive and the premium for what are called complete fittings was£450? Is not the Minister aware that all over London there are serious complaints about excessive charges for premiums? Will he undertake to give the Bill to which he has referred Government support when it reaches the Committee stage?
    Mr. Brooke: The two cases which the hon. Member has quoted prove nothing until somebody has looked at the furniture and fittings. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary indicated last Friday that the Government supported the general purpose of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), although it may require further examination in Committee.

    Requisitioned Properties
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the total number of houses in England and Wales under requisition when the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act was introduced in I955, and the number of these still under requisition on 30th September, 1958.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The number of dwellings, i.e., houses and flats, held under requisition at 6th June, 1955, was 89,539: at 30th September, 1958, it was 3I,573.
    Mrs. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what provision he has in mind for dealing with the residue of properties which will almost certainly still be under requisition on 31st March, 1960, in the London area, despite the very strenuous efforts which local authorities are making to derequisition them?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not prepared to accept the hon. Lady's words, "almost certainly". If local authorities take this matter seriously, as the great majority are doing, they will be able to comply with the law by 31st March, I960. I know that the hon. Lady's own borough council has received approval to buy 75 properties to house licensees. I understand that the council has bought I4 of them so far.

    Landlord and Tenant Act, 1958
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce amending legislation to assist tenants against whom orders for possession are made under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1958, and for whom no alternative accommodation is available.
    Mr. H. Brooke: In view of the discretion given to the courts under the Landlord and Tenant Act, I958, I do not think that further measures are necessary.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that at Edmonton County Court recently the judge, dealing with tenants who were old age pensioners, told them that if they took an order for possession along to the council the council would have to help them, and accordingly made an order for possession in six weeks? Is he further aware that in another case, of a labourer aged 63, the judge said that the kindest thing to do would be to make an order for possession and then the labourer could get accommodation from the council? The judge gave that advice although all the local authorities in the area had long waiting lists with little hope of being able to house the people on them. Is it the Minister's intention to allow these people to be evicted without taking further action to help them?
    Mr. Brooke: The number of cases coming into court so far under the Landlord and Tenant Act has been far smaller than many people prophesied when the Measure was before the House. I have no reason to believe that the number of cases of difficulty will be too great for local authorities to be able to cope with them.

    Local Authorities (Building Programmes)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of additional houses local authorities will be able to start within the next four to five months in response to his Circular No. 60/58.
    Mr. H. Brooke: This will depend on the extent to which local authorities speed up the letting of tenders, and I cannot make any estimate of that.
    Mrs. Butler: Is it not unrealistic to expect local authorities to turn their building programmes on and off like a tap? If the Minister is really serious in wanting them to increase council house building, should not he extend the period laid down in the circular? If not, and if he does not look into the financial difficulties of local authorities, is not the circular a mere piece of political window dressing?
    Mr. Brooke: No, the circular is a piece of excellent good sense. Certain local authorities have intimated to me that they were not being enabled to get on with house building as quickly as they wished. This circular now gives them the "go ahead".
    Mr. Lindgren: But will not the Minister agree that for effective, efficient and economic housing development continuity of programme is essential, and that the action of the Government from time to time during the last few years has prevented that happening?
    Mr. Brooke: No. It has always been held that the speeding up or slowing down of public authority work may be a valuable contribution towards the handling of the nation's economic affairs. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable that at this time, when the resources of the nation are not overstrained, local

    941
    authorities should be encouraged to go ahead quickly with jobs which may be started and completed within the next twelve months.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the need is emphasised since the number of houses being built by local authorities is now little more than half what it was four years ago?
    Mr. Brooke: The total number of houses being built is far, far greater than it ever was under a Socialist Government.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the total number of houses being built is little more than three-quarters of what it was four years ago?

    Slum Clearance, Easington
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has reached a decision on the number of houses the Easington Rural District Council may build under the slum clearance scheme.
    Mr. H. Brooke: At a meeting held at the Ministry last month, representatives of the Easington Rural District Council, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, put forward a case for more slum replacement houses to he built in existing villages, and fewer in Peterlee new town, than the numbers originally agreed with the Durham County Council as local planning authority. I believe that the rural district council in suggesting these changes has under-estimated the rate at which the new town development corporation is likely to build in the future, and I am asking it to reconsider its case in the light of the figures produced at that meeting on the corporation's behalf.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is misinformed about the proceedings at that meeting, which I myself attended? Is he aware that we have no desire to reduce the number of buildings in the new town of Peterlee but that we wish to see the number increased? Is he aware that the rural district council is becoming very annoyed with him because of his decision. having regard to the needs of the community? Is he further aware
    942
    that all he is doing is to increase my votes at the next election? What good will that do him?
    Mr. Brooke: We all appreciate the presence of the right hon. Gentleman. I did not realise that his continued presence here was in danger. Under the present arrangements, there is provision for 250 houses to be built for slum clearance at Easington or Peterlee, and I do not think that that is an inadequate allocation.

    Subsidies
    Mr. FrankAllaun asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in the light of his recent circular to local authorities encouraging a revival of councilhouse building, he will consider restoring the housing subsidies removed earlier.
    Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister reconsider that Answer? Is he aware that since he ended the subsidy on most types of houses many cities have been forced to confine their housing purely to rehousing slum clearance tenants, leaving thousands of families in tragic circumstances, sometimes with three children in their late 'teens and mixed sexes sharing the same bedroom, and with young families waiting ten years on the housing list with no chance of getting a house, with even serious health cases unable to get a house? Will he reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government have been responsible for far more housing progress than their predecessors. Local authorities should be well able to continue to build the new houses which they require provided that they subsidise only those tenants who need subsidising and only to the extent of the need.
    Mr. Mitchison: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was a war from 1939 to 1945. If he wants to restore the rate of building for general need to a reasonable level, is he not aware that there is no other way than by restoring the housing subsidy, and that to do otherwise is to deprive many young people of the chance of getting a house of their own?
    Mr. Brooke: Many local authorities can overcome their financial difficulties in housing by ceasing to subsidise people who do not need subsidy.
    Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be better, from the Government's standpoint, to provide subsidy to enable local authorities to build more of these houses than to pay unemployment benefit to the many building workers who are unemployed?
    Mr. Brooke: I have just said, with reference to a circular which was criticised by hon. Members opposite a moment ago, that I am encouraging local authorities to get on with houses which they can put out quickly to tender.

    Houses, Saltburn and Marske (Industrial Subsidy)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will reconsider, in the interests of equality of treatment with neighbouring authorities, his decision not to allow the special industrial subsidy to Saltburn and Marske Urban District Council on the new houses they have made available for workers coming from outside to Tees-side.
    Mr. H. Brooke: This subsidy is payable only in special circumstances. I agreed that it should be made available to help to provide houses for an essential minimum number of industrial workers coming into Tees-side. These houses are already being provided. At present I see no case for extending the arrangements.
    Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Saltburn and Marske Urban District Council feels that it has made a very real contribution to the industrial housing needs of Teesside and that it is most unfair it should be discriminated against in the circumstances of what is a mere technicality?
    Mr. Brooke: No discrimination is intended. This subsidy was promised in the first instance by my Department to those housing authorities which had applied for it first, but this is a subsidy related to industrial need. It is not related to the particular circumstances of each separate local authority and, in my view, we have already promised a trade subsidy on a sufficiency of houses to meet the industrial need which was brought to our attention.

  WALES

    Council for Wales and Monmouthshire
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the reasons given for the resignation of five members of the Welsh Advisory Council; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The former Chairman of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire indicated that the principal reason for his resignation was that the relationship between the Council and the Government had not been close enough. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sought to meet this criticism by appointing a member of the Government as Chairman for a temporary period. The four members who thereupon resigned gave the reason, among others, that they thought this would frustrate the Council's work.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that there has not been a more unpopular appointment in the history of the Welsh people? In view of the fact that the leading people of this Council have now resigned, what must the Welsh people do to get the Minister off their backs?
    Mr. Brooke: I beg leave to doubt the correctness of the implication in the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. On the second part, I thought he was extremely rude to the 23 Welshmen who have not resigned.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Do I gather from the Minister's reply that the Chairman resigned because the relations between him and the Government were not close enough and that the other five resigned because they were too close? May I ask a question which has been commented upon in Wales? The Prime Minister has said that the right hon. Gentleman was appointed for an interim period to change the character of the Council. What have the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister in mind in that respect? Is the real reason why these members have resigned the fact that the Council was set up to give independent advice to any Government of the day but that they regard its independence as being undermined by the right hon. Gentleman's presence?
    Mr. Brooke: In reply to the first part of that question, I have nothing to add to my original Answer. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was a temporary appointment to change the character of the Council. There was no implication whatever of that nature in the decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. On the contrary, he indicated, as the former Chairman of the Council had already said, that in these nine or ten months it would be desirable to review the whole work and functioning of the Council and its future relationship with the Government.
    Mr. Griffiths: I gather, therefore, that it is correct that the Prime Minister said that the right hon. Gentleman had been appointed Chairman for an interim period so that the function of the Council should be reconsidered. Does the Minister confirm this and that he is to consider changing the Council's function?
    Mr. Brooke: No. What is to be reviewed is the whole work and functioning of the Council. It is very desirable to have a stocktaking period after ten years, and I think that all members of the Council for Wales are agreed on that. That does not necessarily imply that there will he any changes at the end of it. I repeat that 23 of the 27 other members of the Council have not resigned and, therefore, presumably do not feel frustrated.
    Mr. H. Morrison: As a former Minister who took a leading part in the establishment of the Council for Wales, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we deliberately did not include Ministers on the Council and much less as Chairmen? Is he aware that it is desirable for this Council to work in co-operation with the Government but, nevertheless, to be independent of the Government—
    Mr. Thomas: As the Prime Minister said.
    Mr. Morrison: —and that, therefore, it is thoroughly undesirable that a Minister and member of the Cabinet should be Chairman of this body and desirable that independent, public-spirited Welshmen should be Chairman of the Council for Wales?
    Mr. Brooke: I was appointed by the Prime Minister as Chairman for an
    946
    interim period. My right hon. Friend explained that he was taking emergency action in an emergency situation.
    Mr G. Thomasasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the names of the people he proposes to appoint to the Welsh Advisory Council in place of those who resigned.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Council was brought up to its full strength of 28 by the appointment last month of Sir Ifan ab Owen Edwards and myself. The filling of the four vacancies which have since occurred is under consideration.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that he has now reduced this Council to such a laughing stock in Wales that the best thing he could do would be to wind it up, that the Welsh people have no confidence in it, that whether 23 members are left or not, the Welsh people regard it as simply the Minister's voice in Wales and that that is not wanted? [Horn. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]. I am speaking for Wales.
    Mr. Brooke: There appears to be a fundamental difference between the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and the 23 Welshmen who are loyally continuing to serve on the Council for Wales.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be extremely difficult for any Member, however clever. to express clearly the opinions of all the people of Wales about this matter?
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to what extent, in view of four additional resignations from the Welsh Advisory Council, he contemplates a change in the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Welsh affairs; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Government contemplate no change in the policy of getting more new houses and schools and roads built in Wales, getting piped water and other modern services laid on to villages and farms hitherto without them, improving the opportunities for Welsh farmers and encouraging new industrial developments. This policy the Government are vigorously and successfully pursuing, and progress since 1951 has been remarkable.
    Mr. Thomas: Am I therefore to assume that the present rate of unemployment in Wales, which is twice the average for Great Britain and is 10 per cent. in North Wales and 7 per cent. in West Wales, is also a record of the Government's achievements?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. The whole Welsh people are, however, well aware of the complete failure of the Labour Government to solve the unemployment problem in North-West Wales. Wales is also aware that even within the last twelve months firms that will employ more than 5,000 people have already decided to come and set up in West-South Wales.
    Mr. Thomas: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply—
    Mr. J. Griffiths: And of the Minister himself.
    Mr. Thomas: —and of the Minister himself—I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first possible moment.

EISTEDDFOD
3.30 p.m.
Mr. Peter Thomas (Conway): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for contributions by local authorities in Wales (including Monmouthshire) towards the expenses of the Royal National Eisteddfod.
Every hon. Member in the House will know something about the National Eisteddfod of Wales. It is a yearly national festival mainly of a musical and literary character which basically invokes the spirit of competition in order to preserve and foster the traditional Welsh interest in literature and music. It is a truly national festival in as much as it is truly Welsh. Every year it secures the attention and the attendance of tens of thousands of Welshmen from every town, village and hamlet throughout the Principality and it is supported and attended by Welshmen from all parts of the world. It is regarded by many as the greatest guardian of the Welsh language and the preserver of that unbroken literary tradition, especially in poetry, which extends from the sixth century to the present day.
It is, moreover, so far as Wales is concerned, a great social occasion, a large annual family reunion. It is held during a week in August of each year, one year in the North of Wales and the next in the South. Occasionally, it has been held in England, in places like Liverpool. This year it was held at Ebbw Vale, where it received enthusiastic support from the constituents of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and, as one would expect, from the right hon. Member himself. Next summer it is to be held in the County of Caernarvon.
My proposed Bill is simple and modest and I hope that it will commend itself to both sides of the House. Its purpose is to make it possible for all county borough, borough, urban and rural district councils of Wales and Monmouthshire to contribute out of the rates, should they wish to do so, towards the expenses of the Royal National Eisteddfod. If leave is given to bring in the Bill it is proposed to accomplish this by an amendment of Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948.
Section 132 of that Act gives wide powers to local authorities to provide

949
entertainments or to contribute towards the cost of entertainments provided by others. The Royal National Eisteddfod is undoubtedly covered by this Section and many Welsh local authorities have used these powers to contribute towards the cost of its annual promotion. These powers of contribution, however, are mainly restricted by the Act to entertainments held within the boundaries of the local authority concerned. If the entertainment is held outside the boundaries the authority can contribute only if two conditions are satisfied.
Those conditions are, first, that the place of the entertainment must be convenient for residence in the area of the contributing authority, and, secondly, the authority within whose area the entertainment is to be held must consent. The effect of the first of these two limiting provisions means that only those local authorities can contribute towards the expenses of the Royal National Eisteddfod whose areas are convenient to the place where it is being held.
The National Eisteddfod is not only held one year in the north and one year in the south of Wales, but it is clearly desirable that it should be held in as many widely differing places as possible. The geographical convenience to the rest of Wales is, quite properly, not a primary consideration. In any event, a place with that qualification could hardly be found. When it is held in Caernarvonshire, for instance, it obviously will not be convenient for those living in Ebbw Vale, or Llanelly, to attend although it is certain that many hundreds from both those places will cheerfully overcome the in convenience and attend. It is probable that as the law stands most authorities in South Wales could not properly contri-
950
bute to Eisteddfodau in North Wales nor could those in the north contribute when they are held in the south. The proposed Bill would remove these limitations by allowing all local authorities of the type I have mentioned to contribute whether or not people in their areas could conveniently reach the Eisteddfod or the host authority agreed. As to the latter, it is not likely that the host authority would object.
Those are the only changes that I propose. The statutory limit of the equivalent of a 6d. rate which is the amount that a local authority may spend out of the rates for entertainment in any one year, remains. English authorities, of course, are wholly unaffected. I think that the Bill will be widely welcomed in Wales. It has the support of Welsh hon. Members of all parties. The Royal National Eisteddfod is worthy of our fullest support and I hope that the House will give leave for this Bill to be brought in.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. P. J. M. Thomas, Mr. James Griffiths, Mr. Garner-Evans, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Gower, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Goronwy Roberts, Mr. Farey-Jones, Mr. Stephen Davies, Mr. Mathew, and Mr. David Jones.

EISTEDDFOD
Bill to make further provision for contributions by local authorities in Wales (including Monmouthshire) towards the expenses of the Royal National Eisteddfod, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 23rd January and to be printed. [Bill 51.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EMERGENCY LAWS (REPEAL) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  3.36 p.m.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  In moving the Third Reading of this Bill I am sure that the House would not wish me to go over again all the ground which we covered in the Second Reading debate about five weeks ago. Since then we have had an agreeably short Committee stage and the Bill has emerged from the Committee amended in only one respect. That Amendment was a clarification of the circumstances in which the Minister of Supply would be permitted to undertake the production of civil goods.
  Apart from that one Amendment, the discussions mainly centred on questions of principle which had already been raised during the Second Reading debate. These are matters of political belief which are the essential basis of the Bill. On our side of the House we hold that controls should not be exercised indefinitely under emergency wartime legislation and that powers not limited to any specific article or purpose should be done away with. For seven years we have been steadily getting rid of all the unwanted emergency powers, or turning those emergency powers which are still required into permanent legislation.
  We have now reached the stage at which we can consolidate. We have taken stock of the whole of the powers now remaining and in the Bill we propose to get rid of what we do not need, and to continue those powers which are still required for a specified and limited period to the end of 1964. Within that period we should propose to take permanent powers to continue those controls which will be permanently needed. The powers still needed comprise a short and strictly limited list. On the basis of our experience, we considered that these are all that are required. Should the Government find, however, that they need powers to exercise economic controls not covered by the Bill, they must come to Parliament for them. That is the basis of the Bill.
  952
  Members of the Opposition, on the other hand—I hope that I am interpreting their speeches fairly and correctly—would have favoured the retention of much wider powers. They would like the Government, for example, to keep general powers to control the provision, distribution and consumption of any commodity wherever that might be regarded as necessary, and they would define necessity in this connection—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is discussing whether wider powers should be in the Bill. I do not think that they are in the Bill.
  Mr. Erroll: No, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that I could make the nature of this complicated Bill rather clearer if I briefly recapitulated the arguments made in an earlier stage. If I am out of order in doing that, I shall omit that part of my speech.
  Mr. Speaker: On Third Reading we should not have a rehash of the arguments which have already taken place on earlier stages. We have to confine ourselves to what is in the Bill now.
  Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not the hon. Gentleman be in order in saying why he thinks that the powers should be as narrow as, in fact, they are?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can certainly argue on the powers as they exist in the Bill.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East): As the hon. Gentleman has exercised a right to say what he thinks the views of the Opposition are, I hope that it will be in order, Mr. Speaker, for us to say what they are.
  Mr. Speaker: I think it is for the Minister to indicate what is in the Bill now, as it stands.
  Mr. Erroll: If I may, in this instance, refer more specifically to exactly what is in the Bill, I shall proceed to point out that it might at first sight seem to be inconsistent that in sweeping away a number of powers—which is what the Bill does—we should appear to be seeking to retain any specific controls. This was pointed out during earlier stages of the Bill. It was argued, and I think it a point worth repeating—that if it was

  953
  necessary to retain the specific powers mentioned in the Bill surely it might be necessary to exercise, perhaps at very short notice, some other specific powers, to safeguard the economy of the country.
  I feel that I must make this point to demonstrate why it is only these particular powers we propose to retain in the Bill. As the House will recollect, some of the specific powers which we propose to retain relate to milk, welfare foods arid medical supplies and services. Those are essentially adjuncts of social and agricultural policy. They are not really economic controls at all. The strategic controls which we feel it necessary to retain, on the other hand, are adjuncts of foreign policy and not specifically economic controls. One other control which is in the Bill is the control of an essential commodity, the supply of which from overseas has been interrupted. Here, admittedly, we are in the field of economic policy, but the argument in favour of retaining this control is, naturally, somewhat complicated.
  The Opposition have suggested that if this control is necessary for supplies from overseas, it should be equally available for domestic supplies. We take the view, however, that the policies of the Government should be such that there should be no need for sudden intervention in the domestic field. Indeed, there has been no such need for a number of years past. The Government, we believe, ought to be able to foresee any shortage sufficiently far in advance to ask for legislation if they wish to deal with it by rationing or price control. A sudden interruption of supplies from overseas, however, might create a situation in which the Government would have to take immediate action. We therefore feel that it is desirable to retain powers of control in these special circumstances although, like the rest of the Bill, these powers are to last only until the end of 1964.
  The issue presented by the Bill can be put quite simply. The Opposition believe in having continuing emergency powers available to control the economy by Order. We, on the other hand, believe that if any Government need such powers to control the economy they should go to Parliament, ask for them and justify the need for them, case by case.
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Member has said that the Opposition believe in having continuous emergency powers. He will remember that we have said many times that we think that those powers which are to be preserved should be preserved not as emergency powers but on a permanent statutory basis.
  Mr. Erroll: That is what the Bill does. It is surprising that the Opposition should have so strongly opposed it, if that is what they desire.
  The powers which we seek to continue in the Bill are limited. We have specified to Parliament what they are, and we have asked for their continuance. The Bill is a notable stage towards the restoration to Parliament of its rights and its powers and it marks another step in the long process of the removal of emergency controls and emergency powers. I therefore commend it to the House.
  3.47 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: The Bill mainly repeals certain existing legislation and, apart from Clause 1, the rest of the Bill is concerned with exceptions from that repeal. In his first appearance on a major occasion in his present office the Economic Secretary to the Treasury introduced the Bill on Second Reading, and we have nothing to complain about in his courtesy or in the manner in which he handled the subsequent stages of the Bill. Most of us, however, would agree that he has learned a lot more about the Bill since he first appeared at the Box.
  The Bill is generally agreed to have originated in a speech by the Lord Privy Seal to the Central Council of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations. It was an extraordinary appeal, I should have thought, to ignorance and emotion when he said that the Bill was being introduced to prevent
  "a Socialist State being brought in, as it were, by a flick of the switch."
  The phrase "as it were" is a typical phrase of the Lord Privy Seal's.
  The Economic Secretary, stung by the attacks on the Bill in the Press, and particularly by the magisterial rebuke which it received from The Times, thought that, on the whole, attack was the best part of defence, and he tried to claim that the Bill was
  "an exercise in constitutional propriety."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 415]

  955
  It is nothing of the sort. It is another attempt to rig the constitution so that the Tory Party, whether in office or not, remains in power. It is rather like the Tory Party's colonial policy and, I think, equally ineffective.
  On Second Reading, an attempt was made by the Economic Secretary—and he made it again today—to give the Bill a rather more respectable background He claimed that the purpose was to bring the emergency powers which still exist within the scope of permanent legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has just said, we entirely agree with that. What we do not understand is why the Tory Government have not done something about it before. After all, it is now thirteen years after the end of the war, and we have had seven years of Tory rule.
  If this is an attempt to legitimise legislative powers born out of wedlock, I would say that it is applied to a very strange collection of mongrels and that it has all the appearance of being very hastily contrived and, in fact, of having been forced on the Departments against their will. In Committee, we had the spectacle of a whole bench of senior and junior Ministers forced to sit through the proceedings of the Committee to defend proposals which they did not originate, which they hardly understood, and with which, in many cases, they probably did not agree.
  The result is not a dash for freedom, but the retention of a formidable armoury of controls, with just enough loopholes to make the whole thing completely ineffective. In fact, the game was given away by the Solicitor-General, on Second Reading, when, by an extraordinary slip of the tongue, reported in column 512 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he referred to the Bill as the
  "Emergency Laws (Continuation) Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 512.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) attempted to move an Amendment in Committee to correct the Title.
  Let me make our position perfectly clear. We give way to no one in our defence of the freedom of the individual, but we believe that the limits on the freedom of the individual must
  956
  be those which are compatible with the maintenance of full employment. Freedom becomes an illusion where unemployment and economic insecurity are endemic. For that reason we oppose the Bill.
  We recognise, of course, that we are not living in an economic Utopia of Professor Robbins, or Professor Hayek, but in twentieth century Britain, and we recognise the extraordinary difficulties with which we in this country are faced in our economic policy, partly because of our history, partly because of two great wars and partly because of our shortage of raw materials and the growth of other industrial countries throughout the world. We therefore believe that Britain cannot have an expanding economy without some control of its direction.
  We are also prepared to admit that the techniques for controlling the economy in this way are by no means fully developed, but it is for that reason that we think that it is extraordinarily dangerous to throw away the possibility of reacquiring some of the powers which the Government are now abolishing—and reacquiring them quickly, because the Bill is not so much a Measure to abolish existing controls which are not now in operation as a Bill to abolish the power to readopt them if a Government thought that necessary.
  It seems to me that to abolish the power even to re-adopt these controls, and to do so on some criterion of doctrinaire political appeal, is thoroughly irresponsible. It is because the Government have done this and have taken what we consider to be this thoroughly irresponsible action that we oppose the Bill.
  Let me again emphasise that I am not suggesting that the Government should exercise all these powers all the time. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that if we came into office tomorrow we should want to issue under existing powers a lot of regulations which are not at present in operation. We do believe, however, that the Government should retain a simple procedure for reintroducing them if necessary. The procedure itself could be altered. Most of the regulations are now introduced under the negative Resolution procedure, and as far as I know there is no reason why the

  957
  procedure of the affirmative Resolution should not be employed, but to make a Government go through the whole legislative process to re-introduce them seems to us irresponsible.
  The need for such action under certain circumstances is recognised by the Government in paragraph (1) of the First Schedule, which retains the power to exercise, if necessary, every kind of control where a shortage of commodities is caused by actions outside this country. This is the famous Suez provision. We accept the necessity for such a provision, although we think it far too narrow and we also hope that the country will never again be involved in a war about which the Government have not consulted their overseas and Foreign Office advisers, or even their financial and economic advisers. Nevertheless, we realise that such powers are necessary.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North said in an intervention, not only do we believe that the circumstances in which the powers could be exercised are too narrow but we also believe that the meaning of the powers themselves is unclear. For instance, it is not at all clear how the Government would interpret the word "shortage". According to economic theory there can be no shortage, because, presumably, supply and demand will always be brought into equilibrium at some price. How high would the Government expect prices to go before they were prepared to act? Both the Solicitor-General on Second Reading and the Economic Secretary in Committee completely dodged this issue.
  Another important power which is being surrendered is that of introducing price controls, except in respect of milk, welfare foods and medical supplies. Why is this being done? Certainly, it was clear in Committee that no point of principle was involved, because the Government are keeping these powers in some cases. Again, we have no wish to use these powers extensively. We realise that there are very great difficulties and dangers about using price controls, but it is not true, despite what was said on Second Reading and in Committee, that price control always leads to rationing. This argument is merely Tory propaganda. The price of milk is controlled, and milk is not rationed. The price of
  958
  bread was controlled, and bread was rationed for only a very short time. The Government still exercise considerable control over the price of coal, although they have abolished coal rationing.
  Our view is that this power might well be needed again. For instance, it might be necessary to apply it to certain selected commodities when world prices were rising in a period during which our economy was expanding. It might be useful—I say this quite tentatively, because it is not something on which one can be dogmatic—when our own economy was expanding and we had full employment to try to hold the cost of living stable for a short period by selected subsidies combined with price control, to be able to allow the economy to expand and to cover wage demands. I have in mind a period when we were expanding, as we hope that we shall expand in the very near future, after a period of severe economic stagnation. The Economic Secretary admitted in Committee that where an element of subsidy was involved price control was legitimate.
  The problem of all Chancellors of the Exchequer is to obtain information in time about the future trends of the economy. We all remember the Prime Minister's famous remark about trying to run the economy on last year's Bradshaw. Why, therefore, are the Government abolishing the power to obtain all the information they need from industry? It is true that under the Statistics of Trade Act, introduced by the Labour Government, most of the information required can be obtained, but the Economic Secretary admitted in Committee that there is at present no power to obtain information on investment. This is perhaps the most important type of information required, because it is investment which is looking to the future and which enables one to judge the extent to which the economy is likely to be fully employed. Why is this power being given up?
  It is true, as the Economic Secretary said, that this information is now obtained voluntarily, and I have no doubt that most of the companies which act responsibly will provide Governments, of whatever complexion, with this information; but when we obtain information voluntarily it is useful to have

  959
  behind us, at any rate, the power to introduce regulations to obtain it by compulsion. After all, this is not an infringement of the liberty of the subject. It is an essential part of the information needed to keep the economy fully employed and expanding, and I find it incredible that the Government should give up this power, even though they are not at present using it.
  The truth is that the less information that we have about the economy, and about the way it will develop over the next few months and years, the more panic actions are the Government likely to have to take when we have those crises which occur from time to time and which have been recurring with regularity since the end of the war. A very good example of such actions is the arbitrary variation in hire-purchase controls, which has played such havoc with many of our mass-producing industries. In the last two years we have had so many variations that it has very seriously upset industries like the electrical manufacturing industries and—an industry about which I have particular knowledge—the furniture manufacturing industry. Such variations make the planning of mass production impossible and are one of the causes of prices rising. Figures published by the Furniture Manufacturers' Association show clearly the effects on prices of continual variations in hire-purchase controls, which have affected the level of capacity at which the industry has been operating.
  The Government have now carried their opposition to public trading to an absurd degree. They have abolished the power to make any bulk purchase agreements with any countries, including Commonwealth countries, but not, apparently, as a matter of principle, because they still except one commodity—jute. This is extraordinary. Indeed, it was extraordinary to us that, apart from one hon. Member who was stung into action by the Opposition, no Conservative hon. Member took any interest in this important power to assist our Commonwealth associates.
  Nobody will argue that bulk purchase agreements are the answer to every problem of commodity prices, but to make the House go through the whole procedure of a Bill every time the Government make,
  960
  as they might make from time to time, agreements over a particular commodity or with a particular Commonwealth country, seems to us to be utterly ridiculous. In fact, I do not believe that the Government know what they are doing.
  The Economic Secretary, in our view, displayed a complete ignorance of the problems involved, because he argued in Committee that the reason why the Government did not want to use bulk purchase agreements was that sometimes one has to buy above world prices and sometimes below world prices. This is exactly the reason for using bulk purchase arrangements or any other commodity agreement. It is to even out the prices which the commodity producers receive so that they can plan the expansion of their own economy steadily and—what is very important to us—remain steady customers for capital goods from this country. To some extent, also, it enables us to continue to get raw materials at relatively steady prices.
  The last change in the Bill to which I want to refer tonight concerns the powers of the Ministry of Supply. Although the Minister is not here now, we were very pleased that we had the Minister in Committee. He was, in fact, the only senior Minister who attended to make a defence of these changes. This change seems to us to demonstrate the Government's completely doctrinaire opposition to State trading. This opposition appears to be now so great that they are even unwilling to use the substantial facilities which they themselves possess. We do not hold doctrinaire views about economy or about production and trading. We agree that a very large part of industry may very well remain in private hands, but we equally hold no doctrinaire views against using such facilities as are in public hands, when it is necessary to do so.
  Clause 3 of the Bill will very much restrict the powers of the Minister of Supply to use the Royal Ordnance factories and other establishments for civilian production. The Minister of Supply claims that it enlarges his powers to undertake research and experimental work for civil purposes, and that we certainly welcome. We are also very glad, as the Economic Secretary mentioned that, in response to an argument put forward during the Committee stage, there was one Amendment in Committee

  961
  to the conditions under which the Minister could undertake civil production. It is no longer possible for a monopoly producer to prevent the production of things which might be required by customers in industry or elsewhere, as it was in the Clause as it was originally drafted, but the Clause still remains extremely unclear.
  Even the Minister himself was quite unable to explain to the Committee what it really meant. In fact, he confessed, at the end of the debate, that he was unable to interpret his own Clause without obtaining legal advice. I have no doubt that he has now done so and that we may have an answer on what the Clause means from the Solicitor-General tonight. So far, we have not had an answer to the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North and by other members of the Committee.
  If, for instance, a public service which does not itself undertake the manufacture of goods of any kind, for instance, the National Health Service, were to request the Minister to make something for its use, is the Minister empowered to do so? Or, if a local authority that does not itself undertake manufacture, were to ask the Minister to undertake the manufacture of goods for it, as in the case of a large authority like the London County Council, would the Minister be empowered to do so? Or, if a body of farmers request the Minister to undertake, in some idle explosive factories, to manufacture fertilisers, which was done after the war, would the Minister be entitled to do so and to sell them to these farmers? In any case, why should not the Minister be able to take the initiative himself, perhaps after some research and development into particular types of machinery, which, by foresight, may have been seen would be needed in the future, and, after research and development, undertake manufacture in factories under his own control?
  The future of this country lies in the production of capital goods of an advanced nature, and we on this side of the House simply cannot understand why Government factories should not be allowed to play their part not only in the field of research and development of new products, but also in production when this is necessary. Why should their facilities, their technical and skilled
  962
  staffs not be used, particularly at a time when, due to changes in the defence programme, these factories are becoming idle and there are severe cuts in their production programmes, with consequent redundancies occurring in many of them?
  On Second Reading. I said that the Bill was the result of schizophrenia on the Government Front Bench, and that the Government could not make up their mind between the doctrinaire followers of laissez faire on the benches behind them and those who still believe in some planning. Perhaps a better analogy would be that the two groups have now been forced into an unwilling relationship, which has resulted in a most extraordinary and ill-conditioned offspring. What is clear, however, is that the Government are prepared to force their doctrinaire economic ideas on the country, even if they make it impossible to maintain full employment and an expanding economy.
  We must, therefore, conclude that these things—full employment and an expanding economy—are not the first priorities of policy for the Government, as they are for us, and for that reason I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the Bill, even at this late stage.
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and, speaking for myself, and, I hope, for all my hon. Friends, to say that I desire to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and I am provoked to do so by the very tendentious and very provocative speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
  The hon. Gentleman was treating this House with something less than we might have expected from him when he made such a very short and perfunctory speech in commending the Bill to the House. He knows perfectly well, from the Second Reading debate, and from discussions in the Press and in Committee, that the Bill raises issues not only of great economic importance, but of great constitutional importance, with which, apparently, he did not think fit to deal.
  To make it plain to the House and to the country why we are opposed to the

  963
  Bill, it is necessary for us, at the cost of a certain amount of repetition of what we said on Second Reading, to restate our fundamental opposition to it. It is particularly necessary to do so, in view of the scant attention which the Economic Secretary gave to our arguments, and, in some respects, the misleading interpretation which he put upon our reasons for opposing the Bill.
  I made a careful note of what the Economic Secretary said, and to clear away any misconceptions let us, first, be clear about the various things upon which we are agreed. I think that we are agreed on both sides of the House that emergency powers given to the Government in time of war, or immediately after, should not be continued indefinitely into peace. We are all agreed that it is the right and duty of Parliament to put on a permanent statutory footing, for permanent purposes, the powers with which Parliament intends to entrust Ministers as permanent matters. We all applaud, as does the White Paper, the process which has been continued, by both Governments, of gradually reducing into a systematic legislative form the mass of Defence Regulations which were introduced on the outbreak of war, and were continued, with the assent of both parties, immediately after the war.
  There are two issues which confront us today. The first is whether the Government have selected properly in deciding which of the existing powers shall be retained and which revoked. The second concerns the motives for which the Government have thought fit to introduce the Bill at this particular time. I yield to no one in the sentiments which have been expressed on the benches opposite from time to time about the constitutional doctrine that it is the prerogative of Parliament at all times to say what emergency powers to promulgate decrees should be entrusted to the Executive and what should be withheld.
  In that context, we must bear in mind that, in conditions today, as distinct from conditions in the Victorian era, in which our country is economically and commercially situated, emergencies of various and predictable kinds arise from time to time—they have arisen repeatedly since the war—in which it is quite obviously necessary for the Government of the day,
  964
  of whatever political complexion, to make Statutory Instruments for the benefit of the country in order to deal with certain problems which arise.
  My first criticism of the Government, therefore, is that they pretend to make a great virtue of abolishing controls. Stated like that, it is manifestly a virtue for which they are not entitled to claim the credit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) abolished a great many controls when he was President of the Board of Trade. We carried on that process. In fact, we abolished many more controls than the present Government have done. During their seven years of office, this Government have had resort, whenever they wished, to the Defence Regulations which were continued by the Supplies and Services Acts of 1945 and 1947.
  As the Economic Secretary is, I think, now aware, the Government have not only benefited from the retention of those Defence Regulations; they benefited particularly from the provision in Section 4 of the 1945 Act which enabled them to vary Defence Regulations from time to time. It was only by reason of that power in the Act of 1945, which they are now seeking to abolish, to vary Defence Regulations, that they were able, first, to amend the overriding Defence Regulation 55 and to introduce the Orders dealing with hire purchase. Subsequently, they were able to vary Defence Regulation 55 and introduced petrol rationing when that became necessary in the muddle and confusion to which they had brought the country as a result of the unfortunate Suez crisis, itself directly brought about by the miscalculations and misdeeds of the Tory Government.
  I do not complain that, on those occasions, the Government thought it right to exercise those powers. I do, of course, complain about their misjudgment, their errors and their misdeeds which made that exercise of the power necessary. But it was inevitable that they should, having first committed those acts, have recourse to some machinery to keep the country going and, temporarily, to introduce petrol rationing and the other measures necessary.
  Our criticism of the Bill is twofold. First, we object to the selection which the Government have made as between

  965
  powers which they will retain and powers which they will revoke. We do not dispute the desirability of putting certain definite powers in permanent statutory legislation which can be debated carefully and fully and at leisure in the House. I am quite sure that all of us, as Parliamentarians, will approve of that. What we dispute is the wisdom and, if I may say so, the honesty of the Government in the selection of powers they have made.
  The Economic Secretary said that he was sweeping away a whole mass of powers. He went on to say that he was retaining in permanent form the power to deal with milk supplies, with various agricultural products, with certain articles required for the National Health Service and certain strategic controls. We all agree with that; there is no doubt about it. He went on to say that he was anxious to abolish what he called economic controls.
  The expression "economic controls" is, of course, slightly ambiguous. The hon. Gentleman himself knows perfectly well that the Government are retaining the main physical controls on which the well-being of the community depends. I refer, for instance, to the exchange controls. They are essential, and they are retained. There is no dispute between the parties about that. Where we differ is this. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said, we believe that the rising menace of unemployment is producing most serious economic and industrial problems with which the country is vitally concerned and with which any Government will have to deal. We believe that, to deal with this rising menace, it is essential that some of the controls and powers now open to Her Majesty's Government should be retained, but they are being deliberately and frivolously thrown away. We believe that it is being done for unworthy motives.
  I listened very carefully to a speech made recently by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal on the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, when we were dealing with the use of motor cars at elections. He made a profound remark. He was attempting to defend that Bill by saying that people must be judged by their motives. I
  966
  agree; I think they should. I am content that this Government should be judged by their motives and, particularly, should be judged by their motives in introducing this Bill. On this issue, the Lord Privy Seal stands convicted out of his own mouth, because he has himself admitted, no doubt inadvisedly, the motive which impelled the Government to introduce the Bill at this time. When addressing the Central Council of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations, he stated, in a moment of transcendental frankness, that the Government intended to bring in a Bill of this kind to prevent
  "a Socialist state being brought in, as it were. by the flick of a switch."
  Sir Thomas Moore: Hear, hear
  Mr. Fletcher: Apparently the motive is applauded by some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. John Mackie: We all applaud it.
  Mr. Fletcher: That is the motive, but it was not the motive which the Economic Secretary acknowledged when defending this Bill to the House. He is not so candid. He tried to cover this disingenuous Bill by an entirely fictitious and fallacious argument. He said—I want to pin him to the words, because of their demonstrable falsity and dishonesty—that the one reason for the Bill was the restoration to Parliament of control over the Executive.
  Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is nothing of the kind. One of the reasons for the Bill, the dishonest reason which promotes it, is the desire of the Government not to add to Parliament's control over the Executive but to take away from the sovereign electorate of the country the right to have its wishes carried out at the next election.
  It is all very well to talk about the rights of Parliament and the Executive. On that issue, I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Economic Secretary and with the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), who takes such a profound professional interest in the subject and who made such an interesting and amusing speech on the Second Reading. But you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is an issue even more profound in our

  967
  constitutional history than the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, and that is the relationship between the sovereign electorate and Parliament.
  Parliament is here only to represent the will of the people. [An HON. MEMBER: "No"] An hon. Member opposite even disputes that. But it is desirable that Members of Parliament should occasionally, in all humility and modesty, remember that we are here as the representatives of the electorate. The essence of Parliamentary democracy, as I understand it, is that, in exercising the rights of Parliamentary sovereignty over the Executive, we are here because we are the elected representatives of the people; and it is the sovereign right of the people at a General Election to decide which body of representatives they want to represent them.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an interesting constitutional discussion, but it cannot be founded upon the Bill as it is before us for Third Reading.
  Mr. Fletcher: I would be the last person to transgress the rules of order, Mr. Speaker. I was tempted to say this only because of the observation made opposite about Parliamentary control over the Executive. I was venturing to say that that doctrine must be limited and must be subject to the overriding doctrine of the rights of the electorate over the Executive.
  My chief criticism of the Bill is that it is inspired by unworthy motives. It is an attempt, in the last few months of an expiring Parliament, to impose limitations on the Government that will be elected at the next General Election. In my submission, that is something which this Parliament ought not to do. I am supported in that view by a great many responsible organs of the Press. The Times commented on the introduction of the Bill on 29th October. Although that newspaper took a view which, in some ways, was not unfavourable to the contents of the Bill, it felt constrained to say that for constitutional reasons this was not a Bill which ought to be introduced at this time. The Times reads:
  "But to declare that they are doing this"—
  that is, introducing the Bill—
  "to prevent a Socialist Government, should they have been voted in, from carrying out
  968
  their purpose is to give a bad reason. If a Socialist Government were returned to office, it would have been by the will of the people. And however wholeheartedly the British voter fights the party battle at Election time, he is experienced enough to know that the country has to be governed. He is not inclined to like Government moves designed purely for the purpose of making things more difficult for a possible successor. We have heard far too much about the 'flick of the switch' which the Conservatives are going to make possible."
  That is why we object to the Bill. It is designed to prevent the successor to this Government being able to carry out, by Statutory Instruments, powers which have been available to this Government for the last seven years and which may well be necessary for a succeeding Government to deal with the economic problems which loom ahead. I refer, in particular, to the unemployment situation. The country is profoundly disturbed by the growing figures of unemployment. We on this side of the House do not share the complacency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in the debate on the Address on 3rd November, referred to the level of unemployment as being "excessively low", meaning, presumably, that he thought it was not low enough.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): The hon. Member will remember that that was a slip of the tongue, which my right hon. Friend corrected immediately.
  Mr. Fletcher: I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue or not. I believe that the Chancellor was reading from a prepared brief, in which the words "excessively low" appeared, and it was only as a result of the volume of protest from this side of the House at that discreditable statement that he then hurriedly changed what he had written in his brief to "extremely low".
  Sir T. Moore: Did not the hon. Member's right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, agree that 3 per cent. unemployment was actually full employment?
  Mr. Fletcher: Certainly not.
  Mr. Speaker: The unemployment debate is tomorrow, not today.
  Mr. Fletcher: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I have already gone further than I ought on the somewhat

  969
  narrow limits within which one is entitled to debate the Third Reading of a Bill.
  With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will bring my remarks to a conclusion by saying that we oppose the Bill because we think that it has been introduced for unworthy motives. While we are all agreed that when necessary emergency legislation should be put in a permanent statutory form, we object to the selection of powers which the Government have decided either to retain or revoke. We believe that their motives are unworthy and have been calculated primarily to try to prevent a Labour Government, which will be elected at the next General Election, from exercising the powers which they ought to be able to take to deal with the important economic problems that confront the country.
  4.27 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): What a problem you have set us, with respect, Mr. Speaker. In my desire to adhere to your admonition, I am mindful that Third Reading is not the occasion to rehash the arguments put forward on Second Reading or in Committee.
  I have, therefore, taken the most meticulous notes of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, and, with one exception, I have not been able to find any argument that we have not heard before either both on Second Reading and in Committee or during one or other stage. I hope that the House will be indulgent if I endeavour not to rehash but perhaps remind the House of answers which have been already given to the arguments which today have been raised yet again. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were inadequate."] They are unconvincing perhaps to those who cannot approach the matter with a dispassionate mind.
  Let me say at once that I was guilty of a slip of the tongue during Second Reading. It was not in my prepared script because I did not have a prepared script, and it was rapidly and agreeably taken up by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). But I was presenting the Bill to the House then and I will present it on Third Reading as one that is, in part, a holding operation.
  970
  The Bill preserves powers of an emergency character which, after careful consideration, we think it necessary to retain. It is rightly called the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Bill because it repeals those powers which we do not consider it either necessary or advisable to retain. If any hon. Member feels in doubt about that, I ask him to look at page 25 of the Bill, where a long repeal Schedule is set out, listing Statute after Statute, some of them repealed in whole.
  Although my slip of the tongue was disagreeable to me and entertaining to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, it none 'the less represented what the Bill does, but the major effect of it is to repeal.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite are intolerably difficult to please. It was very agreeable to see the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) at the Box on, I think, his most important occasion in this context, very agreeable indeed. When he gets there, one of the matters of his complaint is that, in Committee, we had a whole bench of Ministers there, from one Department or another. Parliamentary Secretaries they may have been, but the antithesis is not, in the context, of importance. [Laughter.] It is not, in the very least. When those admirable Parliamentary Secretaries were there, they had to deal with their own Departmental aspects of the Bill. Complaint is now made that they were there.
  On the other hand, on the Second Reading of the Bill, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) complained that Ministers of certain Departments were not here to look after the matter, and we had words about whether the right hon. Gentleman was statistically right about their presence or not. There were courtesies on both sides. It is too bad that complaints should have been made in both cases.
  Mr. Albu: I made no complaint about the courtesy that junior Ministers were present in Committee, or Ministers at all. I said that the Bill was such a hotchpotch that the Government needed a whole bench of Ministers to know what the Bill was about.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not desire to continue with this point. If the hon. Gentleman is not displeased with the

  971
  presence of the Ministers, I am not displeased about it either. I will detain the House not very much longer from discussing matters which are even more obscene than economics.
  To put the matter in a nutshell, it is all nonsense to pretend that there is any difference between the two sides of the House about objectives in this matter. Everybody wants to maintain full employment, price stability and a strong£. The difference is one of method. We do not believe that any single one of the powers which we are getting rid of in their emergency form by the Bill will do anything to help any conceivable Government to attain any of those objectives. If we did not take that view we should not get rid of them, but we do take that view. It is silly to call this process "doctrinaire" just because hon. Members opposite take the opposite view. It is the right and the duty of the Government of the day to do what they think is right.
  When a Government has been elected for a five year term as it is—provisionally at all events—in this country, it is nonsense to complain just because they choose to do what they think is right in the third year of that term, that therefore they are doing something to hamper their successors if these happen to be of another political complexion? It is nothing of the kind. I can only express my sympathy with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who seems to live in a world surrounded by persons of such evil motives that I do not think he can be quite happy in soul.
  I was asked questions about an amendment made to Clause 3 in Committee, relating to page 5 of the Bill. Three conditions are imposed upon the Minister of Supply by the Bill in its present form, in undertaking production for civil ends and it was the first of them that was altered. The question asked of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply in Committee—I desired to be prompted by the hon. Member for Edmonton if I get them wrong—was whether a local authority would be, for the purpose of this enactment, a person carrying on an undertaking which includes
  "the production of articles of that or any other description,"
  972
  who might request the Minister for production, for the purpose of his, the requester's, undertaking.
  The answer is that we cannot answer that question in the abstract, because local authorities do such a different variety of things. Hon. Members opposite will remember what fun we had with the Glasgow Corporation and its stationery, in quite another context, or a curious vehicle to which it might be applying a taxable process. These are very intriguing regions. in which local authorities do some remarkable things. Assuming a local authority carrying on an undertaking involving the production of articles, the Minister could, under the terms of this permissive condition, do the production that it requested of him. It would depend upon the type of activity of the local authority.
  Hon. Members asked me about a service, such as the National Health Service. The answer is, a service, no, unless the activity of the service is the production of some article of some description by virtue of its undertaking within the words of this provision. Take a group of farmers or a single farmer. In this, I am not speaking in accordance with the snap shot that my right hon. Friend gave. The true position in law on this wording is that the farmer is a person who carries on
  "an undertaking which includes the production of articles"
  of some description,
  "for the purposes of his undertaking".
  If a single farmer or a group of farmers were to ask the Minister to produce fertilisers for them their request would be, under the first of these permissive terms, a request capable of inspiring the Minister's production of articles in this context.
  What would govern the matter, no doubt, in relation to the absurd hypothetical case of the individual farmer, would be one of the further limitations. The circumstances would have to be
  "(iii) that in the opinion of the Minister the supply of that article or the carrying out of that work by him will serve the interests of the community."
  We might get into the absurd region of the fertiliser being in too small quantities or the like, which would mean that that qualification in the enactment would be the governing factor, whether the Minister complied with the request or not.

