Sitting of 12 February 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
  MID-WESSEX WATER BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
READING AND BERKSHIRE WATER &C. BILL (By Order)

  SOUTH BUCKS AND OXFORDSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  Sir G. Nicholson: On a point of order. I objected to the Reading and Berkshire Water &c. Bill. I now wish to withdraw my objection.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    United States Forces, United Kingdom
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Defence (1) the present duration of the agreement permitting the stationing of foreign troops in Great Britain;
    (2) what period of notice is necessary and what steps need to be taken to terminate the agreements permitting the stationing of foreign troops in Great Britain.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Permission for the establishment of American air bases and forces in Britain was given by Mr. Attlee's Government. There was no formal agreement and no precise conditions were laid down for the termination of this arrangement.
    Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, welcome as our American friends are on our ground, the presence in this country of forces which carry thermo-nuclear weapons for training, and the establishment in this country of missile bases over which we understand they will exercise some control, make it increasingly difficult to maintain a separate foreign policy and quite impossible to maintain a separate atomic and thermo-nuclear policy? As the presence of our own troops on the Continent is permitting France to pursue a foreign policy of which we actively disapprove, has no the time come for a little rethinking?
    Mr. Sandys: The time has long ago passed when one could pursue an entirely independent foreign policy. The American forces will remain here so long as both Governments feel that it is in the common interest for the purpose of common defence that they should do so. We certainly have no intention of asking them to leave. I am convinced that they are making an important contribution to peace.

    La Salle College, Hong Kong
    Mr. Teelingasked the Minister of Defence what answer he has sent to the letter giving information concerning the derequisitioning of the La Salle College in Hong Kong sent at his request by the owners of the college.
    Mr. Sandys: I discussed this matter with representatives of the Order when I was in Hong Kong a few months ago. The question of the release of the college is dependent upon certain military decisions. I am making every effort to clear the position up as soon as possible.
    Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is a very modern school which is vitally necessary? It sometimes has three sets of classes a day now in order to try to get people educated. As next to nothing seems to have been done about the college, can my right hon. Friend give any idea when he is likely to be able to give a decision?
    Mr. Sandys: As I have said, I had a good talk with the representatives of the Order. I very much regret that they have been left in a state of uncertainty for

    363
    so long. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will try to speed up a decision as much as I can.

    Tactical Atomic Weapons
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Minister of Defence the maximum firepower, as compared with the Hiroshima bomb, of the tactical atomic weapons being distributed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces with the assent of Her Majesty's Government; on whose decision they may be used; to what extent their use is assimilated to that of conventional arms and not subject to the political restrictions applied to the use of strategic nuclear weapons; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Defence what agreements or understandings exist between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government about political control of the use of tactical atomic weapons; and if these agreements treat such weapons on the same basis as strategic nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Sandys: These are operational matters which I would prefer not to discuss in public.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Cannot the Minister of Defence give some indication of the distinction between tactical atomic weapons and nuclear weapons? Is it, for instance, correct that N.A.T.O. generals have stated that a tactical atomic weapon is a nuclear weapon with up to two-and-a-half times the firepower of the Hiroshima bomb? Surely there is no military secret about that; it is a matter of definition.
    Mr. Sandys: It would obviously be giving away a military secret to say exactly what the strength of the bomb is. If I had to describe off the cuff the difference between a tactical and a strategic weapon, I should say that a tactical weapon is one which is designed to be used in direct support of the land battle.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister of Defence address himself to the question of control over the use of these weapons? Has not it been disclosed that the Government have an understanding or agreement that H-bombs may not be used without the consent of the Cabinet? Has not that been revealed? We want to know, in view of the power of the tactical atomic weapons in the hands of the forces
    364
    in Western Europe, what the political understanding or agreement is about the consent or authority which has to be given for the use of such weapons.
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think it desirable that I should discuss what the arrangements within N.A.T.O. are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am sure that the Soviet Government would be just as much interested in the answer as the hon. Member is.

    United States Bombers and Missile Bases
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Minister of Defence the provisions in the new Anglo-American agreement granting the consent of Her Majesty's Government in advance to the United States Government to order its bombers and missile bases in this country into action when in the view of the United States of America any member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been attacked anywhere; how these provisions relate to the United States of America engaging in hostilities in pursuance of its commitments under the Eisenhower Doctrine or of its alliances with the present Governments of South Korea and Formosa; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sandys: There is no such agreement.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is there no agreement governing the use of missile bases in this country? Is there no understanding as to the circumstances in which the United States is entitled to use its own judgment, in view of Mr. Dulles's statement of 19th December that the United States will not submit to veto powers by any foreign country on measures taken in self-defence by the United States Administration, in its own judgment? How do those measures relate to the control system?
    Mr. Sandys: Since the agreement on which the whole of the hon. Member's Question is based does not exist, I suggest that he does not pursue the matter any further.

    Costs and Manpower
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Minister of Defence the proportion of the gross national product and of the total budget, respectively, absorbed by defence; the total of the charges for the retention of

    365
    forces abroad; the percentage of the working population, either in the Services or supporting them; the proportion of the metal-using industries devoted to defence; and the proportion of qualified scientists and engineers engaged on military work.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member asks six questions.
    Statistics are not yet available to enable me to answer the first, third, fifth and sixth. The answers to the second and fourth are 30 per cent. and 6 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Will this information be contained in the forthcoming Defence White Paper? It was contained in last year's White Paper, and would it not be valuable to have the same information in the forthcoming one?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that the precise figures were contained in last year's Defence White Paper. Some were, but, of course, last year's White Paper came a month later than this one, and that is why it is more difficult.

    Components and Spare Parts
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence what reduction in the holdings of components and spare parts for naval, military and air force equipment has been achieved by the increased use of rapid carriage to overseas units by air instead of by surface transport.
    Mr. Sandys: I am afraid that statistics do not show to what extent reductions in holdings can be attributed to the use of air transport.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is not it important that there should be some figures to show this, because is it not a fact that other armies and air forces have found that there have been considerable savings in stockholding by the use of air instead of surface transport?
    Mr. Sandys: We are doing what we can, but one must not exaggerate the savings that can be obtained by this method. If we carry it too far, we will find that it will cost a great deal more.
    Mr. Beswick: How does the Minister know that it will cost a great deal more, if he has no figures? Is he not trying to collate some information and statistics about this matter?
    Mr. Sandys: All I know is that there comes a point where it is cheaper to keep more stores on the ground than to carry them around in the air.

    Missile Bases
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Defence what decisions have been reached in regard to the manning of the intermediate missile bases in Great Britain.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Defence what agreements have now been made with the United States of America about British bases for nuclear missiles.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Defence whether the agreement for the supply of ballistic missiles by the United States of America to this country has yet been concluded; how many launching bases are to be established for their use in this country; and in which localities.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence what missiles of United States origin are to be installed at Royal Air Force stations.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Defence whether he has a further statement to make about the number and location of missile bases in this country and the supply of warheads.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence if he is aware of the opposition in Scotland to rocket bases being placed there; and if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.
    Mr. G. Brownasked the Minister of Defence if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America relating to the establishment of intermediate range ballistic missile bases in these islands.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Defence if he has yet decided where each of the proposed rocket missile sites in Scotland will be located; how much land has been, and will be, acquired for these purposes; and when the work of construction will begin.
    Mr. Sandys: I would refer hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon.

    367
    Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on 5th February, to which at present I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister of Defence aware that that reply is far from satisfactory? Will he bear in mind that there are many people of moderate views in this country who feel that it would be a suicidal policy to have missile bases anywhere in Britain, particularly if the Americans have the last word? In view of the revelations about the slackness of our Government—[Interruption.]—wait for it; hon. Members will get certified in a minute. In view of the revelations about the slackness of our Government in relation to the carrying of H-bombs by American 'planes on patrol here, is not the Minister aware that many people will demand safeguards to ensure that we, and not the Americans, have the final word, and with no escape clauses?
    Mr. Sandys: I think that when the agreement is published, the hon. Member will find it to be much more satisfactory than he seems to imagine.
    Captain Pilkington: If, in 1939, we had had the degree of Anglo-American co-operation that we have now, might not that have averted the Second World War?
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that there is very widespread concern and resistance in the country to the idea of establishing these bases, which are regarded by many people as valueless for defence and both technically and militarily an investment in obsolescence, and a very considerable waste of time and money when every effort is being bent by himself and the Cabinet towards saving money in respect of military installations and preparations? Does he realise that there is very strong resentment that before every effort has been made towards international agreement with the Soviet Government, we should be undertaking this vast spending, and the surrender of British sovereignty, in respect of the custody of nuclear warheads, to the American Government?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not want to anticipate the agreement, when concluded, as I think that it will be, quite shortly. The terms, apart from strictly operational details, will be fully published, and hon.
    368
    Members will be able to judge for themselves. I would ask them to accept my assurance. They will, I am sure, find that many of the anxieties expressed are groundless.
    Mr. de Freitas: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely that we will have the information in time for the defence debates the week after next, or the foreign affairs debate next week?
    Mr. Sandys: The defence debate, I should think, almost certainly. I am not sure about the foreign affairs debate.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister answer just one simple question? Since the bases are not to be established in Scotland, can he say how many other parts of the country have indicated the desire to have them?
    Mr. Sandys: There is a Question on the Order Paper about the desirability of siting these bases in Scotland—
    Mr. Rankin: It is mine.
    Mr. Sandys: Then perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the Answer to his own Question later on.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister intimated that he was answering my Question No. 16 now.
    Mr. Sandys: I am sorry. I think the hon. Member himself misled me. I said that later in the Order Paper there was a Question about Scotland. He said "It is mine," and I thought that his Question was one of the later ones. There are some Questions later on about the siting of bases in Scotland.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: As to Question No. 33, which affects Scotland, and to which the Minister purported to reply just now, is he aware that there is a strong body of opinion that if missile bases are to be provided they should be mobile, easily concealed, and at sea, for instance, in the Atlantic Ocean, but not in large centres of population where people will be exposed to great risk unnecessarily?
    Mr. Sandys: I should be most grateful to the hon. and learned Member for assisting me in defining the operational requirement.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it correct to assume from the right hon. Gentleman's original

    369
    reply, the contents of which I still recall, that the agreement, or the published part of the agreement, will clearly indicate that the control of these missile bases will finally vest in British hands?
    Mr. Harold Davies: My hon. Friend will not get an answer to that.
    Mr. Sandys: Of course the hon. Member will get an answer. The answer is that the terms of the agreement will be fully published.—[Interruption.]—I dare say that I could give reassuring Answers to lots of the Questions put to me, but it is a thoroughly improper thing when negotiations between two Governments are not completed—[Interruption.] They are not completed until the agreement is actually signed, and until then it is highly improper to start revealing bits and pieces of an agreement.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does the Minister agree that the agreement is, or will be, of sufficient importance in relation to great issues of foreign policy which have been discussed in this House recently, and will again be discussed next week, to be brought before the House for formal approval?
    Mr. Sandys: That is not a matter for me, but I will certainly convey it to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is strong opposition throughout the length and breadth of the land to the whole idea of missile bases being established in this country? Does not he think that, in a matter where people feel that the whole future of the country and the future of their children and coming generations is at stake, this should be an issue at a General Election? Will he give an assurance that this discredited Government will come forward and ask the opinion of the people before putting the agreement into operation?
    Mr. Sandys—
    Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. I understand that supplementary questions on this Question are exhausted. If that is so, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Defence how many representations, and from whom, he has
    370
    received for and against the establishment in Scotland of missile bases; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Sandys: I have received three letters on this subject from this House seeking information. None expressed any opinion for or against siting rockets in Scotland.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister take it from me that there is a very widespread body of opinion in Scotland against spending Treasury money on ineffective bases, as they would be in Scotland, and unnecessarily exposing the people to undue risk?
    Mr. Sandys: The location of the sites will, of course, be determined by operational considerations. If it is thought desirable to site rockets in a certain area, I have no doubt that the people of that area will accept their share of responsibility in the defence of our country.