  973
  I do not know how, without rehashing the arguments, I can again say—because they have all been answered in the course of our discussions—why we do not think it necessary to maintain price controls. I was accused by hon. Members opposite of saying that they intended to use them often, but we do not desire to continue them. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are living in the past if they imagine that, in circumstances of peacetime, it is possible to make effective, fair and practicable use of selective price controls to obtain the objectives which are common to both sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They do not agree with that view, but that does not make it wrong for us to retain it and to act according to the view that we have. That is what we have done.
  I was asked about information. The position is exactly as the hon. Member for Edmonton stated it, namely, that we now have all the information that we want. We see no reason to believe that we would want powers that we are now letting go—in so far as we are letting them go—to continue to get all the information that we want. Nor do we feel that we have stripped ourselves of any power of public trading in this field that we want. If we had, we should not have stripped ourselves of them.
  I do not wish to detain the House further by simply restating arguments that have been stated over and over again ad nauseam. The gist of the matter is this. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about frustrating the will of the people. We are not surprised to find that they are objecting to our selection, exactly because their proposal is to make no selection at all. It is not making a selection of these powers to suggest that we should retain powers to control the production, distribution and consumption of any commodity to control prices of all goods and services or to manufacture, trade or deal in any commodity, whenever we desired. That is not selection at all. That is keeping the whole gamut. That represents what hon. Gentlemen opposite have proposed in their speeches and Amendments as what we should retain. Here is the essence of it, in a sentence which I wrote down from the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton, and which crystallises the issues excellently. It was, "To have to go through the whole legislative process seems to us irresponsible". It seems
  974
  to us on this side of the House the opposite of irresponsibility. If we wish to control the economy by a process of delegated legislation, then it is plainly right, in peacetime, that we should have to ask the House for a Statute to confer that power upon us. Accordingly, I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Third Reading.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Since the Solicitor-General has made a long speech without, I think, a single slip of the tongue, I will make two very brief comments. I believe that there is considerable disagreement between us. The Government have made a selection of the controls which they seek to maintain. We agree that there should be a selection, but we think that the Government's selection is wrong.
  We believe that the limited number of controls retained will not be sufficient to maintain full-employment, or price stability, or the strength of sterling. We have advanced arguments throughout all the stages of the Bill to show why we think that they are insufficient. To those arguments we have not had an adequate reply from the Solicitor-General, the Economic Secretary, the splendid array of Parliamentary Secretaries, or even from the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), who told us this afternoon that he represents nobody.
  The Solicitor-General accused my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) of seeing all sorts of evil motives in hon. Members of the House or in other people. But the fact is that we have the incriminating remark made by the Lord Privy Seal about the real purpose of the Bill. We have asked all the Ministers who have attempted to defend the Bill what was the meaning or the point of this remark of the Lord Privy Seal unless it was a disreputable one-which seems to us the only one possible—and to that, also, we have not had an adequate reply from anybody on either side of the House. For these two reasons, I hope that my hon. Friends will continue their opposition to the Bill.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 171.

  Division No. 17.1

  AYES

  [4.44 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Aitken, W. T.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Gower, H. R.

  Neave, Airey

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Green, A.

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

  Ashton, H.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Atkins, H. E.

  Grimond, J.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Balniel, Lord

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

  Banks, Col. C.

  Gurden, Harold

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Barber, Anthony

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Osborne, C.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Page, R. G.

  Barter, John

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Pitkthorn, K. W. M.

  Batsford, Brian

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Harvey, John (Waltharnstow, E.)

  Powell, J. Enooh

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Head, Rt. Rom A. H.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.

  Bidgood, J. C.

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

  Profumo, J. D.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wylhenshawe)

  Redmayne, M.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Body, R. F.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Bonham Carter, Mark

  Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Holt, A. F.

  Robertson, Sir David

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

  Hope, Lord John

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Homby, R. P.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Braine, B. R.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Russell, R. S.

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

  Hurd, A. R.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh,S.)

  Sharpies, R. C.

  Bryan, P.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  lremonger, T. L.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

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

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Speir, R. M.

  Carr, Robert

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwioh)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnson, Eric (Blaokley)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Kaberry, D.

  Storey, S.

  Cole, Norman

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Conant, Major Sir Roger

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Cooke, Robert

  Kimball, M.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Cooper, A. E.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Teeling, W.

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Lancaster, Cot. C. G.

  Temple, John M.

  Craddock, Beresford (Speithorne)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Leburn, W. G.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Currie, G. B. H.

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

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Davidson, Viscountess

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

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wade, D. W.

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

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Wakefield Sir Wave!! (St. M'lebone)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Duthie, W. S.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Wall, Patrick

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Errington, Sir Erio

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Webster, David

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Fell, A.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maddan, Martin

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Woirige-Gordon, P.

  Foster, John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Gammans, Lady

  Mathew, R.

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Mawby, R. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Glover, D.

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Mr. Edwards and

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Mr. Hughes-Young.

  Godlier, J. B.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Albu, A. H.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Balfour, A.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bellenger. Hon. F. J.

  976

  977

  Benson, Sir George

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Pentland, N.

  Beswick, Frank

  Hoy, J. H.

  Popplewell, E.

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

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Blaokburn, F.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Probert, A. R.

  Boardman, H.

  Hynd, H. (Acorington)

  Rankin, John

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

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Reid, William

  Boyd, T. C.

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

  Rhodes, H.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn&St.Pncs,S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Ross, William

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Butler, Herbert (Haokney, C.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Short, E. W.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Champion, A. J.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Cove, W. G.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lee, Fredrick (Newton)

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

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Snow, J. W.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Logan, D. G.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sparks, J. A.

  De Freitas, Geoffrey

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Delargy, H. J.

  MoCann, J.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Diamond, John

  McGhee, H. G.

  Stonehouse, John

  Dodds, N. N.

  McInnes, J.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

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

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Strachey, nt. Hon. J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  McLeavy, Frank

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

  Edelman, M.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Sylvester, G. 0.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Mahon, Simon

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Finch, H. J.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Thornton, E.

  Fitch, Alan

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Timmons J.

  Fletcher, Erio

  Mason, Roy

  Usborne H. C.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Watkins, T. E.

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

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Weitzman, D.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Monslow, W.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Moody, A. S.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

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

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Grey, C. F.

  Mort, D. L.

  Willey, Frederick

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Moss, R.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Moyle, A.

  Williams, Richard (Openshaw)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil(Colne Valley)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Hannan, W.

  Oram, A. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hastings, S.

  Orbach, M.

  Woof, R. E.

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

  Oswald, T.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Herhison, Miss M.

  Owen, W. J.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Paget, R. T.

  Holman, P.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Holmes, Horace

  Pearson, A.

  Mr. Simmonds and Mr. Deer.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  ADOPTION BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  NATIONAL DEBT BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  MANŒUVRES BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the and passed, without Amendment.
  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  NEW TOWNS [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st December].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Question again proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make, as respects England and Wales, new provision in place of section fifteen of the New Towns Act, 1946, as to the disposal of the undertakings of development corporations and other matters arising when a development corporation has achieved or substantially achieved the purposes for which it is established, and to amend the law relating to development corporations in other respects, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision for the financial purposes mentioned below, that is to say,—
  1. As regards the disposal of undertakings of development corporations and related matters, provision may be made—

  (a) for defraying out of moneys provided by Parliament any charges for the remuneration, pensions or other benefits payable for a person's service on any new Commission established to take over assets and liabilities of development corporations;

  (b) for making to any such Commission out of the Consolidated Fund advances for capital purposes or to meet revenue deficits, but so that—

  (i) the advances made for capital purposes (except in respect of liabilities originally incurred by development corporations) shall be subject to a limit of five million pounds on the amount for the time being outstanding; and

  (ii) the advances made to meet revenue deficits shall not exceed one million pounds;

  and for raising the amounts of those advances by borrowing, and for the payment into the Exchequer, and application in reducing debt or meeting interest charges on debt, of repayments of principal and payments of interest in respect of those advances;

  (c) for requiring surpluses arising to any such Commission to be paid into the Exchequer, and treated in whole or in part as repayments of such advances as aforesaid;

  (d) for the making to any such Commission out of moneys provided by Parliament of such payments in connection with housing activities of the Commission as correspond to those payable to development corporations under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, together with certain additional payments (not exceeding eight pounds for any one year in respect of any one dwelling), for the transfer of those payments in certain circumstances to local authorities, and for the recovery from local authorities and payment into the Exchequer of part of any such additional payments;

  980

  (e) for the continuation after the transfer to any such Commission of a development corporation's property of all such payments as might but for the transfer be made in connection with housing activities of the corporation or otherwise to or by the corporation, the Minister of Housing and Local Government or any local authority, but with the Commission replacing the corporation, and for the Minister's payments to be made out of moneys provided by Parliament and his receipts to be paid into the Exchequer;

  (f) for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses of that Minister;

  (g) for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable by way of rate-deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland, being an increase attributable—

  (i) to any expenditure of local authorities in respect of payments under the provisions authorised by paragraphs (d) and (e) above; or

  (ii) to any expenditure of local authorities under provisions relating to sewerage or sewage disposal undertakings carried on for the purposes of new towns developed under the New Towns Act. 1946;

  2. As regards other amendments of the law relating to development corporations, provision may be made—

  (a) for increasing to four hundred million pounds the aggregate amount of the advances which may be made to development corporations under subsection (1) of section twelve of the New Towns Act, 1946; and

  (b) for authorising the making by development corporations of contributions towards the provision of amenities for the new towns, and the consequent increase in their expenditure in respect of which advances may be made to them under subsection (1) of the said section twelve or grants may be made to them out of moneys provided by Parliament under subsection (2) of that section.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I want to raise one short but not unimportant point on the Money Resolution. The Resolution does not seem to cover any dealing in Committee with the rights of persons who have been employed by development corporations and may lose their jobs in consequence of the Bill. We had a very similar case in the Local Government Act, 1958.
  Section 60 (2) of that Act provided in terms for compensation to or in respect of persons who are the
  "holders of any such place, situation or employment…and who suffer loss of

  981
  employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the provisions of any such order or scheme…."
  under the Act.
  That was laid down by regulations.
  All we know here is that on Second Reading the Minister said of the new body that
  "It should be ready to recruit from all the development corporations. That does not mean to say that anybody in the development corporations can count upon a new job, but these people will have the sort of experience which will undoubtedly be of value to the new commission. The existing staffs of the new development corporations are covered by pension schemes which give them pension rights, which they can carry with them elsewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 955.]
  That is a slightly different point. It is true that when one looks at the superannuation schemes contained in Statutory Instrument 1273, Local Government Superannuation Benefits (New Towns Staffs) Regulations, one finds that some of them, though called superannuation benefits, are intended to a limited degree to deal with redundancy. My point is that we are apparently not to be allowed to debate the sufficiency of these provisions in Committee, nor will it be open to us, as I read the Money Resolution, to introduce the more comprehensive type of compensation which was provided in a similar case in Section 60 of the Local Government Act.
  5.0 p.m.
  I do not want to discuss the merits of the matter here, but I hope that if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot assure me that we can discuss those matters in Committee, and can introduce a new Clause to the effect I have indicated, he will at least be able to assure me that arrangements can and will be made to give the personnel of New Town corporations the same protection on the same lines and for the same reason as those who suffer loss of employment or diminution of employment in the similar case where there is a change of boundaries or a change of districts—in fact, a change of units—in the Local Government Act, 1958.
  I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if he cannot do that, however good his intentions anti however comprehensive his Regulations may
  982
  appear to him to be, he may be risking—at any rate, without the benefit of advice from members of the Committee—doing considerable injustice to people whose services to the new town corporations we all agree have been very valuable and who came in the majority of cases out of local government service, some of them in responsible positions, others in less responsible positions. They ought not to be prejudiced by the fact that they have had the enterprise to lend their skill and experience for a period of years to these new towns, the importance and value of which we all know so well.
  It is on those broad grounds that I ask the hon. Gentleman, first, am I right in thinking that these matters are outside the Money Resolution? Secondly, if I am, can he assure me that these people will be no worse treated than local government servants who lose their jobs or suffer in connection with their jobs under the provisions of the Local Government Act?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The position is briefly that, in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the liabilities of the development corporations taken over by the Commission will include their liabilities towards their staffs under existing contracts of service and, of course, superannuation arrangements as well. That can be considered in Committee when we reach it.
  It is true that in practice some of the staffs of the development corporations will find work with other employers as the work of the respective corporations is slowed down. I imagine that will be especially true of technical staff as the tempo of new works in the new towns falls off. On the other hand, a number of the existing staffs of the development corporations will no doubt be taken over by the Commission. Some of the rent collectors, clerical workers and so forth, will find employment with the local organisation of the Commission in the new towns themselves.
  I should point out that if, instead of transferring the assets to the Commission, they had been transferred to the local authorities in the new towns, there is no

  983
  reason to think that those local authorities would have absorbed more of the employees of the corporations than will be absorbed by the Commission. However, I understand the feelings of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I say to him that the development corporations, especially those which are approaching the point of dissolution, are doing all they humanly can to place in other employment such of their staff as they feel will become redundant. As the Committee knows, there is a Whitley Council functioning in this respect, and its secretary is associated closely with local government. Efforts will be made to find alternative employment in the local government service for any of these men who are redundant.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me what will be the position of the staffs in the new towns who become redundant in spite of what I said earlier. They will be protected as far as possible within the framework of existing legislation. Broadly speaking, those declared redundant will fall into two categories. In the first there will be those who came from local government service in the first place and have remained in the Local Government Superannuation Scheme. In the second there will be those who have joined the New Towns Pensions Fund.
  As regards the first category of employee, the Local Government Superannuation Benefits (New Towns Staffs) Regulations, 1948, contain a number of detailed provisions with which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is familiar, and I will not go over them now. This is the more important category of people, who came into the new towns service from local government and have since remained in the Local Government Superannuation Scheme.
  The second category of case is comprised of those people who have come to the new towns not from local government but from other work, and there the New Towns Pensions Fund will operate. Broadly speaking, that type of officer has the choice of one of three courses. He can take a lump sum in cash, consisting of the bulk of his contributions plus interest, or he can take a deferred payment at normal pension able age of a pension calculated on the full amount of his own and his employer's contributions,
  984
  or he can have transferred to another fund covering his new employment the full amount of the contributions paid in both by himself and by his employer.
  Mr. Mitchison: May I ask one question here? Is this pensions fund a liability of the development corporations, so that it can be considered when we are dealing with the question of transfer?
  Mr. Bevins: That is fairly clear from the Second Schedule, which states:
  "..every agreement to which the development corporation was a party immediately before the transfer date…shall…have effect…as if…the Commission had been a party to the agreement…"
  I should think that will be debatable when we come to the Committee stage.
  Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to give me the assurance for which I asked. This was that the new towns staffs, in matters of redundancy, should not be treated worse than the staffs of local authorities which disappear, or are merged, under the provisions of the Local Government Act. It is hard to appreciate now what the difference will amount to. It is hard, too, to see how much we can deal with the matter in Committee. There may or may not be a considerable practical difference. I see no alternative at the moment but to accept this Money Resolution under the protest I have made, and to ask the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend to consider sympathetically the position of people who may be suffering under this Bill and whose rights we may have been debarred from debating to some extent.
  Mr. Bevins: I am advised that compensation questions can be debated in Committee if the Amendments are correctly drafted. There is no need to cover them in the Money Resolution which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, relates solely to expenditure by the Minister and not by the Commission.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has thought it right—certainly I would not complain of it—before authorising the Government to raise and spend the money covered by the Money Resolution to seek to be satisfied about the suggested incidental injustices which may be involved.

  985
  I do not know whether he is satisfied with the answer that he has been given, but at any rate, if the Minister is right, he will have the opportunity of dealing with it again during the Committee stage of the Bill.
  I want to raise a point about the Money Resolution which would certainly be out of order when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. If it can be raised at all, it can be raised only now I find that paragraph 2 of the Money Resolution reads:
  "As regards other amendments of the law relating to development corporations, provision may be made…for increasing to four hundred million pounds the aggregate amount of the advances which may be made to development corporations under subsection (1) of section twelve of the New Towns Act, 1946…"
  I realise as much as any other hon. Member the useful work that has been done by the development corporations, and even in certain cases by the building of the new towns, and in principle none of us would be against the granting to the Government of powers suitable to increase the expenditure upon constructive objects of that kind, but what is involved here is to some extent a question of priorities. For my part, I am not satisfied that as against other competing demands for public money in the way of the housing of the people and the redevelopment of industry this is quite the right time to increase the amount of money spent on new towns.
  The House has had the spectacle in the last few days of having petitions from some old towns. On Thursday last there were some sixteen mayors of boroughs from the Lancashire cotton belt sitting in the gallery with a number of chairmen and deputy chairmen of rural and urban district councils in the area. Six or seven further petitions have been added to the four which were presented on Thursday last. I suppose that there are already about 100,000 signatures to those petitions, and I am informed that there will be a number of other petitions over the coming days and weeks, so that in the end there may be 500,000 or 750,000 people in Lancashire petitioning Parliament not to allow their towns to become derelict and getting a very dusty answer if any answer at all.
  It seems a little ironic and paradoxical to be raising and authorising the Govern-
  986
  ment to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on building, largely in the South of England—not entirely—great new towns in order to draw people away from overpopulated areas—from conurbations, the ugly word which has become fashionable in recent years—while all the time the drift of population from the north is allowed callously and without help or even comment from the Government to go on.
  All the towns concerned plead in the prayers they have submitted to Parliament to be helped so that they shall not become derelict. We shall need far more than£400 million if all Lancashire is to be depopulated and we have to build new towns for its population. Is it really wise, with our resources as they are now, to put into this utmost priority an increased amount of money to spend on new towns while all the social capital that has been built up painfully and devotedly over a century and a half in the north of England is allowed to go to waste?
  5.15 p.m.
  Before they ask the Committee to authorise them to spend up to an extra£400 million on new towns, cannot the Government say a word about what they are proposing to do to preserve the towns that we have already, to bring comfort, aid, consolation and help to those concerned, and to preserve the towns where they live and prevent further waste of all the amenities, such as houses, hospitals, schools, factories, machinery and skilled labour?
  The Chairman: As long as the hon. Gentleman keeps to the point that the£400 million should not be spent on new towns it is all right, but when he gets on to the old towns there is nothing about them in the Money Resolution.
  Mr. Silverman: I appreciate that. Sir Charles. It is because there is nothing about them in the Money Resolution that I am not prepared to vote the Government the Resolution. That is exactly my point. We are being asked to vote the Government a further£400 million for purposes which seem to me to constitute an inadequate method of dealing with the problem which the Government have in mind. If there were something in the Money Resolution to enable the

  987
  Government to spend part of the money on preserving the towns that we have I should not be making this speech.
  The Chairman: That is my point. There is nothing about that in the Resolution.
  Mr. Silverman: Surely I am entitled to explain to the Committee, Sir Charles, why I am not prepared to grant the Government this money for purposes limited to the purposes set out in the Resolution? I am against it, and I am explaining why I am against it. I want the money not to be spent in so limited a way.
  I do not want to prolong the discussion too far, but I want to make my point, because I believe it is one which will find echoes throughout the country. I am sure that millions of people in the country are thinking of this plan for new towns, and the increased expenditure on them to be authorised by this Money Resolution in exactly the same way as I am thinking about it and in the way that I am trying to express to the Committee. We might be reconciled to the proposal, for we are not in spirit or in principle against the new towns or the spending of money upon them, and we might be reconciled even to accepting the Resolution, with its limitations, if the Government could advance one crumb of comfort to show that the towns that it is our duty to help can be offered some help from the Government or even a single word to show that the Government had even begun to appreciate what the problem and the looming tragedy is.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: I wish to put a simple question to the Parliamentary Secretary. First, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said about Lancashire. I would go all the way with him on that, but I do not want to stop what is happening in the new towns.
  The Commission is taking over all the responsibilities of the new town corporations as they come to the practical end of their present work. That means that it must either take over all the staffs, which are now fairly large—and that is rather doubtful—or it must take over some. Some of those who will become redundant are covered by the local
  988
  government superannuation schemes. They carry their benefits and rights to their next employer, if it is another public authority, although I do not know what happens if they go to a private employer.
  But many other people who are employed by these corporations are not covered by these schemes; in fact, none of them will be covered unless he was already covered by an existing local government pensions scheme. What happens to those people? I am thinking not only of the surveyors, engineers and architects, but of the ordinary workmen employed by these corporations. If they are made redundant, should not they be entitled to some form of compensation? The nationalisation Measures always contained a special Clause to cover these people.
  It would be unfair if the Bill went through with this Money Resolution and, after all, nothing was done for those members of the staffs of the corporations who are not covered by existing pension schemes. It would not be fair for them to be thrown out upon the street, especially in view of the fact that during the next year or so it will not be easy for them to find employment. Unemployment is increasing, and I see no signs that it will decrease in the next six, nine or twelve months. Unemployment in the building industry seems to be increasing steadily month by month, and if that trend continues many people who are now employed by the corporations will not be able to find employment except in some other industry or trade.
  These people should be protected, but I see nothing either in the Bill or in the Money Resolution to provide that the new Commission shall compensate those who lose their livelihoods.
  Mr. Bevins: I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that point is appropriate for discussion in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Mitchison: I not only agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said about Lancashire, but I am sure that I am not the only person in the Committee to feel the warmest sympathy for the human and social needs which he so eloquently described and which most surely need attention. I differ from him only in that I do not believe that the needs

  989
  of Lancashire, or the old towns, or the North country—however one likes to put it—must necessarily prevent the final completion of the new towns, and it is for that purpose that the£400 million is to be provided.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I much appreciate what my hon. and learned Friend has said, and I know how sincere he is in saying it. My point is that if the basement is getting overfull we can clear it as much by turning off the tap as by pulling out the plug.
  Mr. Mitchison: Turning from basements to new towns, I feel that the provision of this money ought not to interfere with, and is really not directly related to, the proper provision for the needs of old towns such as that which my hon. Friend represents, and in respect of which the Government are now encouraging local authorities to spend more money on various social projects. Hon. Members on this side hope that the Government will pay heed to what my hon. Friend has said so eloquently and feelingly, and provide on some other occasion fully and properly for the needs of the part of Lancashire which he represents, and for many other parts of Lancashire and areas near Lancashire which are in the same position.
  We do not object to this allocation of money for new towns, but we earnestly hope that more money will be provided for the other purposes which my hon. Friend indicated.
  Mr. Maurice Orbach: I intervene only to press the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). The Parliamentary Secretary replied to him by saying that that point was a subject for Standing Committee, but we cannot pass a Money Resolution unless we know that sufficient money is provided to pay compensation for those people who will be declared redundant. I am talking not about those in executive or administrative posts but those who are employed mainly on manual labour by the development corporations, and who may not be working for them as a result of the passage of the Bill.
  May we be told whether, in the amount for which the Government are asking in the Money Resolution, a sufficient sum is included to pay compensation to the people who will not only find themselves
  990
  out of jobs, but will be placed in a very difficult position in connection with their homes? In the main, they live in homes which they have obtained by virtue of their being employed by a new town corporation. If we could have a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary I should be satisfied to agree to the Money Resolution.
  Mr. Bevins: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said. I have dealt with the categories of compensation to which people in the employment of the development corporations will become entitled in circumstances of redundancy. If there are any questions of detail which I have not filled in it would be appropriate for us to discuss them in Standing Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  HOUSE PURCHASE AND HOUSING [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to authorise Exchequer advances to building societies and make further provision for grants by and Exchequer contributions to local authorities towards the improvement of dwellings, it is expedient to authorise—
  A. the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required for the purpose of making to building societies advances not exceeding one hundred million pounds, the borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act, 1939, and payment into the Exchequer of any money needed for providing or repaying such sums, and the repayment into the Exchequer, with interest, of any such sums and their re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund;
  B. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to local authorities making grants towards the cost of providing dwellings with certain amenities of such contributions as may become payable as a result of applying to such grants the provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, or the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1950 to 1957, relating to Exchequer contributions in respect of improvement grants;
  C. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to a local authority executing works required for providing a dwelling with certain amenities of an annual contribution for twenty years of an amount equal to three-eighths of the loan charges referable to the cost of the works;
  D. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such increases in the moneys so payable under the enactments mentioned in

  991
  paragraph B of this Resolution as are attributable—

  (1) to any relaxation of the requirements as to which a local authority must be satisfied before approving an application for an improvement grant;

  (2) to any addition to the authorities which are local authorities for the purposes of section nine of the said Act of 1958;

  (3) to the substitution for the annual sums payable by way of contributions under sections nine and twelve of the said Act of 1958 of annual sums equal to three-eighths of the loan charges referable to the cost likely to be incurred by local authorities in carrying out approved improvement proposals or by housing associations and development corporations in carrying out arrangements with local authorities for the provision of dwellings by conversion of houses or other buildings or for the alteration, enlargement, repair or improvement of dwellings;

  E. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland;
  F. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State under the said Act of this Session;
  G. the payment into the Exchequer of any sum received by the said Minister or the Secretary of State from a local authority by virtue of the said Act of this Session.
  Resolution agreed to.

  WAGES COUNCILS (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to wages councils, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under section twenty-two of the Wages Councils Act, 1945, and any fees or allowances payable under the said Act of the present Session to the members of any committee appointed at the request of a wages council.
  Resolution agreed to.

  OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS
  5.28 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on Obscene Publications of Session 1957–58 (H.C. 123).
  I am glad that we have an opportunity to debate this subject. I want to say at the start that on present form it is not proposed that more than one speech should be made from the Government Front Bench, so as to give the maximum time for hon. Members to take part in the debate. [Interruption.] This is a big subject, and I want to discuss it in my own way.
  I was about to say that my hon. Friend who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury was a member of the Select Committee during the first part of its proceedings, when he was a Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department, and my hon. Friend who is now Joint Under-Secretary was a member of the Committee during the latter part of its proceedings. If necessary he will reply very shortly to any points raised, but our object is that there should not be any long intervention from the Government, except for the explanation that I now have to give, which, unfortunately, will have to be fairly detailed because this is a difficult subject.
  This movement to reform the law was initiated towards the end of 1954 by the Society of Authors, following some prosecutions earlier in the year, of which I have particulars, and of which the House may be aware. The Society.of Authors established a committee which produced a draft of a Bill and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) was given leave under the Ten Minutes Rule to introduce that Bill in March, 1955. However, it made no further progress.
  The hon. Member has throughout been closely associated with the subject and with the movement in favour of a change and he reintroduced this Bill under the Ballot in November of that same year. The Bill was low down in the Ballot and there was not time for it to be adequately debated. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount

  993
  Lambton) was successful in the Ballot and brought the Bill in again. After that, there was a discussion in the House when my hon. and learned Friend who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and who was then Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department, advised the House that the Bill could not readily be made, as we thought, workable. The eventual result of that was the establishment of the Select Committee, whose Reports we have in the two blue volumes which I have in my hand.
  That indicates that the subject has been before us for some time and that it has been the subject of the Report of the Select Committee, whose work spread over two Sessions and whose Report was published only in March this year. I express the thanks of the House for the work of the Members of that Select Committee, one or two of whom I see present on either side of the House. We need not reproach ourselves for the length of time taken, because this is a controversial subject upon which it is very difficult to get agreement and on which it has been difficult to get agreement between authors and laymen, laymen and lawyers, and, especially, authors and lawyers. This is not only a controversial but a technical and complex subject, and it is therefore all the more to the credit of the Select Committee that we have received so clear a Report.
  Before describing the Government's attitude to the Select Committee's Report, I remind the House that one of the major issues, that is, the definition of artistic merit, was decided only narrowly in a Division of the Committee itself, and only by the casting vote of the Chairman. That again indicates that those people, some of whom have written in a major newspaper today, who say how easy it is to describe these matters, are underestimating the difficulties.
  The House should approach the difficulties with as much care as possible and should remember that the Report is primarily concerned with two main headings. One is an aspect of the common law. Under that, the publication of any obscene matter is a misdemeanour punishable on indictment and, in certain circumstances, summarily. The facet of this common law which has attracted most attention, especially from the Society
  994
  of Authors and the Committee, is the definition of obscenity laid down by Mr. Justice Cockburn in the case of Regina v. Hicklin in 1868. He laid down the test of obscenity—as members of the Committee will remember—as:
  "Whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall."
  The second type of proceeding, leaving aside the common law, is contained in the Obscene Publications Act, 1857. That provides a summary procedure against the publications themselves and enables a magistrates' court to order the seizure of obscene matter from places where it is kept for sale or distribution and to summon the occupier of the premises to appear and to show why the articles should not be destroyed and to order the destruction of the articles if it appears that they are obscene. That is a rather unusual procedure intended as a preventive measure against the distribution of obscene material and without in itself involving the punishment of any person. Despite the nature of that procedure, the Select Committee found the method useful and justifiable and made several recommendations designed to improve its effectiveness.
  So far I have dealt only with the origins, the common law, and the Act of 1857, but before I give the Government's opinion on the detailed recommendations of the Select Committee, we ought to pause for a moment to think why we have a law of obscene publications. We are all agreed that the object is to protect from corruption those whose minds are open to immoral influences, quoting again from the Hicklin definition, not to protect the strong, but to protect the relatively weak. That is the necessary and legitimate object of the law.
  That means that in seeking to protect the weak we must take care to place the minimum restrictions on creative work. The difficulty, which the House will have to examine in this matter is this. The area between truly creative work which some might find offensive or immoral, and the depths of pornography is vast. It is somewhere between those two extremes that the law has to place a limit to define what is permitted and what is not. The problem is how to set the limit

  995
  right, and the hon. Member for Stechford has made an effort in his Bill.
  It is important to clear this out of the way: the obscene publications law is not concerned with all obscenity as understood by the ordinary man or as defined in the dictionary, that is, that which is offensive to modesty or decency. Even if it were, there would be considerable room for differences of opinion as to what constituted obscenity. The keen nose of Dr. Bowdler found in the words of Shakespeare things to which to object which had not been found before and which, perhaps, have not been found since. Times and tastes change, and The Times itself has also changed. We have lately seen printed on its leader page words which a few years ago were thought unprintable.
  The law of obscene publications does not operate against all obscenity. It operates if there is a tendency to corrupt. The Select Committee recommended, rightly in the Government's view, that that criterion should be retained. Inevitably, that increases the scope for difference of opinion. The mere use of Anglo-Saxon monosyllables may be obscene, but hardly corruptive. Everybody knows, schoolboys particularly, how the Bible and even the Oxford Dictionary can be used to serve the purposes of prurient curiosity. The nude can be used in lectures, such as those which I attended in Washington and which were given by Sir Kenneth Clark, to provide inspiration for the painter or photographer or, on the other hand, be degraded for the purposes of the pornographer's wares.
  At what point does corruption begin? These are matters for subjective judgment, and our difficulty in legislation is that the law ought to be objective and ought to be capable of objective application. Only a censor could give certainty and consistency. That device has been adopted in one way or another for the theatre and the cinema, but I would most violently rebel at the idea of a censor or board of censors applying his or its activities to literature and art. It would not only be complex, but utterly unacceptable in a free country. Therefore, at the very start, before coming to examine the legal details, we have to face the obvious difficulty of trying to find a limit for the law and trying to make it
  996
  objective in an entirely subjective matter, and trying to make it effective in this very difficult matter.
  I said earlier that the movement for reform started as a result of five prosecutions of novels in 1954. The results of those prosecutions were one plea of guilty, one conviction, and three acquittals. From that we cannot deduce very much. Some people may say that that shows that there is no need to alter the law, but others, including the Society of Authors, the hon. Member for Stechford, my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and others have taken the view that that means that the law should be altered. The case for changing the law is summarised in the Report of the Select Committee.
  If the law is to be codified with Amendments, as the Select Committee recommended, we must consider the Amendments with the greatest care, so that they do not offer shelter for the unscrupulous, because a widening of the law might have an effect precisely opposite to that which the Select Committee had in mind, and might open up the way to unscrupulous publishers to sail as close to the wind as they were able. It is against that background of care and those difficulties which I have shortly outlined that I come to consider the recommendations of the Select Committee.
  It will be found that we accept most of the recommendations. In the cases where we are critical, to which I shall draw attention later, it is not because we do not recognise that the Select Committee made a sincere attempt to provide security for reputable work, but because we fear that it may have provided a loophole which could be exploited by the unscrupulous. The Government accept the first recommendation, that the criterion of obscene matter should continue to be its tendency to deprave and corrupt.
  In its second recommendation, the Committee discussed the class of persons by reference to which the tendency to deprave or corrupt should be judged. I have already deliberately drawn attention to the Hicklin definition. That definition refers to the class comprising persons whose minds are open to immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of the kind in question might fall. That has sometimes been interpreted by the courts as referring to young

  997
  and immature persons, and the Select Committee quoted with approval a charge given to a jury by Mr. Justice Stable in Regina v. Secker, which the House will remember was the case of "The Philanderer," in which Mr. Justice Stable suggested that a work of the kind before him should not he judged by the standards of schoolchildren.
  Against that background and those judgments, the Committee recommended that in any new statutory definition that explanation of the law should be followed and in paragraph 19 suggested a definition in the following terms:
  "Any matter shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect as a whole is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons to or among whom it was likely to be distributed, circulated or offered for sale."
  Mr. Justice Stable's summing up related to a particular kind of work judged in a particular manner. The Government would not accept that all that he said would necessarily apply or be appropriate in different circumstances, but they are prepared to agree in principle to a definition designed to achieve the objects of the definition which I have just read. If it is to have legislative effect, in the Government's view it would need some technical alterations to which I shall refer later.
  Before summarising the sort of definition which the Government think would be more effective, I ought to allude to another element of the common law. One of the elements of the common law which the Government think valuable is that the question whether the distributor of a work should be convicted or the work destroyed depends on the circumstances of distribution. For example, a work which might properly be sold at a specialist bookshop might not be suitable for distribution directly to schoolchildren. The Government therefore suggest that the definition proposed by the Committee should be qualified by some such phrase as:
  "In determining what persons are likely to read, hear or see the work in question, regard shall be had to the circumstances in which it was found and to the manner in which it was proposed to be, or was, published."
  That leads me to sum up that part of what I was going to say by reading out the definition which, including these words, would be an improvement upon the Committee's definition. Even if the
  998
  hon. Member who is interested in this matter and others who speak cannot apprehend it at first sight, they will, I think, see that it follows broadly the same lines. This would be the suggested definition:
  "For the purposes of this Act, any matter shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect in its context is such as to tend to deprave or corrupt or further to deprave or corrupt those persons who are likely to read, hear or see it."
  I then add what I have just introduced:
  "In determining what persons are likely to read, see or hear it, regard should be had to the circumstances in which the matter was found and to the manner in which it was proposed to he, or was published."
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I interrupt for a matter of clarity? As far as I can understand at first hearing, one matter that the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with in his argument is that the effect "as a whole", to which the Select Committee attached considerable importance, has been left out. Substituted for it is "in its context". the meaning of which is not immediately clear to me. It is obviously somewhat distinct from "as a whole".
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member's intervention will enable me to bring out the difference even more clearly than I had intended. I was just going on to say that right hon. and hon. Members will observe that there is one difference between the Committee's definition and what I have read out. What I have read out uses the words "in its context". The reason why I bring out at this stage the whole definition which we think is the best is because I now want to come to the Committee's third recommendation and deal with its recommendation that the work as a whole should be considered. The words "as a whole" are included in the Committee's suggested definition in paragraph 19, to which I have already referred. Therefore, I come logically to the point which the hon. Member has so quickly perceived.
  This is already the practice of the courts in prosecutions of the kind of work with which the Society of Authors is particularly concerned. Here we must go back to a case in the High Court, that of Paget Publications Ltd. v. Watson. I am not, of course, referring to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). In that case, the High Court