    British Forces, Europe
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Defence what has been the outcome of Her Majesty's Government's request to the North Atlantic Council to review the financial conditions on which United Kingdom forces are maintained on the mainland of Europe.
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Defence to what extent, following the Federal German Government's decision not to pay support costs, the British military contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will be further reduced.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the need to reduce defence expenditure, he will withdraw British forces from Germany to the extent that the Federal Government refuses to pay support costs.
    Mr. Sandys: The financial conditions on which British forces are stationed in Europe are still under discussion by the North Atlantic Council.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the position has now become really humiliating? He himself failed in negotiations. N.A.T.O. has failed. M. Spaak has failed. Does he not think that the time has come

    371
    when we should make perfectly clear to the Germans that, if they are not prepared to meet the £50 million involved here, we shall bring the troops home; and will he make clear to the Germans that we are not prepared to accept, in lieu of a contribution, the suggestion that they deposit £100 million here for the purchase of arms? Will he remind them that, because they failed to purchase the S.R.177 there is a blight over the Isle of Wight now, and, further, will he make clear to the rest of the Ministers that the British public will not support a Government who are prepared to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's Question asks what is the outcome of Her Majesty's Government's request. There appears to be no outcome yet; it has not been revealed what the end of the discussions is. The hon. Member is really giving his own views about what the outcome should be.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Minister tell the House what will be included in the forthcoming White Paper on defence as the German contribution?
    Mr. Sandys: I have made it clear that these discussions are still going on in the North Atlantic Council—
    Dame Irene Ward: Hot them up.
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that it would hot them up if I were to discuss the matter in the House at this stage.
    Mr. John Hall: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, while there may be a case for a complete revision of the defence system of Western Europe as it now exists, we are being asked to shoulder an unfair proportion of the cost at a time when our total defence expenditure is imposing a very severe strain upon our economy, which, will he not agree, tends to lessen our effective resistance in the cold war in which we are engaged?
    Mr. Sandys: I think that everyone in the House is aware of the serious burden upon our balance of payments which would be involved if we had to make a large transfer across the exchange, and that, of course, is the issue at present under discussion.
    Mr. Swingler: Does the Minister recall that the agreement to sanction West German rearmament was commended to
    372
    the House on the basis that it would relieve some of the defence burden upon this country, and will he, at any rate, give an assurance that he will not enter into an agreement or will take the steps necessary to ensure that it does not mean an additional financial burden upon Britain?
    Mr. Sandys: I think that the hon. Gentleman can be reassured on that point.
    Mr. Bellenger: In relation to one of his answers to a supplementary question about negotiations still going on, may I ask the Minister whether he is still optimistic that some satisfactory compromise will emerge, or is he of the opinion, as has been suggested by Press statements, that the German Government have made their final answer and are not prepared to consider a compromise?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that it would be really wise or helpful if I were to express optimism or pessimism about the outcome of rather delicate negotiations.

    Air Defence (Policy)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence what change there has been in the Government's policy announced last year as to the relative contribution of missiles and manned fighters in the air defence of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Sandys: I would ask the hon. Member to await the issue of the White Paper on Defence tomorrow.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that, although that may be a perfectly fair answer today, because the White Paper is to be issued tomorrow, it has been the fact that week after week recently he has been refusing to answer questions on the ground that the White Paper is coming out, and will he not agree that we cannot have the same practice adopted here as is adopted in regard to the Budget, with a complete black-out on Questions and Answers because the White Paper is coming out?
    Mr. Sandys: I am glad the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has had a perfectly fair answer today.

    Widows' Pensions
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Defence if he will give an assurance that any increases in Service pay and

    373
    allowances will be accompanied by increases in widows' pensions of both officers and other ranks.
    Mr. Sandys: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Dame Irene Ward: Am I to understand from that that the matter is still fluid? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I think that all Governments have treated these widows absolutely scandalously, and is he aware further that, if I could find a way of voting against the Government on this issue I would gladly do so? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are just as had as the others —perhaps worse. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, kindly take this request to the Cabinet? Otherwise, I shall have to consider some other ways of making an attack.
    Mr. Sandys: I think that my hon. Friend has made her views very clear.

    British Forces, Germany
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence (1) to what extent in his defence plans he now assumes that a British army in Germany is essential for the defence of Great Britain;
    (2) to what extent he estimates that this country is now vulnerable to bombardment by rockets from submarines; and what defensive measures he proposes to adopt in view of this new danger.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Defence the cost of maintaining British Forces in Germany, with particular reference to the strategic reserve.
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Defence how many British troops it is intended shall be stationed in Germany during the current year.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Defence what further reductions will be made in British commitments in Germany.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reduce our forces in Germany.
    Mr. Sandys: I would ask hon. Members to await the publication of the Defence White Paper tomorrow.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In anticipation of the White Paper, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how, in the event of this country being bombed, our soldiers in Germany will be able to defend their women and children at home?
    Mr. Shinwell: On Question No. 29, my Question which has been included with the others, do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes in the White Paper to be issued tomorrow to tell us to what extent it is proposed to reduce our forces in Germany? Does he propose to do that, and, if he does so, does he intend to suggest that we ought to reduce our forces in Germany to the extent that the Germans increase their forces?
    Mr. Sandys: I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the White Paper as soon as it is issued.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we do not expect to be treated with contempt when we ask a fair question? We are not seeking to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, but we merely wish to ascertain what is the position. This is a vital matter of interest to all hon. Members, and one which justifies a rather better Answer.
    Mr. Sandys: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the last thing I want to do is to treat him with any discourtesy. I have great respect for him and for the service he has rendered to this country. All I wanted to make clear is that, in the White Paper, I am dealing carefully, in a considered manner, with what is a difficult and delicate question, the size of our forces in Germany, at a time when difficult negotiations are in progress. I would prefer it, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow it, if he were to read the full and considered statement there—it is longer than I can give in answer to supplementary questions—rather than ask me to give off-the-cuff short answers on the matter.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that Question No. 19 is concerned not with the future shape of our forces or the cost of our forces in Germany, but with the current cost of keeping them in Germany? May we not have that simple figure now?
    Mr. Sandys: I have not got it with me. Subject to correction, I think it is about 54 million in Deutschmarks, which is the

    375
    important figure. That may be a slightly incorrect figure.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the Minister give an assurance, whatever the White Paper may say tomorrow, that the number of our forces in Germany will be conditioned upon our getting an adequate financial contribution from the German Government?
    Mr. Sandys: That is, of course, one of the issues that I shall be dealing with in the White Paper.
    Mr. Lipton: Why has the right hon. Gentleman arranged for the publication of the Defence White Paper the day after he is "reachable" by Questions in this House? Would it not have been perhaps a little more courageous to have published the White Paper this morning or yesterday, knowing that he is the first Minister to answer Questions today?
    Mr. Sandys: I must say that that question did not occur to me, but if the White Paper had been published this morning it would have made my task now very much easier.

    N.A.T.O. (Radar Chain)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence his estimates of the approximate extent of Britain's financial participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's radar screen now under construction, the total cost of the screen, and its completion date.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Defence the cost of Britain's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's radar screen; and to what extent this screen is estimated to be effective in giving warning of ballistic missiles.
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Defence (1) what the British contribution is to date to the cost of building the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's radar screen; what the total British contribution is expected to be; and when the radar screen will be completed;
    (2) to what extent the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's radar screen is designed to give warning against aeroplanes only, or has a function to perform in relation to attacks by ballistic missiles.
    Mr. Sandys: The N.A.T.O. radar chain in Europe is designed to give early warning of attack by aircraft only. It would not be proper for me to give information about cost or date of completion.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: But since the screen is useless against the missiles which Russia already possesses, is it not out of date even before it is built? Will the Minister consider stopping this colossal waste of money and manpower?
    Mr. Sandys: Bomber aircraft will constitute a very important threat for a long time to come.
    Mr. Swingler: Why should the figure of our financial contribution towards this radar screen be concealed? Is not the Minister aware that some very large figures have been quoted in the American Press and other places, and will not he give the figure, especially as a very large number of people feel that this project is obsolescent in the light of the statements made by the leader of N.A.T.O. itself about the nature of the attack to be considered?
    Mr. Sandys: Why it is improper is that it is not right for each member of an alliance of fifteen nations to hand out information about costs and, above all, about the dates of completion of operational equipment. What I can say is that, of the cost, Britain's share will be about 10 per cent.

    Ships and Aircraft (Decca Navigational System)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Defence to what extent he is using the Decca system for the defence of Great Britain and British shipping and aircraft.
    Mr. Sandys: The Decca navigational system is used in all Her Majesty's ships and in certain military aircraft operating in areas where the necessary ground facilities are available.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that I am very satisfied about the reply, and I am sure that all mariners will be also.
    Mr. Sandys: I am very glad indeed to satisfy the hon. and learned Member for once.

    Aircraft (Hydrogen Bombs)
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Defence (1) if he will state in detail over which counties Royal Air Force and United States bombers armed with hydrogen bombs regularly fly; and to what extent their routes exclude built-up areas;
    (2) if he will make a comprehensive statement on the reports received from Admiral Strauss of the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States of America regarding crashed United States bombers which were carrying hydrogen bombs, stating whether any of these aircraft subsequently burst into flames, to what extent the hydrogen bomb was damaged, and if any radioactivity was released.
    Mr. Sandys: With permission, I will answer these Questions together.
    Mr. Mason: On a point of order. I do not see why these two Questions should be coupled together. One concerns routes and areas of this country, and the other the reports from—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should listen to the Answer, and then he will hear what it is.
    Mr. Sandys: I think that the hon. Member will see that the Answer is pertinent to his Questions.
    I have nothing to add to the very full Answers given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 4th February.
    Mr. Mason: Is the Minister aware that the earth tremor which rocked the six Eastern Counties recently touched off fears that an American nuclear bomber had crashed; and indeed the Sculthorpe American air base was swamped with telephone calls from people fearing such a disaster? Does he really think it worth while to continue this potential threat to any aggressor when there is such a constant fear in the minds of people of this country? Further, if, as the Lord Privy Seal has consistently said in the house, there is no danger from a nuclear armed bomber crashing, why is it that American bombers have purposely dropped nuclear bombs in the Pacific and Atlantic when fearing a crash?
    Mr. Sandys: It is only my opinion, but I do not think there is so much alarm among the people of this country as hon. Members opposite would like to imagine.