  999
  ruled that in destruction order proceedings it is not necessary to show that a publication is obscene on every page. A publication can be obscene because part of it is obscene. That case did not relate to a work of the kind in which the Society of Authors is interested and it may well be that such a work ought to be taken as a whole in such proceedings, also. The High Court has not had an opportunity of deciding that issue.
  The Government see danger in using the expression or phrase "as a whole" in a definition that is applicable to all kinds of material. How, for example, would a court judge a collection of short stories, only one of which was obscene? There is a risk that if the words "as a whole" are included in the definition, such a book might escape or, what is, perhaps, more dangerous, that an unscrupulous publisher might use a largely respectable magazine as a vehicle and shield for a small quantity of pornography. I believe that to be a real danger. What we want to ensure is that if an obscene passage is to be excused it shall be because its obscenity is justified not by its relative brevity, but by the nature of the work of which it is a part: that is, by its context.
  This is a technical matter, which I throw out at the opening of the debate and on which hon. Members can comment and which will need to be examined. I think, however, that it would be safer and better, rather than using the words "as a whole", to use the words "in its context", because that would give a jury, who would have to decide these matters, a much better opportunity of testing not only the intention, but also the fact, in relation to the inclusion of a passage of obscene material in a particular work. Therefore, it is in that aspect that the Government propose an amendment of the Committee's recommendation and to that extent would need to recommend an amendment of the hon. Member's Bill. I do not believe that there is sufficient difference of opinion for us to regard that as a major difference, but I shall be glad to hear the argument upon it and, no doubt, if there are later opportunities, we can go into it further.
  Recommendation (iv), however, is the most crucial and difficult of the issues discussed in the Select Committee's Report. It is that
  1000
  "A definition of literary or artistic merit should be afforded."
  This is linked with the views of supporters of reform that expert evidence as to the literary or other merit of a work should be admitted.
  Paragraph 20 of the Committee's Report records the statement of the Society of Authors that this is a point upon which the supporters feel perhaps the most strongly. Nevertheless, this recommendation appears to be one upon which the Select Committee itself had misgivings, because reference to the Minutes of Proceedings shows that the concluding sentence of paragraph 20, in which the recommendation of a defence of literary or artistic merit was included, was included only on the casting vote of the Chairman after the Committee had divided evenly. The Government share the misgiving obviously felt by the Committee. In fact, I go so far as to say that we regard this particular recommendation as unworkable and, therefore, unacceptable.
  I have already said that we do not underrate the importance attached to it by the Society of Authors. After giving our reasons, I shall make some suggestions. Our reasons are two. First, the idea that literary merit can justify obscenity requires a qualification. An essentially obscene book is none the less corrupting because it is well written. The inclusion of such a defence in any legislation would, as the Government fear, encourage the production of well-written pornography which would be beyond the reach of the law. The ingenuity of commercial and unscrupulous interests in making use of such a loophole should not be underrated.
  The second difficulty, upon which, on examination, I hardly think there will be much difference of opinion, lies in the great practical difficulty of determining what is literary or artistic merit. This difficulty was well illustrated in the evidence given to the Select Committee by Mr. T. S. Eliot. He was asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary:
  "can you offer us any broad criterion as to how the court should decide whether there is literary merit or not?"
  This distinguished writer replied:
  "I cannot, except by the court receiving expert evidence. Now, what is expert evidence with regard to literary or artistic merit? Obviously "—

  1001
  continued Mr. Eliot in answering his own question—
  "expert evidence is a definite thing with regard to the medical, legal or scientific character of a book, but as to the literary, artistic merit, it will all depend on getting the opinion of the right people, and who can say absolutely who are the right people? Some distinguished authors, well-known authors, have been in my experience extremely prudish: others have been, perhaps, too lax…"
  He concluded:
  "but on the whole I should think this would work well."
  That, however, is not the deduction that the Government draw from this witness.
  Mr. Eliot was then asked:
  "It might result in one side calling, for example, James Joyce as an expert witness and the other side calling one of the authors…whom you regard as prudish?"
  Mr. Eliot answered:
  "Yes. I think cases might arise in which this would not completely solve the case, but I do not see how you could do better."
  The view of the Government is that here is one of the best witnesses that could be called, who, although he thinks that it might work, comes to the conclusion that it would not completely solve the case. That, I believe, represents the truth.
  That takes me back to what I said earlier, that if we are to have a better definition of the law—and I have already moved quite a long way on the major definitions in answer to the Committee's recommendations—and if we are to respond to this request for what is called by the lawyers a special defence, we cannot have something that is inaccurate. Above all, when the House has to consider that this matter would have to be decided by a jury, it would be inappropriate, in a difficult matter of this sort, to have a censor or an expert body deciding it. We have, therefore, to approach a solution, which I hope we may be able to do, realising that it is a jury who must decide; and if Mr. T. S. Eliot himself finds it difficult, what on earth will a jury do in trying to decide what is artistic or literary merit in answer to the plea of a special defence?
  I realise that the aim of those who make this proposal is to ensure that a writer of integrity who expresses the truth as he sees it shall not be liable to prosecution for obscene libel, and that we all want to achieve. The problem is how to
  1002
  secure this without opening a loophole for evil. It must be very galling for a firm of publishers who decide to take a risk with a book which they think is artistic and which, in fact, contains subject matter which some of us might regard as somewhat alarming—it has been my duty to read some of these works and some of them certainly cause me to open my eyes—to find itself in the dock and finally convicted, or, indeed, even if acquitted, to have to undergo that experience. Therefore, we must try to see what we can do, by way of constructive suggestions, to help.
  I approach this matter from the basis of the evidence of the Home Office case before the Committee started its work. It is held in some quarters that it is a good defence under the present law to show that the publication of matter prima facie obscene is for the public good because it is necessary or advantageous to religion, science, literature or art, provided that the manner and extent of publication do not exceed what the public good requires. That is held. The advice which I have been given is that it can be derived from the corpus and the digest of law. No authoritative decision, however, has been given by the courts on the question of whether such a defence is now available. That shows the complexity of the subject.
  In fact, the definition which I have read to the House would prima facie appear to cover all that is necessary to protect the work of literary quality. It is possible, therefore, to hold that if we adhere to the definition I read earlier, with the words "in its context" and then the words
  "In determining what persons are likely to read, hear or see it…"
  that would cover the whole case and the law would be improved by that definition. If, however, it is felt that something extra is wanted, I can only draw attention again to the suggestions in the Home Office evidence. They drew attention to the possibility of providing explicitly for this defence of the public good or the public interest. Under this, the defence would be based upon the general wellbeing of society as well as on the excellence of the publication in its kind.
  This should appeal to those who fear that the Committee's recommendation

  1003
  might encourage "high-class" pornography. It might thus be possible to give some measure of reassurance to the Society of Authors by making it clear that "public good" includes the advancement of literature or art. I put that forward for discussion and I shall value any comments by hon. Members, not only in this debate, but afterwards. We may well need to have consultations as a result of the proposals that I have put forward in my speech.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet): Would my right hon. Friend deal with two points which arise from what he has been saying? First, does not this proviso merely deal with the right to call expert evidence and not provide a special defence? Therefore, is he really suggesting that, whatever the outcome of that, there should be a second and further proviso which would be wider and would raise a special defence, namely, that of the public good? Are they not really two quite separate issues?
  Mr. Butler: That is precisely the sort of thing that we shall have to decide after this debate, when we have had the comments of hon. Members. I should not like to deny the interpretation given by my hon. Friend, but I think that the way I have put it indicates that we think there is a possibility of legislation based on the definition which I gave earlier in my speech and confined to that. We think that the Society of Authors and certain hon. Members would like to go further and, if so, we should like the approach based on the evidence given by the Home Office as reported in the first part of the Report and should like to combine with literary or other merit that amendment made to the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Stechford.
  I will deal with the other recommendations quite shortly. I have been over the first four. I must reserve the Government's position on the first part of Recommendation (v) and need not go into it in detail. I think we can agree in general to Recommendation (vi). We may have proposals to enlarge the limits of Recommendation (vii). Recommendation (viii) recommends that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be required for the initiation of proceedings. That is a burden which, in the view of the Government, should not
  1004
  be imposed on him unless there is a very strong case for doing so. We are not persuaded that such a case exists. Again, I do not regard that as a matter of breaking, but I am giving the opinion of the Government. Recommendations (ix) to (xiii) are mostly procedural matters on which, in general, we agree. I do not think that any special comment is required on them on this occasion.
  To give others the opportunity of commenting. I should like to conclude as follows. The Government are grateful for the Report of the Select Committee and accept it as a possible basis for legislation. Before approving any legislation, we must be satisfied that the points I have put forward are either met or that alternative methods of meeting them are found. We must have an eye to the effect of the legislation on the distribution of pornography as well as the distribution of serious works.
  The hon. Member for Stechford has followed closely the recommendations of the Select Committee and it may well be that he will be able to agree with us the recommendations that I have made as to amendment of the Committee's Report, and hence of the contents of his Bill. If there is such agreement, I think that we can hope for progress with his Bill. As the matters have been confined to one important one and one or two which I think less important, I am hopeful that it may be possible to make progress with legislation on this subject.
  Mr. Kenneth Younger: I wonder whether it would be too inconvenient to ask the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the definition he proposed earlier in his speech. He gave it in advance and I cannot say that I grasped it. Would he read it again?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, I will. The definition I had in mind was this:
  "For the purposes of this Act, any matter shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect in its context is such as to tend to deprave or corrupt or further to deprave or corrupt those persons who are likely to read, hear or see it. In determining what persons are likely to read, hear or see the work in question, regard shall be had to the circumstances in which it was found and to the manner in which it was proposed to be, or was, published."
  I hope that that will be of some help to hon. Members in making up their minds about the future of this important subject.
  Mr. Ede: In paragraph 19 of the Report the words are "deprave and corrupt". As the right hon. Gentleman read his new definition, the phrase was "deprave or corrupt". Did I hear him correctly?
  Mr. Butler: I do not think that there is very much in that. I read out, "deprave or corrupt", but I do not think we need quarrel too much over that. We had better look at it, but I definitely read out "deprave or corrupt".
  Mr. Ede: There will be some discussion in Committee about it.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins (Birmingham, Stechford): I greatly welcome the fact that this debate is taking place today and I welcome, on the whole, the approach that the Home Secretary has made to the subject. Perhaps we should not inquire too closely as to why there has, apparently, been a rather sudden change of heart on the part of the Government. Certainly, I regard the plant of liberalism at the Home Office, even under the care of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, as of such a delicate growth that one had better not do anything at all to discourage it.
  At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman made some points by way of background and perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two myself. I do not want to go further into the long and rather unhappy story of attempts over nearly four years to make progress with this legislation, but I think that there are several points to be borne in mind in considering it. The first is this which I do not think emerged entirely clearly from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. In this difficult, delicate and important matter of striking a balance between not allowing licence for pornography and, at the same time, giving reasonable security to literature of value, I do not think that anyone could claim that we in this country are at present in a particularly happy position.
  On the contrary, I think that in this country there is probably a more flourishing pornography trade than in most other countries and, at the same time, a greater lack of security for genuine literature than in most parts of the civilised world. Therefore, we start not from an extremely
  1006
  fortunate position which we must be very cautious about not upsetting, but, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, from a thoroughly unsatisfactory position judged from both aspects of the matter concerned.
  Therefore, let us not be too perfectionist or worried that we are not getting everything absolutely right, provided we can make some real progress in the right direction. The other point we should have in mind is the extraordinary unanimity of informed interested opinion outside on this whole subject. Last time the right hon. Gentleman stood at the Dispatch Box to deal with a subject roughly analogous to this he spoke in extremely sympathetic terms about the problem of the homosexual as related to the Wolfenden Committee Report. He then said, "I can do nothing. because I do not think that public opinion is ripe" but the position over the matter we are debating now is exactly the reverse. Public opinion is well ahead of the Government.
  On this matter we have had sustained and clearly expressed support from The Times, the Manchester Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the News Chronicle, the Sunday Times, the Observer, the Spectator, the New Statesman and the Economist. I can think of no other single issue which would promote unanimity among all those publications, yet this support has been achieved and maintained. Nor let this be thought a narrow little affair of writers, because the Public Morality Council, in its evidence before the Select Committee, was extremely sympathetic to a change, and a liberal change.
  Therefore, we are not dealing with a situation in which we have an outraged public opinion which we might offend, but with a situation in which there has been considerable demand for action. The next background point is this. In stating the 1954 position and saying that there were three acquittals, one plea of guilty and one conviction, the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps unwittingly, gave a slightly false impression of what happened. After all, in the most important of those cases, the one which, I think it is true to say, concerned the most eminent and respectable publisher, the acquittal was arrived at because the jury had twice

  1007
  disagreed, after long trials, with the chairman of the company in the dock. On the third occasion, in accordance with custom, the prosecution offered no evidence. Therefore, there was an extremely evenly balanced decision.
  There is evidence that in this and other matters the position is better than it was in 1954. The year 1954, when Lord Kilmuir handed the torch of liberty at the Home Office to Lord 'Tenby, was not a particularly bright year in the annals of British liberalism. I think that there has been an improvement since then, particularly under the present Home Secretary. But the present position is certainly not entirely satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman and the House know that in dealing with these matters—matters which may have a long-term effect—it is the state of the law and not the intention of Government spokesmen, however well inclined they may be, that counts. Hon. Members who follow this will be familiar with the fact that Lord Campbell, when introducing his Bill in 1857, made it clear that there was no intention of applying it to publications which anyone could consider as coming within the realm of literature, yet under that Act The Decameron was ordered to be destroyed only a few years ago.
  This is not a dead issue. There is a proposal for a firm to publish in the spring a book called Lolita which has sold 240,000 copies in the United States of America and has been published and well received in many other countries.
  Sir Godfrey Nicholson: It is thoroughly obscene.
  Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member, who has great certainty in these matters, says it is thoroughly obscene. I do not happen to think that it is as good a book as a great many people think, but I certainly would not say that it is thoroughly obscene. I think that probably it is of considerable merit. I should certainly not wish to stand absolutely and certainly on a position in which the hon. Member says it is thoroughly obscene, in spite of the fact that to many it is a major work of art.
  Sir G. Nicholson: I do not wish to go into sordid details. I have read only accounts in the newspapers, but apparently it goes uncontradicted that the book
  1008
  deals with a peculiarly disgusting and cruel form of vice and tends to encourage it. If the hon. Member does not think that obscene I should like him to say what he thinks is obscene.
  Mr. Jenkins: My respect for the hon. Member's certainty is even greater since his intervention, because I had imagined that before making such a judgment he would base his remarks on a careful study of the book and not on an article in a newspaper, published with the object of dragging the sensationalism out of the book, while, at the same time, having the hypocritical satisfaction of saying that it should not be published. I hoped that the hon. Member would apply himself more closely to the subject before laying down these absolute literary judgments.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: Page 73 of the evidence of the Committee, of which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) was a member, deals with the book to which he has referred. It was the subject of two successful prosecutions at Bow Street, in 1956. It deals in detail with the seduction of the 13-year old girl by her stepfather. Is the hon. Member saying that that is a book which ought to be published in this country?
  Mr. Jenkins: I am saying that, in the first place, it is very difficult to accept automatically, although we accept a great deal of evidence from them, the evidence of the police as necessarily saying the last word on a subject of this sort when, for instance, an extremely distinguished critic, Mr. Trilling, has taken a different view. I am saying that, it being announced that a book is to be published here in the spring, this matter is not a dead one and that it should not be left alone because nothing very much appears to have happened since 1954.
  In the course of his speech the Home Secretary made detailed proposals for dealing with our recommendations. I am grateful to him for having done so. I am sure he will recognise that it is difficult, having heard those proposals for the first time today, to pronounce upon them. Without finally committing myself, let alone anyone else, I would say that some of his suggestions would be acceptable, at any rate, as compromise proposals, to those of us who are desperately anxious to make some progress in this matter.

  1009
  The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the proposal to change the "work-as-a-whole" approach into that of "judged-in-its-context." I do not think that we necessarily wish to quarrel with this, although it is difficult to know for certain what is the correct approach. In our first draft of the Bill we used not the "work-as-a-whole" approach but the "dominant-effect" approach, and it was as a result of advice from the Home Office that we made the change at that stage. In my view, provided that we can get broad agreement we should not quarrel too much about particular drafts, and on this point I should not suggest that there is a great deal between us.
  The right hon. Gentleman next suggested that there are difficulties about merely substituting for "those into whose hands it may fall," the approach "likely to be distributed." His suggestion was that a proviso should be made by which regard would be had of the shops in which the hook would be sold and thereby the people among whom it was likely to be distributed. I can see certain difficulties about this approach.
  For instance, if it is to be judged that an author may write a book to be circulated in a certain kind of shop which would make the book all right from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, what is the position of that author or his publisher if the book finds its way into shops of a very different sort, in which, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman would object to it being sold?
  There is also the difficulty that while, in practice, there may be something to be said for this approach, in theory it is difficult to say that a book is pornographic if it is sold for 5s. but quite all right if it is sold for 65s. Subject to these considerations, however, which come immediately to my mind, I do not think that there is any difference of principle here, and we should certainly wish to try to meet the right hon. Gentleman as far as we can.
  The point of major importance is whether literary or artistic merit should be a defence and whether, as a result, expert evidence on this point could be called. The right hon. Gentleman based his argument here very largely on the evidence of Mr. T. S. Eliot to the Select Committee. Mr. Eliot is a literary figure
  1010
  of immense distinction, and we were extremely glad to have his evidence before the Select Committee, but I think that it would be right to say that the evidence which he gave was all given in an extremely modest way, in which he constantly sought to put it to the Committee that we were probably rather better literary judges than he was—a proposition which, on the whole, I should not be inclined to accept on behalf of any hon. Member.
  It would be wrong to imagine that his evidence was given in a sceptical way, saying, "It is impossible to do anything". It was given in a way of saying, "I do not wish to lay down the law to you on this or any other matter, but, on the whole, I think that the system which I am supporting"—and which the right hon. Gentleman quoted—"would provide a fair and workable system".
  It is important that a method should be found of bringing expert evidence into court. Expert witnesses, of course, may disagree. Everybody who has ever written a book knows that literary critics are not infallible, although some are no doubt less fallible than others. The mere fact that one might have expert evidence which was not infallible, and the mere fact that one might have one literary critic on one side and another literary critic on the other side does not seem to me to create an overwhelming argument against expert evidence. There are, after all—and many hon. Members know this better than I—many fields in which expert witnesses differ, but it would not be argued, none the less, that they did riot often perform a valuable function in directing the minds of the jury to the issues between which they ought to decide. I certainly think that it would be extremely helpful in this field.
  This brings us to the crux of the problem, which the right hon. Gentleman fully recognised. In our literary tradition, a good deal of material is published which could genuinely be regarded as of the highest aesthetic qualities but which, if it were not to have those qualities and were to be published today for the first time, particularly by an unknown author, would be regarded as having a pornographic content. This applies to a great deal of work—Shakespeare, Swift, Smollett, Sartre, to take only a few names which come to mind when considering only one letter of the alphabet.

  1011
  How is one to try to draw a borderline? How, also—and this is very important—is one to try to do that which ought to be done-to give as much protection to the unknown author today as would automatically be accorded to well known authors who wrote some time ago, or even to those who write today? Here, I think that expert evidence is likely to be of immense importance and of very great value and I hope that, as he said, the right hon. Gentleman will in no way close his mind on this subject.
  I think that the solution which we presented from the Select Committee was workable. Although, as he said, one of the important divisions in this issue was a tie, with the Chairman giving a casting vote, I am not sure that one hon. Member of the Committee would not immediately afterwards have liked to change his vote in our direction, which would have given a slightly different balance to the picture. I do not make a great point of that. I would point out, however, that the section as a whole was accepted by the overwhelming majority of the Select Committee. I think that only two hon. Members voted against it, and, of course, none voted against the Report as a whole.
  The right hon. Gentleman should not place too much weight on the fact that literary or artistic merit, or, for that matter, the public good, would be rather vague matters for a jury to have to determine. Nothing can be more vague than "to deprave and to corrupt". We are, therefore, not introducing a new element of vagueness into a clear picture; we are introducing what I think would be an improvement into a picture which is extremely vague already and which has shown itself in a great number of cases to be highly uncertain.
  I will comment on one other point—our wish that the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be necessary for a prosecution to be undertaken. I know that the problems of placing extra burdens on officials who are already hard worked are difficult. But it was made clear in the evidence that the Director of Public Prosecutions, under the law as it stands, already has sifted in his office a vast amount of matter which might lead to prosecution and that he deals with a mass of these matters of
  1012
  which complaint was made. We are here asking only for legal sanction to be given to what is, in practice, to an overwhelming extent, the situation already.
  I hope that on all these matters on which there is some difference in point of view between the Select Committee, those who tried to sponsor the Bill and the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman will not close his mind. We certainly have not closed our minds at any stage. There have been immense changes, and, I think, to some extent improvements, in the Bill as we have gone along. The whole system in respect of a non-controversial question, dealing with the suppression of pornographic trade in accordance with the desires of the police as expressed in their evidence, was changed, and that was quite new to the Bill at that stage. Great changes have been made as time has passed.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that it was difficult to obtain agreement between authors and the general public-I am not sure about that—and between authors and lawyers. It is extremely difficult to get agreement between lawyers themselves on this or any other matter. That has always been the case, particularly when dealing with this subject. When the 1857 Act was introduced there was such a bitter quarrel between those great Victorian Lord Chancellors, Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Campbell, that they did not speak to each other for several years afterwards. I hope that similar difficulties will not arise out of this Bill.
  Those who have been anxious to get a Bill on the Statute Book and to make progress in a liberal direction have been ready to make all the practical changes which he has suggested. Now, after three-and-a-half years, we hope we are nearer to the possibility of getting a Bill on to the Statute Book. Certainly, in those circumstances, we should not wish to reject the overtures which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Equally, some of the points in his speech are difficult for us to accept. He talked about the possibility of the Bill being amended as it went along. I think that there will be a possibility of negotiation and of working out an agreed, practical and liberal Measure, and I hope that he will approach the question in this spirit, as we shall.
  I hope, above all, that the right hon. Gentleman will not regard this debate

  1013
  as something by which he has shown good liberal intent and that he need not, therefore, worry too much about the matter for some time to come. The debate will be very valuable and useful if it leads to early legislation, but it will not be valuable and useful unless it does that; and in that spirit I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his speech.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: May I, first, explain why I am making a contribution to the debate? I was a member of the Select Committee examining the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). When that Session ended, without the Committee having made any decisions, I was appointed to the new Select Committee to recommend on the existing law and the need for amendment or consolidation. I took the Chair of that Committee.
  I came to the subject with no preconceived opinions of any kind, except for my natural reluctance to make any unnecessary changes, which is possibly a common attitude both to hon. Members of my party and to the great majority of people in this country. The evidence which we heard, however, convinced me arid, I think, the whole Committee that the present law was uncertain and that there were many gaps in it.
  I believe that in considering our Report there is one point which my right hon. Friend did not realise. I should like to remind him of it. The second Committee, of which I was Chairman, was not looking at a Bill or drafting a Bill. We carefully avoided putting forward a draft Bill. We were trying to recommend to the House what type of amendment should be made to the existing law, which, in our view, was unsatisfactory and incomplete. I therefore do not personally feel wedded in any way to the wording which we have used in the draft Report. When we used those words, we were not drafting a Bill but were trying to convey an impression to the House.
  There is one fact which we should all remember. As my right hon. Friend said, this is a subject which is liable to cause controversy. We made that quite clear in our Report. The controversy is that if one goes too far in one direction one infringes the freedom to publish; and if one goes too far in the other direction
  1014
  one encourages pornography. Although a number of attractive alternatives were put forward as definitions, especially an attractive alternative by Sir Alan Herbert when he gave evidence, we felt that it was wise to keep as close as possible to the Hicklin interpretation and the words of Mr. Justice Stable.
  I am alarmed by my right hon. Friend's suggestion that the Hicklin judgment should be altered by altering the phrase "deprave and corrupt" into "intended to deprave or corrupt", or "further to deprave or corrupt". My right hon. Friend must interrupt me if I am wrong in quoting what he said, because I took it down very roughly and it is not very easy to remember the full details of what he said.
  That will mean that the whole body of case law that rests upon Hicklin will once again have to be reconsidered by the courts. In our attempt to give a suggested definition in paragraph 19 we tried to keep as closely as possible to the Hicklin judgment, to avoid that possibility and so as not to arouse controversy. I am not going into the different arguments again.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend? if he would withdraw the word "alarm," perhaps it would give a better picture. I think that it is upon this sort of matter that further thought is necessary, and, while I think that he has been right to draw the difference between his own words and what I have said, just as the right hon. Gentleman opposite was, I think that this is a matter that should be considered most rationally.
  Mr. Turton: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. Let me substitute the word "concerned". The point that we were making in our Report, and I think that it was fully accepted by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, was that we were trying to keep as closely as possible to the Hicklin judgment. I think that it would be a great pity, if, when drafting these important words, at this stage we left Hicklin for some new words.
  As to the other recommendations which my right hon. Friend made, when he talks of the "public good," I think that I am betraying no secret when I say that this question was in the minds of the Committee when we were considering it.

  1015
  I think that there was a little misunderstanding in reading our Report. When we were dealing with the defence of artistic merit, what we were saying was that, where the evidence of literary or artistic merit is so great—in other words, we were really saying that where it is a public interest that something of literary or artistic merit should be published, even although it might be going a little bit nearer to the border, it should be permitted. I personally cannot see any difference at all in the attitude which my right hon. Friend has taken up on the "public good" from that of the recommendation in our Report.
  I do not want to go—indeed, I do not think it would be proper for me to go—into all the points of detail. These are much more for those hon. Members who have been pressing for legislation. Why I have intervened in the debate is to say that, personally, I was gravely concerned by the evidence that we received on the failure of the present law to deal effectively with pornography. I should like to remind the House of some of the evidence that we received. We received evidence from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that in two years, businesses dealing with the sale of obscene publications in Soho had increased by 80 per cent. We were told that it was not possible, under the existing law, to attack the wholesale sources of supply; in other words, that the big men in the trade of pornography were, under the existing law, getting off scot-free.
  I was delighted when my right lion. Friend, when he went through our recommendations and particularly those dealing with the measures to try to prohibit this trade in pornography, accepted them all without any qualification at all. We were told that at present, if the sale of pornographic literature on stalls or vehicles continues, the police have no power to deal with it at all, because the 1857 Act, drafted 100 years ago, has not been modernised, and, as a result, there is more pornography for sale.
  We were, in fact, told that the police, because of this failure of the present law, have to carry out this system of disclaimer, under which the shopkeeper pretends that he has no concern with the property. They have originated this
  1016
  system because, otherwise, they could not seize the pornographic books. I was not at all happy that the police had to use this method of disclaimer merely because the law was defective, and I think that the sooner we rectify it the better it will be, both for the police and for Parliament.
  We were also told that, taking the year 1956, 500 pornographic books were seized and destroyed out of an estimated number of 25,000 pornographic books in circulation. Nobody in the House can be satisfied with that position. We were told that the trade in suggestive photographs was growing rapidly year by year. For this reason, I paid considerable attention to the evidence of the Public Morality Council, which stated that a great deal of pornography is being circulated, and that the council was anxious that Parliament should give greater powers to stop that trade, and that, in its view, "something pretty strong was needed to deal with pornography."
  In my view, having started with no preconceived ideas, in the end I regarded as most important the present uncertainty of the law, in which we have different judges appearing to give different rulings of law in the matter, and the greater and more important fact that there were clearly great gaps in the law against pornography. For these reasons, I came to the conclusion that the sooner we could get an agreed Bill through the House the better.
  Personally, I think that my right hon. Friend has made a most helpful speech towards achieving that end, because he has promised his support to all measures to stamp out pornography. That I would expect of him, and those hon. Members who have the Minutes of Evidence before them will see that the first words of the Home Secretary's memorandum are:
  "It is the accepted function of Government to suppress pornography."
  At present, pornography is not being suppressed, and I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) will work together in securing that a Bill to achieve this purpose is passed into law as soon as possible.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Bonham Carter: I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate this

  1017
  evening, and although what I may say may be liable to misunderstanding, I must declare my interest in the subject, being associated with a firm of publishers, one I may say, with an impeccable reputation.
  We are concerned from time to time with this question of obscenity, particularly since 1954, when for some absolutely unaccountable reason the Home Office decided that it was going to clean up the world of literature. Indeed, recently we have taken our courage in both hands and we have published a book by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) himself, which is, I must say, a cautionary tale for all politicians who feel that they have a reputation for depravity or corruption.
  I am also very glad that the Government have found time at last to debate this Report of the Select Committee. Whatever their motives for doing so may be, the circumstances in which they have found time must be somewhat of a lesson to those of us interested in producing a more liberal society in this country. It would appear that the only way in which we can make the Government consider liberal measures of this kind is by frightening them, by fighting elections against them or by threatening to discuss matters which are even more distasteful to them. However, we must be thankful for small mercies and simply take note of this fact for future reference. In particular, we should be grateful to the Select Committee for its Report, to the hon. Member for Stechford for his persistence, and also, I think, to Sir Alan Herbert.
  Speaking in one sense as a publisher, I think that I can say that it would be the almost unanimous opinion of publishers, printers and authors that it is necessary to change the law in some respects. I agree with the hon. Member for Steohford in saying that we should not consider that the present situation is a relatively satisfactory one which we can go on living with. It is at present, from a practical point of view, extremely unsatisfactory, as I hope to show, and it is a matter of some importance and urgency that we should take this opportunity of making progress.
  The guidance given to the publisher, author or, indeed, to the police in this matter is extremely vague. The prosecutions of 1954 indicated how arbitrary and unpredictable can be the way in which the
  1018
  law is enforced. The evidence given by the Public Morality Council to the Select Committee brings that out very well The Council in its evidence said;
  "One justice will interpret the law in one direction and may come straight out with a very strong denunciation of the matter.…Before another justice, the magazine may very well get away with it."
  This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs for all concerned with the publication, the writing or the printing of literature.
  Mr. Peter Rawlinson: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, whatever happens, it will always be principally an issue of fact? A jury may decide one way or another. There are many cases of postcards and photographs, for instance, which, put before one jury, will result in acquittal and, put before another jury, will lead to conviction. It seems that that would always happen, though I appreciate much of what the hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. Bonham Carter: I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson). All I am saying is that it seems to me that the suggestions made by the Select Committee, which have been embodied in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Stechford, help us to make the vagueness slightly less vague, and they do represent an advance on the present situation. I should not like to go further than that. It is clearly a matter which will always be open to different judgments.
  We found, particularly in 1954, that it was very difficult to tell why one book had been chosen for prosecution rather than another. One reason for this, I think, is that the English law in this matter appears to work on a curious kind of pleasure principle: anything which has anything to do with sex is automatically dangerous, while anything which describes brutality, violence or pain is, for some reason, outside the scope of the law altogether. In this connection, I should like to mention something from my own experience.
  In 1954, we were publishing a book which, in the light of the Home Office campaign, we regarded as possibly dangerous. We thought it a remarkably sincere and compelling work, even if it was at times, to use the jargon of the trade,

  1019
  somewhat frank. However, we took expert advice on it. At the same time, I read the book myself, with this particular aspect of obscenity in mind. The experts were particularly worried by the frequent use of one four-letter word and by a scene in a brothel. I, on the other hand, found that the use of the word was inevitable in the context, which was a military one, and one could not tell the story and omit the scene in the brothel. I was horrified and shocked by a scene in which a man was kicked to death. This did not worry the experts at all. That passage in the book I should not have wanted any adolescent to read. The other passages seemed to me, depending on the person, the circumstances and age, relatively speaking, harmless. I recount that experience simply as an example of the extreme vagueness of the way in which the law works at present and of the need for taking every step that we can to improve the existing state of affairs.
  I wish to emphasise the importance in our view of, in the original words of the Select Committee, considering the effect of the work as a whole, which I think the Home Secretary now suggests altering to "taken in its context." I am not sufficient of a lawyer to know what difference this may make. Passages taken in isolation or out of context can almost always be misinterpreted. There are passages in the Old Testament which, if taken out of context, a publisher would hesistate to publish today. It is only in the context of the work as a whole that these matters can be judged.
  If the context is important, even more important is this very difficult matter of the artistic merit of the work as a whole. Although it is easy to tell the difference between the "Song of Solomon" and, let us say, a collection of salacious photographs, it is, as has been said already, in the borderline cases that the problem arises. It seems to me, therefore, that there are three problems which we must discuss today.
  The first is how to decide this question of artistic merit. The second is what is meant by depraving and corrupting." Third, and closely linked with the second, is the question of who one has in mind as the object of the depraving and corrupting. This last question raises a point made by Mr. E. M. Forster in his evidence, when he spoke of
  1020
  "the trouble of the average man and his sense of decency."
  I cannot help thinking that works of art are not created by average men, that some of them are not intended for average men, and, lastly, in a liberal society, one of the things which is to be assumed is that average men should be responsible for themselves. No one is forced to buy or forced to read a book which shocks him Literature is far less intrusive than the television screen. Nor can the law take over the responsibility of parents and teachers for supervising the reading matter of adolescents. As Mr. Justice Stable pointed out, literature cannot be reduced to the level
  "that is suitable for a 14-year-old school girl."
  We are reduced, therefore, to the problem of defining "depraving and corrupting" and defining artistic merit.
  In defining depraving and corrupting," it is important to eliminate one idea which also is based on what I call the English pleasure principle, the idea that anything which is erotically stimulating is automatically depraving and corrupting. This is a point dealt with extremely effectively in Mr. Trilling's essay on the book Lolita and dealt with extremely effectively also by Sir Kenneth Clark in his work The Nude. After all, what the law must be primarily concerned with is not people's thoughts, or even their fantasies, but their actions. Therefore, in discussing this question of depraving and corrupting, what we are primarily concerned with is literature which will make people actually do depraved and corrupt things. This is one of the many reasons that it has always seemed to me that the action taken against Ulysses was particularly idiotic. Although Ulysses may disgust and it may lead to unpleasant thoughts, I cannot believe that anyone who has ever read Ulysses has been prompted by it to indulge the lusts of the flesh.
  Lastly, I come to the question of artistic merit and the cases on the borderline. If it is accepted that literature need not take into account on every occasion the average man's sense of decency, need not be designed on every occasion for a 14-year-old schoolgirl, that it should not be judged as depraving and corrupting unless it makes people act in a depraved and corrupt fashion, how, then, is one to judge

  1021
  artistic merit? I cannot see any criterion other than the consensus of the experts. Although it is much more difficult in the arts to assess the expertise of the experts—and, as has been said, expert witnesses such as doctors and lawyers often disagree in a court of law and in politics, if they are economists—no one would deny that there is a body of opinion which is recognised as being in some sense expert in this matter. Certainly, publishers recognise that certain people have expertise in this matter. I would have thought it reasonable to hope that in any amendment of the existing law a defendant would be allowed to call on expert witnesses to defend the artistic merit of the work which he has written or published.
  Finally, together with the hon. Member for Stechford, I hope that as a result of the debate hon. Members will not think that we have done our job. Unless the debate leads to a consolidated and improved legislation, I think that we will have failed.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rawlinson: agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Bonham Carter) said. I was interested to hear him declare his interest, and as a lawyer I, too, should declare mine, because any changes in the criminal law affect the business and practice of the lawyer,
  There is overshadowing this debate the knowledge and appreciation of the vast quantities of pornographic matter, which has been referred to already by my right hon. Friend, which are displayed and sold and which are rightly the subject of continuous police action. Anyone who has been concerned with cases involving these books of sheer pornography would realise the great duty that rests upon the law to ensure that this filth is stamped out as quickly and efficiently as possible.
  While I strongly support what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said, and the general principles he enunciated, there are grave difficulties, which I think he appreciates perhaps better than Sir Alan Herbert or the Editor of The Times, who seem to think that this is a simple matter which can he easily settled by a decision of this House. The criminal law needs clarity and certainty. This is a very
  1022
  difficult sphere in which to find that certainty and to discover that clarity. There are the two problems which have been already discussed, namely, what is artistic and literary merit and what is obscenity.
  I observed with interest what Mr. T. S. Eliot said in his evidence to the Select Committee:
  "I think books of literary merit which are of some antiquity and fame seem to me to free themselves of the taint merely by the passage of time. That is a difficult point of view to defend, but I think we do feel it when we see the rather absurd objections raised to well known works like Boccaccio."
  Most hon. Members would agree with what Mr. Eliot said, for it is in many ways hard to say that merely the passage of time cleanses something which may be said to have in it a certain amount of obscenity. I thoroughly agree with hon. Members who say that the only possible way of solving the problem whether a work has artistic and literary merit is by the production of expert evidence.
  With regard to the definition of obscenity, I am glad that the Select Committee rested itself four—square upon the judgment in Regina v. Hicklin. But, here again, there are difficulties. The Director of Public Prosecutions objected when it was suggested that an alteration should be made and the question of intent should be considered. He said that if the intention was merely to publish for homosexuals or prostitutes that might be a valid defence. And what is the test of "likelihood" which the court has to decide? These are very grave and difficult matters which are not so easily solved as has been suggested.
  Another suggestion has been made about which I cannot recollect the view of my right hon. Friend, namely, the right of the author to be heard. But how is an author to be heard unless he is one of the persons charged? If he is not charged, then it must be of his own volition that he appears to give evidence. But does the Society of Authors, Playwrights and Composers accept the position that it may be that an author is not available and cannot possibly give evidence for the defence? It might then be inferred that he is not prepared to defend his own work.
  I am very much against the suggestion made by the Select Committee that an author should, somehow, be brought in

  1023
  as a third party to give evidence, as happens in civil actions. If he wishes to give evidence, he should certainly give evidence, but that should be part of the expert evidence called on behalf of the defence.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Let us assume that a given work comes well within the definition which brings the publication of it into conflict with the criminal law. If such a work is not published the question does not arise, but if it is published it must be with the consent and the co-operation of the author. Can the hon. Gentleman imagine a case where it would be proper to prosecute the publisher, but not the author?
  Mr. Rawlinson: That does happen. There have been prosecutions in which the publisher has been prosecuted but not the author. Why that should be so is one of the evils which those of us who are in favour of legislation would try to prevent. I think that the author should be called to give evidence in his defence. However, I do not think that it is practicable, in the administration of the criminal law, that he should be given some status before the court independent of the accused, namely, of the publisher and the persons standing accused.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: In a prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act, 1857, the author can be treated as an aggrieved person and would, therefore, have the opportunity, if he so wished, to give evidence in his own defence. What does the hon. Member say about that?
  Mr. Rawlinson: It would not be very difficult if he wished to give evidence in his own defence. It is quite right that in any prosecution the author should be permitted to give evidence and, if he wishes, explain why he wrote in the way he did. But I do not think that he can be brought in in the informal way which I understand is suggested by the Select Committee.
  I want now to turn to what my right hon. Friend said about expert evidence. He referred to what Mr. Eliot said and was well answered by the hon. Member for Stechford. Mr. Eliot said that there may be the more liberal-minded authors on the one side and, on the other side, the
  1024
  more prudish authors, and the jury must eventually decide. Surely that is what the jury always has to do.
  Juries continually listen to doctors who speak with great authority, many years of experience and many degrees after their names, and who give, maybe, categorically different evidence, mainly, of course, before judges sitting alone, but sometimes before juries. Equally, engineers give categorically different evidence as to why a machine broke or failed at a particular moment, and the tribunal has to make up its mind which evidence it prefers. This would be an issue of fact for a jury to decide and I think that a jury is entitled to have, which it is now prevented from having, the benefit of expert evidence which, I understand, could quite feasibly be provided.
  The influence of judges on juries will not be overlooked, certainly by hon. Members who practise the profession of the law. A juryman listening to a dispute between two parties knows that Mr. X, on the one side, has been paid a fat fee to appear for the plaintiff or prosecution and that Mr. Y, on the other side, has been paid a fat fee to appear on behalf of the defence. If a jury is in any doubt or is swayed by the magic of these gentlemen it will listen to the words of the judge.
  As there are different views among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, so there are differences in judgments. There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite with whose political views I disagree, but I may have the greatest sympathy with some of their other views, as expressed on matters which we discuss in this House. I am sure that we are all flabbergasted at the differences that are expressed on matters such as vice, or drink, from hon. Gentlemen for whose judgment in other respects we have the highest regard. So it is with judges.
  I had the good fortune to be present in court when Mr. Justice Stable made that tremendous charge to the jury. I had the good fortune to hear it and to see the manner in which it was delivered. It created an impression on my mind which certainly had never been created on it in the courts before. It made me feel emotionally excited to hear a judge so charge a jury in the middle of the twentieth century.