  BAGDAD PACT COUNCIL (MEETING)
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Governments which are parties to the Bagdad Pact.
  Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision was taken upon the proposal made at the recent meeting of the Bagdad Pact members at Ankara that missile bases be established in the countries of its Asiatic members.
  Mr. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals were made and accepted by the countries taking part in the Bagdad Pact Conference at Ankara for economic development in the Middle East.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Commander Allan Noble): A full account of the Council meeting was contained in the communiqué issued at Ankara on 30th January. I will circulate the text in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with a note on the meeting of the meeting of the Economic Committee which gives some details of the proposals for economic development which were adopted.
  No proposal to establish missile bases was made. The subject was not discussed at all.
  Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he does not think it timely to reconsider the whole policy which is reflected in the Bagdad Pact, particularly in its military aspect? Further, if the object was to contain Communism, is not the Bagdad Pact itself a main instrument of Communist propaganda in the Middle East, with considerable success?
  Commander Noble: I think the hon Gentleman will find that the communiqué reveals useful progress in all fields of the Pact's activities and confirms the confidence that we have in it as an important factor for peace and progress in the Middle East.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Middle East newspapers in the countries concerned in this Bagdad Pact have made it abundantly clear that, although this question of missile bases was not on the official agenda, it certainly was discussed

  379
  in more informal meetings, and that these Middle East countries were against the establishment of such missile bases in their countries?
  Commander Noble: I understand that reports, as suggested by the hon. Member, were put out from Cairo and Moscow. I should advise the hon. Member not to believe them.
  Following are the documents:
  COMMUNIQUE OF THE BAGDAD PACT MINISTERIAL COUNCIL: ANKARA, 1958
  The fourth session of the Bagdad Pact Council was held in the New Grand National Assembly building in Ankara from January 27 to January 30, 1958. His Excellency Mr. Adnan Menderes, Prime Minister of Turkey, was in the Chair. The delegations from the member countries were led by:

  His Excellency Dr. Manouchehr Eghbal, Prime Minister, Iran.

  His Excellency Sayid Nuri Al Said, Iraq.

  Malik Firoz Khan Noon, Prime Minister, Pakistan.

  His Excellency Mr. Adnan Menderes, Prime Minister, Turkey.

  The Right Honourable Selwyn Lloyd, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, United Kingdom.

  The United States participated through a delegation led by the honourable John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State.
  The Council noted with satisfaction the presence of Mr. Dulles at the session.
  The Council during its four day session reviewed the work of the Bagdad Pact organisation and after discussions adopted the reports and recommendations of:

  The Economic Committee

  The Liaison Committee

  The Counter-subversion Committee and The Military Committee.

  The Council recalled that the Bagdad Pact arose from the desire of the peoples of the area for security from Communist imperialism or Communist-inspired domination in any shape or form, and noted with satisfaction that despite attacks on the Pact and its members the Pact had developed into a strong and cohesive organisation representing the best hope for the safeguard of peace, liberty and independence in the area. The purpose of the Pact, a free alliance between equal partners, is the defence and security of the area. This is as vital to world peace as it is to constructive co-operation for the benefit of the 135 million people of the Pact region who are predominantly Muslim. The Council recognised that attempts at subversion in the area must be defeated and peaceful conditions maintained. The Council reaffirmed that the economic progress of the Pact area and the promotion of the social wellbeing of its people require a speedy implementation of its programme of economic development.
  Political
  The Council reviewed the international situation in a series of meetings. A number of these meetings were of a private nature in which heads of delegation's were able to ex-
  380
  change views and information with that frankness which befits the equal and intimate association of member countries within the Pact. The Council recognised the usefulness of full and candid discussions which have become an invaluable feature of the Bagdad Pact organisation. The Council recognised the need for constant exposure of the familiar Communist technique, that of subversive penetration, falsely presented as friendly co-existence, and help for underdeveloped countries.
  While the free world has taken bold and important steps in the liberation and granting of independence to many nations in recent years, and while it is striving to settle the problems of the area in a spirit of justice and equality the Council noted with regret that in pursuit of its aims, the international Communist movement attempts to exploit nationalism, fear of war, economic distress, the plight of Arab refugees, "Colonialist" and Afro-Asian sentiment through propaganda and Communist controlled and influenced organisations. Communist efforts to penetrate the region by means of indirect aggression such as infiltration and subversion continue to be a menace and call for constant vigilance and increased solidarity. The Council further noted that since its last meeting in Karachi in June, 1957, Communist imperialism had increased its efforts to dominate the Middle East. These efforts, in the form of pressure, threats and false accusations, were particularly directed by the Soviet Union against Turkey, whose calm and courageous stand evoked the admiration of her associates in the Council.
  The Council expressed the desirability of co-operation between the Pact and other free world regional collective security organisations, in the belief that closer contacts among the free world nations would contribute to their common cause of promoting security and social well-being for their peoples.
  The Council noted with concern that areas of conflict which offer a rich opportunity for exploitation by Communist imperialism and which constitute a potential threat to international peace continue to exist in various parts of the world.
  It devoted considerable time to discussion of the situations in the Mediterranean region, the Middle East and South Asia and emphasised that situations which imperil the security of the Pact area should be resolved in accordance with the principles of justice and the United Nations Charter. The Council was of the opinion that the indiscriminate use of the veto in the Security Council should be given up as an instrument of cold war so that the United Nations can function as an effective force for the pacific settlement of disputes. The Council believed that the concept of the United Nations Emergency Force as an instrument of the United Nations and its use in areas of disturbance should be recommended for acceptance to members of the United Nations. While recognising the continuing need for vigilance and therefore for constant improvement in the security and defence of the Pact area, the Council reaffirmed their earnest desire for peace and their determination to spare no efforts to seek it.
  Economic
  The Council reviewed the work of the Economic Committee and approved resolutions

  381
  containing recommendations in the fields of health, agriculture, communications, public works, trade and the financing of joint projects. The Council noted with satisfaction that a firm basis of economic co-operation had been established on which the Pact could continue to build and that, as a result of the work done by the Sub-Committees, there is now a promising programme of technical assistance which is developing on a co-operative basis. This will be of great benefit to the living standards in the region. Technical assistance already provided or planned covers the following fields: health, agriculture, pest control, animal health, and animal production. In the field of technical assistance the Government of Iran has allocated 10,000.000 rials, and the Government of Turkey 750,000 over a period of five years. These are in addition to the offers made at Karachi (namely £1,000,000 over five years by the United Kingdom and Rs500,000 by Pakistan). The Council noted that progress had been made in the implementation of approved joint projects. It approved the resolution of the Economic Committee for further implementation of those projects. This resolution recommends that the donor governments, members of the Bagdad Pact Economic Committee, give early and favourable consideration to providing assistance for such projects, and that member countries of the region continue their present efforts to implement them. The Council recognised the need for specification on approved projects and was pleased to note that the survey for the telecommunications network linking the capitals of the area members was already under way. It received with appreciation the announcement by the United States that it expected to provide an additional 10,000,000 dollars thus ensuring that most of the funds needed for the construction of this network will be available. The U.S. referred also to the possibility of obtaining additional financing for joint projects from the world bank, the Export-Import bank and the recently established development loan fund.
  Scientific Co-operation
  The Council noted that co-operation among members of the Economic Committee and the sub-committees in the nuclear centre and its scientific council is already making a contribution to the raising of standards of technical and scientific knowledge in the Pact countries. It decided that their deputies should examine the possibilities of extending the present programme into wider fields.
  Military
  The Council noted that "the combined military planning organisation" had been set up in Bagdad last autumn. This gave considerable impetus to defensive military planning, increased the effectiveness of the defence efforts of the signatory states of the Pact and marked a significant step forward in the determination of member nations by international co-operation to uphold their sovereignty. The Council approved the designation of the permanent planning organisation as the "Combined Military Planning Staff" and approved a charter for the Director and his staff. Among the ditties of the Combined Military Planning Staff are the planning and coordinating of combined staff training exercises.
  382
  The Council also accepted a recommendation of the Military Committee to hold combined staff training exercises in the near future.
  The Council also accepted the Military Committee's recommendation to appoint Lieutenant-General Ekrem Akalin of the Turkish army to be Director of the Combined Military Planning Staff for the year 1958. He will be assisted by Major-General Daniel S. Campbell of the United States Forces, who has been the Deputy-Director of the Combined Military Planning Staff since September 1957.
  The Council commended the work in 1957 of the first Director of the Combined Military Planning Staff. Major-General M. Habibullah Khan of the Pakistan Army.
  Next Meeting of the Council
  The Council decided to hold its next meeting at the ministerial level in London in July, 1958. Meanwhile the Council will continue to meet regularly at the deputy level.

  NOTE ON THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC COMMITTEE OF THE BAGDAD PACT
  The Economic Committee of the Bagdad Pact which met in Ankara from the 17th to the 21st of January approved a number of recommendations for action by countries which are members of the Committee. Some of these recommendations called for continuation or development of action planned at the previous Session of the Economic Committee in Karachi in May, 1957; others cover new subjects.
  The following are examples: in agriculture, improved arrangements for testing and manufacture of animal vaccines, the establishment of an international centre for training and research in animal reproduction and artificial insemination in Pakistan, the rationalisation of plant quarantine systems in the region, the continuation of joint activities on pest control, soil fertility surveys; in health, co-operation in antimalarial measures; in trade, co-operation in marketing of common products and the study of methods of promoting tourism in the Bagdad Pact region, studies on the possibility of establishing a Free Trade Area in the Bagdad Pact region. The recommendations on nuclear energy refer mainly to the continuation of the existing training and research activities of the Centre.
  The resolutions adopted by the Economic Committee result from the work of Sub-Committees which meet between Sessions of the Economic Committee and they provide the main basis for the flourishing programme of technical assistance which has now been developed on the economic side of the Pact and to which Her Majesty's Government have already committed £250,000 out of a total of £1 million made available for technical assistance over a period of five years.

  UNITED NATIONS

    South Africa (Racial Discrimination)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Governments voted in the recent General Assembly of the United Nations with the

    383
    United Kingdom in the minority of six against the 59 Governments which supported a resolution deploring that South Africa had not responded to United Nations' requests to modify its policies of racial discrimination.
    Commander Noble: The delegations of Australia, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Portugal, as well as the United Kingdom, voted against the adoption of this resolution.
    Mr. Brockway: Is not this a very insignificant minority with which Britain should be associated in the United Nations against an overwhelming majority of 59? Is not it desirable that this country should make it clear that we stand against this obnoxious practice of apartheid in South Africa?
    Commander Noble: As the hon. Member probably knows quite well, the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this matter rests entirely on our strong and consistent views of the importance of Article 2 (7) of the Charter. Our representatives at the United Nations have always refrained from expressing any view on the merits or otherwise of the racial policies of the Government of the Union of South Africa.