  1025
  The only equivalent impression of that kind, but on a different level, was when I heard the late Sir Patrick Hastings crossexamine the late Professor Laski. But when juries are liable to be charged by judges with such different views they are surely entitled to hear the expert evidence of people who can give them some impression whether there is artistic or literary merit in the work upon which they have to decide.
  There is also in this class of case picture postcards, in which there is a very big and robust English trade. In the English seaside resort there are quantities of these postcards of a very frank nature, to use the technical expression employed by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Bonham Carter). These postcards have very frank depiction and very frank comment underneath, which sometimes results in prosecution. A jury is perfectly fitted to decide whether these postcards are obscene or not. I have had cases where about 60 cards have been gone through by the jury, perhaps with entertainment, and the jury has decided to convict in only some of the cases. We could not get a better tribunal than an English jury looking at the English picture postcard. But when it comes to questions of artistic and literary merit, juries should have expert evidence before them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will think again on this matter, that there should be that special evidence.
  I come back to what I have said before. This is a matter in which the Attorney-General should give a lead to prosecution. I appreciate the incredible amount of labour which is laid upon the back of an Attorney-General. He has the task of advising, as principal Law Officer of the Crown, of explaining in this House, and of appearing for the Crown. It is a tremendous burden, but, nevertheless, it has to be undertaken. The Report says that in his memorandum to the Select Committee my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said;
  "It is a fundamental principle of English criminal law that proceedings may be instituted by private individuals."
  I would certainly agree with that to a limited extent. But this is not the kind of proceeding in criminal law which should be brought by private individuals.
  1026
  The Attorney-General is assisted by one qualified secretary and two qualified assistant secretaries. It seems precious little assistance to enable him to conduct the vast business that he has, and, therefore, it is the duty of Parliament to provide him with the staff which will enable my right hon. and learned Friend to bear the responsibilities we lay upon him, and to take over these other matters which are of great public concern and which should be responsibly accepted by him.
  These are all the matters which I wish to raise in support of the Select Committee's Report. I am glad that the Home Secretary has adopted so much of it as deals with pornography. There are other matters in which I think he should go further, and I believe that it would ultimately be of very great assistance to the courts if my right hon. Friend could change his mind over the admission of expert evidence.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I am not quite sure whether we have to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) or Sir Alan Herbert for the fact that we are discussing this matter this evening. The speech of the Home Secretary was so inconclusive on many points that I see no reason for Sir Alan Herbert to feel that he should now withdraw from the East Harrow by-election.
  I was a member of this Select Committee. By one of those curious things that happen, I find I am the only one here now of the four who voted on the side on which the Home Secretary has come down this afternoon. One has become an Under-Secretary in the Government, another has been called to the House of Peers, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) is not here so I alone am left to say to the right hon. Chairman of the Committee that second thoughts on the part of the Committee may prove to be better. I am not going to stress the point.
  About the whole issue we had, when we were discussing the Report, very frank and friendly exchanges between hon. Gentlemen who, on this matter, differ very considerably. We argued under the right hon. Chairman's direction at some length. When we came to decisions, we accepted them. Although I felt very strongly at the time on the issue on which there was a tie, I did not feel—and I

  1027
  gather that the other three hon. Members who voted with me on that occasion did not feel either—in the atmosphere which had been created that it would have been right for us to vote against the Report as a whole. It may be there were other matters on which the decision was taken the other way by some members who loyally accepted at the end the general conclusion we had reached. We presented the Report to the House as a whole as the result of serious and conscientious discussion of a matter on which differences of opinion are quite legitimate.
  We were anxious to submit a constructive Report to the House that would make easy the task of getting legislation at the earliest possible moment. I hope that as the result of this debate it may be possible for the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and other persons keenly interested in the matter to have a discussion that will enable a Bill to be presented at an early date with the intention of securing its enactment during the current Session. I do not know how long the winter will be, but I hope that this will not he one of those matters which will be left over for some future Parliament to deal with. I myself do not know what authority the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Bonham Carter) had for saying that the prosecutions in 1954 were part of a Home Office campaign. That is a charge against a Government Department which, I assume, he is capable of proving, if put to the test.
  Mr. Bonham Carter: I thought that what I said was that it had the appearance of being part of a Home Office campaign to clean up the literary world. Perhaps my words were rather highly-coloured, but I do not think that anyone in that world at that time would have felt it as being anything very different. Certainly a series of prosecutions were initiated, such as could not have happened for many years before, against a series of books which most of us, in the normal course of events, would have thought were perfectly respectable hooks.
  Mr. Ede: I was not responsible in 1954, and I should like to have known exactly what was happening in the Home Office at that time. Of course, many people who are the subject of prosecution
  1028
  imagine that they are also the subject of persecution by people in high places. I myself would be surprised to hear that it was the result of any direction from the Home Office. Certainly, any chief constable or any private citizen is able to initiate prosecutions on these matters. In fact, I recollect during my own Home Secretaryship that a young woman who was a member of a Catholic Women's Guild in Birmingham brought before the Birmingham stipendiary magistrate a number of prosecutions which resulted in convictions. It may very well have been that the prosecutions in 1954 were originated by different chief constables on their own responsibility.
  Mr. Bonham Carter: The prosecutions to which I referred and to which the Home Secretary referred earlier were, I think, on the initiative of the Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. Ede: In that respect I know that the Home Secretary is responsible for the Metropolitan Police, but the solicitors of the Metropolitan Police do not ask him whether they shall initiate prosecutions against various people. That is not one of the matters on which the Home Secretary has the power to intervene, owing to the particular way in which his powers as the police authority of the Metropolitan Police are decided.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: In view of the generous remarks of my hon. Friend earlier, the last thing I would wish to do today is to get involved in a difficult argument with him. When the Permanent Secretary from the Home Office was before us, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) and myself questioned him very closely on this point. I think that on reading that evidence it is at least open to the interpretation which the hon. Member for Torrington gave it.
  Mr. Ede: I am not going to dispute that. I do not intend to get involved in these questions of doubt. But a definite statement was made that these prosecutions were the result of a Home Office campaign. When the hon. Gentleman reads his speech tomorrw, I think he will find that he did not put in the qualifying words which he subsequently did.
  I think it is important that, as far as possible, there shall be equality of treatment throughout the country on this

  1029
  matter, and that is why I supported the view that the Director of Public Prosecutions should initiate prosecutions. The standards of chief constables on these matters differ very considerably. The standards adopted by watch committees also differ very considerably, and it is highly desirable that publishers and authors should not be left in the position that a prosecution might be successful in one part of the country but not in another.
  While we shall always have the difficulty that judges and juries will take different views, I think it is less likely that there will be disparity of treatment if the prosecutions are in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than left to the initiative of chief constables and of private citizens.
  I share the view that was expressed by the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) that the direction given to the jury by Mr. Justice Stable gives, as far as I can ascertain from conversations, the ordinary enlightened view of the British public on this matter at the present time. I do not think that it would have been the view of a similar public fifty years ago. I think that it stated in modern terms the feelings people have in regard to this matter at the present time. I have no doubt myself that it would be advantageous if we could get the spirit of that pronouncement in legal phraseology into an Act in a form which would be comprehensible to jurors. I admit that is a very difficult thing to do, because it is astonishing when we ask Parliamentary draftsmen to put thoughts—whether commonsense or sublime—into Language suitable to a Parliamentary Bill, how differently they sound to the ear and look to the eye when the draftsmen have finished with them.
  There is one other thing which I wish to say about this question of artistic and literary merit. I did on several occasions ask some of my colleagues on the Committee whether it was necessary to have some obscenity in order that a work should have literary or artistic merit. I do not hold that view myself. I think that we have to be very careful how far we emphasise the need for pardoning some obscenity with the general argument on which the case for a Bill of this kind is based. I will say no more about it than that. My hon. colleagues who
  1030
  served on the Committee will know that from time to time that appeared to be one of the issues we were considering.
  I have tried to give to the House my idea of the spirit in which the Committee worked. I voted for the Report as a whole. There were one or two points, which I have indicated, upon which I had slight misgivings, but I know that on some of the things where the argument seemed to go my way in the Committee some members had their own misgivings about the decisions reached on those issues. Apart from myself, I think that the Committee was so representative of the House that the right hon. Gentleman should be able to feel that if he goes forward on the basis of the Committee's Report he ought to be assured of a reasonable majority in the House on the major issues that may be involved. I hope that we shall have a Bill during the current Session.
  7.20 p.m.
  Viscount Lambton: I should like to welcome the debate and also to welcome rather more warmly than have hon. Members opposite the conciliatory speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary today. I wish to say only a few words, but I should like to point out what was my purpose in introducing the Bill last year which resulted in the Select Committee's Report that we are now discussing.
  Every so often during the last 100 years, as hon, Members have pointed out, we have had what one might almost call a false wave of morality throughout the countryside. The Decameron is burned in some provincial towns, libraries are closed to certain books, and a few comparatively innocent authors and publishers suddenly find themselves in the law courts, charged with publishing an obscene libel. Then the fuss slowly dies down again. I think that the real cause of this trouble and of this wave of morality is that the publication of a vast amount of genuinely obscene literature goes on throughout the length and breadth of the country and is in no way abated. In other words, while genuine literature suffers, obscenity itself comes to very little harm.
  As has been made apparent in the evidence put before the Select Committee, certain authors, printers and publishers find themselves constrained and

  1031
  hampered by a law which nobody understands and which enables anyone to bring an action for obscene libel gainst a publisher or author if he wishes to do so. This state of affairs appears to be so ridiculous that I think it was the Committee's intention to see whether it could not be remedied. At least, it was the intention of myself and some hon. Members opposite to see whether we could not produce a Bill which would allow reasonable literature and, at the same time, would deal far more ruthlessly and effectively with the undeniably obscene.
  There were many distinguished members on the Committee, from both sides of the House, and we managed, in the end, to agree on a Report which we thought achieved those aims. It may well be that we were optimistic and that the effect of our recommendations might not have been successful. I must say here that I am always very disconcerted by any dealings that I have with the law, because what appears to be one thing in plain English may apparently mean something else in legal language.
  I should like to make two references to the emendations made or suggestions put forward by the Home Secretary. The tirst referred to "in the context". I do not see how that is more satisfactory than "taken as a whole", but I am sure that it would be far wiser to leave this matter to further discussion. As to the calling of expert witnesses, the Home Secretary quoted from the summary of the Select Committee's recommendations the words:
  "A defence of literary or artistic merit should be afforded."
  And he said that this was impossible.
  But I should like to draw attention to the recommendation put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in his Obscene Publications Bill which came before the House recently. It is quite different. It reads:
  "Provided that in deciding whether or not a publication is obscene the court shall take into consideration any evidence proffered, whether by the defence or by the prosecution, as to the literary, artistic, scientific or other merits of the said publication."
  I certainly agree with the Home Secretary that Recommendation (iv) is perhaps difficult to operate and that it would be more satisfactory if we had some mention of his
  1032
  opinion of that paragraph which I have just read from the Obscene Publications Bill.
  I cannot help thinking that this is an opportunity for the Law Officers to put right any defects that may have been in the Committee's recommendation, and I hope that we may still have a Bill presented, after discussion or perhaps after a further Committee has met upstairs. For surely it is desirable to encourage literature, and desirable to increase the penalties which can be levied on authors and publishers who merely write and sell the very basest of literature. I hope that eventually we shall have a Bill which will serve those two desirable ends.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I very much welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has afforded us this opportunity of ventilating this subject. I was not a member of the Select Committee but, like the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), I have from time to time to advise professionally on whether a certain intended publication may or may not offend against the law of obscene libel, and from time to time I have had to defend prosecutions under that law.
  I think that we are all agreed that the law is in a state of very great uncertainty which makes it very difficult for practitioners to advise and for authors and publishers and others to know how to act. There is common agreement that the law is in need of change. I hope that the Home Secretary will not take the view that because there are numerous technical difficulties and differences of opinion between us as to what the law should be, the difficulty of attaining perfection in a revised law is any excuse for not acting at all. It seems to me that any change in the law, whether on the lines recommended by the Select Committee, on the lines of the Obscene Publications Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), or as contemplated by the Home Secretary, would be an improvement on the present situation.
  If, subsequently, it were found that there were defects, further changes could be made, but it has now become almost a scandal in the country that the law of

  1033
  obscene publication has remained unchanged and has given rise to so much uncertainty. As has been pointed out, we are in the absurd situation that there is no real security for the authors and publishers of serious literature which may contain doubtful passages, whereas on the other hand there is a vast and increasing volume of plainly pornographic literature. It is high time that something was done to deal with both aspects of this serious situation.
  We have been told that out of about 20,000 pornographic books produced a year, only 506 were destroyed last year. If that is the fact, then, with that background, it seems to me slightly academic that we should be mainly concerned with the point which troubles the Home Secretary so much—whether the defence of literary and artistic merit should be afforded. I can quite understand my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) having some doubts whether or not such a defence should be afforded. I might have had the same doubt at one stage but, having read the Select Committee's Report, and having heard the debate, I have no doubt whatever that it is desirable that such a defence should be available.
  If we get some reform in the present law which enables the Home Secretary to deal effectively with the growing abuse of pornographic literature which has no literary or artistic merit, does it much matter whether other literature, which may have some literary or artistic merit, and about which there may be a conflict of view, is allowed to be published and distributed with impunity? That seems to me to be a relatively small matter. I should have thought that not only in the interests of liberalism, but in the interests of the Home Office in dealing with pornographic literature, it would have been much more important to have had a reform of the law to enable the Home Secretary satisfactorily and firmly to deal with the clearly pornographic publications than to cavil about reputable literature which, on evidence, could be said to have literary and artistic merit.
  There are two other points of detail on which I want to comment. In the draft which he read out, the Home Secretary seemed to think that the phrase "in its context" would be preferable to the phrase used in the text of my hon. Friend's Bill which introduces into the
  1034
  definition of obscenity words to the effect that a publication should be deemed obscene only if its effect as a whole tends to deprave and corrupt. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the use of the words "as a whole" would he a considerable improvement on the present state of the law, and would remove the existing risk to an author or publisher of being judged and perhaps convicted on isolated passages, or parts of a book, intended to be read as a whole.
  The Home Secretary gave us as an illustration the case of a compilation of short stories, one of which was clearly obscene. He seemed to think that the publisher might try to put a thoroughly obscene story in the midst of a larger volume of short stories and, on that ground, try to escape liability. I should have thought that was very unlikely. If there were such a risk, I should have thought it worth taking, but I should have thought that under the definition in the Bill, if there were any short story obscene in itself, it would not escape condemnation merely because there were other stories which were not obscene in the same volume. As there is a difficulty about these verbal definitions in the Bill, will the Home Secretary consider the desirability of using both phrases so that the definition includes the words "as a whole" and the words "in its context"?
  The other point to which I invite the Home Secretary's attention is the position of the printer. One omission from my hon. Friend's Bill-I do not know whether it is deliberate-is that in Clause 2, which is the Clause providing penalties, there is no mention of the printer. It is made an offence to distribute, circulate, sell, or offer for sale an obscene publication, but apparently it is not an offence to print an obscene publication.
  It is notorious that many glaringly obscene publications are printed by a particualr type of printer and would not be printed by reputable printers. It is sometimes easier to find and deal with a printer than with anybody else. It is also significant that the British Federation of Master Printers in giving evidence before the Select Committee was apparently concerned that its members should not enjoy any special relief. I understand that it is the view of reputable

  1035
  printers that if there is to be a liberalising Measure which protects them as printers of reputable books, they see no objection to printers of obscene publications being punished in the same way as the vendors or authors.
  Mr. Ede: Did my hon. Friend notice that one of the difficulties is that at present printers occasionally act as censors of books, although there may be considerable claims of literary and artistic merit for those books, and that they say that they will not print a book because of the risks they will run?
  Mr. Fletcher: I had not noticed that, but I am aware of the fact. It is one of the difficulties in the present uncertainty of the law. Because the law is so uncertain, printers feel obliged to impose a kind of censorship on themselves.
  Mr. Ede: They impose it on the authors.
  Mr. Fletcher: They impose it on an author because, as the law now stands, printers are equally guilty with authors and are often easier to deal with since a printer generally has an establishment, with plant and machinery, and can often be dealt with more easily than an author who may not be easily found.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that a printer should be guilty of obscene libel if he prints something which is not for sale and not for general circulation, and which is not offered for sale?
  Mr. Fletcher: No. I was suggesting that the offence should apply in the case of an obscene publication which is printed for sale. I must admit that I have not considered the case of something which was printed not for sale. If it is something printed privately and not for sale, I would not have thought it necessary to create an offence. [An HON. MEMBER: "How would the printer know?"] In normal cases, the printer would know.
  In conclusion, I ask the Home Secretary to clarify a remark towards the end of his speech which appeared to be ambiguous with regard to his future intentions. We all welcome his general benevolent attitude towards the proposals
  1036
  of the Select Committee and the Bill. He then said that there would be negotiations. This is a matter of great interest to all hon. Members. I hope that the Home Secretary will go further than he did in his opening speech and will tell us one of two things. I hope that he will tell us that he will find time for my hon. Friend's Bill to be debated on Second Reading so that it can go to Committee, and, as a non—party Measure, receive that kind of careful consideration by a Select Committee which is required.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to find time to enable my hon. Friend's Bill to be given a Second Reading, can he undertake that he will introduce a Bill of his own which the House could consider during the present Session? I am sure that that is the general wish of the House.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I agree with previous speakers that the House should be very grateful to the Select Committee for the work it did in presenting its Report. We should be grateful to hon. Members who have prepared Bills and put them before us. I am disposed to support the recommendations of the Select Committee and the Bill of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins).
  I do so with some reluctance and only as supporting an improvement in the law which will still remain unsatisfactory after it has been improved in that way. I am impressed most by the disadvantages which attach to the present state of the law and to those disadvantages which will persist if we alter the law as proposed.
  The present disadvantages are obvious enough. Works which are reputable literary productions are imperilled. At the same time, products of undoubted obscenity and pornography proliferate substantially unchecked. That is the position under the present law, and I do not think that anybody disputes that this is so.
  Certain proposals to change the law have been put before us. I support them for what they are worth, but when one considers the disadvantages, some mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, one is impressed by the difficulty and complication of the process which will remain.

  1037
  One first has to consider whether a work tends to corrupt and deprave. What constitutes corruption is itself a matter of perennial controversy. We live in an age which tends to take for granted most of the great disputes in human affairs, an age of declarations of human rights on this, that and the other. People sometimes assume that all the great moral questions have now been decided one way or another and that we have to worry about only the administration and application of the great charters of human thought.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: Can the hon. Member inform us if any evidence was received by the Select Committee tending to show one way or another whether the increase in pornography—which all sides agree to have taken place—has produced any increase in corruption, and, if so, what its nature is?
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for that intervention. I speak with reservation, because the evidence has come in two bits which has made many of us lose track of the first part as we have read the second. As I remember it, and others will remember better, there was no evidence on that point. My impression is that no increase in corruption has resulted or will result from any fluctuations in the output of pornographic literature.
  What tends to corrupt is itself a matter of legitimate controversy, and opinions on it change from time to time. Having decided that, one has to decide to whom a work was likely to be distributed, circulated, sold, offered for sale, and so forth. My right hon. Friend put forward a suggested change in the wording. to which I am not at all attracted. He suggested that in determining that question, regard should be had for the circumstances in which the book was found, or was to be published.
  That appears to me to be harking back to the celebrated case in 1954 which started all the controversy. In passing. I remind hon. Members that the prosecution for the destruction of The Decameron had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and presumably proceeded on that recommendation. In that sense, it was a Director of Public Prosecutions prosecution. The argument put forward on appeal in The
  1038
  Decameron case clearly was that The Decameron was not an indecent book in certain places—perhaps in certain libraries—possibly in certain shops—while in others it was.
  What my right hon. Friend's suggestion comes to in practice is that the Government—or the Establishment, if one may use that phrase—are to control the avenues of sale of certain kinds of works. If they go a little lower in the hierarchy of shops, the books become obscene publications with all the implications that has for the man who wrote the book and the man who published it. It is an extraordinary doctrine that a book may he an obscene publication in one shop and a fine example of literature in another. One reflects in passing that it did not save Jean Genet's works that they were to be sold by Blackwell's when seized and that their ultimate destination was the Birmingham Municipal Library. That, however. is merely a passing reflection.
  Then, having coped with these two indeterminate questions, we come to the third one, a further defence that the book is possessed of literary merit. That is a matter of keen controversy between different people, and, I think, between my right hon. Friend and the supporters of the Bill. That is something that I am prepared to support as an avenue of necessity, but I see great disadvantages. I am quite sure that each side would be able to get an author as expert witness—we never fail to get a doctor on both sides; and I am sure that both give their evidence in the utmost sincerity. No doubt, courts manage to reach decisions, but when we come to literary merit we are coming into a rather rarefied atmosphere.
  The question which comes to my mind is this. When one first looks at the work and decides whether it tends to deprave or corrupt, one then decides into the hands of what kind of person it is likely to fall. Then one decides whether it has enough literary merit to counterbalance any element of obscenity that one finds in it. Have we not by now begun to pass out of that sphere in which the criminal law can exercise a useful function?
  I am forced by the argument to say that the conclusion to which I have come is that the right course is to wipe out the whole law of obscenity in relation of

  1039
  books. I do not think that any disadvantage would be encountered by doing so. I do not believe that the flow of pornography would be in any way increased, just as I do not see that it is at present checked by a law which, we all admit, goes too far.
  I know that as a sort of makeweight in the Bill two—possibly three-provisions are included which, it is said, will tighten up the administration of the law so that while allowing greater freedom for literature at least there will be greater severity in publishing pornography, assuming, of course, that it is possible to decide between the two.
  While I appreciate the motives of those who have put forward these proposals, do they seriously contend that being able to search booths and vans as well as shops and not having to swear on oath that at least one sale has already taken place will really check the unchecked flood? I do not blame them for putting forward those suggestions. I am sure that they were put forward helpfully and that it was felt that they would be a counterpoise. I view them, however, with considerable scepticism and so, in their hearts, I think, do many other hon. Members also.
  We all know that the stuff we deplore-the picture postcards, and so on—will continue unchecked. In any case, what I propose is only that in relation to books should the law of obscenity go. If I am asked how I distinguish between books and other publications, I reflect that when the Bill dealing with horror comics was in Committee and many hon. Members, including myself, felt the same difficulty in the opposite direction, we were assured by the Home Office that no practical difficulty would arise. Therefore, I assume that no practical difficulty will arise in distinguishing between books and other forms of publication.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposed another test, the public interest. I feel more doubt about that than about any other method that is put forward. My right hon. Friend is, I know, genuinely interested in this and has put forward this suggestion after long thought and to meet the obvious practical objections that lie embedded in the other courses of conduct. Again, however, is a criminal court, whether a magistrates' court or an appeal court, really able to
  1040
  judge the balance of public interest that lies in whether a work of literature shall be published? I said just now that the prosecution in The Decameron case came from the Director of Public Prosecutions. That in itself makes one pause in front of the proposal of the Committee, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary supported, that the Director should scrutinise all prosecutions before they are made. I support that—it is a safeguard; but how inadequate a safeguard it is.
  Counsel on behalf of the Director argued for nearly two hours in The Decameron case that The Decameron was an obscene publication.
  Mr. S. Silverman: So it is.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Member anticipates me. Counsel said:
  "It deals very considerably with sexual gratification. It consists of a series of tales supposed to have been told by a party of persons, male and female, who took themselves away from the city of plague. It exhibited an inordinate interest in the sexual topic and introduced time after time characters whose main interest appeared to be to gratify sexual lusts."
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Like Chaucer.
  Mr. Bell: And like many others. That is an accurate description of The Decameron. Of course The Decameron is obscene. It is riotously indecent. It consists of a number of separate short stories hung together by a rather thin connection. If one has to look at one of those short stories in its context what is its context? It is the same as in the Thousand and One Nights.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Songs of Solomon.
  Mr. Bell: That may be a little different. If one is to consider the work as a whole, can one take out one of the stories of The Decameron entirely self-contained and publish that alone? It then does not have a context. Those stories, however, have been published in extract or in toto for over six centuries. If we are to ban The Decameron, we must ban Rabelais, which is far coarser; it has none of the spirituality of The Decameron.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Book of Kings, too.
  Mr. Bell: It was not so many years ago that a magistrates' court in this country ordered to be destroyed a book written

  1041
  by the father of Italian prose, a great Hellenist, the friend of Petrarch, a man whose works were drawn upon by Chaucer, Dryden, Keats and Tennyson, and yet there was found a court in England to order that his work should be destroyed. There was nothing special about the edition. It was an edition already in the Swindon Municipal Library, and a copy was being sold in a bookshop in Swindon.
  In those circumstances, what is the good of trying to arrive at a definition of obscenity that will exempt works of genuine literary merit? Some of them are undoubtedly obscene. I defy anyone to read Rabelais and say that it is not an obscene work. Therefore, we are thrust back as our only protection upon the question of what is literary merit. That is the crux of the whole thing. Why submit that to the arbitration of a criminal court?
  On the broadest grounds, it is possible to justify the course that I suggest. What is needed nowadays is not less temptation, but more moral preaching. I was brought up on such excellent works as those of John Bunyan. I remember that in Bunyan's great work Apollyon was found straddling across the path, not suitably fenced off it.
  I doubt very much whether Parliament fulfils its proper function or does anything for the public good when it seeks by Act of Parliament to make works illegal on the ground that they tend to deprave and corrupt. That is not a matter for the legislature. It is a matter to be taken care of by others. Therefore, while I support the Report and the Bill, they are not the change in the law that I should like to see effected.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Younger: After the near unanimous speeches that we have had in this debate, there is nothing I would wish to do except to reinforce the plea, which has already been made by several right hon. and hon. Members, that we should pass now from the stage of near unanimity to action. It may be that the Home Secretary was a little vague when he told us in his opening statement about his intentions for the future because he wished to hear what was said in this debate. If that is what will make up the right hon. Gentleman's mind for him, I do not think that he
  1042
  can be left in any doubt that there is broadly, and, indeed, to a large extent, even on detail, agreement in this House. certainly sufficient agreement to enable action now to be taken.
  As far as I have been able to understand from the debate, agreement is complete on the later recommendations—that is to say, those purporting to strengthen the law against the trade in pornography. Although I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that some of these alterations may not make a great difference, there is a general feeling on all sides of the House that for what they are worth, they should be implemented. They may be worth a little.
  I cannot imagine that the Home Secretary would wish to deal with that part of the Report, about which he has little technical difficulty to face, without also dealing with those other earlier recommendations which have what I might call a general liberalising effect. Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech and having served on the Select Committee, I feel no doubt whatever that an adjustment can now be made between the formulae chosen by the Committee and those put forward by the Home Secretary.
  The only recommendation on which I want to comment is the one which seems to me the last remaining major point of controversy, that concerning the introduction of the question of literary or artistic merit. As I understand it, the present position is that juries are liable to be told categorically that they must disregard anything of this kind; strictly speaking, it is not relevant to the question which they have to decide, and anybody who wishes to give evidence only on that point would be ruled out. If the Home Secretary's general definition of obscenity which he offered us is wide enough to permit evidence to be given on this, simply as being part of the context within which the words complained of are being published, I would accept it; but it is important that this issue, however difficult it may be to define, should be capable of being put to the jury.
  In the case of old works, classics, and so on, I do not think there is any doubt whatever that artistic merit is something which is treated as relevant. That is why

  1043
  we so rarely get a prosecution. The matter hardly ever reaches the courts. The reason why we regard The Decameron case as so absurd is precisely because it is acknowledged to have artistic merit and it is acknowledged that this is relevant, not to its obscenity—we all know that it is obscene—but to the question of whether it should be subject to prosecution. Of course, when judging a contemporary work, it is much more difficult than when one is considering something which has been judged by many generations of men.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Not in this country. but in the United States, works by Aristophanes have also been impounded.
  Mr. Younger: I do not know whether the hon. Member expects me to approve of that. I do not think that we can take that as an argument one way or the other in connection with what I am saying. I am saying that it is different when there is no doubt about the artistic merit of a work because for centuries it has been recognised. Contemporary works are more difficult and there is the question whether evidence of their literary or artistic merit should be admissible or not. I do not think that if evidence of this kind were put before juries there would be much danger of juries erring on the side of undue modernism or acceptance of shockingly new standards. Those who sought to set new standards would find that very difficult.
  I ask the Government not to be deterred by the remaining disagreement on this matter from taking early action. I do not think that this is one of those issues which it is fair for a Government to regard as purely a subject for a Private Member's Bill or as one of those special issues on which a Government from time to time may quite correctly show impartiality even to the point of immobility. This, after all, is part of the criminal law and involves serious criminal offences. Quite apart from that, it gravely affects the character and reputation of citizens.
  It is perfectly true that this is not a party matter. When it comes to this House on a future occasion it may or may not be regarded as proper to have a free vote on it, but that does not alter the fact that there is a Government responsibility. When the Home Secretary has had as clear an indication as he has
  1044
  had from the Select Committee's Report and from the HOUSE-which, I believe, reflects opinion outside, showing what the country wants—I ask him to give an assurance that early action will be taken
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: We have had a most interesting debate today. We are not in complete agreement, but we are trying to approach the subject from different points of view. One thing which is clear is that this is a highly controversial and very difficult subject. Although I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) on his audacity—perhaps I should say courage—in trying to deal with this matter by means of a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, that procedure is, of course, wholly unsuitable to this type of very controversial and difficult legislation.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: For three and a half years I have tried to deal with it by every known procedure of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Doughty: I was congratulating the hon. Member on his courage in dealing with this problem, his latest effort being by a Ten Minutes Rule Bill, but he must know that that is not suitable to this procedure in any way. For reasons I shall give, I do not agree with some of the main points in that Bill and I could not possibly let it go through on the nod at four o'clock on a Friday afternoon. A controversial matter of this kind is not suitable for a Private Member's Bill at all, even if the hon. Member had been first in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills. This is a matter which has to be tackled by the Government sooner or later, and sooner rather than later.
  There are a few points I want to bring out which occur both in the Report of the Select Committee and in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member. For a long time we had the definition of what is an obscene publication. Cases have been referred to and the definition has certainly had the sanctity of a century of law behind it, but it is still a very weak definition, a very vague one and one which throws the whole matter at the jury or the magistrate and says, "Use your common sense; do your best." The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on trying to make a better definition of this

  1045
  type of publication and whether it is an offence or not an offence.
  The hon. Member's Bill says, in Clause I:
  "Provided that in deciding whether or not a publication is obscene the court shall take into consideration any evidence proffered, whether by the defence or by the prosecution, as to the literary, artistic, scientific or other merits of the said publication."
  What does that mean? It does not mean anything at all. If it is a defence to say that although it is apparently somewhat pornographic it is really an article of great literary or artistic merit, let us say so, but the Bill does not say so. To put it mildly, it is a matter which must he cleared up and settled one way or the other. Is it a defence to say that a book which has stood the test of time is pornographic? That is one of the problems we have to face.
  There are one or two other matters wish to point out to show why this Bill which was, and apparently still is, before the House should not be allowed to go through in its present form. First, Clause 4 deals with the author being allowed to give evidence as of right. As probably the hon. Member knows, there he takes a completely different view from the recommendations of the Committee as stated in paragraphs 23 and 24. The Select Committee clearly said that that should only be done if the person summoned objected and the defence did not object. The Bill says that that is all right, but it might be most embarrassing to the defence.
  In a prosecution of this kind it is the accused person, whether he be the distributor or publisher, who is before the court and if he can he has to get himself acquitted. For a person who has no part in the proceedings at all—he is not in any direct way interested in the result and is not going to prison or to have to pay a fine—to give his views about the book might be embarrassing to the defence. That person might say things which irritate the jury and persuade them, in spite of what the defendant said, that the book is highly indecent and pornographic.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: In spite of what the hon. and learned Member says, he would not suggest that this is a Second Reading rather than a Committee point?
  Mr. Doughty: I entirely agree with the hon. Member that it is a matter for
  1046
  a Committee, but it is one of the reasons why we cannot allow a Bill of this kind to go through on the nod as though it is merely a tidying up matter. It is a very difficult, long and controversial subject. Those are the principal points I wish to make quite clear to show that we should not deal with the problem in this way in trying to bring the method of dealing with the problem more up to date.
  I have listened to every speech made in the debate, and practically every hon. Member, although having views of his own and having fully expressed them, has not tackled the problem of how this should be done. We thank the Select Committee for dealing with the question and we thank the hon. Member for Stechford for bringing in his Bill. although we knew that it would not get very far. This matter must be tackled by the Government. I do not think that they can take over the Bill with which they disagree so much in detail and with which hon. Members disagree and which in one important respect is quite contrary to the view of the Select Committee.
  It will have to be tackled by the Government in the near future and I hope that before that happens there will be consultations regardless of the political parties to which those interested belong so as to get some measure of agreement between them so that when a Bill is finally presented to the House there will be the maximum amount of agreement, even though some may reserve a few points of disagreement. The Government, of course, being responsible for all legislation of this nature, should have the final word on the matter.
  With these observations and few criticisms, I conclude what I have to say to the House. I repeat that I hope that we shall get a change in the law in the near future so as to get a better definition of obscenity whereby those who publish books, and authors, will know better where they stand and know fully the risks they run if they decide to steer a little too close to the line.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Nicolson: Like the hon Member for Torrington (Mr. Bonham Carter), I must disclose an interest as a partner in a firm of publishers. Very often hon. Members disclose such an

  1047
  interest without specifying what the interest exactly is. The interest in this case is a double one, that the publisher wishes the protection of the law against those of his less scrupulous competitors, and that the publisher wishes to be able to publish books of serious literary worth without the threat of prosecution.
  About the first interest I need say very little. It is surely quite obvious that the publishing profession, like any other profession, wishes to invoke the protection of the law in defence of its own standards. If there are a few publishers who will make easy, ill-gotten money by publishing works of pornography, it is in the interests of the profession as a whole that they should be suppressed. It would be quite wrong to imagine that the publishing profession is against a censorship. It demands a censorship, because it shares with all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate a desire to eradicate pornography. Its second interest is perhaps even more important. It wishes to publish works which it considers contribute towards the stock of literature. It does not wish to be deterred from such publications by the fear of a law which in the opinion of every enlightened person is already out of tune with public opinion.
  The question could be asked: Is "an obscene work of art" a contradiction in terms? I would answer the question by saying, no, it is not. It is quite possible for a work of art to be obscene. It is right that such works should be banned on the ground of the harm they might do, but that applies to very few books indeed. What we are concerned with are the borderline cases, where some critics claim that a book contains a great deal of literary merit and others claim that it contains so little that it cannot possibly excuse any obscenity it contains. I have had recently to make a decision of that sort and it has not been at all easy.
  My firm was given the opportunity to publish a novel called Lolita, which has already been mentioned in the debate. It was written by a Russian emigré called Vladimir Nabokov, who is Professor of Literature at Cornell University, in the United States. There is no question but that he is a man with an already very high literary reputation. He has been described as a second Boris Pasternak.
  1048
  His books, some of which have been translated into English and some not, have been acclaimed by distinguished literary critics all over the world. Lolita is the first of his books which has been challenged on the grounds of obscenity.
  It had an unhappy beginning. In the first place, it was published by a Paris firm called the Olympia Press, which was carrying on a running fight with the French police and the British Home Office over various other publications that it had put out under its imprint. As Sir John Nott-Bower admitted in his evidence to the Select Committee, Lolita
  "is nothing at all like all the rest of the books emanating from that source."
  He went on to say that it
  "is very much in the borderline category."
  When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) asked him whether he would have prosecuted Lolita had it appeared from a more reputable press in Paris or this country, he replied,
  "I should think probably much less likely."
  Since that date, Lolita has been published in the United States and has sold a large number of copies—about 250,000 to date. It is about to be published by the leading houses in Paris—not, of course, the Olympia Press—in Western Germany and in Italy.
  The question arose whether it should be published in England. That was the question which my colleagues and I had to answer. When we considered what our answer should be we had regard to what had been said about it by critics all over the world—critics whose opinion we trusted—and we based our judgment upon our own opinion of the book. It is upon this latter aspect that I want to dwell for a moment.
  Lolita deals with a perversion. It describes the love of a middle—aged man for a girl of 12. If this perversion had been depicted in such a way as to suggest to any reader of middle age or, for that matter, any little girl—could she understand it—that the practices were pleasant and could lead to happiness, I should have had no hesitation in advising my colleagues that we ought not to publish this book. But, in fact, Lolita has a built—in condemnation of what it describes. It leads to utter misery, suicide, prison, murder and great unhappiness,

  1049
  both to the man and to the little girl whom he seduces.
  I put to myself the same question which I should have put had I been confronted with the opportunity to publish the work of the Marquis de Sade. I should not have published his work and I am glad that it is banned today from England. He described flagellation and other perversions in terms which suggested to the reader that they were something which he might imitate and enjoy. On the other hand, if I had to decide whether to publish the work of Marcel Proust in this country I should have argued that all his characters are desperately unhappy, largely because of their perversion.
  This was the reasoning I applied to Lolita. I asked myself whether the loss to literature in declining to publish this book would be smaller or greater than the risk of offending certain people.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Member publish the London Diary by one of my constituents, Boswell?
  Mr. Nicolson: I prefer not to get sidetracked into Boswell. I have little time. I asked myself whether the loss to literature in this country through the non publication of Lolita was greater than the risk which one ran of offending certain people by its publication. In the end, I came to the conclusion that it was probably right to publish this book.
  I always remember a remark made to the mother of the hon. Member for Torrington by Lord Grey. She asked him what was the right place of morality in public life, and after a long pause, he answered, "I have always considered that to do the right thing is probably the right thing to do". I think that it was the right thing to do in the case of Lolita.
  Mr. Ede Mr. Ede rose—
  Mr. Nicolson: I cannot give way, because I have little time. I want to put two points to the Home Secretary which emerge out of this case.
  First, there is apparently no method by which a book which has been banned can be taken off the list of banned books, except by publishing a new edition of the book and waiting to see whether the Director of Public Prosecutions will prosecute or not. That was the only possible way in which Ulysses could be
  1050
  freely sold in this country after its original condemnation, and it was the way in which The Well of Loneliness was once more allowed to be sold.
  The second difficulty is this. I should like to discover from my right hon. Friend—but I know he cannot tell me—whether, if such a book as Lolita were published, there is a danger of prosecution for having published it. If I were the producer of a play I could go to the Lord Chamberlain and ask him precisely that question, and he would answer me; if I were a producer of a film I could go to the British Board of Film Censors and ask them the same question, and they would answer. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the same question before I have gone to the expense of producing an edition and, what is much more important, before copies were available in this country which might later be said to have corrupted somebody.
  Let me put it in the form of an analogy. If I want a basket of apples I can hop over the garden wall and collect the apples from the farmer's trees and hope to get away with it. Alternatively, I can knock on the farmer's door, and ask him whether he would mind if I take a basket full of apples from his orchard.
  I want to use the second method, but I am obliged to use the first. I think that my right hon. Friend muttered "Censorship". I would far rather have his advice beforehand on such a borderline case as this than take the undeniable risk of offending against the law and risking a prosecution. The advice to "Publish and be damned" is very bad advice. I do not in the very least want to be damned. But I feel that this particular work is one of such outstanding merit, and has been so widely acclaimed all over the world, that a publisher must have the courage to make it available to British readers.
  8.25 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): We have had a most valuable and worthwhile debate, revealing complete agreement on the desirability of amending the law, broad agreement as to the way in which it might be done and considerable controversy on several important details. The controversy on

  1051
  those details indeed reflects the disagreements which occurred in the Select Committee.
  My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who is not in his place at the moment, have shown that their views on the matter are close enough to enable the outstanding differences on detail to be resolved amicably and with mutual understanding. We regard the hon. Member's Bill as one which could be made a suitable vehicle for amending the law. We should like to discuss with him the details of it in the light of the views expressed in the debate, and we hope that our discussion will result in fruitful understanding.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on Obscene Publications of Session 1957–58 (H.C. 123).

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

  WOMEN'S SERVICES (RECRUITMENT)
  8.26 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers: I am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss the question of recruiting for the Women's Services. We had a debate some time ago when, unfortunately, the women's point of view was not put forward. I am glad to say that it has since been raised in another place, which shows the use of noble Ladies in another place and the need for them to be there.
  The reasons why I wish to discuss this subject are as follows. First, I want to pay tribute to the magnificent work already done by the Women's Services and to discuss the fact that in the Defence White Paper, Command 124, the impression was given that women were no longer wanted in the Services. There were 73 paragraphs laying down the Government's policy on defence, including civilianisation, putting out work to contract, the reserve forces, but no mention was made of the women.
  1052
  I realise that a great many jobs in the Services cannot be done by women, but it is interesting to see that in the leaflets given to women by recruiting officers it is stated that there are thirty-one special categories for the W.R.A.C., eighteen for the W.R.A.A.F., and twenty-five for the W.R.E.N., and I contend that not enough women are employed in the various jobs.
  On page 44 of the Grigg Report it is said that too many men are operating switchboards and driving staff cars. Paragraph 216 on that page says that these Women's Services
  "are now accepted without question, since it is recognised that no large organisation should carry out its obligations by relying solely upon men."
  I hope hon. Members will agree with those observations.
  Pay is not the first consideration for women because few women make their work in the Services a career, but I think that those who complete twenty-two years' service should have equal pension with men.
  What is the problem? The Services say that they need between 5,000 and 6,000 women a year. At the present time the W.R.N.S. require another 41 if they are to have their 3,250 by 1963. The W.R.A.C., on the other hand, has more difficulty. If they go on recruiting at the present rate, by 1963 they will be 2,441 short, including officers. The same applies to the W.R.A.F., and if they go on recruiting at the present basis, by 1963 they will be very nearly 2,000 short.
  I want to make some suggestions which might help in the recruiting of women to the Services. It is suggested in Recommendation xxii that there should be a lowering of the minimum age to 17 for all Services, and I think that is probably right in view of the fact that most girls receive education up to the age of 17. This is a recommendation which should be considered by the Government. Further, it is stated in Recommendation xxiii that the probation period of two weeks should be considered. I understand that this is done in the W.R.N.S., and I should like to see the other Services coming into line. It is a very strange and difficult world for these girls who go into the Services, and I think the recommendation should be given considerable attention with a view to making recruiting more attractive. One has to

  1053
  remember the great difference between the W.R.N.S. and the other two Services. The W.R.N.S. are still civilians, and the other Services come under military law.
  I suggest that much more use should be made of pre-Service training in the Women's Junior Air Corps, the Women's Naval Training Corps and the Girls' Training Corps. These three organisations really have great difficulty in knowing what to do with their own cadets, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that they might be recognised in the same way as boy's training units are recognised. I should like to read extracts from letters which I have received, which I think support my opinion. One girl writes to say:
  "I understand that the minimum age for joining the W.R.A.C. is 17½years. As I am under this age, I wonder if it is possible for me to join with my parents' consent. If this is not so, will you kindly inform me if there are any centres where I may train in order to be of future use?"
  There are a great many letters on these lines, and one girl goes as far as to say that she would very much like to know whether there are any classes. She says:
  "I understand that you may train for engineering. I have no idea how to become one, but I would like to have the opportunity, and if I went abroad I should like to do engineering."
  She asks for advice on how to obtain some pre-Service training. Other letters are on similar lines, and one of them states:
  "I am interested to know whether we have arty unit in our area."
  Another letter asks if girls could have a W.R.A.C. cadet unit, like the boys, who are between the ages of 13½ and 17.
  "If I could get this—I could bring a number of girls in our area into a corps."
  I think that when we are recruiting girls to the Services the initial establishment to which they are sent has a great effect on how they are going to like the life in the future, and I would ask for consideration to be given to this point in particular. To give one example, H.M.S. "Dauntless," which is the recruiting centre for the W.R.N.S., is near Reading and one then has to make a considerable car journey to get there from the station. It has no connection with anything to do with the Navy, and, furthermore, if the girls need to have a medical examination they have to go to Eastleigh near Portsmouth to have it. I suggested that this is a very long journey for an X-ray, but I was told
  1054
  that it was very good for them because they would have the opportunity at last of seeing some types of naval establishments.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend that he might consider an apprenticeship scheme on similar lines to that in the case of boys. I recognise that this may be rather expensive, and I therefore suggest to him that if the Government would be prepared to allow girls to go to their own local technical colleges, to a domestic training school or a shorthand and typing establishment, in which they could receive pre-Service training on a Government grant, this would not be a waste of money, as they would be very useful when they came into the Services.
  I know it has been said that when girls are trained they may not, perhaps, be of much use in the Service later on, but I think this difficulty also happens in any form of apprenticeship. Boys employed by firms often leave for training apprenticeships, and it is not at all certain that they will go back after their apprenticeship and continue to work for that firm, and it is, therefore, a risk worth taking.
  I should also like to discuss one particular Recommendation XXIV on page 12, because it seems to me that what the Government have said when considering this recommendation is quite illogical. The Recommendation says:
  "…the engagement structure for women should be altered to allow them to leave at six months' notice after completing their initial engagement."
  The reply given by the Government is;"The Government do not consider that such advantage as might accrue to recruiting from the introduction of this change would outweigh the adverse effect on morale and manpower planning. They accept, nevertheless, the principle that the engagement structure for women should be related to the needs of the Women's Services and not based too closely on that for men."
  The present engagement structure is accordingly to be reviewed to see what improvement can be made."
  I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Government should accept the recommendation in the Grigg Report and alter the structure to allow women to leave on six months' notice after they have completed their initial engagement. I cannot see what effect this would have on morale, although, of course, I do appreciate that it might make for a little difficulty in manpower planning. I do not, however,

  1055
  consider that that is a sufficient difficulty, because one does not have very good work from individuals who are not particularly happy in their jobs.
  Recommendation XXVI deals with gratuities and bounties. In this respect, women are to have 85 per cent. of what men would have. In my view, when women have given their time equally with men, and they have, in the same way, put in the full 22 years' service, they should receive the same pensions, the same bounties and the same gratuities.
  The Report recommends the use of school liaison officers. In my view, it is equally important to prove to the head mistresses and, particularly, to the "career" mistresses of the schools concerned that service in a Women's Service is a worthwhile career for girls. Today, they seem to think that the girls are just put into uniform, they march about and so on, but the mistresses at the schools do not seem to understand the excellent training which can be given. More explanation should be given to head mistresses. I think that they might be invited to go round the establishments and learn for themselves. The Report, referring to the school liaison officer, says that:
  "A woman with knowledge and experience of the scholastic world should be associated with the recruitment of girls."
  I suggest that this is not the right type of woman for the job. If one wishes to recruit, one must have been in the Service oneself. One must have full knowledge of how the Service works; otherwise, one will certainly be caught out by questions which are asked. The Government, according to the White Paper, agree with the proposal about a woman with knowledge and experience of the scholastic world, but I hope that, if they do accept that suggestion, they will also see to it that she has herself served for a period in the Services. That is absolutely essential.
  At the present time, recruiting should be easier, because a great many of the women, who are now mothers of the young girls looking for careers for the future, have been in the Services themselves. They will be more willing and understanding, and probably, would cooperate more fully in considering this type of career for their daughters. I
  1056
  suggest, therefore, that we might well get in touch with some of the people who have served in the Forces to enlist their co-operation in this matter.
  When looking at the lists of recruiting stations, I was astounded to see, that, in some of the principal towns, such as Plymouth, which is part of my constituency, there is no recruiting station for the W.R.N.S., although there is one for the W.R.A.A.F. and W.R.A.C. In all such places, particularly where there are family traditions to enter the Services, there should be some recruiting station available.
  In paragraph 284 of its Report, the Committee says that accommodation is most important. In my view, accommodation probably means more to women than it does to the men in the Services. There are far too many girls living in huts today, particularly in the W.R.N.S. and the W.R.A.C. If we are to have permanent women's Services we should see to it now that permanent buildings are put up in which the women can live. I note that, in the White Paper, it is simply said that the Government will bear this recommendation in mind, that is, the recommendation about huts. I consider that it should have top priority and that, apart from its being borne in mind, some action should be taken.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend that more women could be employed in some stations if they were allowed to live out. It has been the practice for some time for nursing sisters to live out and work in the hospital daily. It may not be possible for the women to live in in smaller stations, and I think that more women could be employed if they had the privilege of living out.
  Now I come to the question of parades and drills. I am not convinced that it is necessary for women to do a lot of parading and drill. They obviously need some gymnastics to keep them physically fit, but if they are to be asked to undertake parades and drills they should be given proper parade grounds. The other day I went to a recruiting ground which looked more like an enlarged molehill, and it was impossible to get any kind of proper formation with girls of different heights because of the extraordinary nature of the ground. They should be given the necessary facilities.

  1057
  Another point raised by the Committee concerns the matter of going overseas. This is too limited. A W.R.N.S. on a 22-year engagement may be able to go overseas only once during the whole of this period. It is clear from the response received from women to serve overseas in the N.A.A.F.I. recently, they have great courage and initiative and are willing to undertake overseas tours. I think that more consideration should be given to this point.
  Paragraph 150 of the Report states that regimental cooks are preferred to the Army Catering Corps. I think that many more women should be given the job of regimental cooks. I am certain that this would improve the already excellent rations that are provided.
  I should like to pay tribute to the women's nursing services. I understand that there is no difficulty in recruiting women for these services, and they can go overseas after they have been in the service for four months. At present, 340,000 girls of an age that could be recruited into the Services are leaving school each year. I therefore suggest that the recommendations of the Grigg Committee, as agreed by the Government, should be carried out at once and more stress should be given to the training of girls while in the Service so that they can get a job later in life.
  One of the things that girls fear in going into one of the Services is that it may be a dead-end job. It may be that when they are married, or if they should be widowed, they may need to go out to work. If after leaving school they enter a civilian occupation they have a job to which they can return after they are married. We are apt to think that to train women technically is a waste. I hope that stress will be laid on the fact that girls going into the Women's Services will be learning and doing a worthwhile job.
  I should also like to pay tribute to the women who founded the Services and made them so essential to our country in the short time which they have been in existence. I quite realise that this debate was put down to the Ministry of Defence, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would look into these points and ensure that full recognition is given to the Women's Services in the near future.
  8.44 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air(Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) for raising a matter which, she says, was not underlined in any way during recent debates. It is significant that yesterday in another place this matter came up in quite an important manner and, perhaps, anticipated to some extent what my hon. Friend would say today.
  It is infinitely worth while that on behalf of the other Service Ministries I should have an opportunity of underlining in the House of Commons the importance of the Women's Services. In case there is doubt about that, I should like to quote initially paragraph 64 of the 1958 Defence White Paper, which reads:
  "It is most desirable to augment considerably the strength of the Women's Services, which will have an increasingly important part to play in the new all-regular forces. There is a wide range of duties open to them at home and abroad."
  I will quote also from what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on 6th November, when we debated the continuation of the Army Act. He said:
  "…the great importance of the W.R.A.C. to the Army is not always fully appreciated. There is a most important job here for girls, offering good conditions and prospects, and I hope that a growing number will come forward."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1958; Vol. 594, c. 1126.]
  I could quote other instances, as from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence when he wound up a debate only two weeks ago. Talking about Women's Services, my right hon. Friend said:"…we attach the very highest importance to their rôle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 157.]
  I hope there will not be any misunderstanding of the importance which Women's Services will play, particularly in the context of all-regular forces. Why are women wanted for our Services? Because they have special aptitudes in a number of applications, and particularly in such trades as signals, communications and radar. Quite frankly—I say it without defamation of the male sex-women are really better than men in those trades
  Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am glad to hear that support from the hon. Lady from the North. Women are extremely conscientious. They do their jobs not only painstakingly but efficiently. There is a wide range of duties connected with telephones, communications, and radar in all three Services in which they are badly required. I should underline that it is not necessary for women volunteers to have had prior experience in these fields. The Services themselves will train women from A to Z. The women do not need to know anything about signals, communications or radar before volunteering.
  I will deal with the question of recruiting, which is of great importance. There is little doubt that the W.R.N.S. will succeed in recruiting at the rate at which it requires, but this does not mean that recruits are not welcome. The more potential recruits to come forward the higher the standard that can be set. The W.R.A.C., and to a less extent the W.R.A.F., are not getting the numbers needed, although recent recruiting in both Services has shown considerable improvement. The Grigg Report estimated the requirement as between 5,000 and 6,000 girls for our Women's Services in every single year. Out of the total which my hon. Friend has mentioned, that is not a large number, but I would underline the very special part which this small but important number will play.
  I do not think any of the Services has been complacent about this. Even prior to the Grigg Report, considerable steps had been taken to improve the conditions of service and to attract more women into our Forces. To start with—I know it is not of paramount importance, but it is of some importance—the pay of men and women was substantially increased last year. At the same time as the women benefited from the pay increase we took the opportunity to close the differential so that women, instead of getting 75 per cent. of the pay given to men, were raised to 85 per cent. To some extent, therefore, they got a double increase because of that arrangement.
  I saw it stated in debate in another place yesterday that there is a good deal too much formality and "bull"—if I may use the term which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) uses so often
  1060
  —about all our Services, and that the experiment which we conducted in the Royal Air Force at Benson and which applied to both men and women, did not achieve results. I would like to deny that. We are taking very seriously the proposals which arose out of that experiment. I know that in all three Services we are trying to do away with unnecessary regimentation and formality, and are generally creating a climate which is more in keeping with present-day conditions in civilian life.
  What further steps ought to be taken? I hope that I shall carry the House with me when I suggest that we should like to see the women looking more attractive. Some attention has been given to this matter. In fact, the hon. Lady raised it only recently in a Parliamentary Question. In the Women's Royal Air Force we have designed a new hat, and this is now on trial. Beige nylon stockings will be introduced next year, and we have also a new tropical hat. Plans are already advanced for gloves and for a summer blouse, which will be rather like that worn by air hostesses and which, I think, will be more acceptable and more attractive both to the men and to the women. Our own uniform in the Women's Royal Air Force was designed by Victor Stiebel, and it has been reflected to some extent by the Army's new uniform for the W.R.A.C. I do not think we have been unmindful of the need to have a woman's force which is not only efficient but also attractive and smart.
  The hon. Lady also raised the question of overseas postings. We recognise, as indeed did the Grigg Committee, that this is a very considerable attraction to recruiting. It was, I think, disappointing that the figure brought out in the Grigg Committee's Report was that only 13 per cent. of our women had an opportunity of serving overseas. There are factors which make it rather difficult to increase that number very substantially. For reasons such as marriage and because of wastage, women do not serve in the Services for longer than between two and three years on average. There is, of course, a substantial number who serve very much longer than that. On a short service of that nature it is difficult to arrange that they should go on an overseas posting without it being a rather uneconomical contribution to the forces

  1061
  overseas. All three Services, however, are re-examining this point because they are all very mindful of the fact that it is an attraction from a recruiting point of view. I have visited and watched women serving overseas in our forces, and their morale and contribution to the forces is in every way first-class.
  The hon. Lady also raised the question of whether we ought not to make greater use of women living locally and serving with one of our forces. The W.R.N.S. feels that it must have complete mobility, and that cannot be exercised if such an arrangement is made. Therefore, that idea is not very acceptable to it. The W.R.A.C. already has a scheme and the Royal Air Force has been examining this and has a scheme already in advanced stages. I hope that in the next few months I shall be able to announce it. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this is a sphere in which there is considerable room for improvement.
  May I deal with some of the recommendations which she dealt with in the Grigg Committee's Report? The first was Recommendation XXII,
  "that the minimum age of entry to the ranks of the Women's Services should be reduced to 17."
  The Admiralty has not a recruiting problem. and feels that 171/2 is a reasonable arrangement. The other two Services are examining this proposal. As we stated in the White Paper, this is under consideration, but I can go a little further this evening and say that we now propose to implement the recommendation for certain categories. I refer to those who are recruited for the higher grades of work and for the higher posts. Recommendation XXIII states
  "that all three Women's Services should have an initial period of probation and that this should be not less than the two weeks now in force in the W.R.N.S."
  The hon. Lady mentioned that and I have no hesitation in accepting it on behalf of the Government. I will say in passing that the importance of efficient and well laid-out stations at which they can do their initial training is obviously very much in the minds of all three Services.
  Recommendation XXIV, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is
  1062
  "that the engagement structure for women should be altered to allow them to leave on six months' notice after completing their initial engagement."
  I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that though this has been examined most carefully it is not a recommendation that we can accept. All three Services are agreed that six months' notice is rather too short. It will have an adverse effect on morale and, as my hon. Friend has herself suggested, on the planning of our manpower position. We regard women as being as important as men. They must be treated as seriously. Therefore, we cannot say that they are vital to our Forces and at the same time say that at six months' notice they can leave and disorganise our forces in that way.
  My hon. Friend asked that the gratuities which were dealt with by the Grigg Committee should be raised. This is a recommendation which the Government are pleased to accept. Higher rates will be introduced on 1st April 1959.
  Miss Vickers: Will they be equal to the men's gratuities or will they be equal to 85 per cent. of the men's gratuities as the Grigg Committee recommended?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry but we cannot make them equal to the men's but, as the Grigg Committee recommended, to 85 per cent. of the men's pension rates.
  My hon. Friend also referred to Recommendation XXVI which says that if the previous Recommendation XXIV was adopted consequential changes in the gratuity system for women should be introduced and that if the Recommendation was not accepted women's gratuities and benefits should be raised to 85 per cent. of the male rates. It has been already accepted that the gratuities and benefits should be raised to 85 per cent. of the male rates, and I am sorry that I can go no further this evening.
  On recruiting in general, the Grigg Report suggested that the schools liaison organisation should be strengthened and suitable women from the scholastic world should be associated with recruitment of more educated girls. We liked very mucn the proposal that a headmistress with suitable experience should be appointed to advise. We are going ahead on that recommendation. My hon. Friend did not refer to it but I should like to take

  1063
  the opportunity of referring to Recommendation XXIX
  "that consideration should be given to improving the standard and design of furniture," and Recommendation XXX that arrangements should be made to create a measure of privacy for women. In both those instances we are taking action. I think that they are thoroughly sensible suggestions.
  My hon. Friend referred particularly, and I thought the suggestion was most interesting, to the fact that we might start a pre-training school, rather like the boys' schools which we have in the Army and the Air Force and the apprentice schools. We have examined that in the Services, but it is a most expensive proposal, particularly when it is realised that the investment one makes in years of pre-training in a school of that sort may come to no avail because a woman, as indeed my hon. Friend recognised, must have freedom to leave should she wish to get married. Therefore, I do not think that we can consider setting up special schools for these young women. My hon. Friends and I would like to examine most carefully the alternative proposal by which the junior women's pre-Service training corps might be expanded to meet the real need of girls of 15 who may be leaving school and who want to do pre-Service training and are not sure in what manner they can do it. That is a most sensible suggestion.
  My hon. Friend made some criticism of H.M.S. "Dauntless". It is true that it is a long way from the sea, but it is not a recruiting centre. It is an initial training and drafting centre. It is not practicable to have an X-ray department there. Women of the W.R.N.S. are taken to Portsmouth, as my hon. Friend recognised, and while there they are given a sight of the Navy. They need to have an opportunity of seeing all sides of the work and of the Service with which they will be associated.
  The hon. Lady suggested that we should do away with marching. I have seen women march and I saw them marching at Bristol today when I opened a recruiting centre. I thought that their marching did great credit to our women's services. Some training in marching is desirable, but I agree that women should not march over hills, and I shall certainly examine the point the hon. Lady made.
  1064
  In paragraph 217, the Grigg Report stated that the biggest single deterrent to recruitment to the Women's Services was the feeling that women were not needed in peacetime and that the public must be convinced that that was not so. I hope that I have convinced the public that there is a need in our Regular forces for women. In this short debate, we have had an opportunity to underline the fact that there is not only a need but a rewarding career for women in all three women's Services and that we need very large numbers of the highest quality recruits in the knowledge that they will serve the country as well as women did in the Second World War.

  SUEZ OPERATIONS
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: I wrote to Mr. Speaker and to the Leader of the House to give notice that if I had the opportunity on the second Adjournment debate tonight, I would raise the subject of Suez and, once again, ask the Government to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the operations at Suez and the events which led up to them.
  The House is fond of precedents, and I have spent some time looking up precedents of the last few years. There have been many occasions when the Government of the day have found it necessary to inquire into operations, even while operations were going on. There are the examples of Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles, but I shall not weary the House with much detail, for the best authority I can quote is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who, writing in Volume IV of The Second World War, said, on page 81:
  "I judged it impossible to hold an inquiry by Royal Commission into the circumstances of the fall of Singapore while the war was raging. We could not spare the men, the time, or the energy. Parliament accepted this view; but I certainly thought that in justice to the officers and men concerned there should be an inquiry into all the circumstances as soon as the fighting stopped."
  The argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with Singapore is a thousand times stronger in connection with what happened in the Suez operations, for the whole affair has been shrouded in mystery.

  1065
  Hon. Members opposite and their supporters in the country honestly and sincerely thought—and I pay tribute to their honesty and sincerity—that it was possible for this country to launch an operation which would have dealt with the situation in the Suez area following upon the nationalisation overnight by Colonel Nasser. The best example is Captain Waterhouse, now, unhappily, no longer with us. On 2nd August, he came to the House and thought that there was unanimity in the demand for strong action. By 5th December he was saying that there was no plan, that there were no men, no ships, and that the thing was a hopeless blunder. I believe that Captain Waterhouse went out of the House broken-hearted, because he had been in the forefront of what were called the "Suez Rebels," the tail which had wagged the dog.
  There is an important part of the problem, and posterity will not understand the fraudulent and fatuous nonsense which led to those appalling days in November, 1956, if it is not understood that the Conservative Party is ruled by a body of opinion which is utterly irresponsible and which finds expression in the House through the mouths of a very few Members, who, apparently, in Committee upstairs can make and break Ministers. It must be appreciated that those men in the Conservative Party who had the honesty to stand up for the things in which they believed in opposing that awful business are now broken, while those who supported it now sit on the Government Front Bench. It started with the Prime Minister, and I will not refer to the most recent appointment—we all know all about it.
  I shall never forget—and I remind hon. Members that this is not the first occasion that I have mentioned it—that the last words which Sir Anthony Eden ever uttered in the House were in response to me two years ago, when I pleaded, in all honesty—and I hope that whatever they think about me hon. Members in all parts of the House will accept that I was being honest and sincere-that there should be a Select Committee, in the interests not of the Conservative Party, nor the Labour Party, but of the country as a whole.
  I reminded hon. Members, as I remind them again, that of all countries with an
  1066
  interest in the rule of law and with a direct interest in peace and persuasion as a method of settling international differences, this country was in the forefront. Sir Anthony Eden, I regret to say—I did not realise until afterwards how moving it was—replied to me, as I remember only too well, by throwing his pencil down and saying, "I would do it all again".The fact that the man who was responsible, whose health was broken, went out of the House still believing in his heart that he would do it all over again, suggests that there is a national requirement that these facts should be weighed and investigated in the interests of all of us, since our interests are based upon an understanding which is far greater on the things on which we are agreed than on the things on which we disagree.
  If the right hon. Member for Woodford, with his great authority, could say of Singapore that we should have had an inquiry, surely the Government will now come to the conclusion that there should be an inquiry into Suez. I shall make my case from the military point of view, because no one can deny, whatever may be thought about Suez and the necessity for what was called strong action, that, as Captain Waterhouse said, there was a lack of plan, there was a lack of ships, there was a lack of aircraft, and that the whole procedure was slow and cumbersome and that it ran us into a grave situation.
  To quote a great authority, Lord Strang, writing in the Sunday Times of November, 1956:
  "The fact to be recognised is that Great Britain and France have not sufficient material strength to make it a wise course for them to embark upon and try to carry through a far reaching policy of armed intervention to which the United States is opposed."
  That was a wise declaration, but, of course, it concerns the politics of the matter rather than the military.
  I do not want to appear to be egocentric, and I am not being wise after the event in saying that I am not in the same position as Mr. Randolph Churchill in having to wait until 1958 to find out the facts about landing ships and aircraft, for I said it on 31st July, 1956. My words are in HANSARD of that date, when I said that I felt
  "an overwhelming desire to go out and be sick when I heard the cheers on both sides of the House when he "—

  1067
  that is, the Prime Minister—
  "hinted at strong action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 1257.]
  I knew what our fighter strength in the Middle East was and I had a good idea of the number of tank landing ships we had. I also knew something about the state of our mobilisation and I knew that the swift action that was in the minds of many hon. Members opposite could not take place.
  One of the great dangers for nations is that they come to believe in myths. The weaker they become, the more they are inclined to do this. Perhaps this belief in myths is part of the price of weakness. Before the war, the French believed in the myth of the Maginot Line. We know the consequences of that. Here, I think, the myth still survives that a British person can take on two or three other people much better than the foreigner can —that we can give the "Wogs" a lesson, or that we can smash Nasser now. The truth is that we no longer deploy that strength. Even if there was the will, it is beyond our economic and financial capacity to build up the armed forces that are necessary for the kind of action that we undertook at Suez.
  Therefore, I have never quite understood why, when the Keightley dispatches were published, we did not have a debate. If ever a man gave the game away in an assessment of our armed strength, General Keightley did it. It seemed to me that in his way he had put forward a careful but, nevertheless, objective document which would destroy, or help to destroy, this myth that whether it be Suez or Jordan, there is no limit to what we can do.
  I want to dwell on another myth. We are not the only victims of it. There is another and very dangerous myth in the Middle East at the present time. I am sure it is believed on both sides of the HOUSE-again, quite genuinely—though I do not believe it myself, that the Israelis inflicted a major military defeat on the great bulk of the Egyptian Army, that Nasser and the Egyptians ran away, and that if armed conflict broke out again tomorrow the same thing would happen.
  Mr. William Yates: That simply is not the correct military appreciation of the situation.Every—
  1068
  body knows that the forward troops in the area of Gaza were not fighting troops, but maintenance troops.
  Mr. Wigg: I am obliged to the hon. Member. That is exactly what I was going to say.
  The view is widely held in this country—it is certainly believed throughout Israel—that the Israeli Army took on the bulk of the Egyptian Army and beat them, that had it come to it, the Israeli Army could have dealt with the whole of the Arab forces seriatim and that they are the masters of the Middle East. This I believe to be untrue. I believe it to be another myth. It is the belief in this that is the basis of the Government's present Middle Eastern policy.
  The United States has come round to the view that perhaps, after all, it was wrong about Suez and that it will back a kind of slightly more civilised gunboat policy and, at the same time, back us in supplying the Israelis with arms. The Government might even think that if it comes to another showdown, the Israelis can deal with the Arab forces in the Middle East. This might bring us to the edge of a third world war, because we might start with an operation of that kind and find that the Americans and the Russians are, quite accidently, looking into the whites of each other's eyes, neither side being able to withdraw. Again, therefore, from the viewpoint of national policy and of our commitments in the Middle East, there is an overwhelming case for an objective examination of what happened two years ago.
  I have never believed in the rather crude version of collusion between Britain, France and Israel as it was printed in journals like Time on 12th November, 1956. I wrote a letter to The Times towards the end of that month dissociating myself even from the views of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who put forward that view of collusion.
  I believe that the truth about Sir Anthony Eden is that he was, and remains, an honourable man. What Mr. Randolph Churchill wrote about him is that he did not know all that was going on, and the charge against him, perhaps, is that he did not know but should have known. I do not see the noble Member for Berwick - upon - Tweed (Viscount

  1069
  Lambton) in his place, but I thought he showed great courage and generosity in writing about his leader as he did in last week's Sunday Express. If I were on the other side of the House, I would be on his side, rather than on the side of those who at one time were fawning on Sir Anthony Eden, but who can now say no good of him. I regard that as contemptible. Sir Anthony gave great service to his country and all of us should send to him a message of hope that his health will be restored and his spirits regained.
  What is the charge made against Sir Anthony Eden? The charge was ably made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who said that here was a man who found himself a synthetic villain and who got caught up in a chain of events. I believe that the villains of the piece were the French, and I do not exempt Mr. Ben Gurion. I accept the view that it was not until very late in October when, in fact, Sir Anthony Eden found out what was afoot and that there had been a coordinated plan of operation as between the Israelis and the French; and then it was too late. Like a weak man—it might have come from his ill-health, or because circumstances were too much for him—he found himself caught up in a change of circumstances from which he could not withdraw.
  It is easy for Mr. Randolph Churchill to say, two years afterwards, that it is the very limit of perfidy to find that we were presenting an ultimatum at the very time when French aircraft were flying from British bases in Cyprus to collaborate with Israeli infantry. I believe these things happened, but I believe that the explanation of how they came to happen was presented in far too crude and dishonourable a way; and not only for the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite. We should clear the good name of Sir Anthony Eden, but that is only a part of the story. The essential thing is to clear the name of this country, because from all that is written about this appalling story people in foreign countries do not draw a distinction between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. What they talk about is Britain.
  I say no more, as many other hon. Members want to speak. I repeat the
  1070
  demand now that I last made two years ago, that there shall be a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the conduct of these operations and the events that led up to them, not in the interests of any party but on an issue that far transcends any party—the interests of this country, its good name and its standing in the world.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Head: I wish to ask for some indulgence from the House because I knew of this debate only this morning and I had to go to another gathering to make a speech that I had undertaken to make there tonight. I therefore hope that right hon. and hon. Members will acquit me of any discourtesy if they find that my remarks are not perhaps as well thought out and coherent as I would wish them to be.
  I should also say that I have been approached by several newspapers to write or to say something about the controversy which has arisen around this operation, but I believe that the proper place to say anything is in this House and not in a newspaper. Therefore, I am glad of this opportunity. Whatever the feeling of the House may be about my remarks, I say this sincerely because it has been a grief to me, not to my own reputation entirely—though one cannot dismiss thatbut because the general attitude towards this operation has tended to throw discredit on the chiefs of staff, the planning organisation of the three Services and, to some extent, on the operation itself. I believe most sincerely that this operation has been deeply misunderstood because a retrospective view, especially by those who write very well but do not think very long, can be extremely damaging and the arguments the other way are harder to put and have gone by default.
  When Nasser seized the Canal an operation was mounted prepared to take over the Canal. The Canal, after all, was the area of dispute, not Egypt nor Cairo, but the Canal. Indeed, as the operation turned out, it was again the Canal which was the area of dispute. I ask hon. Members to try to visualise that they were responsible for mounting an operation which would take place at an indefinite and undetermined time, which might be as a result of S.C.U.A., but S.C.U.A. never produced it, leading to an incident,

  1071
  or due to a situation which demanded the seizure of the Canal.
  Consider the problem of seizing the Canal by military force at very short notice. It could be done either from Suez or Port Said, or both, or perhaps a landing from either side of those areas. It is not worth my going into possibilities of doing it from Suez, which is on the Cape route and outside the area of our bases. That leads inevitably to Port Said and to those who think that we might have landed round the port. I would say that that country is singularly ill-adapted for doing so. An operation plan was prepared for a frontal assault on Port Said which, for all we knew, was a defended port. What does one do if one mounts an operation to assault Port Said and debouch from Port Said? I suggest to hon. Members that one of the first things one does is to see what is opposed to one. To the west of the Canal there was one armoured group and on the other side of the Canal three armoured groups.
  Many people have said categorically how slow this operation was and how it should have been done much more quickly, but I have not yet heard a single suggestion as to how it could have been done more quickly, except by an all airborne operation to seize the Canal. I should like hon. Members to consider for a moment whether, given almost unlimited aircraft, they would have dropped airborne troops along the Canal and left them for six days—which I will explain in a moment—without support and with a large number of Egyptian tanks—in the area.
  There may be hon. Members who would accept that. All I can say is that after a great deal of consideration and all the responsible military advice, both British and French, that course was unanimously rejected. There may be those who say that they would have carried out an all airborne operation. Very well. But it would have been a bold man whose ultimate responsibility it would have been to undertake an airborne operation against all military advice and probably with the resignation of those military advisers who had been overruled. There may be arguments the other way, but, personally, I am absolutely convinced that to have done that would have been a most risky and unwise measure which
  1072
  would have risked a very large number of lives.
  I remind hon. Members of one further fact. At the very start, when we pushed the button and decided on the operation, there was in existence a well-manned Egyptian Air Force—and when I say "well-manned" I do not necessarily mean by Egyptians—which might have inflicted very serious damage on the slow—flying aircraft which bring in airborne troops.
  If hon. Members have followed as far as this, I would now point out that in this plan we were tied down to doing it by land forces—that is to say, with the necessary infantry and tanks to occupy the Canal Zone. Again, the critics, who, perhaps, have not thought this matter out very carefully, will ask why it did not happen more quickly. Any hon. Member who has made a study of the war, or operations of this kind, knows one thing for certain—that it is quite impossible to mount an operation comprising very large numbers of tanks and vehicles without a deep water port. I do not believe that a single hon. Member would disagree with that.
  The Suez operation was placed, so to speak, in a straitjacket so far as how it was to be executed by the fact of our getting out of Egypt. Hon. Members opposite—I remember, because I had to make a speech on that occasion—were very much in favour of that move, but from the day we got out of Egypt the nearest deep water port in the Eastern Mediterranean was Malta. Hon. Members may ask, "Why not make one in Cyprus?" But, financially and from an engineering point of view, it was impracticable, and on that day the nearest deep water port to Port Said was Malta.
  The steaming distance for a ship from Malta is six days. If hon. Members follow me, therefore, this operation, which has been so heavily criticised as being slow and a classic example of military ineptitude, was, unless we did an allairborne operation, in a straitjacket in respect of its form. That straitjacket was this. Push the button, give the order for it to take place and six days elapse between the order and the assault on Port Said. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am talking about the criticism of ineptitude which has been made against our Armed Forces.

  1073
  The operation has been compared with that of the Israelis. People said, "Look at the Israeli operation, which was so fast, and then look at ours, which was so slow and so laborious." The comparison between a seaborne operation and a land operation, with vehicles and tanks on a contiguous land frontier, is utterly irrelevant. The problems are in no way related. If one has a force ready on a contiguous land frontier one can motor through with great speed, but if one has the appalling problem of funnelling a force through the bottle neck of a port, it is an utterly different matter, both in speed and in nature. Whatever hon. Members may think of this operation, therefore, its form was dictated by geography and ports—
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan: What the right hon. Member is saying apparently is that in a push-button operation of this sort it should have been realised that it would take six days for the bell to ring. Was not that known to the Government at the time?
  Mr. Head: Of course it was well known. Nobody could have planned any operation to take place without being aware of that fact. It should have been apparent to anybody who either studied or thought about the operation. As far as I know, nobody has made any attempt to conceal that this was so. The right hon. Gentleman is looking for things which do not exist. In fact, very great pressure was, naturally, brought to bear to shorten that interval but no Government, no planner, and not even the right hon. Gentleman. can escape from the physical fact that if you mount an operation for a deep-water port that interval of steaming time is inevitable.
  I am saying that this almost unacceptable fact—and I am coming to the justification of the operation in a minute—had to be accepted because there was no alternative. The operation was planned and the air operation started and eliminated the Egyptian Air Force. That was a brilliant exploit by the Royal Air Force, and I should like the House to be aware of it and to recognise how well they did it.
  It is true that the second target of the Royal Air Force was dictated by the inevitable delay of the arrival of the seaborne assault, and it was to beat up the
  1074
  Egyptian Army. The way in which they did that was exemplified by the fact that anybody in a military vehicle in Egypt got out and ran and anybody in a civilian vehicle motored on and was fairly sure he would not be hurt. That is another great tribute to the Royal Air Force, and that, too, was done by the Fleet Air Arm.
  What was the next aspect of the plan? It was that there should be an assault on Port Said, with minimum damage. An assault on a defended port is not an entirely easy matter, and everybody felt and said that this must be an example of what the Air Force could do towards the capture of the place with the minimum damage. I went to see General Keightley, not for the reasons reported by that very fine imaginative writer Mr. Randolph Churchill-who can be bracketed with Edgar Allan Poe for imagination—but to see whether the airborne drop could be made earlier, to overcome the beach defences and eliminate the naval bombardment, which would inevitably cause more destruction at Port Said. That was done and the airborne drop went absolutely without a hitch, and was 100 per cent. successful. The landing went in exactly on time and the objective was seized as planned. The follow-up went as planned. The debouching from the bottleneck of Port Said was going according to plan when the operation was stopped.
  Let us pause there for a moment. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and many others have said "There was a shortage of L.S.T.s and of supply aircraft," and both are mentioned in General Keightley's report. I admit that. If any blame falls on me I am willing to accept it, although there was a necessity to work quickly on the part of those responsible. I would say to anybody who is critical of this operation that if we had had half as many L.S.T.s again, and half as many supply aircraft again, it would not have altered the basic plan of this operation by one iota.
  Mr. John Strachey: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that what he is proving by dilating on the "military straitjacket", as he called it, of this operation is that the conditions were such that it was bound to produce the terrible disaster which it did produce, and that he is just proving that, and proving up to the hilt our case against the folly of the Government?
  Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman is anticipating what I am about to say.
  By explaining the problem of this operation, for which the forces and the chiefs of staff are being so much condemned, I am not condemning the Government, but going on to explain later the reasons for this decision. What I am at pains to do is to say something to explain that those military authorities who were responsible, the chiefs of staff and the planners, are not the half-witted, infatuated fools that they have been made out to be. I believe that to be an unnecessary slur on our military prowess and our military advisers. I say that this particular operation was extremely well planned and executed, within its limits, which, I have tried to explain, were fixed ones.
  The assault succeeded 100 per cent., and the unloading of vehicles proceeded rather better than was anticipated. When the report of surrender, not true, was announced in this House, I can remember to this day all the Order Papers that were waved. Supposing that surrender report had been correct, supposing that Nasser had surrendered, I do not think that we would have heard so much about the faults of the Suez operation, but one thing happened. It stopped. A few days would have been necessary to complete the occupation of the Canal Zone, but the operation was not completed.
  It is not my business to go into that in this debate, but I would say that my right hon. Friend, Sir Anthony Eden, was a man who saw that the gradual infiltration and erosion by Communism into backward countries and elsewhere was a menace. He saw that if, at some time or another, this country did not make a stand, we should go down the slippery slope of infiltration. He saw the disadvantages of this operation, that it was in the "straitjacket" to which the right hon. Gentleman referred; but he accepted those deficiencies and he saw them through during that period.
  The operation was circumscribed by geography and the operational confines in which it had to be carried out. The Government knew of those problems and accepted them. The operation is now regarded as a failure. Why? [HON. MEMBERS: "Because it failed."] Because of its execution? Because of its planning? No—because it stopped. When we ask why it stopped, hon.
  1076
  and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not, I think, an entirely clean sheet.
  In my view, the tragedy is that the operation stopped. I would say that those responsible for military advice, for planning and for execution, did nothing wrong. In my view, which is a personal one, Sir Anthony Eden was absolutely right in his decision.
  This biography, or whatever it is called, which has been written about Sir Anthony Eden is a very peculiar document. I do not know what was the purpose behind Mr. Randolph Churchill's writing it. Mr. Churchill bears what is perhaps the most illustrious name in England today, and the very fact of his bearing that name gives a certain authority to his book. I would say that this life of Sir Anthony Eden, particularly those parts which have been published, is a smear not on Sir Anthony, but on Mr. Randolph Churchill as the son of our greatest statesman.
  I believe that history, looking back, will regard this episode in Mr. Randolph Churchill's journalistic career as a disgrace to the proud name that he bears. I believe that what he has said about our forces and the incompetence and incapacity of the British power to act—which is the only matter I have dealt with tonight—will be condemned, but I know, also, that nothing will be condemned more than his attack on Sir Anthony Eden himself.
  9.38 p.m.
  Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: This debate has taken a dramatic and unusual form. The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and myself, that there should be a Select Committee, would have been justified in itself by reason of the speech to which we have just listened. Without our asking for this debate, we should not have had this fascinating episode. We have had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head), one of the right hon. Gentlemen responsible for the Suez affair, for the first time coming to the House and revealing a few of the secrets.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that Randolph Churchill's articles are all untrue—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or that there were large inaccuracies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Twist."] All right; let me

  1077
  put it in this way. He suggested to the House that we should not accept the version of history put by Randolph Churchill. In my view, he has every right to say so, but how are we to discover what to believe and what not to believe?
  We on this side. in asking for a Select Committee, are asking for it precisely on this occasion because of the situation created by the Randolph Churchill articles. Until that point the attempt to discover the truth about Suez has been made across the House by the Labour Party and by the Liberal Party seeking to discover the truth which was being systematically concealed by the other side. Now we have something new—a Conservative doing the same. I quite agree that there is nothing new in what Mr. Churchill says. He has made a number of grave allegations made by others before him, allegations which can neither be proved nor disproved without a Select Committee.
  I say in all seriousness to the right hon. Member for Carshalton: how shall we discover the truth unless other people are allowed to look at the secret papers which the right hon. Member had the right to look at? How can the House make up its mind on this subject? That is why my hon. Friend and I asked for the debate. Two years ago during the debate art the Christmas Recess Adjournment some of us on this side of the House urged the need for a Select Committee. As my hon. Friend reminded us, it was the last occasion on which Sir Anthony Eden spoke to the House. He was replying to speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and myself, not making allegations, but saying that one could not discover the truth unless a Select Committee were appointed. That is the point we are making again today.
  I should like to quote from the last article of Mr. Randolph Churchill, because it sums up the allegations made:
  "In common with many other people, I feel compelled to revise the judgment and opinions which I held in October, 1956.…If we had known with what ineptitude the campaign had been planned, if we had detected the inherent fraudulence of the Anglo-French ultimatum, if we had known of the Government's miscalculations about American reactions…many of those who, like me, applauded the action on the day might have adopted a very different line."
  1078
  I want to deal with those three charges—the charge of miscalculation about American reaction, the charge of ineptitude in the planning of the campaign, and the charge of inherent fraudulence. Those are the three allegations made about Suez. and it is on the basis of these three allegations, which can fairly be made on the facts as we now know them, that we now insist that the Government should appoint a Select Committee. This could do for the Suez campaign what was done in respect of the Crimea, another great disaster which occurred in the history of our military affairs.
  First, I want to deal with the miscalculation of the American reaction. This is something about which the House has every right to know. We did not have an Ambassador in Washington at that time. Was that merely chance or was it deliberate? Was this another case where the politicians decided to take over from the experts? I agree with the right hon. Member for Carshalton that it was not the chiefs of staff who were to blame, nor the Foreign Office. It was the Inner Cabinet, which made the decisions, as far as I know, in defiance of almost every expert opinion. A Select Committee would clear for once the Foreign Office of this stupidity in our relations with America and would indicate that it was despite the advice it gave that a fantastic miscalculation took place of what the American reaction would be.
  My hon. Friend has dealt with the ineptitude of the military planning. I do not want to go into the details of the military campaign. I want to raise the problem of the political plan. Look at the psychological warfare from Cyprus. Who organised that? Look at the political calculation on which the campaign was based, the calculation that we would never have to go ashore because Nasser could be bluffed into surrender.
  Mr. Head: That is palpably untrue. Mr. Randolph Churchill said something to the effect that if the Air Force could have done the job the pongos would never have been landed. If the hon. Gentleman has been led into following Mr. Churchill's imaginative writings, he is quite wrong. There was never at any period of the operation an assumption of this kind.
  Mr. Crossman: Again the right hon. Member is making the case for having an investigation. He is telling us that during the days of the advance towards Suez, after the ultimatum, there was no hope on the Government's part of a coup in Egypt to overthrow Nasser, which would have made the campaign unnecessary. I should like to hear that said under cross-examination and after access to papers to make sure whether that is true. I am not prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's word that there was no anticipation on that score. There are a number of Foreign Office officials—
  Mr. W. Yates: Would the hon. Member say what the British Ambassador in Cairo said about the matter?
  Mr. Crossman: As far as I know, the British Ambassador was not informed of the matter until after it had occurred—in common with every other British Ambassador. This is the astonishing truth about the British Ambassadors and the British Foreign Office staff throughout the Middle East. They were not informed.
  I come to the third charge, of fraudulence. This is the key charge. Were the British Government at that time guilty of bad faith? Were they guilty of lying and of concealing things which they had done? I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend that the charge does not seem to be one of planning a campaign with the Israelis but of giving an assurance to the Israelis about the use of the French Air Force. This, it is alleged, enabled them to start a campaign which they would not have started without it. I do not know. We cannot possibly know whether that is true or what the precise truth is until the facts are revealed.
  Some people may say, "Why should we go over this disreputable page in our history?"—or shall we call it, "This glorious near—miss"? The right hon. Member for Carshalton seemed to feel, "What a pity. It was almost perfect. It almost came off". If he had the chance, would he do it again? The British public has the right to make up its mind, on the basis of the facts, whether this incident was something which would have come off with a little more luck, or whether it was a time when
  1080
  the button should never have been pressed at all.
  Those are the three issues, which we cannot decide on the basis of the facts now available. I was looking at the debates which we had two years ago, and what struck me was that we know nothing more two years later than we knew when we debated the matter two years ago. There has been a conspiracy of silence on the Government side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] The Government cannot really blame the Opposition for not revealing the facts about Suez; that was the job of the Government, who have preserved a conspiracy of silence.
  The Government are divided in their own mind. I reckon there are two sorts of Tory. One is represented by the minority who, on reflection, realised that Suez was a disaster, not merely a military disaster but a political misjudgment. There are Tories—a few of them—who on the basis of the insufficient evidence available have said that this was a disaster. They are harried in their constituencies and they are subjected to lynch law. When they appeal to the Prime Minister, he says: "Get on with your constituency parties or get out." They are getting out. On the other hand, those Tories who asserted that all that was wrong was that we stopped too soon and "We would do it again", get on to the Government Front Bench. They get jobs in this Government under the present Prime Minister and the present Foreign Secretary.
  We are concerned here about these two men, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. It is very relevant for the British people to know whether the people running this country are still proud of Suez. The Prime Minister has said that the people will decide. They will, but in a democracy the people cannot decide until they are given the facts on which to decide. Democracy does not function when only one version of the facts and one selection of the secret papers are given out.
  One version of the Suez facts is to be given to the people during the next nine months. Sir Anthony Eden will be able to play his part in the next General Election without making a speech. He is being allowed to write his version of Suez, with access to all the secret documents. If