    Algeria
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the delegate of the United Kingdom voted in the recent General Assembly of the United Nations on the resolution on Algeria.
    Commander Noble: The reply to this Question was given to the hon. Member on 19th December.
    Mr. Brockway: Since 19th December, however, there have been developments. Whilst admittedly our own record is tarnished by what has happened in Cyprus—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—is it not desirable that this country should protest against the uncivilised war in Algeria, as illustrated this week by the criminal bombing of the village in Tunisia?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was far beyond the Question on the Order Paper. Mr. Rankin.
    Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. I put a Question to the right hon. and
    384
    gallant Gentleman, who replied that he had given me an earlier Answer. Since that earlier Answer, there have been developments, and my Question and the supplementary question referred to those developments.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should have put down a Question with regard to those later developments. That is not what he asked in the Question on the Order Paper.

    Special Committee on Hungary (Report)
    Mr. Bairdasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet considered the second interim report of the United Nations Committee investigating the Bang-Jensen case; and, as that Committee has now come to the conclusion that the documents are of doubtful validity, if he will now withdraw the abridged report of the United Nations Special Committee on Hungary published by his Department.
    Commander Noble: My right hon. and learned Friend has considered the two interim reports of the Committee of Investigation. They deal only with Mr. Bang-Jensen's handling of certain papers. The reports do not in any way cast doubt either on the bona fides of the witnesses who appeared before the Special Committee on Hungary, or on the evidence considered by that Committee, or on the validity of its report. The answer to the second part of the Question is therefore "No, Sir."
    Mr. Baird: As the first report of this Committee states categorically
    "The same irresponsibility which has marked his method of handling the papers may have brought about their alteration or defacement in respects impossible now to ascertain. Accordingly such information as may now be embodied in them is no longer entitled to credence."
    and as to a certain extent the report was based on this evidence which is now of doubtful validity, surely the whole report should be withdrawn and the matter looked at once again?
    Commander Noble: The papers which Mr. Bang-Jensen retained in his personal custody contained material which might have identified Hungarian witnesses who wished to remain anonymous, as was, I think, natural in the circumstances. The

    385
    Committee thinks he handled those papers in such a way that they might have been tampered with and the Committee, therefore, ordered that they should be destroyed, and that was carried out on 24th January. I think the implications of the hon. Member's Questions have done a disservice not only to the people of Hungary, but to the United Nations whose Committee produced such an excellent report.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Having regard to the fact that the reports which have appeared about this document in both The Times and the Manchester Guardian give a very different picture of its contents from the one which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just given to the House, will he see that the whole report is made available as a White Paper published by the Government so that we can all form our own opinion as to whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is right or wrong in the supplementary answer he has just given?
    Commander Noble: I think that if the hon. Member will study my reply and the report he will find that I am right. I will certainly give consideration to the question he raised about a White Paper.

  SOUTH-EAST ASIA (SINGAPORE CONFERENCE)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions were reached at the Annual Conference of British Governors, High Commissioners, ambassadors, senior officials and heads of the Armed Services in the Far East, in Singapore last month, with regard to the future military and strategic value of Singapore; and to what extent the Government of Singapore will be consulted on any decisions reached.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): None, Sir. The conference of senior United Kingdom Representatives and officials in the area is held annually on the initiative of the Commissioner-General for the United Kingdom in South-East Asia to discuss matters affecting the whole region. The purpose of the meeting is to afford an opportunity for those attending to exchange views informally on the questions which face Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in the area.
  386
  The question of taking decisions does not arise at this meeting.
  Mr. Rankin: The Joint Under-Secretary will realise that he has evaded the last part of my Question. If we are to recognise the right of Singapore to self-government, towards which she is advancing, surely, if we are to have a military base there, we want it to be on solid political foundations. Why, then, has the Government of Singapore not been consulted in these matters?
  Mr. Harvey: The hon. Member will know that questions relating to political developments in Singapore are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.

  EGYPT, TRIPOLITANIA AND TUNISIA (MALTESE BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Maltese who are recognised as United Kingdom subjects but not as Maltese citizens are now left in Egypt, Tripoli and Tunisia; and, in view of the fact that only nationals of these countries are allowed to obtain most kinds of work, what steps he will take to try to arrange for these people to emigrate to Australia and elsewhere.
  Mr. Ian Harvey: The approximate figures are 1,000 in Egypt, 2,100 in Tripolitania and 6,500 in Tunisia. The assisted passage scheme for Maltese British subjects in Egypt is at present in abeyance, but 766 persons who were formerly resident in Egypt were assisted to emigrate to Australia from this country in 1957. The question of giving further help to Maltese British subjects who wish to emigrate to Australia from Libya and Tunisia is at present under consideration.
  Mr. Teeling: Will my hon. Friend do his level best to try to help these people, who, as he will be aware, are making every effort to try to get out, especially from Tunisia, where they certainly are not wanted? Furthermore, does my hon. Friend realise that since some of these people are two generations British, the Maltese Government will not allow them to go back to Malta?
  Mr. Harvey: Yes, Sir, we realise this problem. Apart from the financial angle, however, a serious difficulty is the shortage of available passages.

  ISRAEL (TRIPARTITE DECLARATION)
  Mr. du Cannasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the existing frontiers of Israel are considered by Her Majesty's Government to be final and internationally accepted and which are not; and to what extent the principles of the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 apply to the existing frontiers of Israel.
  Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) to what extent the Tripartite Declaration is valid in respect of those countries bordering on Israel which have accepted it, and in respect of those which have not, respectively;
  (2) which countries bordering on Israel have accepted the Tripartite Declaration.
  Commander Noble: Her Majesty's Government, as indeed I believe is the case with all other members of the United Nations, consider that Israel's existing frontiers are governed by the terms of the general Armistice Agreements signed between Israel and her neighbours. These Agreements are explicitly without prejudice to a final settlement.
  The Tripartite Declaration applies, with regard to Israel, to these Armistice frontiers.
  Israel and all the Arab States concerned, in the course of 1950 gave assurances in regard to that part of the Declaration which speaks of arms supplies, to the effect that they had no aggressive intentions.
  With regard to the portion of the Tripartite Declaration which deals with the violation of existing armistic lines, as I pointed out on 26th November, 1956, the Declaration is a statement of intent between the three co-signatories, and was not negotiated with any outside country. None of the Middle East States concerned has expressly accepted the implications of the Declaration so far as its defence is concerned. On the other hand, none of them apart from Egypt has taken the stand that it would not
  388
  accept the implications of the Declaration.
  I think the position with regard to Egypt was fully explained by my right hon. and learned Friend on 1st April, 1957. Her Majesty's Government are, however, consulting their co-signatories to the Declaration for their views on the possible effect which the projected Egyptian—Syrian Union may have with regard to the undertakings under the Declaration which the three parties have towards each other.
  Mr. du Cann: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there is a strong view, which will perhaps be reinforced by what he has said, that the Tripartite Declaration is of greater academic than practical interest and that there is, therefore, a view that a fresh approach should be made to the whole of this problem in order to reduce tension? Would not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that the fresh approach might take the form of the great Powers guaranteeing the frontiers of Israel and also guaranteeing the frontiers of the Arab countries bordering upon Israel?
  Commander Noble: As I said in my Answer, we are consulting our cosignatories as to whether recent or future developments in the Middle East might need some alteration in our Declaration.
  Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the proposition which has just been put by his hon. Friend has been made on several occasions from this side of the House—that there should be a double guarantee, which does not rule out the possibility of minor rectifications of the frontier where absurdities are manifest, but which does rule out any substantial alteration of the territory of Israel, but which nevertheless would give a double guarantee, one to the Arab States against Israel and the other to Israel against the Arab States?
  Commander Noble: Her Majesty's Government will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Shinwell: Could not the subject be made one of the main topics at the forthcoming Summit Conference?
  Commander Noble: The agenda for the Summit Conference has yet to be agreed.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is not the opinion of th right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this important topic could be made one of the main subjects at the forthcoming Summit Conference?
  Commander Noble: It could be made one of the main subjects.

  CYPRUS (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what discussions have been held with the Greek Government regarding Her Majesty's Government's proposals for Cyprus;
  (2) what conversations he has had with the Greek and Turkish Governments about Cyprus.
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding his discussions with the Turkish Government on the future status of Cyprus.
  Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with Greek and Turkish Ministers about the Cyprus problem.
  Commander Noble: In view of the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend is now in Athens for discussions on the Cyprus problem with the Greek Government, I hope the House will understand if I do not today in reply to Questions, or supplementary questions, add to the Answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.
  Mrs. Jeger: While I appreciate the Minister's difficulties, may I ask him to represent to his right hon. and learned Friend that any unnecessary delay in making a statement is only adding to speculation and rumour, which are doing a great deal of harm? If it is not possible for him to make an early statement, will the Foreign Secretary at least consider making an interim statement to counteract some of the rumours that are spreading?
  Commander Noble: I might at least go as far as saying that there will be no unnecessary delay.

  YEMEN (CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES, TAIZ)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement in regard to British diplomatic representation in the Yemen.
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the expulsion from his post of Her Majesty's chargé d'Affaires in Taiz.
  Commander Noble: On the 27th January the Yemeni chargé d'Affaires in London conveyed orally to the Foreign Office a request from his Government for the withdrawal of Her Majesty's chargé d'Affaires at Taiz. As no reasons were given for this request the Yemeni chargé d'Affaires was asked to inquire from his Government what they were. The Yemeni Government have still not furnished any reasons, but in view of the embarrassing situation in which Her Majesty's chargé d'Affaires has been placed by this request my right hon. and learned Friend has now instructed him to leave the Yemen. Her Majesty's Legation at Taiz has not been closed.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that a substitute has been supplied in place of that gentleman who has been withdrawn? In view of the considerable amount of disturbance to mind as well as in fact in that area, is there any likelihood of a conference between the Yemeni authorities and representatives of Her Majesty's Government about all the matters causing confusion and misunderstanding?
  Commander Noble: I am not sure whether I heard aright the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question in which, I think, he asked whether the chargé d'Affaires would be replaced. That has not been decided. As I think he knows, the Crown Prince of the Yemen was in London last summer and considerable consultations took place.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend assure the House that the Government have appropriate action in mind to meet this very unsatisfactory situation?
  Commander Noble: Yes, we are most certainly pressing the Yemeni Government to give their reasons for declaring the chargé d'Affaires persona non grata.
  Mr. Sorensen: It may be that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstood my supplementary question, so may I explain that I did not refer to the Yemeni chargé d'Affaires but to our own British diplomatic representative?
  Commander Noble: Exactly. As I said, it has not yet been decided whether to replace him.

  EGYPT AND SYRIA (UNION)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official representations have been received with regard to the establishment of the United Arab Republic; whether Her Majesty's Government intend to afford de jure recognition to the new State; and whether he will make a statement.
  Commander Noble: Her Majesty's Government have received no official representations with regard to the recent announcement in Cairo of a "United Arab Republic". So far as is known, no Government of the "United Arab Republic" is yet in existence. This being so, the question of recognition does not arise.

  CENTRAL EUROPE (NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONE)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state the British Government's policy in regard to the Polish proposals for an atom-free zone in Central Europe, under an effective system of control, and as a preliminary step towards the reduction and eventual withdrawal of foreign troops stationed within that area.
  Commander Noble: The proposals referred to by the hon. Member are still being considered by Her Majesty's Government in consultation with their North
  392
  Atlantic Treaty Organisation Allies. I therefore regret I am not in a position to make a statement of Her Majesty's Government's policy about these questions.
  Mr. Warbey: Have the Government taken into account a highly significant statement issued in Moscow last week in which the Polish and Soviet Foreign Ministers jointly declared their readiness to take part in an effective system of control in the proposed atom-free zone? As this represents a very important concession to the Western point of view, cannot the Government now take this matter up and get things moving?
  Commander Noble: The Government consider all statements made from Moscow. As I said, we have not finished our examination.

  SUEZ CANAL
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the establishment of the new United Arab Republic, he will make a statement on the future status and operation of the Suez Canal in relation to the six requirements embodied in the Security Council Resolution of 13th October, 1956.
  Commander Noble: It remains the strongly held view of Her Majesty's Government that the Suez Canal should be operated as an international waterway in conformity with the six principles laid down by the Security Council in October, 1956.
  It is too early to forecast what effect the union of Egypt and Syria might have on the operation of the Canal. I note, however, that one of the seventeen principles publicly announced by Colonel Nasser as the basis of the union is that
  "provisions of international treaties and agreements concluded by Syria and Egypt with other States shall remain in force with regard to the territorial spheres stipulated at the time of their conclusion, in accordance with the provisions of international law".
  It would seem to follow from this that the new State would accept the same obligations as did Egypt with regard to the operation of the Canal.
  Mr. Henderson: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what the present position of the Security

  393
  Council is in relation to this matter? The Prime Minister said a few months ago that the Security Council was still seized of the question of the future of the Suez Canal. Has anything been done?
  Commander Noble: The Security Council remains seized of the question, and the Secretary-General is still engaged in seeking a solution.

  EGYPT (FINANCIAL TALKS)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position in respect of compensation or restitution for British citizens whose property was appropriated by the Egyptian Government; whether further consideration has been given to the Egyptian claim for compensation for destruction of Egyptian property by military action; and whether British ships now continue to pass freely through the Suez Canal.
  Commander Noble: The Anglo-Egyptian financial talks, whose scope includes the restitution of British property in Egypt and compensation where it is due, were resumed at Rome on 30th January.
  The position remains unchanged that Her Majesty's Government do not admit liability to pay compensation for damage caused in Egypt by the events of November to December, 1956.
  British ships continue to pass freely through the Canal.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that little progress is being made about compensation for our own nationals because of our refusal to recognise Egyptian claims relating to the destruction of their property?
  Commander Noble: No, I do not think so. I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that I would not wish to say anything about the talks while they are still going on.

  PANAMA (Mr. DON WHITE)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the result of the inquiries made in respect of allegations made by Mr. Don White, now resident in the Borough of Leyton, of his
  394
  maltreatment by Panamanian officials; and what redress for Mr. White has been secured from the Panamanian Government.
  Mr. Ian Harvey: Her Majesty's Ambassador took this case up personally with the Panamanian Minister for Foreign Affairs on 3rd January. The Minister undertook to make inquiries and to send a reply as soon as his inquiries had been completed. This reply has not yet been received.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. Gentleman say when replies are likely to be received? Seeing that this matter has now gone on a long time and my constituent apparently received very serious maltreatment without any warranty at all when he was at the frontier, can the hon. Gentleman expedite the inquiries?
  Mr. Harvey: Yes. There is no doubt that Mr. White was maltreated by Panamanian officials. His injuries were seen by two members of our Embassy. We will expedite this matter.

  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he possesses of the manufacture of nuclear weapons by countries who are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation other than Great Britain and the United States of America.
  Commander Noble: None, Sir. However, the French Government consider that France remains free to manufacture nuclear weapons until their manufacture has been stopped in other countries already possessing them.
  Mr. Hughes: Is it the case that France will be in a position to make nuclear tests some time this year? Does not this make it increasingly vital that some international agreement should be reached at once to ban all these tests?
  Commander Noble: I do not think any international agreement to ban tests in isolation would stop what is called the "fourth country" making its own nuclear weapons.
  Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of the opinion that France proposes to make a test this year, and if so, has he any idea when?
  Commander Noble: No, I have no idea whatsoever, and I did not say so.
  Mr. Bevan: I did not say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said so. Will he find cut, and if the tests are likely to be made before the Summit Conference is held, would it not be desirable to make representations to France that she should not hold them until after the Conference?

  FRANCE AND TUNISIA
  Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will make an additional grant in aid to the International Red Cross Committee in respect of the expenses incurred by the Red Cross mission now in Tunisia;

  (2) what action he proposes to take at the Security Council regarding the Tunisian complaint about the bombing of Sakiet by French aircraft;

  (3) what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to bring the dispute between France and Tunisia to the attention of the North Atlantic Council.

  Commander Noble: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will answer these Questions together. I thought that the House would wish that I should answer them.
  Her Majesty's Government were gravely concerned by the recent French raid on a Tunisian village. They deplore the loss of civilian lives involved. We are actively discussing the situation with the French and Tunisian Governments, with both of whom we are in close and friendly relations. Our Ambassadors in Paris and Tunis were instructed to urge on the French and Tunisian Governments the need for moderation and restraint. It is true that the relations between France and Tunisia have recently deteriorated; but, fortunately, not yet so far that wise statesmanship cannot restore that collaboration which is so much in the interest of both countries and of all the West.
  The Tunisian representative at the United Nations has addressed a note to the Secretary-General which has been circulated to all members. It describes the incident and the measures subsequently
  396
  taken by the Tunisian Government, and then
  "reserves the right to have recourse in conformity with the United Nations Charter"
  to the machinery provided by the Charter. I have no confirmation that the Tunisian representative has, in fact, requested a meeting of the Security Council. The matter was being discussed this morning in the North Atlantic Council. I have not yet received a full report of the meeting, but I understand that the French representative conveyed certain information to his colleagues.
  Her Majesty's Government's support of the International Red Cross is by means of regular gifts which are taken into the general fund of the Red Cross and used as it thinks best. An International Red Cross team was active in the area at the time and, in spite of damage, is continuing its services. A special contribution does not appear to be required on this occasion. If the Red Cross were to make a request we would certainly be prepared to consider it further.
  The House will be aware that various private bodies in this country, such as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief and the Save the Children Fund, have been active in helping Algerian refugees in Tunisia and Morocco. Indeed, the Tunisian Government have recently expressed to us their gratitude for the work being done by British societies in this way.
  Mr. Benn: May I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his courtesy in answering these very important Questions, and put certain supplementary questions to him? First, would he not confirm that an International Red Cross Mission in Sakiet, at the time of the bombing, consisted of four lorries, three of which were destroyed by French aircraft, and that the Swedish colonel in command of the convoy has reported the incident in an eye-witness account which leaves no doubt that further supplies are necessary?
  Secondly, what instructions have been given to the British delegate at N.A.T.O. to take up the question of the use of American bombers, supplied under N.A.T.O., for this attack upon a third country, which is not only a breach of the Charter but of Articles 1 and 7 of the N.A.T.O. Agreement itself? Will the

  397
  right hon. and gallant Gentleman also say whether the British Government are content to leave the Security Council matter entirely to the initiative of the Tunisian or French members?
  Is it not the case that if Russian aircraft had bombed an Austrian village, on the ground that the Austrians were helping Hungarian refugees, a very different result would have followed from the initiative of this country? Would the Minister now offer some initiative from London towards bringing to an end the Algerian war, which is the cause of all this tragic business?
  Commander Noble: As I said in my original statement, there was some damage during the raid and I have seen reports along the lines of what the hon. Member has just said, but the International Red Cross operates over a very wide field and I think that the organisation and the Tunisians are able to deal with this incident.
  This is, of course, a matter for N.A.T.O. and in that respect the problem will have been under consideration this morning. Our representative was instructed to emphasise the importance of a constructive effort to restore the situation. We do not yet know whether the Tunisians have asked for a meeting of the Security Council, but I think that we should wait until we have further news from New York.
  Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House share the deep shock that this incident has caused to public opinion throughout the country? Is he aware that this has also been shared by responsible public opinion in France itself and that very many Frenchmen of distinction have expressed their horror at what has happened? Is he also aware that we hope that he will co-operate further to see that, the incident is fully
  398
  investigated and reparations properly made?
  Commander Noble: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I think that in the United Nations, and in our consultations—as in those of other friendly Powers—with the French and Tunisian Governments, the aim of Her Majesty's Government will be to help in restoring friendly relations between France and Tunisia.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Civil Aviation (Independent Operators)
  Mr. H. Steward: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 28th February, I shall call attention to the contribution being made by independent operators in the United Kingdom air transport, and move a Resolution.
  World Development Authority
  Mr. Reeves: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 28th February, I shall call attention to the need for a world development authority in order to raise the standard of living of under-developed areas, and move a Resolution.
  National Disaster Funds
  Mr. MacColl: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 28th February, I shall call attention to the need for examination of the working of national disaster funds, and move a Resolution.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on the Motion for an Instruction to the Committee on the Park Lane Improvement Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

FIRST OFFENDERS
3.39 p.m.
Sir George Benson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the imprisonment of first offenders.
The purpose of this proposed small Bill is to amend Section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. The Section laid down that before a court might send an adolescent to prison it must first examine and consider all alternative methods. There was no limitation whatsoever of the power. There was merely the duty to consider alternative methods before the court imposed imprisonment.
The effect of the Section was spectacular. Instantaneously, it reduced the number of adolescents sent to prison by one-half, and for the last eight years the figure for imprisonment of adolescents has remained one-half of what it was before the Criminal Justice Act was passed. I am afraid that there can be no other deduction but that the courts were in the habit of passing sentences upon adolescents very carelessly.
The Bill I propose lays down that Section 17, as regards magistrates' courts, shall also apply to first offenders. Again, there is no limitation on the power of courts. The Bill merely stipulates that before sentencing a first offender to imprisonment a magistrates' court shall consider alternative methods. I put forward this suggestion some four years ago in a debate in this House on overcrowding in prisons. Since that date the proposal has been accepted by the Home Office Advisory Council and, also, I believe, by the Magistrates' Association.
There is a very great difference between adolescent offenders and adult first offenders. The success rate for adolescents is less than 50 per cent. The success rate for adult first offenders is over 80 per cent. I think that since the Bill proposes to deal with a class with so high a success rate the House is entitled to ask magistrates' courts to think twice before sending these people to prison.
There is one argument which I ought to meet. It is that if imprisonment is so effective in dealing with first offenders, would it not be advisable to leave well alone? The astonishing thing is that
400
all types of sentence give exactly the same result in the case of first offenders —the success rate is always not less than 80 per cent.
This percentage is perhaps one of the most remarkable constants in social statistics. It seems to be valid both over time and in various countries. It turned up initially in the first really serious piece of research into the results of court sentences made by Professor Glueck, of the Massachusetts Reformatory, in 1923. Here, first offenders showed a success rate of 80 per cent. or better.
The next piece of research was produced by the Illinois Parole Board. I need hardly remind hon. Members that the State of Illinois contains Chicago, which has not got a particularly savoury record. Here again, however, the success rate for first offenders on parole, according to the report made to the Governor of Illinois in 1928 by the Parole Board, was again not less than 80 per cent.
In France, they have what is known as the suspended sentence, and here again the success rate appears to be 80 per cent. for first offenders. I am quoting from memory, and for France I cannot give chapter and verse. But when we come to England, to our own country, there is massive evidence to show that 80 per cent. is the minimum success rate, irrespective of the form of sentence the court imposes.
Perhaps the most remarkable evidence of the stability of this figure is that although in this period of full employment a sentence of imprisonment on first offenders gives, as I say, a success rate of not less than 80 per cent., in 1930, when there were 3 million unemployed, the success rate was even then 80 per cent. or over.
In the same unemployment period—in 1928 and again in 1932—the Metropolitan Police made perhaps the most massive investigation that has been made into the results of court treatment of first offenders. Those two researches covered about 35,000 people and included fines, probations, bindings over and imprisonment, and in every case, with one exception, the results were not less than 80 per cent. success. The one exception was in 1932, when persons put on probation showed a 77 per cent. success rate instead of 80 per cent. I do not think that one slight