  1081
  he wants to publish any of them he has only to get leave of the present Prime Minister, and I suspect that that will not be very difficult. We shall have a speech in defence of the Government written by Sir Anthony Eden for which The Times has paid, I am told,£100,000 for the serial rights.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that will come out nicely in time for the election.
  Here is a Government that claim to be proud of themselves, confident of their Suez record. If the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are confident of their record they have one simple way of proving it—they can submit themselves to cross-examination by a Select Committee of this House. Why should they be afraid of a Select Committee if they think that the secret documents are on their side? What they believe is that only a partial selection of these secret documents will suit them, and what they feel is that unless they are given the monopoly of selecting what should be known and what not they will be thrown out by the British people.
  The best evidence of the bad conscience of the Government about Suez is their conspiracy of silence. That is why they cover up and refuse to grant a Select Committee. When the Patronage Secretary put up the Secretary of State for War to reply, it was known he could not make a very adequate reply. He is being put up to shout nothings, while more important people take evasive action behind the ample bulk of this intellectual smoke-screen. The men who can tell the truth about Suez want to hide from this investigation. I believe that they should be harried out of their hiding, and called by name, to give evidence. In the end, we shall get a Select Committee and the British public will learn the truth.
  9.53 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: The tone of the debate set by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was, if I may say so with great respect, rather different from the tone followed by his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). I find it difficult to understand why the Opposition should choose this particular moment to press for a Select Committee on the Suez operation some eighteen months after the
  1082
  despatches of General Keightley have been published.
  I have not been in this House very long compared with many other hon. Members, and I am not a great expert on Parliamentary procedure, but I should have thought that in the course of the last eighteen months there were a number of Supply Days and other opportunities available to the Opposition which they could have used, if they had wished, to press home the advantage which they now claim to have and ask for a Select Committee to inquire into the Suez operation and for a reply to the questions which have been put tonight.
  I find it difficult to believe that the articles by Mr. Randolph Churchill in the Daily Express were the spur that brought them to action. Maybe they think that they can gain some electoral advantage. If so, let me tell them quite frankly that I hope that they will press home what they feel to be this advantage at the next General Election, because I think that the balance of advantage is very heavily on our side.
  The tribute paid to Sir Anthony Eden by the hon. Member for Dudley was a generous tribute, and I think that broadly speaking it was couched in words with which hon. Members of his party could fully agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would have thought so. The tribute paid to Sir Anthony Eden tonight was very different from the sort of tone which I remember during the debates which took place two years ago when the Suez operation was not quite as successful as some of us had hoped. I hope to prove, in the course of the few minutes which I wish to occupy the House this evening that the arguments for taking action, in spite of the disadvantages of geography, to which my right hon. Friend referred, greatly outweighed the argument for doing absolutely nothing at all, which was, broadly speaking, the case of the Opposition.
  I believe that the public at large at the next election will judge the Suez operation simply and solely upon the issue of whether it was better to take action, even though the action was not 100 per cent. successful, than to do nothing at all. If the party opposite thinks that there is any electoral advantage to be gained from this, perhaps it will have some second thoughts. Everybody is entitled

  1083
  to his own opinion, but I wonder whether in retrospect all hon. Members opposite are very proud of the antics, if I may put it politely like that, of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) when she went off to Port Said shortly after the operation was over and claimed some kind of Nordic nationality.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is, of course, absolutely entitled to state his views in a broadcast, although the views expressed in his broadcast were rather different from those which he had expressed earlier. I am not absolutely certain whether in retrospect it will be thought that what he said and the time he chose to say it will be an electoral winner to the troops who were in action at the time.
  At the time of Suez, of course, the House was deeply divided. It was more divided than I had known it at any time since I had been in the House, and, of course, feelings ran very high. There is no mistake about that, but there are a number of facts which ought to be faced. They are facts which are indisputable, whatever view anybody takes, on whatever side of the House.
  The first fact is that for the previous two or three months leading up to November, 1956, there was mounting tension on the Israeli-Egyptian border. I do not think that anybody in his senses would dispute that fact. So much so that in the months of August and September no fewer than 148 Arabs and Israelis were killed in frontier incidents of one sort or another. So much so that General Burns himself stated that the tension was worse than he had ever known before and he forecast a major flare-up at any moment. I do not think there is any dispute about those facts. Whether they are palatable or not is another matter.
  The second fact is that the United Nations had already had by that time about—I forget the actual figure-200 meetings in an attempt to settle the dispute between the Israelis and the Egyptians on the frontier without any successful result at all. The third fact is that the Israelis suddenly, within a week, mobilised. They advanced into Sinai and cleaned up the bulk of the
  1084
  Egyptian army in Sinai. I will not argue whether that army was composed of first-class or second-class troops. I do not know. The Israelis were advancing towards the Canal within a matter of hours. Having got to the Canal, there was nothing to stop them getting across, and, having got across there would have been nothing to prevent them advancing from Ismailia along the Cairo road. [Interruption.] Will any hon. Gentleman opposite deny that there was mounting tension on the Israeli-Egyptian frontier?
  Mr. R. T. Paget: We do not know. The hon. Member has asked for an intervention. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) what a difficult operation it was for us. Why on earth should we bring that operation on ourselves by putting an ultimatum to the Israelis to stop them doing the job for us?
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. and learned Member's intervention is a complete answer to the charge of collusion. The hon. and learned Member is not always quite as clever as he thinks he is. His intervention knocks out the charge of collusion. If there had been collusion, it would have been exactly on the lines he suggested. The party opposite cannot have it both days—[Laughter.]—and nor can hon. Members opposite laugh it off. If they want to allege collusion, then the right way to have had collusion would have been to allow the Israelis to do the job for us, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said. The very fact that the Government did not do that, is a complete answer to that charge.
  The issue with which the Government were faced two years ago was simply whether action was to be taken in spite of all its appalling difficulties and uncertainties, or whether no action was to be taken at all. Faced with that position, any Government would have had to make

  1085
  up their minds on this extremely difficult problem. Of course, all the arguments were not on one side. They never are. It is a question of the balance of advantage.
  The Opposition's case was that we should not have taken action, that we should have allowed the Israelis to go on to the Suez Canal, allowed them to cross the Canal, to march towards Cairo, while we hopefully asked the United Nations to intervene, in the meantime going on our knees and praying that the conflict would be confined to Egypt and Israel and that no other Arab State would intervene. That is a policy which no Government in their senses, certainly no responsible Government, could conceivably have undertaken.
  I want now to deal with the timetable on which the United Nations acted. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that we should have left all this to the United Nations. Why did we not do so? We intervened in the Canal Zone dispute, firstly, to achieve a cease fire between Egypt and Israel; secondly, to secure the passage of ships through the Canal;—
  Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose—
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: —thirdly, to separate the two combatants—the Israelis were already within ten miles of it—and, fourthly, to enable a United Nations force as soon as possible to take over from us. In two of those objectives we succeeded and in the other two we did not succeed.
  Let me come to what the United Nations did. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the United Nations is set up to deal with these kind of events and that no Government should act on their own. However, everyone must recognise that by its composition, its rules and membership the United Nations is completely unable to move quickly enough to prevent that kind of flare-up spreading. It is quite impossible. The United Nations resolution to send a special force to the Middle East was passed on 3rd November. It was not until 12th November, nine days later, that the advance party consisting of Mr. Hammarskjöld and a few other officials, so far as I recollect, landed in Naples.
  When they landed in Naples, they were completely stuck and were dependent on someone providing them with American aircraft to fly on to Port Said to see what
  1086
  was happening. It was not until 16th November that the advance party of United Nations troops arrived. As far as I remember, that was a force consisting of a few Danes or Norwegians. They arrived in Naples on 16th November and they, too, were stuck and had to be ferried by United States aircraft to Port Said.
  This airlift, so to speak, was built up in the course of the next month, but it was not until 13th December, nearly five weeks after the original resolution was passed, that a United Nations force of 3,600 or 3,700 men landed in Port Said.
  Mr. Bevan: This is irrelevant.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: It is not irrelevant, because this is the Opposition argument. The Opposition argue that we should have dealt with this affair by leaving it to the United Nations. The United Nations force landed without maintenance arrangements. with different arms and ammunition, with no vehicles, no training, no orders. no common language. They would have been quite unable to operate in any way but for the fact that the British and French were in control of the base at Port Said and gave them the vehicles and facilities.
  The other thing which should be mentioned is that the United Nations Force is still there. I agree that it is smaller in number, but it is on the Egyptian-Israeli frontier. The Egyptians may not like it, the Israelis may not like it, but the fact remains that by the presence of that United Nations Force the incidents on the Egyptian-Israeli frontier have been reduced to reasonable proportions.
  It is not unfair to claim that by its intervention in Suez, the British Government stopped the fighting—that is true. It certainly provided facilities without which a United Nations force, for the first time in history except for Korea, was able to function. It certainly injected into the United Nations some sort of sense of responsibility for what it was undertaking. I believe that history will record that our intervention in this dispute to put out the fire before it spread was right, and that history will also record that the attitude of the Opposition was a most sorry affair and that the less said about it, the better.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Soames.
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of procedure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. A great deal of the time of this debate has been taken up by a purely irrelevant filibustering speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not irrelevant."] The Secretary of State for War is to be asked a plain question. There is no need for a long speech about it. Are we to have a Select Committee or not? The right hon. Gentleman does not need 20 minutes to answer that.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I call Mr. Soames.
  Mr. W. Yates: On a point of Order. [Interruption.] The Patronage Secretary can wait. If I wish to put a point of order in the House, I will put it. Was it correct, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne) turned to you and said, "Do not call Yates"?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is not correct.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Further to that point of order. [Interruption.] I notice that hon. Members opposite are frightened about the possibility of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) intervening. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. MottRadclyffe) made a number of allegations against the Opposition. Is it reasonable that the Opposition should not have an opportunity of replying to those allegations?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry if there is not enough time. I have called Mr. Soames.
  10.12 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): As I understand this debate, it is an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on matters affecting Suez and the Keightley dispatches and it will have lasted an hour and a half. The House will be glad that it was found possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—for arrangements to be made for this debate to take place.
  Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order. Is it not the custom in this House that hon. Members are called alternately from either side, and, when two Privy Councillors stand at the same time, is it not following custom for
  1088
  the one on the side due to be called, to be called?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The practice is to call the Minister who will reply to the debate.
  Hon. Members: Why?
  Mr. Soames: I will endeavour, first, to deal with the three-—
  Mr. Paget: On a point of order. When the Government put up one of their supporters to make a barefaced filibuster and then the Opposition Front Bench speaker, a Privy Councillor, gets up, desiring to give the Opposition answer, is it fair or customary to cut out the Opposition because a deliberate Government filibuster has been put up?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member cannot dispute whether it was right or wrong to call the hon. Member. I have called Mr. Soames.
  Mr. Bevan: As Mr. Speaker has now arrived in the Chamber, will you be good enough to allow him to take the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so that I may put a point of order to him? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As one who has been a Member of the House for many years, may I be allowed to put to Mr. Speaker a complaint against your behaviour?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Member can put anything to Mr. Speaker when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair.
  Mr. Bevan: Would you be good enough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] As Mr. Speaker is your superior, why do you not leave the Chair and allow him to answer?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I shall leave the Chair when Mr. Speaker wishes to take over.
  Mr. Bevan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put to you a complaint about your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I could not entertain that. If there is any complaint about Mr. Deputy-Speaker it must be put in the form of a substantive Motion.
  Mr. Bevan: Will you please be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to give me your advice? There has been a debate on the

  1089
  Adjournment this evening, opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). It was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and then there was a long speech made from the other side of the House and a speech by the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head). [HON. MEMBERS: "That was before."] It does not matter about the order at all. There was a long speech made by another hon. Member on the Government benches and no opportunity at all had been provided for the Front Bench on this side of the House. I rose to speak and Mr. Deputy-Speaker called the Secretary of State for War, thus denying the Opposition any opportunity of answering charges made against us.
  Mr. Speaker: I repeat what I said. Any complaint against Mr. Deputy Speaker must be put in the form of a substantive Motion, but I would remind the right hon. Member and the House that this is an Adjournment Motion on a subject raised by an hon. Member, who, normally, is entitled to a reply from the Government to what he has said. I should think it quite proper that the Government should be allowed to reply to his attack upon them, if that is so. The Government ought to answer the charges which have been made. That is always accepted. An hon. Member raises a matter on the Adjournment and he would be very disappointed if a Minister did not reply and give some sort of answer.
  As to the strict alternation of parties, one tries to do that as much as one can. The Chair always does that, but the trouble is the rule that a Minister should reply to charges made on an Adjournment Motion. I think that the House ought to listen to the Secretary of State for War, who, I understand, was called.
  Mr. Gaitskell: May I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker? You will recollect some exchanges of view in the House a day or two ago about the possibility of a debate on the Christmas Adjournment, when we were informed by some hon. Members that they intended to raise certain issues, one of them being Suez. Following that, discussions took place between the usual channels and as a result this was an arranged debate this evening on the Adjournment. It is not
  1090
  surprising, as very frequently there are arranged debates on the Adjournment. Of course, this had one grave disadvantage, that the time was limited as it would not have been limited unless the Closure had been moved on the Christmas Adjournment Motion.
  I submit to you that in those circumstances, following the fact that two hon. Members from each side of the House have spoken and the last hon. Member who spoke made a number of attacks on the Opposition, it would have been only fair and correct to allow my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale to make a brief reply to those attacks before the Minister replied. I ask that that should he reconsidered.
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I am bound by what has been done. I do not see that Mr. Deputy-Speaker had any choice but to call the Minister to reply to the debate. If hon. Members will look at the order of the debate, I do not think that they will consider that it has been one-sided. There have been speeches from either side.
  Mr. Soames: I was hoping—
  Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Secretary of State for War was called I distinctly heard Mr. Deputy-Speaker call "Mr. Bevan." Is it in order, in those circumstances, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) should not continue, as he was called first?
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot vouch for that. Mr. Lawson: I distinctly heard it.
  Mr. Speaker: Any complaint against Mr. Deputy-Speaker must be put in the form of a Motion.
  Mr. Soames: I was hoping to be able to answer at some length, though, I hope, at not too great length, the points raised by the hon. Member for Dudley and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman) about the setting up of an inquiry. Time does not permit me to go into much detail on that, but there were various reasons put forward by those hon. Members about why they thought that a committee of inquiry, or a Select Committee, should be set up.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, East. I understand, rested his case largely on

  1091
  the fact that there was not sufficient knowledge about the military aspects of the operation and he referred to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) had said. He said that my right hon. Friend was quoting from secret papers and that the hon. Member, like many others, had not access to those secret papers and, therefore, would it not be better if they were published? There was nothing which my right hon. Friend said which was not in the Keightley despatches. The hon. Member for Dudley knows about it. Because the hon. Member has not studied this, he thinks that a committee of inquiry set up to examine what he has not given sufficient study to himself.
  Mr. Crossman Mr. Crossman rose—
  Mr. Soames: I cannot give way. The military aspect of the operation has been well set out in the Keightley dispatches. I know that the hon. Member regrets that they have not been debated in more detail, but he knows the reason for that better than I.
  On the political aspect of what led up to the Suez campaign, we have had two debates.
  Mr. Wigg Mr. Wigg rose—
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Member knows that in normal circustanmes I should be delighted to give way to him, but there is no time. We had two debates on this subject, in December, 1956, and February, 1957. Those charges have been made and the Government have answered them, and the Government are of the opinion that there is no reason why a committee of inquiry should be set up.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, East has raised once more, in his inimitable way, a number of charges which we have heard over and over again. They are charges of incompetence, political interference with miltary operations, collusion, and all the rest. We have been all over that before, and he has certainly said nothing new.
  It is important for those who are trying to judge this issue to bear in mind the background against which hon. Members make these charges and the difference of attitude and approach between the Government and the Opposition to the whole problem and conduct of the operation.
  1092
  The Government believed that the operation was necessary in the country's interest. The Opposition did not, and they did their best to prevent it by a campaign both in the House and outside. They took a view. We did not agree with it, but it was certainly perfectly reasonable that they should resort to every constitutional measure to endeavour, as the right hon. Gentleman said at the time, to get their view accepted. It was not accepted, and British troops were launched into battle.
  There were those in this country who took the view, to a greater or lesser degree, for different reasons, some on moral grounds and others on military grounds, that the operation should not be launched; but once it had been launched, and British troops were engaged, it was not for them to say or do anything which would make the task of our troops harder. At best, they supported it; at worst, they kept silent. But alas, that was not the attitude adopted by Her Majesty's Opposition. Having failed in what can clearly be represented as a perfectly reasonable endeavour to prevent an operation in which they had no heart and with which they did not agree they continued to attack it even after it had been launched and put every obstacle they could in the way of its successful conclusion.
  Of course they realised that if the operation were to fail our country's prestige and our interests in the Middle East would suffer. Did that worry them? Not a bit. Nor did they stop to think of the effects which their actions and their words would have upon our troops, committed to battle for better or for worse.
  This is all old ground which we are covering today. How comes it, after nearly two years have gone by, with barely a mention of the Suez operations in the House, that hon. Members opposite choose this time to rake up their accusations again? [HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Randolph Churchill."] I was not aware that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale governed his actions by what journalists wrote.
  It is, in my view—and I think it will be so regarded in the country—a matter of satisfaction to the Government and a great compliment to them that such efforts should have been made by hon. Members opposite on the eve of the 1958

  1093
  Christmas Recess to debate something which happened two years ago and which was debated at length in 1956 and in February, 1957. Nothing could be a. clearer sign of the barrenness of the Opposition's attack upon the Government.
  As to what happened at the time, nothing can excuse the attitude and actions of the Opposition from the time that our troops were launched into battle. They showed themselves to be a party which would willingly sacrifice the prestige of the country for a political aim. They showed themselves lacking in patriotism. and as such they will be judged.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The Opposition are not basing their request for a Select Committee upon newspaper articles. They are basing it upon three new facts, one of which has emerged this evening from the speech of the ex-Secretary of State for War, in which he accused his ex-colleagues of having deliberately planned what they knew to
  1094
  be almost a suicidal operation and then run away from its consumation.
  The second fact is that the Prime Minister has stated that he is prepared to have an inquest upon this matter. We think it is not possible for a jury to render a verdict if the facts are not disclosed to them.
  Mr. Head Mr. Head rose—
  Mr. Bevan: I cannot give way. The third reason is that the principal witness to give evidence has now sufficiently recovered his health as to he able to write his memoirs on the subject. Those three facts together constitute a reason for having a committee of inquiry.
  Mr. Head: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Air Pollution (Manchester and Salford Areas)
  Air Pollution (Manchester and Salford Areas)
  Local Government Commission for England
  Local Government Commission for England
  Colliery Spoil Heaps
  Colliery Spoil Heaps
  Air Pollution, North Staffordshire
  Air Pollution, North Staffordshire
HOUSING
  Jarrow High Street (Clearance Order)
  Jarrow High Street (Clearance Order)
  Unfurnished Dwellings, London
  Unfurnished Dwellings, London
  Houses and Flats, Greater London
  Houses and Flats, Greater London
  House Building Land, Essex (Price)
  House Building Land, Essex (Price)
  Rent Act, 1957 (Prosecutions)
  Rent Act, 1957 (Prosecutions)
  EURATOM
  EURATOM
  COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED PITS)
  COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED PITS)
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
  DEFENCE
  DEFENCE
  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (STRONTIUM 90)
  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (STRONTIUM 90)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  I.L.O. Convention (Forced Labour)
  I.L.O. Convention (Forced Labour)
  Tanganyika and Kenya (Sisal Industry)
  Tanganyika and Kenya (Sisal Industry)
  West Indies and British Guiana (Education)
  West Indies and British Guiana (Education)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Kariba Lake (Development)
  Kariba Lake (Development)
ZANZIBAR
  Voting Qualifications
  Voting Qualifications
CYPRUS
  Security Forces, Famagusta
  Security Forces, Famagusta
  Incidents, Guenyeli (Report)
  Incidents, Guenyeli (Report)
  N.A.A.F.I. (Dismissed Greek Cypriots)
  N.A.A.F.I. (Dismissed Greek Cypriots)
  Conference
  Conference
  Killed and Injured Persons (Grants)
  Killed and Injured Persons (Grants)
  Municipal Administration (Report)
  Municipal Administration (Report)
MALTA
  Constitution (Discussions)
  Constitution (Discussions)
BERMUDA
  Franchise
  Franchise
TANGANYIKA
  Governor's Speech
  Governor's Speech
  Mr. Alfred Hutchinson
  Mr. Alfred Hutchinson
  Tribes (Political Activities)
  Tribes (Political Activities)
SINGAPORE
  Detained Trade Unionists
  Detained Trade Unionists
MALAYA AND SINGAPORE
  Chief Justice (Appointment)
  Chief Justice (Appointment)
UGANDA
  Buganda Agreements
  Buganda Agreements
  School Diets (Milk Powder)
  School Diets (Milk Powder)
KENYA
  Constitutional Development
  Constitutional Development
  Subversive Organisations
  Subversive Organisations
  Jomo Kenyatta (Trial)
  Jomo Kenyatta (Trial)
  Legislative Council (Speaker's Ruling)
  Legislative Council (Speaker's Ruling)
NIGERIA
  Action Party Group (Federal Congress)
  Action Party Group (Federal Congress)
BAHAMAS
  Shipwrecked Cubans
  Shipwrecked Cubans
NYASALAND
  Constitutional Reform
  Constitutional Reform
  MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (CHILDREN) ACT, 1958
  MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (CHILDREN) ACT, 1958
  COUNTY COURTS, MIDDLESEX (ORDERS FOR POSSESSION)
  COUNTY COURTS, MIDDLESEX (ORDERS FOR POSSESSION)
  COUNTY COURT ACTIONS (LEGAL AID)
  COUNTY COURT ACTIONS (LEGAL AID)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street
  Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Russian Satellites
  Russian Satellites
  Russian Technical Journals
  Russian Technical Journals
  British Coal Utilisation Research Association
  British Coal Utilisation Research Association
SCOTLAND
  Declaration of Human Rights (Anniversary)
  Declaration of Human Rights (Anniversary)
  Hospital, Skye
  Hospital, Skye
  Steamer Services, Western Isles
  Steamer Services, Western Isles
  Polling Stations, Aberdeen
  Polling Stations, Aberdeen
  New Town Development Corporations
  New Town Development Corporations
  Forth Road Bridge (Steel)
  Forth Road Bridge (Steel)
  Glasgow-Greenock Road (Schemes)
  Glasgow-Greenock Road (Schemes)
  Insured Persons (Sickness Rate)
  Insured Persons (Sickness Rate)
  Roads Programme
  Roads Programme
  Small Farmers (Grants)
  Small Farmers (Grants)
  Electricity and Water Supplies, Braemore
  Electricity and Water Supplies, Braemore
  Herring Industry (Export Trade)
  Herring Industry (Export Trade)
  Cereals Trials Advisory Committee
  Cereals Trials Advisory Committee
  Advisory Committee on Protection of Birds
  Advisory Committee on Protection of Birds
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Factories, Cymmer and Maesteg
  Factories, Cymmer and Maesteg
  Closed Pits, South Wales
  Closed Pits, South Wales
  Mias (Holdings) Ltd.
  Mias (Holdings) Ltd.
  Unemployment, Swansea
  Unemployment, Swansea
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Industrial Finance (Wales and Monmouthshire)
  Industrial Finance (Wales and Monmouthshire)
  Colvilles, Limited (Dividends and Interest)
  Colvilles, Limited (Dividends and Interest)
  Members of Parliament (Accident Insurance Policy)
  Members of Parliament (Accident Insurance Policy)
  Textile Products (Purchase Tax)
  Textile Products (Purchase Tax)
  New Industrial Undertakings, Aberdeen
  New Industrial Undertakings, Aberdeen
  Dwelling Houses (Schedule A Tax)
  Dwelling Houses (Schedule A Tax)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay Claims
  Pay Claims
  Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance (Resolution)
  Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance (Resolution)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Aircraft Industry
  Aircraft Industry
TRANSPORT
  Shipbuilding (Liners)
  Shipbuilding (Liners)
  London—Harwich Road
  London—Harwich Road
  BERLIN (FOREIGN MINISTERS' DISCUSSIONS)
  BERLIN (FOREIGN MINISTERS' DISCUSSIONS)
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
  LIBYA (ARMS AND EQUIPMENT)
  LIBYA (ARMS AND EQUIPMENT)
  U.S.A. AND SPAIN
  U.S.A. AND SPAIN
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Five-Day Week Workers
  Five-Day Week Workers
  National Assistance Grants
  National Assistance Grants
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  R.A.F. Station, North Pickenham (Demonstrations)
  R.A.F. Station, North Pickenham (Demonstrations)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Pensions
  Pensions
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Epilepsy
  Epilepsy
  Mental Health
  Mental Health
  Leucotomy
  Leucotomy
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Road Accidents, Wembley
  Road Accidents, Wembley
  Borough Employment Exchange
  Borough Employment Exchange
EMPLOYMENT
  West Lothian
  West Lothian

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty The Queen, signed by her own hand. It is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the International Sugar Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1958, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

AFFORESTATION IN WELSH COUNTIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what acreage of afforestation has taken place in the counties of Carmarthen, Cardigan and Breconshire up to the end of the last planting season; what further developments of their nature are contemplated; and how much land for the purpose has been acquired.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the area of plantations established by the Forestry Commission in Carmarthen, Cardigan and Breconshire up to the end of the last planting season is 60,908 acres. The approximate area to be planted in the next three seasons is 12,598 acres and the land in hand for planting is 32,865 acres.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply.

PICTORIAL STAMPS
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the fact that small regional stamps have been issued in which emblems of local interest appear, they will consider the advisability of issuing small stamps showing attractive pictorial subjects of national interest such as are issued in the Commonwealth and other countries.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the information given in replies to the noble Viscount's many earlier Questions on this subject.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his Answer; but does he by any chance remember Goldsmith's maxim:
"Hope, like the glimmering taper's light, Adorns and cheers the way! "
That is my maxim in regard to my pictorial stamps.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am, of course, aware of that. In view of the fact that this is the noble Viscount's tenth Question on the subject, I am also reminded of the maxim that if you say something loud enough and often enough, everyone begins to believe it. But I would beg the noble Viscount to remember that that can be applied in both directions.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, whether he is aware that the noble Viscount opposite is not the only person in this House who is interested in this question, and that other countries have shown the way?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why the Government are so blind in this matter? There is a great demand for these stamps. It would be of immense help to a branch of the arts which is in danger of extinction through lack of patronage; and since the Government alone can be the patron, it would be well to think this matter out again, and perhaps the next time the noble Viscount puts down his Question, which I hope will not be too long hence, he may get a more sensible Answer.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. It seemed to me up till now that the interest in this matter had come from one particular quarter.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will inquire in other countries, particularly in France, where the stamps have reached a high artistic merit. They not only provide a helpful patronage of the arts but also render the Government a useful revenue from collectors all over the world.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to indulge all over again in the debate that we have had on more than one occasion in the past on this Question, but the noble Lord has no doubt noticed that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has, perhaps not surprisingly, a Motion down already on the Paper.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, could I put this point to the noble Lord with reference to what he has said, to show that the interest is by no means confined to one quarter? If he will consult the stamp magazines he will find that the demand comes from many quarters throughout the country.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, could the noble Lord refresh our memories as to what the reasons are against this proposal?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if the Question is repeated when Parliament meets again, he will be prepared to consider it in the meantime?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: We cannot wait all that time.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think I can do no better than to end as I began, by saying that I have nothing to add.

SMALL-COAL-BURNING STOVES
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider encouraging the use of enclosed stoves which will burn small coal et cetera, thus helping the mining industry and smoke abatement.]
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, my Department collaborates in the publication of a list of recommended solid fuel burning equipment. The design of grates and stoves capable of burning small coal with effective smoke reduction has had continuous attention in present circumstances. If a successful design is found it will be added to the list and suitably publicised.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will use some imagination in this matter, and whether he realises that if (shall I say?) 1 million or 5 million people were so far to change their habits as to use enclosed stoves like the Esse, the Cosy Stove and the Aga (and I may say that I have no interest in any of them), instead of open fires, which are quite out of date and most wasteful, then the problem of the mines would be largely solved, the air would be cleaner, the people would be warmer and a great contribution would be made towards the economy? May I ask the noble Lord whether he will set people to work on this problem?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I suggest that all that is perfectly obvious. The Government are using their imagination; the Government have people working on the problem and it will be pursued with all vigour.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, is it not true that all that the Government are doing is to recommend stoves to an old-fashioned people who will not change their habits? Would Her Majesty's Government consider, for example, making a gift of 5 million stoves to the people? May I ask him whether it would not pay handsomely by getting this small coal used? Or, alternatively, will he ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a kind of personal investment allowance, so that when you put in a stove you get something off your tax?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think it is rather too much to ask me whether I will give away 5 million stoves; or, rather, whether the Government will do so. I should like notice of that question. But I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are fully seized of the

323
importance of this matter, and are not just waiting to recommend a suitable stove.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister of Power whether more intensive directions could be given for the help of the mining industry in this matter? Is he going to review what is outstanding now for nuclear electric power stations? I believe that he still has outstanding a scheme to spend £750 million which will put coal out of use in all new power stations. I understand that there is no other country in the world with our own native resources of fuel which is adopting nuclear power for electric power stations at anything like that rate. Will he have that matter revised, and give some hope of using our own resources first and not second to oil and third to nuclear power?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has strayed a good deal from the Question which was asked, would it be out of order to ask the noble Lord whether he can assure us that consideration is being given to the, I believe, authorised statements in the Press with regard to the large stocks of small coal? It has been urged that the price should be reduced, so that sales of this commodity, as of other commodities in full supply, might begin to reduce the stocks and a lead could be given. Otherwise it would appear that the Government themselves discourage price reductions to encourage the flow of trade.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the Minister replies, may I ask him what rate of purchase tax these stoves carry? If they do carry purchase tax, would he draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the advisability of a reduction which would then increase the sale of these stoves?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, there is no purchase tax on these appliances. I have had no notice of a general debate on fuel, and I suggest that the questions of other noble Lords do not arise out of this Question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Does that mean they are too difficult to answer?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask whether there is any known make of stove on the market which will burn these surplus stocks of coal without causing an inordinate amount of smoke?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's question, there are no inexpensive makes of stove on the market, but there are prototypes in existence which are now being fully tested. The importance of the matter is obvious.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, has the noble Lord observed that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, refers to
"thus helping the mining industry."
I put a question to the noble Lord which would perhaps lead to a policy which would help the mining industry. Why cannot he answer?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, if the noble Viscount the Leader of the Oppositoin would not mind my saying so, the reason my noble friend cannot answer is that it is not within the sphere of this Question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I have just put the question.
THE EARL OF HOME: I know the noble Viscount has just put the question, but the Question on the Paper—and I think the whole House must stick to some rules in this matter—referred to stoves burning small coal. If the noble Viscount wishes to raise the whole question of oil versus coal, and the like, there are plenty of other opportunities.

RIGHTS OF LIGHT BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to rights of light, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill he read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Chesham, I beg to move the Motions standing in his name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Tenby, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Brierfield, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Newhaven, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Padiham, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motions agreed to.

PROMOTION OF PRIVATE BILLS
2.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this is the Motion which we postponed, at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, last week in order to adjust the wording to meet what we thought were legitimate points made by the noble Lord. I hope that in its new form this Resolution now covers the points made then, and that it will now be acceptable to both sides of the House. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider
326
the extent to which proposed Private Bill enactments which would alter the powers or duties of persons other than the promoter should be allowed; and to report what, if any, consequential changes should be made in the Standing Orders governing the practice and procedure of the two Houses of Parliament in regard to Private Bills.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having taken the original Motion back. I am interested to hear that he thought the reasons we gave for asking the Government to reconsider it were good reasons, because he did not tell us so at the time; he merely agreed to take them back. But obviously they were good reasons, because the Motion has been entirely re-cast (and for that we are very grateful indeed) and now much more nearly meets the point we put from these Benches last time. It does not quite meet the case, but I should be content to let the matter go if I could have an assurance that the Committee, when set up, will in fact consider the problem as we see it. I do not want to be difficult about forms of words, and I do not think it is a very satisfying process to discuss exact forms of words across the Floor of the House. What I have in mind, however, is this. For thirty-seven years it has been the practice for one authority to introduce in its Bills legislation on behalf of another authority, and I do not want the whole question to go into the melting-pot. I should like that position to be accepted, so that authorities will not suffer; in other words, that this question will not be the subject of consideration by the Joint Select Committee.
The reason this matter has arisen at all is that, whereas in the past most bodies have been reasonable in introducing into their own Bills proposals on behalf of another authority, suddenly, as I understand it, several authorities developed this practice to an unreasonable extent with the result that very heavy burdens were placed on the Select Committees—burdens which they found it difficult to carry. The wording of this Motion as it stands could raise the whole question of one authority introducing powers on behalf of another. I want that question to be regarded as one that has been settled as a result of thirty-seven years practice; the only issue should be the extent to

327
which it should be allowed, not the general principle. If I could have an assurance on that, and I hope that I can, I should not quarrel with these words and I would suggest that the House might accept them.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I do not quite understand the noble Lord's point. Surely in a matter of this kind, which is of great importance, there can be no objection to the proposed Committee having wide powers. After all, it rests with another place and your Lordships' House whether or not their Report is accepted. Surely if we are going to examine the matter we should examine it thoroughly.
2.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have found it a little difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I am not sure that he is talking with the same voice as that with which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, was talking the other day. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Latham, aright, he was pressing me for a form of words which would show whether this process was desirable, and I did not like that because I thought that after thirty years of practice it opened up too wide a field. But the words we have chosen would allow the Committee to say whether these powers should be exercised to the full extent, to no extent or to some point half-way, or to some other point in between. I think that, if the noble Lord lets these words go and the Joint Committee get to work, they will interpret these words in a sensible way in the light of the existing practice.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the House has been very kind about all this, but there are noble Lords in all parts of the House who are still anxious. Some local authorities have suffered individually in the past, in quite a small way, when applications for legislation through this sort of channel have been rejected by the Treasury or by some other machinery. We are most anxious that the general principle should be settled once and for all, as a result of setting up this Joint Committee. Am I right in assuming that the practice, in the case of a Joint Committee of both Houses, is that there is never a Minority Report.
328
Would it not be possible, on a matter of this widespread importance to all local authorities, to allow anybody who has a different view from the Majority Report to submit a Minority Report to be included in the Report of the Joint Committee.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think it is the case that there have not in the past been Minority Reports. I should think that it is for the Committee themselves to decide, if there are dissenting members, how the dissent should be expressed.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question? In the case of the last Bill, the Essex Bill, certain clauses were struck out. Would it have been competent for this House to overrule the decision of the Committee and demand that those clauses should be considered by the Whole House?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, if he would help us on that.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, the number of clauses struck out of the Essex Bill in this House was one, and the answer to the second part of the question is that it would be possible for the Whole House to reverse that decision by resolving that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I thank the noble Lord very much.
2.57 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, without wishing to appear excessively pernickety, I must say that I think that the words of this reference to the Joint Committee are less than satisfactory. My own view is that the Committee ought to proceed on the basis that for thirty-seven years it has been the practice to allow local authorities to promote legislation conferring powers upon other local authorities. That is the basis of the whole question. It was the doubt as to whether that was proper which led the Lord Chairman of Committees to make representations to this House. The question, therefore, as the order of reference is drafted, is not what should be allowed; the Committee should proceed from the basis that one authority is allowed to seek powers

329
on behalf of other authorities, and the Committee should then see in what respect and to what extent that authority and that power, which, as I say, has been operated for thirty-seven years, should be restricted.
Your Lordships will see that the proposed Motion on the Paper starts off with the assumption that certain things are disallowed, and then the Committee has to consider to what extent they should be allowed. My submission is that for thirty-seven years things have been allowed, and it is only where they should be disallowed that the Committee should be concerned. In those circumstances, with every respect, I do not think that the terms of the order of reference on the Paper are really appropriate to the situation that whereas, until the commencement, of this year, local authorities had certain powers, it is now proposed to say they shall not have them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down could he explain one point. I do not quite follow him, because this Motion says:
"That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider the extent …"
Surely it is not considering the propriety; it is the extent. That is what it says.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, that is precisely the point that I was seeking to make—the extent to which the powers should be allowed. My submission is that it ought to be the extent to which the restrictions should be imposed, because until this year local authorities were without any restriction, other things being appropriate, as regards seeking powers for other authorities. That is essentially the point that I am making; the subject for inquiry should be not the degree of the powers allowed, but the extent of the powers disallowed. There is a very great difference. It is not a matter of semantics or of using phrases. In my submission, it is a most vital distinction.
3.2 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I suggest that the wording of this Motion is precisely and exactly right and is what the House wishes? If my memory is correct, the problem arose over a Bill of the Kent County Council for which,
330
if one looked at each individual clause, admittedly, as the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, some precedent could be found. That for which there was no precedent was the wholesale nature of the way this power had been used. It was that which was questioned by both Houses of Parliament—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No; by the Chairmen.
LORD CONESFORD: I admit different views were expressed as to what should be done about it. The propriety of what the Kent County Council was doing was questioned. I am not saying there was no difference of opinion, but both Houses of Parliament—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is where the noble Lord is wrong. It was not both Houses; it was both Chairmen.
LORD CONESFORD: I think both Houses. Certainly this House made it quite clear in debate that it agreed with the Lord Chairman of Committees that there was a problem as to how far this was proper.
It was urged in this House, and I think in another place, that the right way to resolve that problem and seek guidance, was to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to look into the whole question and to report. That is what it is now proposed to do by this Motion. I think that if those who have criticised the Motion had tried to draft any improvement of it they would almost certainly have found that the result of their suggested Amendment would have been to make the wording, even from their own point of view, less satisfactory than it is now. As my noble friend on these Benches has just pointed out, what the Committee are here asked to inquire into is
"the extent to which proposed Private Bill enactments which would alter the powers or duties of persons other than the promoter should be allowed."
It does not suggest that they should be wholly disallowed; it says that there should be an inquiry as to the extent to which they should be allowed. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would have preferred some such wording as "the extent to which they should be restricted." But the power of the Committee in either case would have been the same: they could have made

331
any recommendation they liked and, as my noble friend Lord Winterton has pointed out, it will be for Parliament to consider, in due course, what line it takes on the Report submitted by the Joint Select Committee. But I defy anybody to improve on the wording of the Motion as it stands, in so far as it defines the matter which everybody, I think, whatever his view on the merits, believes should be the subject of inquiry.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as I said at the outset, I do not think it is very profitable to try to redraft across the Floor of the House a form of words. Speaking for myself, I should be most ready to accept the terms of the Motion coupled, if I may say this, with the statement of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who has told us that the Committee will consider this matter in a spirit of common sense and in the light of the practice that has prevailed for a great many years. I am content to accept that, and the short discussion we have had in this House, and to agree to the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Consolidation Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Licensing of sites for nuclear installations]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "maintained" and insert "self sustained". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise both to the Minister and to your Lordships
332
for putting down this Amendment at such short notice. Although it is a small matter, none the less it has quite a profound significance from a research point of view. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 of the Bill, at line 9, you will see that there is an obligation under the Bill for any nuclear installation:
"designed or adapted for the production of atomic energy by a maintained and controlled fission process "—
to be licensed. As I understand it, no discretion is given to the Minister to decide whether or not such a licence is necessary; nor is there in that case any discretion to avoid the ultimate obligation for insurance.
If I may detain your Lordships for one moment by explaining the precise significance of what my proposal represents, it is necessary briefly to recall that atomic energy is created from radio-active materials such as uranium. The normal process by which energy is produced, either for the bomb or for electricity, is by bringing this material in a large enough quantity and in a large enough mass in relation to the area of surface of the particular material, and at a certain point a chain reaction develops and this material becomes super-critical. At that stage there is what is known as a diverging reaction. This is a self-sustaining reaction: once it is started unless some artificial method of absorption of the neutrons takes place—for instance in cadmium—or the material is separated, that reaction continues. But it is also possible (and for this it is necessary to look back at the definition in the original 1946 Act) to produce a chain reaction which is sub-critical, where there is what is known as a diverging reaction. That means that the output of neutrons will never be large enough to produce a situation when more and more neutrons are produced and you get a super-critical state.
In order to carry out research and, furthermore, to train nuclear physicists, the scientists have to devise various instruments, devices and assemblies which will enable them to observe the performance of neutrons, and in particular a neutron flux of a kind that is produced at the Imperial College of Science with an apparatus (I apologise for having to use the name; I hope I shall get it right) called a sub-critical exponential assembly. This particular device operates in this

333
way. The usual basic material—I presume, uranium 235—is brought into close proximity or some juxtaposition to an irradiated material in the Imperial College of Science apparatus. It is, in fact, an alloy of antimony and beryllium which has been previously irradiated. This leads to an increase in the output of neutrons, but by its very nature it can never become super-critical; it can never become a reactor in the ordinary sense of the word. It is purely an instrument for research and for teaching. But under the definition in the original 1946 Act it is covered specifically in Clause 1 (1) (a), because the definition quite specifically refers to anything that leads to an output of energy.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give consideration, even if he cannot do it to-day, to a change which will restore to him the discretion as to whether or not it is necessary to license such a piece of equipment. At the moment, as I understand the Bill before us, he has no discretion. I am not saying that such apparatus ought not to be licensed; but if we are to see the development of research that is, I am sure, desired by everyone, clearly there must be reasonable freedom for researchers, whether they are in universities or in industry, to carry out such research without being faced with the obligation automatically to get the licence and face the problem of insurance.
The output of this particular assembly is one milliwatt, and it is negligible comparison to the ordinary atomic reactors. None the less, it is important; and I am quite sure that it was never the intention of those who drafted the Bill to bring this type of apparatus automatically within its scope, as is the case with the other items which are automatically within the scope of the Bill. If we alter this particular phrase from "maintained" to "self-sustained", it will have the effect of transferring the application of this Bill to such apparatus from subsection 1 (1) (a) to 1 (1) (b), where the Minister can still do it under the permissive powers which are laid down; because it is laid down "as may be prescribed". This is a quite simple Amendment. We are in a difficult field dealing with words and expressions which are obviously not very familiar to Parlia-
334
mentary draftsmen, but I am assured, I believe on the best scientific advice, that this is the best phrase. I hope very much that the Minister may see his way here and now to accept this Amendment. If he is not able to do so, I hope that he will have an opportunity to consider it and perhaps consider means of removing in another place what might be troublesome legislation requiring him or a successor to come to Parliament for an Amendment of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("maintained") and insert ("self-sustained"). — (Lord Shackleton.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment would change the definition of "nuclear reactor" in Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill. Instead of referring to a plant for producing atomic energy by "a maintained and controlled fission process" the Amendment says by "a self-sustained and controlled fission process". The existing form of words originated from the Atomic Energy Authority and was designed to cover nuclear reactors. The noble Lord was good enough to say that I might find it desirable to take action at a later stage. I should like to bring to the notice of the Atomic Energy Authority what the noble Lord has said on this subject, and if necessary a Government Amendment will be put down at a later stage. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his very courteous and, if I may say so, quick reply, because he has not had long to look at the point. In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Licensee's Liability
3.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, but subject to subsection (3) of section four of this Act, an action by virtue of subsection (1) of this section in respect of any hurt to any person or any damage to any property may be commenced at any time before, but may not be commenced at any time after, the expiration of the period of ten years commencing with the last date on which any ionising radiations to which the hurt or damage is wholly or partly attributable were emitted.
3.15 p.m.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after "enactment" and to insert instead:
"an action to establish a claim by virtue of subsection (1) of this section may be commenced at any time before, but may not be commenced at any time after, the expiration of thirty years from the occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site in question which gave rise to the claim:
Provided that, where any such claim is duly established but is made in circumstances such that it is not one for the full satisfaction of which funds are required to be available by subsection (1) of section four of this Act or is made more than ten years after the occurrence aforesaid, the licensee shall not be required to make any payment in satisfaction of the claim unless or until Parliament has made provision such as to secure that the amount required to satisfy the claim, or, if the claim is made within ten years of the occurrence aforesaid, so much of that amount as is not payable out of the said funds, will, if the licensee so requires, be reimbursed to the licensee by such means as Parliament may determine; and after the making of such provision no payment by way of settlement of the claim by agreement between the licensee and the claimant shall be made unless the Minister has approved the settlement."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in moving this Amendment is to meet, so far as I can, anxieties expressed by noble Lords in Committee on two matters. First, it will be recalled that noble Lords opposite moved an Amendment to Clause 3 (4) of the Bill which would have enabled claims on account of radio-active injury or damage to be presented without any limit of time, and the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Shackleton, have now tabled another Amendment with the same purpose. Secondly, noble Lords opposite proposed to substitute for Clause 4 of the Bill a new clause which sought to provide that all duly established claims should be met in full from the Exchequer in the first instance, and that the Minister should have power to recoup the expenditure from the licensee in whole or in part. The anxiety of noble Lords opposite can, if I am not mistaken, be summed up in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212 (No. 16), col. 1044]:
"that those who have been injured should be under no doubt whatever as to what will be the compensation they will get as a result of their injuries. It should not depend upon the insurance or the aggregate amount of the claim."
Let me now explain the effect of the Amendment which I am asking your Lordships to accept. It would make the time limit for the presentation of claims thirty years instead of ten years. Since, however, claims presented after ten years or in excess of £5 million for each occurrence will be an uninsurable risk, it is necessary to make special arrangements so that the licensee may be reimbursed when he has met them. Therefore, under the Amendment claims presented within ten years or which do not carry the total above £5 million will be dealt with by the licensee or his insurers in the ordinary way. Claims presented after ten years or carrying the total beyond £5 million are not to be paid unless or until Parliament has decided how the licensee is to be reimbursed for paying them. To enable Parliament to make provision in good time I shall be moving an Amendment to Clause 4 which we shall be discussing shortly. Once Parliament has decided how the licensee is to be reimbursed, claims are not to be settled out of court without the Minister's approval, because the licensee will not in the last resort be footing the bill, and some control is therefore necessary.
Your Lordships will, I hope, agree that this Amendment substantially meets the anxieties expressed in Committee. Under the existing law, the time limit for personal injury claims is three years and for property damage claims six years—twenty years in Scotland. Therefore, thirty years is, I suggest, a very liberal time limit for the presentation of claims under the Bill. At the same time I hope that it is now clear that the amount of a claimant's compensation will not in any way be reduced by reason of the £5 million ceiling on the insurance or other cover required to be held by the licensee. It would be contrary to all precedent to commit future Governments to an indefinite liability to meet from the Exchequer all claims presented after ten years or carrying the total beyond £5 million. Short of this, I submit that the arrangement for reimbursing the licensee by such means as Parliament may determine substantially assures what noble Lords opposite had in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 44, leave out from ("enactment") to end of line 5 on page 5, and insert the said new words,—(Lord Mills.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in the first part, before the proviso, to leave out all words after "at any time." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to say, first of all, that I think the House is indebted to the noble Lord for the serious consideration which he has obviously given to the discussion that we had on the Committee stage, and for the fact that he has put down this Amendment, which goes a considerable way to meet the points that we then put forward. Indeed, if the issue were merely a time limit during which claims must be made, I should say that thirty years is a very generous period indeed and I should have no complaint whatsoever about it. But, for the reasons that I have given, I hope the noble Lord will understand that, as at present advised, we still find that any time limit is unacceptable.
We are dealing with a type of injury which none of us—most eminent scientists, as well as noble Lords in this House—really understands. We are at the beginning of something which may have enormous powers and enormous repercussions. We have had some slight experience as a result of the Hiroshima bombs, the effects of which are now about thirteen or fourteen years old, and we know that those effects are manifesting themselves to-day, even after that period. None of us knows how long it will be before further effects of radio-action will become manifest, but on the best advice we have it is quite conceivable that injuries will appear thirty or forty years—or even longer—after the occurrence which gives rise to the possibility of injury.
There may well be a child who has been present in the area at the time of an occurrence and who feels no particular after-effects for years to come, and then, perhaps, in middle life, finds itself suffering from the effects of this occurrence. What we are concerned with is that such a child, when grown up, and finding itself suffering from the effects of such an occurrence, should not be debarred from making a claim. Such a person is going to have very great difficulty, in any case, in establishing a claim. If the noble Lord had been willing to accept the Amendment we put
338
down on Committee stage, that the onus should be on the Government or on the licensee to disprove that the injury was caused as a result of the occurrence if certain facts were established by the injured person, the noble Lord might have had an easier passage. Admittedly, after thirty years—possibly after forty years—a person is going to be in great difficulty in establishing a claim. Nevertheless, we are anxious that such a person should not be debarred by the terms of this Bill from making the claim if he can establish it.
What is the case against us? I understood that there was a certain amount of logic in restricting it to ten years, which was the period during which the licensee could get cover. I accept from the noble Lord that aften ten years no insurance company would take the risk. That is understandable, and therefore the noble Lord said that ten years must be the limit. But as a result of the views that were expressed from all parts of the House, he has had to accept that in practice ten years is not long enough and that it would impose a great hardship on many people, particularly in view of the uncertainty of the effects of these occurrences. He has therefore generously extended the period to thirty years, but, as I say, nobody can say that even thirty years is sufficient. I should like to lay down the principle, and the House to accept it, that no person who suffers from the effects of such an occurrence as that which we have in mind should be debarred from making a claim whenever the injury occurs. I invite the noble Lord to say why he should want to limit or restrict that principle. It will be obvious that, so far as people who are grown up to-day are concerned, few will be in a position to make a claim in thirty years' time. It is the young person of to-day who is going to suffer and who ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of making his claim
In accordance with the terms of the Amendments which the noble Lord has put down to this clause and later clauses, the cost of compensating the injured will be on the Government or on other monies provided by Parliament, on the assumption that Parliament will be disposed to provide the monies, and there is no reason to suppose that Parliament will not be prepared so to do. Therefore

339
what we are talking about is the opportunity of any person who suffers injury as the result of an occurrence to make a claim against the Government, even if the injuries should break out more than thirty years after the date of the occurrence. I feel that there is no justification for drawing a line at thirty years or at any other period, having regard to our present-day experience and to the advice that we have that these injuries may show themselves at any time long after thirty years. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to reconsider his view and to accept the Amendment in principle.
Now, I am not asking the noble Lord to accept the Amendment in the form in which it is put down. It is largely impressionist. I think it is good enough to argue about. If he is prepared to accept the principle, I imagine that the clause would need rather more drastic altering than the Amendment in the form in which I put it. In the hope that the noble Lord will show sympathy with the idea behind the Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 4, leave out from first ("time") to end of line 6.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mills, not only for going a long way to meet us in this matter but for the generally receptive consideration he has given to suggestions that have been made to him on the Bill. I should feel that I was a super-critical reactor if I did not recognise the long way he has gone already to meet us on this matter. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin that in the present state of our knowledge an arbitrary limit of time is not what is required. We do not know enough yet to write ten, twenty or thirty years into an Act of Parliament, which still would commit future Governments to the possibility of unlimited payments under the Bill as it now is. Since the noble Lord has found it necessary to do that, it seems to me that he might as well remove the thirty year limit and leave it open until we know more about it.
There is one other point I should like to make. Obviously this is a Bill which
340
has been difficult to draft. I am glad that the noble Lord has retained the requirement to bring the matter before Parliament in certain circumstances, but I find the wording of the middle part of this clause open to some objection. Beginning with "Provided" it reads:
"Provided that, where any such claim is duly established but is made in circumstances such that it is not one for the full satisfaction of which funds are required to be available by subsection (1) of section four of this Act…"
I gather that that is draftsman's way of saying "£5 million." Would it not be much simpler and clearer if the words "£5 million" were used instead of this jargon? This is a bad example of drafting by reference, because in Clause 4 we are referred to another section and it might mean a number of things besides £5 million. I would ask the noble Lord to look again at this clause and see whether some more straightforward and direct form of wording is possible. Once again I should like to thank the noble Lord.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, like my noble friends, Lord Silkin and Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for his substantial concession in proposing a 30-year instead of a 10-year limit. I am afraid that I made a rather technical speech on Committee stage and since then I have had the opportunity of considering it with one of the best experts in the medical field in this country. Though what I said was substantially correct, there are two small points where I feel that I might have misled the Committee, both of which have a bearing on this 30-year limit.
The first was when I suggested that radio-active iodine was not dangerous because it has a half-life of only eight days. I understand that this is not so, and that a large dose of radio-active iodine, getting into somebody immediately after an occurrence, despite its quick decay and its fairly rapid elimination from the body, could produce changes in the thyroid gland as much as thirty years later. Indeed there are cases that have occurred of people who have had thyroid glands treated with X-rays and who have developed cancer in the gland some thirty years later. This capacity of radio-active iodine to be concentrated in the thyroid gland is the reason for its danger, and in suggesting,

341
that it was harmless I was quite wrong. It could produce an effect thirty years later.
The second technical error I made was in referring to changes in the testes and ovaries simply as genetic changes. They are genetic changes which would occur very much later. When two people have both been exposed to radio-active damage, a subsequent generation might be affected. This is the appalling problem which radio-active activity presents. I think that it serves to reinforce once more the argument that any time limit is, technically and medically speaking, wrong and that the only right answer is to permit claims to continue so long as there is evidence of radio-active damage. I therefore support the Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, as one of those who ventured to say that the 10-year rule should not stand, I should like to thank the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for having substituted for it a 30-year period and also for having accepted the suggestion which I ventured to put forward, by analogy from the case of the "Queen Mary" and other large vessels for whom private insurers could not take the whole risk, where there might be public cause why the State should intervene and take the risk: beyond a certain point. The noble Lord has done exactly that.
The question before us now is whether there should be a 30-year limit or no limit. We are advised that we have to make a choice in this matter and Members of the Opposition may press it to a Division. If they do, I shall support the Minister, and I want to say why. First of all, as I think has been admitted by the Opposition, the noble Lord has gone a long way towards meeting us. Secondly, the art of politics is the art of practicability, and we cannot always have the ideal at which we aim. Thirdly, if a person can initiate a claim within thirty years, it seems to me extraordinarily likely that within that time a number of signs that something is coming to him will begin to show themselves. In the analogy which I ventured to put before your Lordships when last we discussed this matter, I spoke of a particular affection of the eyes which occurred after the First World War and did not become serious until ten, twenty, thirty or even
342
forty years afterwards; but it did begin to show itself even in the second decade and there was a continuous history which could be brought to prove that the condition was connected with the original application. In this instance, it was an application of mustard gas.
I find it hard to believe that no signs could possibly show themselves in a healthy person for some thirty years and that thereafter some affection might occur. Moreover, I feel convinced that, if it did, a Parliament that was already beginning to meet claims in respect of acidents, showing themselves in twenty-five or twenty-eight years' time—your Lordships will remember that after ten years it is Parliament which has to be consulted on the amount of compensation—would hardly allow the 30-year rule to stand when the end of the limit came. Therefore I am certain that the Government have done the best they can in this difficult matter and I am prepared to give them my support and my thanks.
LORD REA: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of the discussion but I should like to align myself with the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, particularly in their tribute to the Minister in charge of the Bill, who always takes particular trouble when points of this nature are put to him. I ought to declare a personal interest of a kind, because the small amount of agricultural land which I own is near Calder Hall, where the outfall took place. The children in one farm there, a very healthy bunch of eight or nine children, all drank the forbidden milk right through the forbidden period and looked very healthy on it, but one does not know what may happen in the future. It seems to me that the Government's attitude (if I may put it in a nutshell and, I hope, quite inoffensively), in the original measure, was rather this: "If there is an element of doubt after five years, well, we would rather be protected and the sufferer must pay for it." They have now been generous enough to put the period at thirty years. But surely the thesis still remains, in that they cannot prove that it was due to this particular accident. But the Government are saying: "If there is any element of doubt, and it cannot be proved either way, we shall be the beneficiaries and the sufferers

343
shall not." For those reasons, I support this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I intervene only briefly because of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, which I find a little puzzling and somewhat inconsistent. He reminded us that the art of politics is the art of the practicable. But surely there is nothing at all impracticable in the Government's accepting responsibility for a liability the extent of which cannot possibly be known at present. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has given us, from his experience, an example of the way the Government have accepted a liability which, when it first arose, could not possibly be foreseen: he quoted the example of men who suffered from a dose of mustard gas in the First World War, and who claimed as much as forty-four years later and were granted pensions which were found to be attributable to that particular cause.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, because I am sure he does not wish to misquote me. If he reads what I said, he will find that I referred to a continuous medical history of trouble. I was citing it as sore eyes for ten years; more sore eyes for a second decade, then leading up to kerotitis which caused blindness. I oppose a short term, but I cannot believe that as long as thirty years can pass without some signs showing themselves on which the patient can rely for proof.
LORD STONHAM: I should not dream of attempting to misrepresent what the noble Lord said. I heard and was very much impressed, and indeed moved, by what he said in Committee on an earlier occasion, and I listened with the greatest attention to what he said just now. But I think it is the case that the people to whom he referred were not pensioned until some forty years, and even forty-four years, after the time when they first experienced the mustard gas which eventually gave rise to the cause of pension. I do not think that that is in any way misrepresenting the particular case. Obviously there would have been a progressive history of disease, but apparently it did not reach such acute form as to necessitate action on behalf of these
344
men, even by such experienced organisations as St. Dunstan's or the British Legion, until the point when the disease became sufficiently acute.
I think this analogy is a perfectly fair one. We are here discussing an extreme limit of thirty years or no limit at all; and a period of forty-four years is well in excess of thirty years. I feel, therefore, that in that particular case we have an example of a disability caused by physical causes of the likely consequences of which, although our knowledge was imperfect, we had much more knowledge than we could possibly claim to have about the effects of these nuclear reactors in the case of an accident. As my noble friend Lord Taylor has pointed out, these consequences may well affect the next generation. I should have thought that that fact was in itself conclusive as showing that no limit can possibly be regarded as fair or equitable, and that it is within the art of politics and practicable for the Government to say they will not impose a limit of years, but that, if it can be shown that any disability arises to any person as the result of a nuclear accident, such person will be compensated, whatever the period of years.
3.45 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that in these radio-active matters it is impossible to put any time limit on the period within which some bad effects may become apparent. That has been known for quite a long time, and often cases can be referred back to some accident that occurred in the past. It is not necessarily the same amount of time with different people. In the case of the same occurrence; one person may be affected ten years after, and others twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years after. Therefore, I think the Government should put their minds to this to see whether we can have no time limit, because we cannot be certain about it.
I do not think that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is at all parallel here, because in the case of mustard gas people knew that something was wrong, whereas with these radio-active matters it is impossible to tell whether anything is wrong. I do not

345
think that one can detect this, with modern methods, although we may be able to do so in the future. It is therefore impossible to say to-day that there would be a long medical history leading up to the event. I support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has gone a long way to meet the points of view expressed from this side in Committee, and I hope that he will not stand too rigidly upon this thirty-year limit now. I hope he will apply the same consideration that he has given previously to the Amendment which has now been moved by my noble friend Lord Silkin. After all, it must be remembered that if anyone has suffered ionising radiation, and the effects do not manifest themselves until after a period of thirty years, then it is quite clear that he should be compensated in precisely the same way as those people who have been affected where the injuries manifested themselves within the thirty years. In principle, there is no difference; and since the noble Lord has gone as far as thirty years, surely it can make little difference if he makes the time limit unnecessary, because anyone who claims has, of course, to prove the case.
We had a discussion about this matter on some earlier Amendments, and there is no question—because, although we tried to get the onus of proof shifted on to the industrialist, this was resisted by the Government, and therefore the position remains—that anyone who is affected by ionising radiation, whether the effects manifest themselves within thirty years or after thirty years, the claimant has still to prove his case to the satisfaction of a court If a person is, in fact, affected in this way, and can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the injuries have manifested themselves after a period of thirty years, is there any reason why that person should not receive compensation? I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in all earnestness not to stand too firmly upon this point of thirty years. It is surely reasonable that anyone who is injured in this way should have the right to receive compensation, provided the case can he established—and that is the whole point. I hope, therefore, that he will consider the Amendment of my noble friend and concede it.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I pose one question to noble Lords who want no time limit? I am asking for information, because I am trying to make up my mind on the point. If there is no time limit, what happens to the unborn generation that is affected by the occurrence? As I understand it, in this Bill, if I have read it aright, they would have a claim. Are they to have a claim, or a possible claim, for ever, going back to the original occurrence? This is a point which I think needs considering if you have no time limit at all, and I hope from one side of the House or the other I shall get an answer.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, may I say one word by leave of the House? Certainly the effect would be that persons unborn at the time of the occurrence would, under this Amendment, receive compensation if they could prove their case. But they are required to prove their case
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, does that apply to one generation? What about the succeeding generations?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It would be the same with the succeeding generations. If the horrors of this thing pass on from generation to generation, surely it is right that the community should be the sufferer and not the individual person who was unborn when it happened.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I think we are getting into very deep water when we begin to deal with the question of what will happen to succeeding generations, and I do not know that anybody has offered an authoritative opinion upon the Bill as it is drafted, so far as that is concerned. The succeeding generation might appear before the lapse of thirty years—very easily so. That is not really the point which is at issue upon the Amendment to the Government Amendment which the House is now considering. The issue is whether there should be a time limit of thirty years or not. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills has said, that there is no precedent for the assumption by a Government of liability unlimited in point of time. But we are dealing with an entirely novel situation, and precedents created in the past in

347
relation to different circumstances should not bind or fetter us in any way in considering the problem with which we are now confronted.
I do not believe the noble Lord or anybody could possibly say that it is at all certain that the evil results could and would necessarily manifest themselves within thirty years. The evidence is only too clear that they may not manifest themselves in a person who has been subjected to such radiation until more than thirty years has elapsed. If that is once admitted—and the noble Lord has not said anything to the contrary—then it seems to me that the case for a time limit entirely disappears.
Let us remember also that what we are considering here is a question of Government policy. It is the policy of the Government to develop nuclear energy as a source of power. This is a policy which has been embarked upon after, I have no doubt, profound consideration, as part of a far-reaching and extensive plan for substituting such power in a large part for existing sources of power, and for setting up at many points in this country nuclear installations for the purpose of generating power. If that is the policy of the Government of this country—and it is not disagreed with in any part of the House—surely the Government ought to take full responsibility for this act of policy, and not say that some people shall be compensated for evil results which may follow from it and others shall not. I cannot see any logical reason or any ground of equity upon which such a proposition can be sustained, and I beg the Government to accept this Amendment which would bring a great deal of reassurance to people in the country—and thinking people all over are beginning to worry quite considerably about this problem. It is an extremely serious one in a field in which we know there are great dangers and in which much more knowledge may yet be revealed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, two noble Lords opposite raised the point about the unborn child. I think my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston answered them, but may I refer them to a few words of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, speaking on the Com-
348
mittee stage? He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212 (No. 16), col. 1035]:
"I beg the noble Lord"—
that was the Minister—
"to take into account that it is wholly contrary to natural justice to leave the citizen undefended against an unknown horror like this."
I should have thought the noble Lord would have agreed that "the citizen" would include the unborn citizen. I feel that my noble friends on this side of the House would have had some disappointment at the speech made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. I personally believe that it was his speech on the Committee stage which finally persuaded the Minister that he should retreat from the position he took up when my noble friend Lord Taylor moved his Amendment.
We were all deeply conscious of the great problems involved, particularly when the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, dealt with the question of mustard gas poisoning which was arising forty-two years after the gas attack. The noble Lord stated that he would support the Government because we had to take a practical view. This afternoon the noble Lord, Lords Mills, said that it would be wrong for us to place an unlimited liability upon a future Government. We have already placed an unlimited liability upon any future Government: the Atomic Energy Authority has an unlimited liability for an unlimited period. Why do the Government insist on treating this section of the nuclear industry differently from the Government side of the industry, the Atomic Energy Authority?
We have heard time and time again from various noble Lords on all sides of the House that we know little about the possibilities of disease and sickness arising from radiation. We know very little. I believe that if we are to err we must err on the side of the community and the unborn community. I should like to read a few words from the report of a statement that was made last night at the Insurance Institute of London. The statement was made by Dr. W. E. Belser, the Swiss director of the Atomic Energy Commission of the European Insurance Committee. In the course of his remarks he said that since even the specialists did not yet know the extent of the

349
damage that could arise from the production of nuclear energy, and the liability of the reactor operators was absolute, there had to be limitations of insurable liability. Obviously, no insurance company will accept unlimited liability. But, my Lords, the risk which we are asked to protect the public from is something similar to a war risk; it is something that the nation must accept. I believe it can be done only if the insurance cover is taken out by the Government, and I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, whether he will take the Bill back and think about it and produce a measure which will give whole cover to the community and the unborn people yet to come.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I, too, find it rather difficult to understand the logic of the Government's present position about this matter. I can quite appreciate that the Bill in the first instance, which conferred upon the private entrepreneur the right to have considered his application for a licence to create nuclear power, looked at the problem of compensation in what one might term the orthodox outlook of the law; that is to say, to provide compensation in the ordinary way. That is, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, an intelligible outlook, but one which is based on the past and does not face up to this problem, which is a problem of the modern world, in the terms of the modern conditions which have been created by nuclear fission. The inadequacy of this attitude was, I think. brought home to the Government at the Committee stage of this Bill, and they have, I think very properly—and I join myself with the words of commendation which have been passed upon them—agreed that this is an obligation which must be placed upon the community as a whole.
I compared nuclear fission to a wild beast which we were trying to harness in the interests of the community, and we have taken the view that it is in the interests of the community that a certain number of entrepreneurs shall be licensed to help in the process of using this wild beast. But surely it is the community which is taking upon itself the responsibility of allowing this work to go on. and if something goes wrong with it as a result of which, possibly in the distant future, men and women citizens in the
350
community suffer harm, surely the duty is on the community to compensate them. Surely thirty years is neither here nor there in respect of this matter, except in so far as problems of proof are concerned, which, after all, should not be regarded as the main element in the situation. I would, therefore, also ask the Government to look at this matter again and see whether they cannot, in a very much simpler clause that this, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmestor, emphasised, try to establish a responsibility on the community, acting through the Government, to face up to these risks which are so problematical but which are obviously so real.
This would have advantages in a number of other ways. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has drawn attention to one aspect of this matter, which is that the experimental work is to a considerable extent carried on in the universities. We do not know what is going to happen if an incident occurs in one of the universities. How is the insurance for that going to be provided for? I think that is one example of the sort of problems which have not been properly looked at and which, in my view, can be handled only on the basis that the Government will accept responsibility in this type of case. Therefore I suggest that this matter should be taken back; it should be looked at in much more comprehensive terms, and much more comprehensive responsibility should be established.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I want to support the Minister in his Amendment for three reasons. First of all, I am convinced that we must at this stage—and I emphasise at this stage—put a limit somewhere. After all, thirty years is a very generous time. Thirty years ago we had scarcely flown the Atlantic—indeed, I am not sure that we had. I think that in thirty years from now some of us may know what we are talking about in this matter—I am sure that we do not to-day. What is to prevent somebody present at an incident in this country being affected between now and thirty years from now by an incident in Europe? All that would be needed would be to have the wind coming from Europe. Europe is playing around with, and carrying out for America her experimental reactor programme, a far less

351
safe programme than ours. How are we going to cater for damage done by actions in Europe? Surely this is a matter for international consideration, and if the Amendment which the noble Lord the Minister proposes goes through, we shall have security for thirty years. Surely thirty years is a reasonable time to think it over. This Bill can always be amended. We have led so far in atomic energy; we should continue to do so. At the present moment the Euratom countries are busily engaged in trying to work out their own insurance schemes. I think we should not ignore that, and I think this thirty-year limit is a very generous one and, in our present knowledge, one to which we should all subscribe.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Silkin, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston and Lord Taylor, and to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, for their help to me in this difficult matter. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his reference to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said the difference between noble Lords opposite and myself in this matter is one of principle. The time limit of three years under the existing law for presenting claims on account of personal injury is admittedly not suitable for the kind of claims dealt with in this Bill. It is accepted that symptoms of radio-active injury may not appear for many years after the exposure which caused them. The difference between us is that noble Lords opposite regard this as justifying the unprecedented step of abolishing the time limit altogether in such cases. In moving my own Amendment I hope I made it clear that I am
very conscious of the anxieties which were expressed in Committee on both sides of the House. The time limit of thirty years which my Amendment would provide, although described by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, as neither here nor there, is three times as long as the limit originally provided in the Bill, and ten times as long as the limit provided in the existing law for personal injury claims. I will now explain why, in my view, there must be some time limit.
I am sure that we listened with great interest to what was said on this subject in Committee by my noble and learned friend the Lord President of the Council. As he then indicated, ever since 1623 it has been found necessary to impose some arbitrary limit on the time within which claims must be presented. We have conceded a thirty-year period for claims against licensees under this Bill, not only because of the long time which symptoms may take to appear, but also because of the large scale upon which licensees will be handling radio-active material. What we cannot agree to is that for any particular class of claims a time limit can be dispensed with altogether. I have still to answer the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, who drew my attention to a description in the Bill of the £5 million limit. I find it perfectly satisfactory, and therefore I do not propose that we should alter it. With regard to this Amendment, for the reasons I have given your Lordships, and because it is quite impracticable, I must ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment to my Amendment.
On Question, Whether the Amendment to the Amendment should be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Darwen, L.

Rea, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Shackleton, L.

Elton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Addison, V.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Silkin, L.

Stansgate, V.

Granville-West, L.

Stonham, L.

Greenhill, L.

Taylor, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Terrington, L.

Airedale, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L

Uvedale of North End, L.

Amulree, L.

Kershaw, L.

Williams, L.

Amwell, L.

Latham, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Windlesham, L.

Chorley, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Winster, L.

Crook, L.

Quibell, L.

Wise, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Cilcennin, V.

Gifford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Grenfell, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Mersey, V.

Hampton, L.

Soulbury, V.

Hastings, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Stonehaven, V.

Hawke, L.

Ailsa, M.

Hayter, L.

Salisbury, M.

Aberdare, L.

Killearn, L.

Willingdon, M.

Abinger, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bathurst, E

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Chesham, L.

Merthyr, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Conesford, L.

Middleton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Mills, L.

Dundee, E.

Croft, L.

Newall, L.

Gosford, F

Denham, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Home, E

Derwent, L.

Ravensdale of Kedleston, Baroness.

Malmesbury, E.

Digby, L.

Munster, E.

Dovercourt, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Ebury, L.

Saltoun, L.

Poulett, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Baroness.

Sandford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Ennisdale, L.

Sandys, L.

Selkirk, E.

Erskine, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Winterton, E.

Ferrier, L.

Teviot, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Teynham, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Geddes, L.

Waleran, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.25 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, whether any, and if so what, significance is to be attached to the fact that the Amendment in his name refers to a period of
"thirty years from the occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site in question which gave rise to the claim",
whereas the original wording of the Bill was:
"…the period of ten years "—
and I am not now questioning the number of years—
"commencing with the last date on which any ionising radiations to which the hurt or damage is wholly or partly attributable were emitted."
I should like to be assured that the change of wording does not mean that the date of the thirty years runs from a later or an earlier date than that of the emanation of the ionising radiation, and on why it was thought necessary to change the wording in this particular respect.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I wonder whether, when the noble Lord answers that question, he would also answer this further question. The noble Lord will remember that during the Committee stage I put to him the question as to whether Clause 3 (1) (b) referred also
354
to isotopes, in addition to irradiated nuclear fuel. His answer, if I remember aright, was that it did not apply to isotopes. Then when I asked why it did not, the noble Lord, I believe, asked for time in which to consider his reply. I should be very glad, for two reasons, if he would give me his reply to-clay. One reason, as he well knows, is that last week there was an occurrence when a radio-active isotope being transported by an aeroplane was found to be radiating energy and there was some apprehension as to the possible effect of this escape of radiation. Fortunately, no serious harm was done, but the man who handled the stuff had to be examined, and some delay was occasioned before he could be given the "all clear". I hope that he has suffered no injury on any account at all, either immediate or even remote but the fact is that there was that mild occurrence.
Then to-day, strangely enough, one reads of a position in West Ham where some developer had bought a factory on a site. The factory had been used for the purpose of chemical manufacturing. The chemical manufacturing firm had gone bankrupt, and this developer had bought it: and it was then discovered that the site was highly radio-active. I believe that the chairman of the West Ham Council said they would not allow that site to be developed and that it would become what he called a "reserved area"—in other words, we may describe it as an area sterilised because of the danger of

355
using it. One reads in an account of the matter that some forty tons of this chemical stuff, a good deal of which was radio-active, had been dug up. Here was an instance where danger from a radioactive emanation might do harm and give rise to injury.
The noble Lord may reply, with some justification, that this Bill is limited in its application, in the sense that only licensed sites for the purpose of erecting reactors are under consideration, and that here we are dealing purely with the question of insurance against anything happening. But if one may refer to the talk given last night, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the final senence in a newspaper report of Dr. Belser's remarks. It is this:
"Nuclear risks, Dr. Belser concluded, were insurable, but to satisfy all interests internationally the legislator and insurer would have to co-ordinate their technique."
That suggests to me that here we have an almost unknown kind of risk which we are all anxious to have covered; yet for the reasons I have already given, it is precluded from this Bill. One wonders, therefore, if the noble Lord would be kind enough to indicate to us whether that kind of risk also could be included in this Bill.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, asked if the alteration in wording which appears in my Amendment as compared with that in the original Bill had any significance. Its only significance is to make sure that the period, which is now thirty years, goes back to the earliest possible date. Therefore the date of the occurrence is taken to cover that.
LORD LATHAM: That is to say, it runs from the earliest possible date?
LORD MILLS: That is it precisely.
LORD LATHAM: Which may be to the disadvantage of the claimant.
LORD MILLS: I cannot see how that calculation is made. If it runs from the earliest possible date, it must be to the advantage of the claimant and not to his disadvantage.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: If the noble Lord will forgive me, if the
356
time limit is taken from the earliest occurrence it will run out earlier than it would do if it was taken from a later occurrence.
LORD MILLS: I am grateful for the correction. What I meant to say was that we have chosen a phrase which means that the earliest possible date that there could be any radio-activity was the date which we thought more suitable. In regard to Lord Greenhill's question about isotopes—
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord leaves the first point, that does mean that the injured person is going to be at a disadvantage—it may be a slight one—as compared with the position as it was before on this point.
LORD MILLS: I have already thanked the noble Lord for the correction. If he calls taking the first date on which the radio-activity could occur a disadvantage, then I accept it.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but, if I may be permitted, the point is this. In the Bill the date taken was the date when the ionising radiations were emitted. I am not a scientist and I do not know, but it might be that there would be a period between the occurrence and the emission of these radiations. If that be the case, then if the period of claim is to date from the occurrence, as distinct from the date of irradiation, as was the case under the Bill, then the claimant is put to that time disadvantage. I should like the Minister to say why that should be so.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, perhaps the House will forgive me for speaking again, but this is a very important point that my noble friend is on, because there may indeed be long periods between the original occurrence and the emissions which cause the damage. For instance, there might be a continuing effluent which is found later on to have given rise to such a condition. In regard to the Windscale disaster, it was feared at one time that the effluents into the sea would irradiate fish and that the eating of the fish—not only those fish, but their heirs and successors—might give rise to trouble in the people who ate them. These time limits are terribly important, because one has got an elastic series of emanations. My

357
friend is on such an important point that I hope the Minister will give it very serious consideration.
LORD MILLS: I personally fail to see the importance of this point. I think the right thing is to establish the date from which the liability could occur, and that the Bill does. In regard to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, as to isotopes, I propose to deal with that in my speech on the Third Reading, if he will permit me to do so.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am sorry that I do not find the answer which the noble Lord has given to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and others of my noble friends, at all satisfactory. However, so far as I ant able to gather from what he said—and it was by no means clear—his Amendment has the result, as compared with what now stands in the Bill as amended in Committee, of making the time limit run from an earlier date—in sonic cases, at any rate—than it would otherwise have run from. This can conceivably happen where there has been more than one incident, and in that case, apparently, under the Amendment we are now considering, the time limit will run from the earlier of those incidents. Surely that is riot reasonable. It might make a very considerable difference to the position of the claimant. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will be fully seized of this point, and I would ask the Government to think about this matter again. Surely we do not want to be niggardly in dealing with a question of this kind, and try to devise ways and means of reducing the claims and of limiting them as much as possible. In dealing with such an extremely serious matter as this, we ought to adopt the more generous view and allow the time limit to run from the latest possible date, not from the earliest possible date.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will reply to that point. If there is another incident, then of course the limitation period does run from the latest occurrence on the site which causes a claimant to be exposed to radio-activity, so I do not think the noble Lord's point has anything in it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: With all respect, that seems to me to be
358
an entirely different answer from that which the noble Lord gave before.
LORD LATHAM: May I put it in this plain and simple way? What were the reasons for altering the wording as it appeared in the Bill to the wording as it appears in the Amendment? That is the issue. What were the reasons?
4.37 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 3 (4) which has just been agreed. Its effect is that the Common-Law liability of the licensee continues to be extinguished even though the payment of claims made after ten years, or carrying the total over £5 million, may be temporarily held up pending Parliament's decision on how the licensee is to be reimbursed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, leave out from ("notwithstanding") to end of line 25 and insert ("that by reason of the proviso to subsection (4) of this section the licensee is not for the time being required to make any payment in satisfaction of the claim").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for this Amendment, which I think helps us a good deal. I would, however, ask him just one small point, because this is the first time we have seen this Amendment on paper. When is he going to lay this report before Parliament? I am thinking more of his successors than of the present Minister. Is there some time limit? It is very important. Let us remember that in such circumstances as these the normal compensation machinery is suspended, and it is not until Parliament has taken action on the report which the Minister brings to Parliament that matters begin to move. Is that not so? It is therefore rather important to know that the Minister will come before Parliament with his report within a reasonable time. Could we have a word on that matter?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will have a little patience until we come to Amendment No. 5. I think that he will find that his question is answered.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I thank the noble Lord.
Clause 4 [Provision of cover for licensee's liability]:
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this is another Amendment which is consequential on my Amendment to Clause 3 (4). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, leave out from "if" to "remains" in line 1 on page 6, and insert "a claim in respect of any earlier cover period made within ten years of the occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site which gave rise to the claim".—(Lord Mills.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what is the significance of having a period of ten years in this connection?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this deals with insurance cover, which is limited to ten years, and that is the reason for having ten years in this place.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment though not connected with the Amendment to Clause 3 (4). Its purpose is to bring the definition of "cover period" at the end of Clause 4 (1) into line with Clause 3 (1) (b), in so far as it relates to the licensee's liability for radio-active injury or damage from fuel in transit in the United Kingdom after being irradiated at the licensed site. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 19, leave out from "carriage" to end of line 21 and insert "on behalf of the licensee within, or between places within, the United Kingdom of nuclear fuel irradiated in the course of its use at the site under his licence."—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert:
"(3) In the case of each licensed site, the licensee—

(a)shall give notice in writing to the Minister forthwith—

(i) upon its appearing to the licensee that the aggregate amount of any claims such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section made in respect of any cover period falling within the period of the licensee's responsibility has reached three million pounds; and

(ii) of the receipt by the licensee of any claim more than ten years after the occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site which gave rise thereto; and

360

(b) if any cover period falling within the period of the licensee's responsibility has ended, shall not later than the thirty-first day of January in each year send to the Minister in writing a statement in respect of the last preceding calendar year showing the date when that cover period ended and the following particulars of any claims in respect of that period as at the beginning and end respectively of the year to which the statement relates, that is to say—

(i) the aggregate number of claims received;

(ii) the aggregate number of claims established; and

(iii) the aggregate number and aggregate amount of claims satisfied;

and the Minister shall as soon as may be lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any notice received by him under paragraph (a) of this subsection and a report (in such form as, having regard to the proviso to subsection (4) of section three of this Act, he may consider appropriate) with respect to any statements received by him under paragraph (b) of this subsection".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we were debating just now the Amendment which I proposed in Clause 3 (4), I mentioned that I should be moving another Amendment to ensure that Parliament was able to take action in good time on claims which carried the total beyond the £5 million of the licensee's cover or were presented after more than ten years. This Amendment substitutes a new subsection (3) in Clause 4. It requires the licensee to inform the Minister immediately it appears that claims arising out of any occurrence have reached £3 million—I repeat, £3 million. In other words, he must notify the Minister when the rate at which claims are coming in suggests that the £5 million cover may possibly be exceeded. The licensee must also inform the Minister immediately he receives any claim relating to an occurrence which happened more than ten years before. As soon as he receives a notice of either description the Minister must lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament. The object, of course, is to enable Parliament to take action in good time to lay down how the licensee is to be reimbursed for established claims in excess of £5 million or for claims presented after ten years. By this means the disposal of claims will be expedited and consequent hardship to claimants avoided.
The Amendment also requires the I Minister to make an annual report to Parliament on the disposal of claims

361
arising out of any occurrence. Thus at regular intervals Parliament will be able to form an idea of the extent of the problem and the rate at which claims are being received and disposed of. I am satisfied that this Amendment will greatly facilitate the arrangements provided in my Amendment to Clause 3 (4), and I therefore commend it for your Lordships' acceptance. I beg to move,
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, in this case the Minister has met all the points we made on the earlier stage, and we are very much obliged to him.
4.47 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST LORD GRANVILLE-WEST moved to leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:
Provision of cover for licensee's liability
"4. All claims in connection with the use of the site which have been or may be duly established in respect of any hurt to any person or any damage to any property caused by such ionising radiations as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act, whether made by virtue of the said subsection (1) or otherwise, shall be defrayed in full out of moneys provided by Parliament:
Provided that there shall be attached to all nuclear site licences granted by the Minister such provision for the indemnification of and the reimbursement by the licensee in whole or in part of any moneys so defrayed by Parliament and any costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith and for securing the payment thereof as he may think fit."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friends and myself. It is a very simple one. It seeks to extend Parliamentary responsibility with regard to claimants who have established their claims beyond the amount set out in the amended Clause 3 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to-day. The object of the clause is to bring the responsibility to Parliament for the payment of compensation for persons who are injured and who have established their claims.
Under the amended Clause 3, an injured person may fall into one of two categories. if he establishes his claim
362
either by action in court or by agreement, it may well be that, if he is among a limited number of claimants where the aggregate claims do not exceed £5 million, he will receive his compensation in the ordinary way. But if he is unfortunate enough to have been involved in a specially dangerous occurrence where the claims exceed £5 million, although he brings an action in court, establishes his claim and obtains judgment in respect of compensation, he is not entitled to receive payment of that compensation or enforce the judgment of the court until there has been a report to Parliament and Parliament has decided in what way the licensee is to be reimbursed for the excess of his liability.
Similarly, a member of the public who has been injured by the emission of nuclear ionising radiations and the effects of that radiation do not manifest themselves within a period of ten years but after that period, and who brings an action, establishes his claim, satisfies the court that he is entitled to judgment and is awarded compensation, is not entitled to enforce his claim until Parliament considers the matter and decides what contribution should be made to the licensee or in what way the licensee should be reimbursed to meet the claims for compensation.
There seems to have been an endeavour in this Bill to make the provisions as complicated as they possibly could be. This Amendment will tend to simplify the procedure. All that the claimant has to do is to prove his case to the satisfaction of the court. Having done that, then Parliament, which already is accepting responsibility for the excess of £5 million and far the satisfaction of claims which arise after ten years, can in the first instance pay the compensation and then recoup itself for such amount as may be necessary from the licensee whose nuclear reactor or installations cause the damage complained of. It would therefore seem to me to be highly desirable that this rather simpler procedure should be adopted. Parliament is accepting the responsibility, and although the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said on the earlier Amendment that we cannot bind succeeding Parliaments, what he has done in his own Amendment in Clause 3 is either to bind succeeding