401
variation can be regarded as invalidating what appears to be a universal rule that 80 per cent. or more of first offenders will prove successful.
Here I make one point of explanation. The 80 per cent. is an average rate. Different classes of first offenders have different rates. For example, there is a different rate for the sexes. Women have a higher success rate than men. There is also a different rate for the adult age groups. Persons over 40 have a higher success rate than those in the 20s. Nevertheless, the average for all first offenders, irrespective of the sentence of the court, is not less than 80 per cent. In view of this, it seems to me that the House is entitled to ask the courts, before they send first offenders to prison, to think at least twice.
We shall not be encouraging recidivism, because the universal figures show that, whatever is done with a first offender, approximately the same results are achieved, but if we lay this limitation upon the courts we may be doing something which will help materially to solve the grave problem of overcrowding in our prisons today. I therefore respectfully ask the House to grant me leave to bring in this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir George Benson, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Younger, and Mr. Montgomery Hyde.

FIRST OFFENDERS
Bill to restrict the imprisonment of first offenders, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LIFE PEERAGES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.48 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have it, Sir, in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, has been graciously pleased to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament in connection therewith.
  This is a short Measure to enable life peers, who may include women, to be created with the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It was on 12th February, 1857, that the House of Lords, in the Wensleydale case, took a decision relating to life peers which this Bill will reverse, and I can best put the Bill in its right historical perspective by recalling the circumstances of that case very shortly. A century ago, in contrast to the present time, the Lords were weak in judicial power. Sombre pictures were painted at the time of the then Lord Chancellor sitting alone on the Woolsack, in the dark.
  To strengthen their judicial powers there was a move to confer a peerage on a judicial officer of high standing who then enjoyed the title "Baron of the Exchequer". The Sovereign was not prepared to confer on this gentleman an hereditary peerage, but Letters Patent were issued to create him a real baron —not a mere Baron of the Exchequer—for life.
  When the writ was presented in the House of Lords, however, their Lordships took strong objection and set up a Select Committee to consider whether the Crown had power to create life peers. The conclusion was that no life peerage had been conferred for 400 years and that the prerogative power had fallen into desuetude. While, therefore, the new Lord Wensleydale enjoyed the title and dignity of a peer, he was debarred from sitting in their Lordships' House. In bringing this Bill before the House after such a lapse of time, Her Majesty's

  403
  Government cannot, at any rate, be accused of acting with indecent haste.
  Before I deal with the Bill itself, may I make one or two general observations upon which, I hope, there may be substantial agreement. Her Majesty's Government are convinced—and in this, I think, we are supported by the overwhelming majority of people—that in the highly complicated society in which we live we must have a second Chamber. We in this House surely realise, in all modesty, that our work, however properly done, is better if it can be revised by another Chamber complementary to ourselves.
  This was expressed very lucidly by the late Lord Jowitt, on the Second Reading of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill of 1946, in a reference to the Commons proceedings. He referred to an error in the Bill. Speaking of it in another place on 21st January, 1947, he said that it
  "shows, if any one of us were inclined to deny it, what great value and merit there is in having a revising Chamber, and that, even on a matter dealing with the constitution of the House of Commons, the Members there failed to observe something which I point out to your Lordships and which we shall have to put right for them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st January, 1947.]
  That has frequently been done and, through inadvertence, it may frequently have to be done again.
  That is a testimony, from a source which no doubt right hon. and hon. Members opposite will regard as impeccable, to the effect that there is very often need for a revision of the Bills which we send forward. This is due partly to the pressure under which we work, and I think it is valuable, in those circumstances, to have our legislation revised with care and thoroughness in another place. This, I think, fully justifies the House of Lords as part of the Parliamentary machine.
  If it be agreed that there is need for an Upper House, there are two broad issues which we do well to consider from time to time. The first is what the extent of its powers should be and the second is, how ought it to be constituted? In this Bill we are not concerned with powers. The powers of the House of Lords were modified by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and the Government do not propose any further adjustment. We are
  404
  concerned in the Bill solely with the constitution of the House of Lords.
  In approaching this difficult question of the membership of the House of Lords, I want to correct a common mistake. It is not true, of course, either as a matter of history or in the circumstances of today, to think of the House of Lords as a body all of whom owe their seats to the accident of birth. The House of Lords has never been a body so composed. Looking back in history, up to the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, in the sixteenth century, the bishops and abbots normally outnumbered the hereditary peers.
  In the past 500 years there has been a continual reinforcement of the Upper House by the creation of new peerages, and though these peerages were descendable to male heirs, the effect has been that at all times in its history there have been in the House, in varying numbers, men prominent in its work who were present because of their own merits and not because of those of their ancestors. Today, for example, there are some 170 peers of the first creation, many of whom are prominent in the work of this House.
  In 1876, an addition to the nonhereditary element was made when a number of Lords of Appeal were authorised by Statute. Originally, they were to sit so long as they held the office of Law Lord, but shortly afterwards the position was altered and they sat for life.
  When looking at this problem, therefore, we are not concerned with a House of Lords of which the composition has been static, or with a House of Lords to which, as may once have been the case, entry depends not only on public service, but on the possession of wealth or property. The membership of the Upper House has changed with the passage of the years. Lack of means is no longer a bar to entry. Peerages have been conferred and are conferred on grounds of public service and almost all interests in the life of the nation have spokesmen in the Upper House.
  We now propose to empower the Crown to create life peers. This may not be a very big change, but I think that hon. Members wish me to examine it in support of our belief that this change will be a considerable improvement on the present situation.

  405
  Some have argued, and will argue, that there is a case for a reform of the House of Lords more radical and comprehensive than that which the Bill proposes. I should like to make this submission to the House: any comprehensive change should be one based on agreement between the two parties, and no such agreement has hitherto proved possible. Since 1911, attempts to reach agreement on reform, all of them unsuccessful, have frequently been made. It is true that most of the discussions have embraced the contentious question of powers as well as the question of membership, and the area of controversy has, therefore, been wide. On the other hand, I do not think that it has been as wide as the exaggerated terms of the Amendment put down by the Opposition on the Order Paper today.
  I remember, for example, the talks of February-April, 1948, an account of which was published in Cmd. 7380. This is certainly not the occasion to review these talks, but they were conducted in an atmosphere of reason and calm, not the somewhat hysterical terms of the Amendment on the Order Paper. The proposals to which both sides were ready to give further consideration, as set out in that Command Paper, certainly do not give the impression that anyone thought of an Upper House which would
  "frustrate and obstruct the will of the elected representatives of the people."
  Nor does the record of the Upper House in recent times bear this out at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "The nationalisation of steel."] The Opposition sometimes say that they do not trust another place when they themselves are in power. Let us look at what happened in the Parliament of 1945–50.
  In view of the radical alteration, as a result of the 1945 Election, of the normal position of a Government majority in both Houses, Lord Salisbury, then Viscount Cranborne, laid down the principles which should guide the House of Lords in the new situation in terms which I think are worth reading, because they remind us of what happened at that time. Speaking of the Labour Government of that day, he said:
  "The Government may, therefore, I think, fairly claim that they have a mandate to introduce these proposals."
  That was their programme of the Election of 1945.
  406
  "I believe that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has so recently expressed its view, for this House"—
  that is, the Upper House—
  "to oppose proposals which have been definitely put before the electorate. … Let them have a fair trial. If there is one thing that has struck me in the short time that I have been in your Lordships' House it is this—whatever it may have been in the past it is now no mere party Assembly but rather a Council of State. This is an occasion, if ever there was one, to show statesmanship."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, House of Lords, 16th August, 1945; Vol. 137. c. 47–8.]
  As a result, the House will remember, in the years which followed no fewer than six nationalisation Bills were passed by the Upper House, and if right hon. and hon. Members opposite feel that that is not their view, then I will quote the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who, in November, 1946, said:
  "… we have seen the remarkable and characteristically British spectacle of a Chamber with a large Right wing majority passing one nationalisation Bill after another."
  He went on to say:
  "The rarity of a conflict between the Lords and the Commons is nowadays so great that most people take the smooth working of the two Houses for granted."
  That does not sound as if the terms of the Amendment are appropriate to the present situation.
  I could go on to quote a variety of statements in support of that view, for example, that by Sir Stafford Cripps almost a year later when, on the Second Reading of the Companies Bill [Lords] on 6th June, 1947, he drew attention to the fact that about 360 Amendments had been made and said:
  "I believe that those modifications will be found to be improvements, but the fundamental recommendations of the Committee very largely remain in the Bill as it now is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 587.]
  That is a reference to the Cohen Committee. There is an example of the Upper House doing its work conscientiously and carrying it through as a revising Chamber.
  Dealing with the Bill to nationalise the coal industry which could not but be regarded at that time as a highly controversial Measure—with a mandate behind it—Lord Jowitt, speaking in another place, paid this tribute:
  "… I have had your Lordships' collaboration, whether you agree with the policy of this Bill