363
Parliaments (because Parliament will have to decide in the future how the excess payments shall be reimbursed to the licensee) or, if future Parliaments are not bound, to lay down that a person who has established a claim may receive no compensation whatever. In those circumstances I would ask the noble Lord to view sympathetically the object of this Amendment and to concede it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Granville-West).
4.52 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, as I understand it, the main object of this Amendment is to ensure that established claims for radio-active injury or damage are paid in full out of monies provided by Parliament. My Amendment to Clause 3 (4) in fact ensures that such claims are met in full without the fundamental objections inherent in the present Amendment. In the main, the nuclear reactors with which we are concerned in this Bill will be run by commercial undertakings—mainly the nationalised Electricity Boards and, in a few cases, presumably, by private enterprise. The reactors will be operated by these bodies in the ordinary course of their commercial business, and the Government see no reason why they should not be required to insure in the ordinary commercial way against the risks involved.
Furthermore, we regard it as advisable that the long-established organisation of the British insurance companies should be available for settling claims against those licensees who choose to cover their liability by insurance. The insurance companies' organisation has long experience of settling claims of all kinds. It is, therefore, the agency most likely to settle expeditiously the kind of claim which might arise under the Bill; and more so if such claims should arise in any volume. In so far as claims arise beyond the insurable limit, these will be taken care of by the Amendments that I have moved this afternoon. The taxpayer should not be committed without Parliament having had an opportunity of reviewing the situation in the light of the circumstances arising at the time. I therefore submit to your Lordships that this Amendment should be rejected.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I was a little disturbed by what the noble Lord just said about reactors being mainly operated by industry, and I should like to return to a point that I touched on earlier; that is, the position of the research reactor. There are a number of different kinds of reactor. There is the large 5-megawatt reactor which might be operated by a power station; and then there could be the small 100-kilowatt reactor, which would be a sort of middle-scale reactor which might be operated by the university. If the Government took on this general responsibility, they would remove from a university carrying out research work a burden which, unless I have misunderstood the Bill, is likely to be quite serious. I do not know how far the university, faced with the upkeep of a research reactor, is going to find the large amount, of possibly several thousand pounds a year that would be necessary.
Whilst it is not strictly relevant to the Amendment as drafted, I am wondering whether, in considering this matter, the Minister could consider how such universities are to carry on their operations, and whether we may not be in danger of driving out of this country the type of research reactor which is absolutely essential for the further advance of nuclear energy. I appreciate that those reactors which are controlled, say, by the Atomic Energy Authority are already dealt with. The position, however, of the independent research reactor in the university, which cannot by any stretch of imagination, except possibly through the medium of a body which the National Research Development Corporation might take up, expect to recoup themselves, is different and this is likely to add seriously to the expenses. All these problems, as I understand it, would disappear if the Government were willing to accept this Amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister could deal with that particular point.
4.57 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has not really dealt with the case made by my noble friend Lord Granville-West. My noble friend put forward a proposal which, in his view—and I think he made the case—would simplify the procedure by which claims would be paid without involving the Exchequer in one penny piece extra

365
expense. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, did not attempt to suggest that it would be more expensive to accept this Amendment; and I do not think he could have made out such a case. It is going to cost the country no more to do it in the way my noble friend Lord Granville-West has suggested than to do it in the way proposed in the Bill. On the other hand, the advantage of the Amendment is that it is simple. The claimant knows exactly where he stands: his claim is against the Government. The Amendment has not the disadvantage of having two different methods of payment, one if the claims exceed £5 million, and another if they do not exceed £5 million, with one method of payment if the claim is made after ten years, and another method if the claim is made before ten years. The Amendment eliminates all those uncertainties and complexities, and the claim is made against one body—the Government.
What are the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Mills, gave for not accepting the Amendment? He said, first of all, that he saw no reason why the licensee should not be required to insure. I see no reason for that either. But this Amendment does not excuse licensees from insuring. As the Bill now stands, they will still be liable for the first £5 million, or whatever sum is agreed upon, and the Amendment itself requires that the licensee should recoup the Government, in whole or in part, for any moneys they expend. As the Bill stands, the licensee would be required to insure up to £5 million, and the Government would find the rest. The recoupment would come out of the insurance, and the wise licensee would, of course, insure, and he would not be excused from insuring if it were made one of the conditions of the grant of the licence. So I could not follow what the noble Lord meant by saying that under the Amendment the licensee would be excused from insuring. I hope he will agree that that is a misrepresentation—not a deliberate one, of course—or a misunderstanding of the intentions of the Amendment which says, quite clearly, that there must be recoupment.
The noble Lord's next point was that insurance companies had an organisation which was accustomed to dealing with claims, and therefore they, rather than the Government, were the more suitable bodies to deal with claims. I would say two things to the noble Lord in answer
366
to that. In the first place, the Government have a great many claims made against them, as the noble Lord will know. The Government are constantly having to meet claims, and in my own experience as a lawyer I should say that the Government are quite as efficient in resisting claims and have as good an organisation as any insurance company. Indeed, acting for claimants I would rather deal with an insurance company than I would with the Government. I find that the Government are much tougher and much better at resisting claims than insurance companies are.
Apart from that, let us suppose that one is as good as the other. The fact remains that the Government must still have an organisation in respect of claims over £5 million, and in respect of claims that are made after ten years. Those will be dealt with, not by insurance companies but by the Government. Indeed, the noble Lord's clause provides that there must be no settlement after ten years except with the approval of the Government. The Government will be required to have an organisation to deal with claims, and would it not be much simpler that there should be one organisation dealing with all the claims rather than two separate organisations, one dealing with claims in one set of circumstances and one dealing with claims in another. For these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord to think about this point again. I can promise him that if he does not he will be hearing about it again in another place. There is no money involved in this matter, and there is no particular advantage in resisting this Amendment, which would make it simpler for the claimant to establish his case and, I think, simpler for all parties. I suggest that this is an Amendment which is well worthy of the most serious consideration.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises, I think the House would agree that, throughout the course of debates on this Bill, none of us has any real idea of the magnitude of the problem. We may have only a few nuclear reactors to-day, but in the course of years we may have them spread throughout the country in much the same number as the oil power stations which are such a prominent part of our life to-day. If we have this large number of

367
reactors held in the hands of private industry, how are they going to be insured? With what insurance company? Are they going to be insured with individual insurance companies, or are they to be insured with a combination of some of the biggest insurance companies? If they are to be insured with quite a number of insurance companies, what is the position of a youth who has contracted a disease? His parents may be dead, and there may be little written evidence as to how that child contracted that disease. During the youth's life there may be a number of explosions. How does the youth go about making his claim? Has he to go from one insurance company to another making a claim and having it rejected? If that is the situation, it is quite intolerable, and should not be permitted by this House.
I believe that the safeguard lies in the Amendment which has been moved this afternoon by my noble friend. There would be one body, the Government, to whom a legitimate claim would be made, and then it would be up to the Government to obtain repayment from the licensee. If they were unable to put the blame on to any particular licensee, then they would have to accept the obligations. I think it would be intolerable that any person, for ten, fifteen or twenty years, should have to go round from one insurance company to another lodging a claim and having it rejected. The only people who would gain by it would be the legal profession.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I rise, with the leave of the House, mainly to say to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that he should read this Amendment again and the original Clause 4. He will find that the system of insurance which was provided in the Bill is wiped away by this Amendment. I would also remind the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the conditions of insurance are to be to the satisfaction of the Minister; there is that safeguard in the Bill. So far as research is concerned—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton referred—of course the Government are anxious to promote research and to do everything they can to facilitate it. But this Bill places a duty upon the Minister to lay down conditions under which certain
368
reactors shall be operated and certain materials shall be transported.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He said "certain reactors". Does he in fact mean all reactors other than Government-owned ones?
LORD MILLS: It does in fact mean all reactors, and there is power in Clause 1 (1) (b) to bring other matters within the ambit of the Bill. But it is the Minister's duty to lay down the conditions, for safety reasons, under which they shall be operated, and also to arrange for compensation if anyone should suffer injury.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord said that there was nothing in this Amendment about insurance. If he reads the Amendment he will see that it says:
"… that there shall be attached to all nuclear site licences … such provision for the indemnification of and the reimbursement by the licensee … as he may think fit."
Surely, that implies insurance—I agree that it does not say so in actual words. But if the noble Lord, Lord Mills, does not like the actual wording of the Amendment I am sure that my noble friend Lord Granville-West will take it back like a shot if Lord Mills will undertake to put it in a form he would like. This Amendment certainly would enable the Minister to require that an insurance should be taken out to cover the indemnification. It does not preclude the insurance at all.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 [Dangerous occurrences in connection with licensed sites]:
LORD MILLS: My Lords, Clause 5 (2) requires a licensee to report at once to the Minister (but to no one else) occurrences which may be listed in regulations as capable, directly or indirectly, of affecting public safety. There may be some kinds of occurrence which might require immediate action by local services such as, for example, the police. Consequently it is desirable that the Minister should be able to require a licensee to report occurrences of those kinds direct to the local service concerned, or to the authority responsible for it, as well as to the Minister himself. The present Amendment would enable

369
the Minister to place this obligation on the licensee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, after ("Minister") to insert ("and to such other persons, if any, as may be prescribed in relation to occurrences of that class or description").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, moved an Amendment in Committee with the object of making it clear that if a person does not register his presence in the vicinity of a nuclear occurrence under Clause 5 (5), he is not thereby debarred from making a claim for injury or damage later. Though I thought the Amendment unnecessary I promised to consider the noble Lord's proposal further. I am still not entirely convinced that an Amendment is needed here, but I am anxious to set the noble Lord's mind at rest if I can, and therefore hope that the present Amendment will be acceptable to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to any right of any person to claim against the licensee by virtue of subsection (1) of section three of this Act").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Amendment that he has moved. It seems to me fully to meat the case and settle any dubiety there might have been as it was originally, and of course we support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
Clause 8 [Liability of Government Departments and Atomic Energy Authority in respect of nuclear installations]:
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment applies the thirty-year time limit to the presentation of claims for radioactive injury or damage against a Government Department. But there is no question of having to seek further legislation where a claim is presented after ten years or carries the total above £5 million, as there will be in the case of licensees. The reason for this is that Government Departments do not normally insure and it does not therefore matter whether the risk is insurable or not. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 5 after ("(1)") insert ("and the proviso to subsection (4)").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to deal with Amendment No. 10 and Amendment No. 11 together. These Amendments apply the 30-year time limit to the presentation of claims for radioactive injury or damage against the Atomic Energy Authority. I should remind your Lordships again that the time limits under the existing law are not as the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, presumed, but are three years for personal injury and six years for damage to property (for damage to property in Scotland, twenty years). The Amendment therefore provides a very substantial extension. Like Government Departments, the Atomic Energy Authority do not normally insure, and therefore there will be no need for further legislation if claims are presented after ten years or if they carry the total to more than £5 million. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, leave out ("and").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, at end insert—
("(d) in subsection (4) of the said section three, the proviso shall be omitted, and for the words 'the occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site in question which gave rise to the claim' there shall be substituted the words the occurrence which gave rise to the claim being an occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, premises occupied by the Authority or an occurrence (whether or not in connection with the use of such premises) in the course of any carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel on behalf of the Authority within, or between places within, the United Kingdom.'")—(Lord Mills.)
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 11):
5.18 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Bill, has consented to place

371
Her Majesty's interest, so far at it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord was going to say a few words on the Third Reading.
LORD MILLS: I am going to say them on proposing the passing of the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: This Bill has occupied a good deal of time of the House, and I think quite rightly. The noble Lord, in introducing this measure—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, the noble Lord is taking the Third Reading formally, because he was then going to move the privilege Amendments, and, having moved the privilege Amendments, then move that the Bill do now pass and have a discussion on that. I only wanted the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to know what the procedure was.
LORD SILKIN: I should much prefer to follow the noble Lord and allow him to make his speech.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD MILLS: I beg to move that the privilege Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the privilege Amendments be agreed to.—(Lord Mills.)
5.20 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. Let me first of all remind your Lordships why this Bill is necessary. The Electricity Boards will before long have in operation or under construction half a dozen nuclear power stations and more will be constructed later. One private firm is already operating a research reactor. The majority of these installations will be handling radio-active materials on a large scale. It is necessary, first, to protect the public, so far as is reasonably possible, by imposing under licence safety controls on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of these installations, thus ensuring that the best current practice is observed and the risk of radio-active
372
injury or damage is reduced to the minimum.
Secondly, it is necessary to ensure that if anyone suffers radio-active injury or damage from such an installation, he may be able to obtain compensation. At present a claim on account of injury or damage by radio-activity against an Electricity Board cannot succeed unless negligence is proved. Since the risks arising from the licensee's operations will be comparable with those from the operation of the Atomic Energy Authority, licensees. whether Electricity Boards or private firms, should be required like the Authority under the 1954 Act to pay compensation in such cases, whether they have been negligent or not otherwise claims might be difficult, if not impossible, of proof.
To ensure that claimants who establish their claims will be compensated, it is provided that licensees should be required to take out cover in the form of insurance or liquid assets. Since the licensee will be liable, whether negligent or not, the cover is limited to £5 million, and if established claims carry the total beyond that sum, the Amendments which pour Lordships have accepted this afternoon should secure that they are paid and the licensee reimbursed by such means as Parliament may determine. The Amendments will also enable claims to be presented within thirty years not only against licensees but also against the Atomic Energy Authority and Government Departments. These requirements cannot be secured under existing legislation. In case noble Lords opposite are under any misapprehension that this Bill worsens the position of the ordinary citizen vis-à-vis the operator of a nuclear installation, let me say at once that this is not so. There was, moreover, some suggestion that the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, gave the Government all the necessary powers of control, and that this Bill was therefore unnecessary. I must try to remove this impression also.
Under the law as it stands, no claim for personal injury by radio-activity is admissible unless it is presented within three years, whether it be against the Atomic Energy Authority or anyone else. Under the Bill as drafted, the time limit was to be ten years and, as amended by your Lordships, it is to be thirty years

373
for claims against licensees, the Authority or a Government Department. Under the Atomic Energy Authority Act the Authority are liable for radio-active injury or damage regardless of whether they have been negligent, but in the case of Electricity Boards to which that Act does riot apply, negligence would have to be proved were it not for this Bill.
Finally, the Bill enables the Minister to impose statutorily the safety conditions under which licensees must construct, operate and maintain their installations and for rendering safe installations no longer in use. These objects cannot be secured at all under the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, and cannot he effectively secured under the Atomic Energy Act, 1946. I hope, therefore, that on reflection your Lordships will agree that this Bill would confer on the ordinary citizen greater protection against radioactive risks and better facilities for obtaining compensation than he at present enjoys.
I promised in Committee to think again about the proposal of the noble Lords., Lord Shepherd, Lord Silkin and Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, that the Minister should revoke a nuclear site licence if, without his consent, the constitution or control of the licensed body were materially changed. I have attentively considered this suggestion and have come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to include such a provision. Safety, together with compensation for radio-active injury or damage, is the object of the Bill. The interests which control the affairs of a licensed body are only relevant in so far as they affect the safety of the installation or the licensee's capacity to pay compensation. The Minister will have means of knowing through his inspectorate whether the licensee's installations are being operated in accordance with the conditions of the licence—that is, in accordance with the best safety standards. It would be alien to the objects of the Bill to provide specifically for revocation on change of ownership.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, asked me in Committee whether it would be desirable to include the transport of isotopes in the Bill and I promised to consider the matter. Isotopes are normally transported in small quantities, and, although they might be dangerous
374
if carelessly handled, the risk is similar to the risk in transporting many other substances, such as acids, and far less than the risk in transporting irradiated nuclear fuel. The Bill imposes on the licensee an absolute liability, irrespective of negligence on his part, for injury or damage from irradiated fuel elements in transit, because the material is highly radio-active and the quantities comparatively large. It would not be appropriate to impose the same liability in respect of relatively small quantities of radioactive materials. (Besides the substances which are commonly know as isotopes, other radio-active substances are frequently required to be transported.) Regulations and a code of practice for the transport of all radio-active materials are under consideration by the Ministry of Transport, and the necessary statutory powers exist in section 5 of the Radioactive Substances Act, 1948.
My Lords, before I sit down—
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that subject, would he mind if I ask this question? Do I understand that the present law is that they are liable in the case of negligence? Is that the position?
LORD MILLS: I am sorry I did not quite catch the point of the noble Lord's question.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: understood the noble Lord to say that he was not going to make a licensee liable in all cases for isotopes in transit. I understood him to say that without the Bill a great many people would be liable for negligence when there was damage caused, if they were negligent. All I am asking is: under the present law, without any alteration, before the passage of this Bill and before any results of any consideration that the Government are making, am I right in thinking that for negligence a firm would be liable?
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords, I think I said on that question that radioactive substances frequently required to be transported, and that the risk is similar to that in transporting many other substances, such as acids; and of course the person transporting those materials is liable at Common Law for any damage. I also said that regulations and the code of practice for the transport of all radio-

375
active materials are at present under consideration.
Before I sit down, may I thank my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Council and my other noble friends for their assistance. I should also like to repeat my appreciation, which I have already voiced, to the noble Lords, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, Lord Silkin, Lord Taylor and other noble Lords opposite for their helpful contributions to our discussions. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mills.)
5.31 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, since we are in a thanksgiving mood I should like to express my appreciation of the friendly words of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and to express my appreciation of the great help that some of my noble friends and I have received from the new accessions to this House. We have already welcomed those concerned to this House, but this is the first measure in which they have participated. I think that noble Lords on all sides of the House will recognise that a change has taken place in the atmosphere of this House, and I am sure that most noble Lords will agree it has been a change for the better.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Hear, hear!
LORD SILKIN: Every speech made has been a reasoned speech. I will not say for a moment that all the right has been on one side or the other, but every new noble Lord who has spoken has expressed himself clearly and succinctly and stated a point of view which he genuinely believed; and I believe this House has been immeasurably strengthened by the new noble Lords who have taken part in this debate to say nothing of other noble Lords.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mills—and I am sure he will understand that I say it in the friendliest possible way—that he would have saved himself a good deal of trouble if he had only been a little more explanatory at the outset as to the purposes of this Bill. I found myself puzzled for a long time as to what this Bill was all about. I am not a scientific person, and therefore I found it more difficult than many people would. I knew
376
that the Bill was stated to be for the purpose of enabling the Minister to make conditions as regards safety and for the granting of licences, but I could never quite make out to whom these licences were to be granted and what was their purpose. As the discussions developed I realised that the noble Lord was apparently disguising what I think is the beginning of a new Industrial Revolution. This seems to me to be a far bigger thing than he ever led us to believe, from the way in which he introduced the Bill and from some of his early speeches. I now find that this is an introductory stage to a complete revolution in forms of energy and power, and that this initiation of the principle of the granting of licences is one of the big things of the present century. The noble Lord has been unduly modest in not claiming for this Bill the importance it deserves. I hope he will be able to say that my view of the importance of this Bill is justified by what has taken place through its various stages.
I am glad that the noble Lord feels that he has been assisted in the passage of this Bill, not only by his noble friends but from all parts of the House. We believe that this Bill is to-day a much better Bill than it was when it first appeared; and this is due in large measure to the hard work which a great many noble Lords have put in in dealing with it. And I believe the end is not yet in sight. The noble Lord has some more hurdles to go through in another place, and I do not suppose for a moment that the Bill is today in its final form. But I feel that in this particular case your Lordships' House has justified itself and that we have played a good part, an important part, in dealing with a measure which, as I have said, is of such far-reaching importance.
I want to say just one or two words about the matters which, in my view, are still in dispute. There are really two broad matters of policy which are still in dispute and which the noble Lord will have to think about in the further stages in another place. The first is whether there should be unlimited liability or liability for a period; and I feel sure that on this point he is going to be pressed further. Certainly, with every desire to look at this matter objectively, I remain completely unconvinced by the case that has been made against unlimited liability. I think it only right that, with this unknown

377
peril from which we are suffering, but which may, at the same time, be connected with something which is a tremendous boon to mankind, we should not be niggardly about compensating people who are its victims.
One rather tends to be carried away by the use of words. When we say "The Government should pay" or "Parliament should pay", what we are really meaning is that we—all of us; the nation; every individual—should feel a responsibility towards the unfortunate individuals concerned—who might be ourselves. Noble Lords on that side of the House and noble Lords on this side of the House are just as liable to be victims of "an occurrence" as the people whom we are talking about. What we are saying is that whoever is injured, at whatever time, should be compensated by the community. And is there any one of us, individually, who would grudge the necessary payment? I am sure there is not, because we should feel that the injury was sustained in the public interest, just as that was the case with people who were the victims of war damage.
We had no difficulty about that, my Lords. I see in the House the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. He and I were associated during the war on questions of war damage and matters of that kind. Nobody grudged the payment of war-damage compensation to people who were the innocent victims of enemy attack; and this is just the same sort of thing. There is no question of negligence; there is no question of people getting in the way of radio-activity. People contract the disability through no fault of their own, and it should undoubtedly be a national responsibility. The Government acquired a good deal of experience in dealing with war-damage claims. The noble Lord spoke about insurance companies having experience. But the Government acquired a tremendous amount of experience in dealing with such claims, and they have been doing so every day—not only in dealing with war-damage claims but in dealing with all sorts of other claims against the Government. However, I do not want to pursue this point. I want to express, finally, the gratitude of myself and my noble friends for such advances as the noble Lord has been able to make in this
378
Bill, and to give him the assurance that he will be pressed for more.
5.40 p.m.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I have not taken part in the discussions on the details of this measure, but I wonder whether I may say one thing. I have for many years past been pressing the opinion that Parliamentary draftsmen should be instructed by their Ministers on all occasions to make their Bills as simple as possible and to make it as easy as possible for them to be understood by ordinary people. This Bill is a technical Bill, and is bound to be complicated, but the idea behind it is a perfectly simple one, and one that anybody can understand if it is put into simple language. I should have thought that it should not have been beyond the wit of man to design a simpler vehicle than this rather cumbrous coach (if I might put it in that way) to bring this idea into effect. I beg your Lordships' pardon, but I could not resist raising this as another peg on which to hang my plea for simplicity of language in Acts of Parliament.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, may I add one word to that which has already been said in appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Mills? My noble friend Lord Silkin very properly stressed the great assistance that we on this side of the House have received from the new Members. As one of the older Members, I should like to say a word in order to provide a peg on which to hang this particular plea of mine. It is this. When the noble Lord, Lord Mills, referred to the danger of transporting isotopes as being no greater than, or comparable with, the transport of acids, I could not help feeling that perhaps he was overlooking the enormous increase that has taken place in recent times in the business of selling isotopes. It is not only that isotopes are now being used greatly and increasingly in medicine: they are also being used not only in research work but in the everyday processes of ordinary industrial production. The risk of possible injury from ionising radiation is therefore very great. While thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mills, as is undoubtedly his due, for his very kind attention to the points that we raised, I feel that the time is ripe for considering the dangers which are being run

379
by the increasing, daily use of this highly toxic product.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

GAMBLING AND BETTING LAWS
5.44 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what legislation they intend to introduce to give effect to the recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission on Gambling debated in this House in February, 1956 (Lord Silkin's Motion), and subsequently referred to in the course of debates on 27th June, 1956 (Viscount Astor's Motion), and on 6th May, 1958. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask leave to put the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. However, before doing so, perhaps I may keep you for a few moments briefly to run over the reasons why I put this Question down on the Paper. In the last few minutes your Lordships have heard a plea from the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, for plain language—and I can assure your Lordships that for the next few moments you will get it.
My Lords, the story behind this Question is as follows. In April, 1949, a Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gambling was set up by the Government. The Final Report of that Commission was presented about two years later, after some forty meetings had been held and the best part of £12,000 had been spent in producing the Report. At the end of the period of five years from the presentation of the Report, nothing whatever had happened. At this point the Chairman, Mr. Henry Willink, wrote a letter to The Times complaining that the distinguished people who had given up so much time to it, and the money which had been spent, appeared to have produced no reaction from the Government. As a result of this, in February, 1956—to be exact, on February 8—Lord Silkin put down a Motion calling attention to the Report, and an exhaustive debate ensued on the subject of betting and gambling generally. At the end of that date Lord Silkin withdrew his Motion, intimating his clear intention of pursuing the matter further. I am a little sorry that the noble Lord has just left the Chamber, but perhaps he will be back in
380
a minute or two and will say a few words. I hope he will.
In the debate of February, 1956, it was generally felt that gambling in some form or another is inevitable, whether one approves of it or not, and that to stamp it out in every form would be quite impracticable, even it that were desirable. I do not propose to take up the time of the House this evening by going over all that ground again. We all have feelings about it, and it would be quite a waste of time—and not the object of my Question—again to go over the pros and cons and the dangers of different forms of betting or gambling. However, I would remind your Lordships of the words used by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle in the course of that debate of nearly three years ago. During what was, in my opinion, a remarkable speech, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 195, col. 823]:
"The laws…regarding betting and gambling are so chaotic that the time has come for a radical investigation and reformation of them. They are so chaotic that I believe it will be the height of folly to engage in any more patchwork legislation. Patchwork legislation will only confuse more and more the existing conditions."
Replying to that debate on behalf of the Government, Lord Mancroft—who I am delighted to see in the Chamber this evening: he will be able to see that I do not put words into his mouth which he did not speak, which I shall be extremely careful not to do—said [col. 833]:
"There is no dust on my copy of the Report. It is dog-eared and well thumbed, and not all the thumb marks are my own."
He went on to claim shortage of Parliamentary time—even after five years, my Lords! And he added [col. 834]:
"With a crowded legislative programme before Parliament, with a large number of important topics to be dealt with, I ask your Lordships' sympathetic consideration of the difficulty of fitting in a topic such as this."
I feel that any fair-minded person hearing those words must have formed the conclusion that the Government did not, in fact, look upon this as a particularly important matter. I really think that that is the implication, though it may not have been intended.
Later on in his speech Lord Mancroft said this [col. 837]:
"The Government believe that a satisfactory basis for legislation…would be roughly

381
along these lines: first, there should be a strict control over the provision, on a commercial basis. of all major forms of gambling facilities, including the licensing or registration of all those who provide such facilities; secondly, the law should apply fairly to all sections of the community.…Thirdly, as much information as is practicable should be made available to the public about the extent of gambling and, wherever possible, about the conduct of the various forms of gambling. These seem to me to be a satisfactory basis for tackling this question of legislation."
Finally, he said [col. 841]:
"I hope I have expressed the views of the Government in general as clearly as I possibly can. I cannot…give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced to-morrow. I can only repeat as firmly as possible that the Government have no intention of neglecting this Report. I promise the House that the strong and carefully expressed feelings that have been put forward in this debate will be taken into account by the Government. This is a problem that has to be tackled; the Government means to tackle it…"
That statement must have given considerable pleasure to those who feel that something should he done, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in withdrawing his Motion, indicated that he was glad to hear that the Government took the matter seriously and had outlined in general terms what they intended to do, though to be quite fair the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, had indicated that it could not be done "tomorrow". Precisely what the noble Lord meant by that expression I do not know.
Five months later, in the course of a further debate, the matter of gambling came up again. I remember it well, because I brought up the question of boxing and got into extremely hot water as a result. Replying for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 198, col. 119]:
"As to gambling, the law on which is in a state of unparalleled confusion, Her Majesty's Government propose to start again with legislation designed to bring the law into line with present practice and opinion. This will be carried out by legalising those forms of gambling which are at present tolerated, and at the same time prohibiting the conduct of privately organised gambling…"
"…When I last spoke to your Lordships on this subject, I said it would not be possible to introduce this legislation to-morrow. Having now gone into the matter in more detail, I must warn the House that it will not now he possible to introduce this legislation the day after tomorrow. It has proved much more complicated than we thought."
Time rolled on, and in May, 1958, as a result of a Question on the unsuccessful prosecution of Mr. John Aspinall, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, entered the lists. In his reply for the Government, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 209, col. 22]:
"I regret that I cannot give any undertaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that legislation will he introduced at any particular time to give effect to these recommendations and the other recommendations of the Royal Commission"—
By that time it was eight years old—
"What prospects future Sessions may hold is something which your Lordships would not expect me to be able to foresee."
If the noble Lord, answering for the Government, with a Government Department briefing, could not say, I do not see who could.
"We should, I think, bear in mind that while nobody will dispute the social importance of the subject of gambling, it is one which gives rise to a good deal of difficulty and a great deal of controversy."
My Lords, I shall quote no more. I have quoted enough, I hope, to convince your Lordships that the "soft soap" stage has now been passed. Is any progress being made in this matter? If so, may we be given some indication of what it is? Is it that the Government find this thing too difficult? Is it that they cannot introduce legislation, or that they do not want to do so? That is what I am asking. If it is too complicated, then I must say that I am disappointed in the ability of a Government Department to find some solution. They have had time enough. Or is it because they feel that, generally speaking, any legislation they may introduce will lose them far more friends than they will make, which, in my opinion, is highly probable? Is that the explanation? If so, I think that is a deplorable attitude to adopt.
This is a social menace—not the gambling, but the fact that nobody knows what is legal and what is illegal. That is a bad thing. The Government were informed by this Report nearly eight years ago, and nothing whatever has emerged. If, indeed, anything can be done, the noble and learned Viscount who, I understand, is to reply, will be in the happy position of being able to tell us, but it is a pity that up to now we have heard nothing. Meanwhile, the situation gets worse. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that he had no

383
evidence that the acquittal of Mr. Aspinall was causing activities of the kind in which he indulged to become widespread. The expression "wide-spread" means different things to different people. My information on the subject is quite different from that of the noble Lord.
There are other questions. If I may quote one or two lines from the Daily Mail of only a fortnight ago, a reporter describing a game called "Bingo", of which your Lordships may have heard—it is the same as "Housey-Housey" which we played in the Army—said:
"It is a highly organised affair which is drawing terrific crowds to halls and concert rooms all along Merseyside. The prizes are big and the craze has really got a hold."
That is the sort of thing that is happening. This question may be considered unimportant compared with other issues that come before your Lordships' House, but I beg to differ. I believe that it is a moral disease, which not only contaminates a lot of people but also brings the law into disrepute, and that is much worse.
So long as there is doubt whether a person who indulges in gambling will be prosecuted or not, the spread of gambling is bound to go on. For instance, I have seen mentioned the possibility that promoters may try to start a casino near Dublin. It has not happened yet, so far as I know, but I know one promoter quite well. He asked for £4 million to start it and got £3 million in three days. So it shows that somebody thinks that there is something in it. I asked this man what was the state of the law in the Republic of Ireland with regard to the project, and he said that if the Government decided that it was a good thing, they would pass an Act in a day or two. So it will be. What I am trying to point out by this is that the position of gambling is not static. It is not only a question of people having a few shillings on the dogs or horses, or on the pools. It goes much wider than that. And I believe that it should be got under control at the earliest possible moment.
I did not get up to speak on the pros and cons of gambling but to ask what the Government propose to do about the Royal Commission's Report, and when they propose to do it. I hope that in his reply the noble and learned Viscount will
384
not bring forward a large number of legal reasons, which are only confusing to the ordinary layman. I also hope that, with the sad story of the first Test Match at Brisbane before us, the Government will not steadily play back our bawling, but rather, as your Lordships' House is led by an eminent cricketer, go for the runs. What I really ask them for is a straight answer to a straight question.
5.49 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question and the whole tenor of the speech which he has made imply severe criticism of the Government for the long delay that has occurred between the receipt of this Report and the taking of any action on it. I have noticed that there has been similar criticism in regard to the Reports of other Commissions which have reported in recent years. Having in mind the very large number of Reports that have been received during the lifetime of the present Government, I believe that, by and large, the criticism is unjustified. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack could tell us, when he comes to reply, just how many Reports have been received by the Government from Commissions such as this and what has happened to these Reports in the interval. I believe that that would be helpful to your Lordships in coming to a conclusion on the matter which has been raised in this Question by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
6.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for raising the point in his Question, and I shall try to deal with it. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for raising a wider issue, because it is important at the present time that those who are asked to deal with problems by way of Royal Commissons and Departmental Committees should have an accurate picture of what happens as a result of their labours. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, tried to approach me in cricketing guise. I I am afraid that I do not compare with my noble Leader in that field, but it may be some consolation to the noble Lord to know that I do claim this: that I am the only Lord Chancellor who, when in office as Lord Chancellor, has hit an England bowler for four—and I can also

385
tell the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that I have not the slightest hope of doing the same with him to-night.
I do not think the noble Lord has any doubt, because he has not only listened to but has read the speeches of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, that the Government are conscious of the importance of the subject; and he need not be in any doubt that we shall pay attention (and I shall personally convey it to Mr. Butler) to what he has said to-day. I think it may be convenient if, first of all, I deal with what is in the Question, if I may put it in that way—that is, give the Government's views on the point—and then deal with its other aspect. May I take gaming first? The Government do not disagree with the Commission's proposals, which were to legalise those forms of gaming which are in practice tolerated despite their illegality, while continuing to prohibit the conduct of commercially organised gaming. That is the view we have taken, and, if I understood the noble Lord correctly. I do not think he differs from that view.
The main problem which the Royal Commission had to face was that of illegal street betting, and their solution was that licensed betting shops should be established. Again I do not think the noble Lord disagreed—he impliedly said so in one part of his speech—that that is a solution which has never commanded universal support. But, in spite of the difficulties—again I want to put it quite clearly to the noble Lord—the Government agree, in principle, that the present law is unsatisfactory and ought to be amended.
I want to say a word or two to the noble Lord about the question of amending legislation on so controversial a subject. My experience of this building goes back for something like a quarter of a century; that is not so long as that of some of those I see here, but it is now getting to be quite a long time. Just before I came there had been a particular example of the difficulty which I am just_ going to state. I do not think that anyone can say that there has been agreement with regard to betting shops. I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would agree with me in this: that a number of people accepted that betting shops were better than street betting and the illegality, but when they had to face up to the number of betting shops in Lon-
386
don running into more than four figures, they got rather a shock. I think it is fair to say that in regard to betting shops there was rather a revulsion when the extent to which they would be necessary was realised.
But even if, in regard to legislation which concerns gambling, one could get broad agreement on that, so that there would not be great offence given to many people, the experience I have always had in regard to this field is that the details themselves are liable to give rise to tension and to much prolonged argument. I turn round and see my noble friend Lord Margesson, and he will remember exactly what I mean; it was just before I came into the House. but the thunder was still reverberating in another place. I think it is a fair point that, even when you get the measure of agreement to which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, drew attention as to its being better to risk a new difficulty than to keep the law as it is, there is an immense potential field of trouble with regard to the details.
Now may I raise another point which the noble Lord mentioned; that is, the intervention of my noble friend, Lord Astor, who unfortunately is not here to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will remember that it was in a debate which my noble friend Lord Astor introduced, if my memory serves me, in June, 1956, and again during the discussion on the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, last May, that my noble friend Lord Astor pleaded for the reorientation of the scheme for the licensing of bookmakers and betting shops so as to bring in money to help horse-racing. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will know that that has introduced a factor which was not in actuality considered by the Royal Commission. I appreciate the point of view of my noble friend Lord Astor, and I understand the point of view of racing interests in general in supporting this idea; but I am by no means convinced and ready to agree with that reorientation.
It would be idle to pretend that this has not introduced a further complicating matter to a most controversial plan. I say that, not as a excuse but as an illustration, which we have actually seen in this House, of the way complications come into this subject, though introduced

387
with the best of motives. Nobody questions that my noble friend Lord Astor desires to improve horse-racing and horse breeding and all the things that mean so much to him, but he has undoubtedly, by that suggestion of a new orientation to the general proposal, if I may say so without offence, bedevilled our subject which was difficult enough already.
Now I come to the second point, because I think it is an answer to my noble friend Lord Windlesham as well as to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. It is irritating I know—and I apologise in advance—when Members talk about the competition for the Parliamentary programme, because every one of us thinks: "That is all very well for the other subjects, but not the subjects in which I am profoundly interested." I hope my noble friend Lord Windlesham will not think that I am being cynical about his own views. I would not be prepared to pronounce on his views with regard to gambling generally, but I would be prepared to endorse every word he has said about the undesirability of bringing the law into disrepute. I assure him that that is the only legalistic thing I am going to say to-night, but as it is a repetition of his words perhaps he will not hold it hardly against me.
I should like to deal for a moment—and I hope the House will not be too bored—with the other side of the problem. because I think it should be said. Since we became a Government—I am going to deal only with really important Commissions and bodies of that sort—we have had thirty-four major Reports. We have completely, or substantially, implemented eighteen; we have, as I will show in a moment, considerably implemented another nine, and seven have not yet been carried into effect; but again when I refer to them shortly I think everyone will agree that a great deal of work has been done upon them.
It is important in this matter, in answering both noble Lords, to see the sort of subject and the difficulty and importance of the subject on which we have had reports. We had the Tucker Committee on Taxation and Trading Profits—the first Committee under my friend Sir James Millard Tucker. Taxation is a vitally important subject. All the practicable recommendations were imple-
388
mented in the Finance Acts of 1952, 1953 and 1954. We had a Committee on Copyright. I will not detain your Lordships, but you may remember the days—I see a noble Lord who remembers very well—we spent in this House after I introduced the Bill, not merely to give effect to the intention, but to revise the whole law of copyright because we had had that Report. Your Lordships, if I may say so, did an immense job in regard to that technical subject.
We had the Royal Commission on University Education in Dundee and St. Andrews. I mention the importance of that subject only because I was Rector of the University myself, otherwise perhaps it is not on the same scale. Then we had the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Crook—he was here a moment ago—which propounded the scheme with regard to the registration of opticians. That became a law in a Private Member's Bill in which we were able to help. We had the Report of my noble friend Lord Ridley on the Use of Fuel and Power Resources, of which the Government accepted the recommendations which could be dealt with administratively. We had the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, which reported to me. I broadly answered that Report with the Homicide Bill. which your Lordships discussed very fully. There were Royal Commissions on Scottish Affairs and on the Army and Air Force Acts; the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, knows how vital it was to get these antiquated measures brought up to date. The Reports were implemented after a great deal of work in both Houses. The noble, Lord. Lord Strathclyde, knows how difficult was the Scottish rating system and how complex were Lord Sorn's Reports. That was implemented in the Scottish Valuation Acts.
Sir Hugh Beaver's Committee's Report on Air Pollution was implemented in the Clean Air Bill, and there was the Hurst Committee on the Adoption of Children; your Lordships will remember that I had the honour of moving in your Lordships' House the Bill which dealt with that subject. When Sir James Grigg reported on the Preservation of Government Records, I again moved a Bill last Session on that subject. The Priestley Committee's Report on the Civil Service was a matter which was dealt with

389
administratively; the same with the Report of the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors; and the Report of the very important Committee on the Regional Organisation of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Arson Wilson Committee, was also dealt with administratively. The Sir Edwin Herbert's Committee's Report on the Electricity Supply Industry became the Electricity Act of last Session. I pass over pigs and bacon, and the security question which was considered by the Committee of Privy Counsellors before which I gave evidence, and the other Committee of which I was Chairman. These have been dealt with administratively. I want to put two points to my noble friend Lord Windlesham. Broadly, we do not ignore Reports, but, secondly, these are matters of vital importance to the economic, social and political life of the people.
Now I want shortly to deal—because I want to show I have not made a false claim—with the ones we have put into effect to some extent. First, there was the Evershed Report on Legal Procedure. I apologise to my noble friend for pausing for a moment on a legal subject, but your Lordships will remember that I introduced into this House a Bill for increasing the jurisdiction of the county courts, the Administration of Justice Bill, in order to clean up many of the old procedures, to modernise them, and in addition I have carried out a great deal of administrative reforms which I have reported to your Lordships at times. The Boundary Commissions' Reports have been dealt with. The Report of the Guillebaud Committee on the Medical Services is again a matter for implementation by administration, as is that of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. A number of their suggestions were introduced into the Finance Acts of the last five years. The Report of the Committee of Crown Lands became the Crown Estates Act.
I want to deal with one other subject, which again happens to be in my own particular sphere of duty, and that is the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Moreton of Henryton. There we made a three pronged attack. We brought in a Government Bill (which your Lordships may remember I introduced here) the Maintenance Orders Bill. We have
390
helped with Private Members' Bills—that is, we have given them the help and the Government have found the time. In addition,. I have, by administration and rules of court, implemented a considerable number of the recommendations. I do not want to put it too high. Your Lordships will remember that we debated here, in a fascinating debate, if I may say so, apart from my own speech, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Feversharm, the Piercy Committee's Report on Mental Health. There again, the Mental Health Bill is one of the measures referred to in the gracious Speech which we are determined to get through this Session.
With regard to the Franks Committee, I am not going to go through that matter again, but we got the Report in August; in October we approved, I think it was, 91 out of 96 recommendations, in full or in part. We introduced a Bill early in the New Year, and long before that I had announced to this House that a number of administrative reforms were going to be introduced at once, and the Bill that comes now on that subject matter reflects in some way the spirit or recommendations of Franks. Those are the Reports on which we have acted.
I want to be fair to the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham. I should like to deal with the Reports on which we have not produced something. There are two which are concerned with more or less routine matters—two out of seven. One is weights and measures. There the Board of Trade have done a great deal of work but there has not been an absolute clamour for that work to be hastened on. The same applies to the Report on the bankruptcy procedure, which I am glad to think has not had an immediate appeal at the moment. Apart from that there is the Report by Lord Nathan's Committee on Charitable Trusts. There we introduced the White Paper declaring the Government's attitude. There was the Phillips Report on the Provision for Old Age—I give the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham this one, because he could make the reply rather in the style of his speech. On that matter the majority of the Committee reported that we should put the pensionable age up to 68. for men, and 63 for women. The two trade union members of the Committee dissented from that view. You can attack us; you may say that the fact that we

391
have not implemented that Report shows a certain fear, but I think that to rush into that field at a difficult time like this, in the face of the minority consisting of the trade union members, at a time when it is very important to get co-operation in combating inflation, is something not to be desired. I do not want to put my case any higher than it need be put.
There is one other case—the Runciman Committee on Horticultural Marketing. I can assure the House that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has that subject very well in mind. Then there is the Wolfenden Report. Your Lordships heard me on one side of that Report. You will know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also dealt with the matter. I do not think anyone can say that we have ignored that Report. I think there is a field of disagreement and a field of difficulty in public opinion, which I ventured to put before your Lordships.
I have now dealt with the position of this Government with regard to Reports, and I think it is fair to say that, of the 34, 27 have been implemented in full or very considerably. On the others a great deal of work has been done, but we are faced with the very real competition for the legislative programme. I can only tell the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that I have now considered for quite a number of years—although to nothing like the same extent as my noble friend Lord Margesson—the difficulties of legislative programmes and the competition of the various Bills. It is not an easy matter, and I should like to assure the noble Lord that we are determined to
392
continue our study. We shall consider the new difficulties that have been raised, and we still hold the view that there should be these changes. We still believe that a suitable time will come for them to be introduced. I am sorry that I cannot give him any more, but I have tried to answer his Question clearly as to what are our views. I am sorry to leave the other indefinite.
I have also tried to give the general picture. I think I have made it clear—I hope that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will agree, after my analysis—that, when one is considering the immense variety and complexity of Reports we have received, the suggestion that they are pigeon-holed is entirely false, and the achievement of this Government in bringing them into operation in these varied fields is something of which no one need be ashamed.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as you may imagine, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD WINDLESHAM: I was merely going to thank him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that it has been arranged through the usual channels that the House will meet at 2.15 p.m. on Thursday.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past six o'clock.