  407
  or not in trying to make this a workable Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 4th July, 1946; Vol. 142, c. 133.]
  There is absolutely no doubt that the Upper House at that time when, as has been said, it was the first occasion for some time when there was not a Government majority in both Houses, acted with statesmanship and quite contrary to the imaginary language in the Opposition's Amendment today.
  I will now deal with the detail of the Bill itself. If we cannot get agreement between the parties on any radical scheme of reform of the House of Lords, what is the need for this Measure? I will describe it. It is simply to make possible the strengthening of the House of Lords by the creation of life peers who will be able and prepared to attend regularly to contribute to the discharge of that work which is vital to the working of our constitution. For a variety of reasons we all know, many people are reluctant today to accept hereditary peerages. It may be for personal reasons, it may be because they do not want their sons to become peers, or it may be for reasons which make them feel that they want to remain ordinary commoners.
  We cannot rely solely on the creation of hereditary peerages to provide an adequate field of recruitment for the House of Lords in future. What we want to do, quite simply, by this Bill is to enlarge that field and make it possible to offer life peerages to people of distinction in the public service, people who could represent some aspect of the nation's life with particular authority, or who could take part in an adequate way in the Parliamentary life of the country.
  In the many schemes of reform which have been suggested in the past there has been one common element of agreement, that there should be an increase in the non-hereditary element in the House of Lords. That is why we have decided to recommend to the House, following discussions in another place, the simple Bill which we have put before the House this afternoon. The Government have been encouraged by the favourable reception of the Bill in another place, and outside, to believe that our proposals command a wide measure of agreement.
  We commend this Measure as a practical one designed to meet the circum-
  408
  stances of the time. It is a very short Bill and it proposes the creation of life peers who may include women. It places no limit on the number of life peers who may be created. Life peers will be appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. That is the constitutional and proper course and, obviously, nothing I may say today can bind the present or future Prime Ministers to exercise their constitutional duty at any given time in any particular way. Any Prime Minister may and must be free to make whatever recommendations he thinks right in the circumstances of the time when he makes that decision.
  It may assist the House if I give some indication of the way in which we think this matter will be dealt with. What we want to achieve is the addition to the House of Lords of men and women of distinction from all the main sectors of our national life, men and women who will strengthen it by their knowledge of affairs and their experience and widely varied interests, political, scientific, economic, cultural and religious. By this means we may hope to ensure that in carrying out its important duties of revising or initiating legislation, and of debating the great issues of public policy which continually arise, the House of Lords will adequately and accurately reflect the life and thought of the nation.
  Some of those men and women—and this will no doubt interest us here, as politicians—will be recommended for appointment primarily on political grounds. Before making such recommendations of members of an opposition party, I would expect any Prime Minister informally to consult the leader of that party. The responsibility constitutionally will and must be the Prime Minister's, whoever is the Prime Minister of the day, but it would be reasonable and right for him to consult the Leader of the Opposition to ascertain the views of the Opposition on any particular recommendation; and I think that that is how the proposal will work out.
  It will also be the duty of the Prime Minister, of course, to recommend men and women who, though not actively associated with any political party, are qualified by their eminence in other spheres to make a constructive contribution to the work of Parliament. In doing so, the Prime Minister of the day

  409
  will doubtless take soundings in many quarters with the object of ensuring that those whose experience best fits them to give this service and who are able and willing to give it are selected.
  The House of Lords, as I have already shown, includes many eminent men without strong party ties but covering a wide range of subjects, as the debates in another place on many important issues make clear. There is no doubt that the valuable non-party element now contained in the Upper House can and should be strengthened and that the availability of life peers will make it possible to include in that element outstanding men and women who do not at present feel able to accept a hereditary title. Political parties are not the sole repositories of experience of life and the affairs of men, and we shall want men and women in all political groups and of none.
  It may be asked whether, even if the case for life peers is established, a limit ought not to be put on their number. The Government have taken the view that that is unnecessary and that the number of peerages to be recommended from time to time should be left to the good sense of the Prime Minister of the day. In our view, it would be illogical and contrary to our normal evolution to limit, by Statute, the number of life peers in the House of Lords when no such restriction is proposed in the case of hereditary peers; and there are also practical arguments against any such limitation.
  In the absence of agreement between the parties on any radical reform of the House of Lords, the Bill proposes to leave the hereditary element in the House unchanged. However, hon. Members will be aware that the House of Lords is considering the adoption of Standing Orders which will enable leave of absence to be granted to those peers who are unable to take any active share in the business of the House. The adoption of Standing Orders, at the discretion of another place, and the Bill, taken together, will mean that, in practice, the House of Lords should in future—as is true to a large extent today—increasingly consist of those peers, whether they hold life or hereditary titles, who are in a position to contribute positively to the business which the Upper House has to conduct.
  410
  During the course of our two-day debate there may be questions about various omissions from the Bill. There is also the criticism that it empowers the Crown to confer life peerages on women. That is a provision which the Government entirely support. I do not think that any argument of mine is necessary in support of it—but I think it will be quite interesting to see who is chosen.
  There are various other rather controversial matters, which are covered by the general omnibus argument that we are not putting forward a Bill for a comprehensive reform, or a comprehensive reform of the hereditary element. The questions asked in this connection are: why cannot hereditary peeresses, in their own right, sit in the House of Lords? Why cannot hereditary peers who do not want to give up their right to stand for the House of Commons renounce their right to sit in the House of Lords? Why cannot Scottish peers not elected as representative peers vote at Parliamentary Elections, or stand for election to, and sit in, this House? These are matters which are not included in the Bill and which, in our view, could be suitably discussed, entertained or inserted in the Bill only if it were a comprehensive Bill for the reform of the hereditary element.
  That is not the purpose of the Bill, and the Government have taken the view that it is wiser to limit the present operation to the injection of new blood which will help to keep the Upper House in a condition to discharge its functions effectively.
  I have tried to explain our main reasons for introducing this short but important Measure. I would sum up the position in this way. The Bill is strictly limited in scope, but it is a major Measure, designed to facilitate the work of the Upper House. I think that we are all agreed that, in our Constitution, the Upper House must not be a rival to this House. For that reason, I think that no Government would contemplate a second Chamber elected on the same lines as the House of Commons. But if the second Chamber is to do its work effectively it must be assured of continuing vitality and experience.
  We know—and I have described earlier —the part that the Upper House plays in perfecting and revising legislation and the

  411
  opportunity that it gives for discussing matters of vital importance to the nation, and we all know that in another place—whether we criticise it or not, and whether we are against its existence or not—the debates are very often of an exceptionally high quality and are contributed to by experts from a great many sections of our public life.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Not always.
  Mr. Butler: Not always in this House, either. The average level of debate in another place is as high as in any Chamber.
  The Government's proposals are designed to make it possible for the service at present given by members of all parties, and of no party, in the House of Lords, to be shared with others—those who have distinguished themselves in politics, or in the many fields of our national life in which experience of value in the discussion of our affairs can be gained. They will include women as well as men.
  In recommending the Bill to the House, we base our case on the line that in our Constitution, failing agreement, it is often better to take a small step and to make a gradual move—moving by evolution and not suddenly and overnight by revolutionary methods. In the Bill we simply propose to take a step in the evolution of Parliament in order to fit it to discharge its responsibilities in the constantly changing era in which we live. I therefore recommend the Bill to the House as practical and necessary. Limited in scope, and short though it is, it will take its place in the evolution of our unmatched Constitution.
  4.16 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which leaves the House of Lords overwhelmingly hereditary in character and with unimpaired powers to frustrate and obstruct the will of the elected representatives of the people."
  In the course of his remarks the Lord Privy Seal described the Opposition's Amendment as hysterical. I can only say that, compared with the language used about the House of Lords in
  412
  the past—notably by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—the amendment is in phrases of studied moderation. But I can well understand the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman. He is a member of the Conservative Party—and the Conservative Party has never had to face any frustration or obstruction from the House of Lords. He finds it difficult to understand why anybody should feel in the least excited about the problem, because there never has been a problem for the right hon. Gentleman and his party. I will return later to some of the other things which the right hon. Gentleman said.
  As he mentioned, this is a short Bill, and it may be said, in a sense, to be technically very limited. It merely enables Her Majesty to create life peers of either sex, and enables them to be summoned to sit in the House of Lords. I say at once that if we take, on their own, the two principles of life peerages compared with hereditary peerages, and no discrimination between men and women in the membership of the House of Lords, there is obviously much to commend them, although I would note, in passing, that the Government's sudden enthusiasm for non-discrimination between men and women does not extend to hereditary peeresses.
  But here we are not merely discussing two principles in the abstract; we are dealing with a proposed change in the Constitution, and I submit that we can judge whether it is or is not a desirable change only by comparing very carefully what the House of Lords is today—before the Bill is through—with what it is to be like after the change. We are in some difficulty, because this is an enabling Bill, and we do not know exactly what the consequences will be. Even the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as to what he thought Prime Ministers might or might not do do not carry us very far forward. We do not know how many life peerages will be created; we do not know how far the Standing Orders of the House of Lords will be changed. and we do not know how far the present position will be affected.
  In those circumstances the best thing that we can do, in order to try to understand what lies behind the Government's intentions in this matter, is to examine

  413
  the reasons given for introducing the Bill. I am bound to say that the more that I have examined those reasons, as they have been put forward by Government spokesmen in another place and in a much more limited fashion by the right hon. Gentleman today, the more slender the arguments for the Bill appear to be. There is no demand from public opinion for a constitutional change of this kind. The public is interested in many other things—foreign affairs, the cost of living and the Rent Act—but it has not shown any great demand to change the constitution of the House of Lords.
  What, then, are the arguments that are put forward? Oddly enough, the reasons given by the Leader of the House of Lords are quite different from those given by the Leader of this House. The Leader of this House has said that the Government are putting forward the Measure because they could not reach agreement upon a wider Measure, and that it was not necessary to have agreement on a limited Measure of this kind. He will not deny that that was what he said.
  But the noble Lord, Lord Home, moving the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, referred at the beginning of his speech to an earlier speech in which he had said—I am here quoting, as I may, because he is a Minister:
  "… that it was desirable, if at all possible, that when we concerned ourselves with changes in the powers or the composition or the practice of Parliament we should proceed by agreement between the main political parties."
  He went on to say that, of course, the Government must have the last word. We would not dispute either of those two propositions. He then went on to say, having underlined that the Government must have the last word:
  "… I would suggest that before embarking on an exercise of that kind, there is an obligation on the Government of the day to discover how far towards their objectives they can go by common consent."
  His last argument was, as he put it, that
  "for the first time for many years, it seems to us,"—
  he was referring to this Bill—
  "we can detect an area of agreement—and a significant area of agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 609–10.]
  On which leg do the Government stand in this? Are they saying to us, "We are putting this forward because it is not agreed, it is only limited", or are they
  414
  putting it forward because this is what is agreed? Those are two totally different propositions put forward in the two Houses of Parliament.
  I submit that it is perfectly clear that Lord Home was wholly in the wrong when he suggested that there was a large measure of agreement about this Bill. In point of fact, of course, there has been no discussion whatever between the two parties on this constitutional change. No attempt has been made, in respect of this Bill, to find out whether or not there could be agreement. My noble Friend Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough made plain in the House of Lords that we certainly could not view this Bill al a favourable light at all.
  I realise that Lord Home may have been referring to a different sort of agreement. He may have been thinking in terms of agreement within the House of Lords or within the Tory Party— which is rather the same thing—and indicating that, of course, there were other measures of reform on which no agreement could be reached within their party; but this was something which they could take, at any rate, as a common minimum. Whether that be so or not, it is irrelevant. We are here concerned with whether there has been any agreement between the parties and, plainly, the answer is, "No."
  The second argument put forward which, oddly enough, the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to—though it was repeatedly mentioned in the debates in another place—is that this Bill will assist the Labour Party, the Opposition, in the House of Lords. It is not very easy for us to believe, or to take seriously, the idea that the Government are anxious in any way to assist the Labour Party. If this really is put forward as a serious proposition, it seems to me very odd indeed that the Labour Party, which was to benefit so much, was not even consulted about whether it wanted the Bill.
  The Government might have come to us and asked if we had difficulties in the House of Lords. They might have asked what these difficulties were, and said, "Do you think it would help if life peerages were created and life peers able to sit in the House of Lords? Do you think it would help you to strengthen your position?". None of these things was done. We were not asked. This is

  415
  a Bill which has been imposed by the Government on the Opposition without consultation.
  I must say that there lies behind this what I can only describe as a rather unpleasantly patronising attitude to the Labour Party. The implication of this sort of approach—I am speaking of what has been said in another place; I agree that the right hon. Gentleman made no reference to it—is that we in the Labour Party have conscientious scruples—some of us do—about the acceptance of hereditary peerages; that the Tories have no such scruples, and, therefore, they are prepared to help us out of our little conscientious difficulties by making it easier for members of the Labour Party to sit in the House of Lords. And when we received this offer without any enthusiasm, Lord Hailsham described our attitude as ungenerous.
  I find this expressed fairly well also by Lord Home, later in the same speech, when he said:
  "We on this side of the House, believing as we do that the hereditary peerage has a part to play in the Upper House of Parliament, have willingly modified the hereditary principle by the introduction of life peers so as to enable the Socialist point of view to be put more effectively from the other side of the House. We have been willing to make that modification and that compromise; and if noble Lords opposite in the years to come (I am not asking them to do so today), after the passage of this Bill, will show a similar spirit of compromise, and be willing to include in a reformed House an element of hereditary peers, then we can arrive without much difficulty at the kind of scheme which is outlined by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, at the present time …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 615–6.]
  I must say to the Government that we are not accepting this offer and that we find this sort of approach most unsatisfactory and unpleasant. Let me tell them that although, of course, it is true that some members of our party do not like the idea of accepting hereditary peerages, and some of them have done so unwillingly in order to serve the party and the nation in the House of Lords, nevertheless the Government miss the whole point of our objection to the present House of Lords if they think that it can be overcome by a Measure of this sort.
  What we are objecting to is not the conscientious difficulties in which we are
  416
  supposed to be placed, but the fact that the composition of the House of Lords as a whole is totally wrong in being overwhelmingly hereditary. We should regard it as still hopelessly wrong even though, in this generous fashion, they offered us a few life peerages so that we might strengthen our ranks.
  In any case, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, if there are difficulties in manning our benches in the House of Lords, it is, at the moment, for a rather different reason. It is simply that we find it difficult— I freely confess this—to have enough people there who can put in practically the whole of their time in the House of Lords and can give up their business, profession or job, and on the basis of the allowances only recently introduced, devote, as I say, their whole time to the day-to-day work in the House of Lords which is so necessary in a revising Chamber. Therefore, the major problem—we may as well face this—is not that it is difficult to get people to accept hereditary titles; the major problem is to find people who can spare the time; the major problem is, in fact, the problem of pay in the House of Lords, about which this Bill proposes to do nothing.
  The third argument which is advanced —this was advanced by the right hon. Gentleman—is that they wish to make the House of Lords work better, they wish to strengthen it. So far as that concerns Labour peers, I have already given my answer. So far as it applies to non-Labour peers, these considerations seem to me to arise. For what reason is it believed that it will be easier to get distinguished persons to spend a lot of time in the House of Lords—which, again, is the real problem—because they are offered life peerages instead of hereditary peerages? Why should one assume that they will be more assiduous in their work than the hereditary peers? Why, indeed, should the "distinguished" people—and the right hon. Gentleman used the word twice—be those people who would have the time to do the work in the House of Lords?
  I should like, next, to ask this question. Is it really the case, as the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends make out, that a number of Tories, or Liberals for that matter, have conscientious scruples about accepting hereditary peerages, and that, as a result, there is to be

  417
  a clear widening of range of opportunity, or, rather, of recruitment? I can only say that I know of no single case where a Conservative or Liberal, who has refused a hereditary peerage, would have accepted a life peerage.
  There are certain cases of people refusing peerages, of course, because they wish to stay in this House, but has anybody any illustrations to give us showing that there is this large body of distinguished men waiting to go to the House of Lords, if only their sons do not have to go, too; I mean from the Conservative and Liberal Parties? It is very difficult to think that this is a serious proposition. Why, after all, should the Conservatives, who believe in the hereditary principle, object to hereditary peerages? In any case, are the Conservatives in the House of Lords short of members? Do they really want to strengthen their ranks?
  The final argument—and I think that this is the real argument—is that this change will, it is believed, enhance the prestige of the House of Lords, and that it will make it less vulnerable to attack. I readily agree that the Government spokesmen have recently been rather cautious in the language they have used, but other Members of the House of Lords, whom I may not quote, have been far from cautious in this matter. For instance, I refer to the interesting speech of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. If hon. Members will look at it they will see that that certainly is the reason why he was prepared to support this Bill.
  If this is seriously put forward, one must ask the question: why, and for what purpose, is it desirable to enhance the prestige of the House of Lords? Can it have any other significance except to increase its authority? The right hon. Gentleman must pardon us if we believe that this is what lies behind the mind of the Government. We have had a good deal of trouble over a long period of time with the House of Lords. We know that there are proposals for reform being bandied about on their side, and we know that the main motive behind these proposals is to preserve the authority and enhance the prestige of the House of Lords.
  Our suspicions, I am afraid, are inevitably somewhat increased in this
  418
  matter when we appreciate some of the things that have been said in another place. Here I refer in particular to something which the Lord Chancellor said, not in the recent debates but in the preliminary debate on 31st October. This is what he said:
  " But I do wish to say this to Lord Salisbury, Lord Swinton and Lord Winterton, who asked me on this paint. I believe, and the Government believe, that the British Constitution is an organic and a dynamic thing, and when we have made this change in the composition of the House, if we reach that position, the Government must—I repeat, must —consider the effect of the change, and whether and when the time has come for a further change."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 31st October, 1957; Vol. 205, c. 772.]
  Remembering that it is in reply to those noble Lords, this seems very different from the kind of further change which we would like to see in the direction of reducing the powers of the House of Lords, but, on the contrary, it is far more likely to be in the direction of increasing its prestige and authority.
  That brings me to the general question of powers. The right hon. Gentleman made great play with the fact that the House of Lords had been very reasonable with the Labour Government. That was in 1946; it did not dare be anything else. It was not so reasonable when that Government came towards the end of their term of office. This sort of argument that, after all, the House of Lords has been very nice, is not making very much impression on us, because we question the right of the House of Lords even to make decisions on this matter at all.
  It may be said, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that, at any rate, in this Measure we do not go further than that. There was no proposal to adjust the powers, but he cannot pledge the future here, nor can he give any assurance that the idea of altering the powers was completely absent for all time from the mind of the Government. In any case, I must make it plain that, in our opinion, even the present powers are excessive, and that, if, in consequence of this Bill, the prestige of the House of Lords is enhanced, we believe that the House of Lords may very well seek to use its existing powers far more intensively and far more frequently.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the point about the behaviour of the House of Lords, will he bear in mind that the argument has so far

  419
  concerned the behaviour of the House of Lords in matters where the Government are concerned? There was a recent example where the opinion of the House of Commons, on a free vote, without the Whips on, was overwhelmed—I am not talking about the merits of the matter—and where the House of Lords succeeded in frustrating the declared will of the House of Commons by making a conspiracy with the Government?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I think that my hon. Friend has certainly made a very valid point there. I was coming to matters of that kind a little later, but I entirely agree with what he says.
  I was saying that if the prestige of the House of Lords were greater, even the present powers might very well be used more intensively. The powers of delay which exist even under the 1949 Parliament Act are still considerable. It is still possible for the House of Lords, in the case of a short Bill, to delay its passage, as the Lord Chancellor admitted, by about nine months. The noble Lord gave five months as the time for a longer Bill. It may very well be that a future Labour Government may wish to pass rapidly a short Bill of great importance, for which it has a complete mandate, through both Houses of Parliament, and might then have to face obstruction of this kind.
  The amount of delay alone might be very dangerous, and if this were to happen towards the end of the Government's period of office, it would, in fact, prevent that Government from carrying that Bill at all.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman has already admitted earlier in his speech that the House of Lords should have a constitutional right of revision. What sort of period of time does he think necessary for such revision? Does he think five months too much?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that I actually said that, but I agree that if we need to have a second Chamber the case for it is as a revising second Chamber. I see no reason why, if the House of Lords makes revisions, they should not be immediately considered by the House of Commons. If, for instance, the revision took the form of the rejection of
  420
  a Bill, I personally believe that the House of Commons should be entitled to pass the Bill, in what we might call a Fourth Reading, after which the Bill becomes law. But these are matters which I was not proposing at the moment to go into —not at the moment.
  There is no doubt that there is that delaying power, and that it can be serious. There is also the power to reject Statutory Rules and Orders. I know that the House of Lords has not used these powers, but how are we to be sure that it will never use them? It could be extremely dangerous. I am not even sure that we could overcome the difficulty by the Parliament Act, but that is a legal point, which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may take up.
  We in the Labour Party do not accept for a moment the argument put forward in another place, not only by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but also by the Lord President of the Council, that, unless, in the opinion of the House of Lords, a Labour Government has a mandate for a particular Measure, the House of Lords is entitled to use its veto. I do not accept the phrase used by the Lord President of the Council to the effect that if there were no delaying power in the House of Lords, this House would be an elected dictatorship. I should think that all Members of the House of Commons would resent and object to language of that kind.
  The truth is, however, and I do not deny it, that there is a real difference between the parties on this point. Government supporters have always believed in a House of Lords as a Tory machine to delay the passage of Socialist legislation. The plain fact is that this power has never been used against a Tory Government. I would refer hon. Members, in particular, to the interesting and impressive speech of Lord Moran, in the House of Lords debate. I cannot quote from it, but I will paraphrase it. He said that the whole assumption of the Bill and the arguments behind it were that if Conservative Measures were coming to the House of Lords they were all right, and there was no need to have delaying legislation, but that if they were Socialist Measures they had to be delayed. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he regarded that position as totally unfair.

  421
  Nor can we accept the view which the Lord Chancellor has adduced that all this anxiety of ours about powers was unnecessary because, in the 1948 talks, it was agreed that no party should be guaranteed a majority. We are not dealing with that situation at all, but with a change in the Bill which leaves the overwhelming Conservative majority utterly unimpaired. I put this point to hon. Gentlemen opposite: suppose we were to have a reform in which the House of Lords retained certain delaying powers but the party balance was such that the Government in power could not be sure of a majority either way. Suppose, for instance, that in the last few years there had been a Labour majority in the House of Lords and that that Labour majority had thrown out the Rent Bill. Suppose it had delayed the passage of that Bill. Would Government supporters be so enthusiastic about the delaying powers of the House of Lords?
  The hollowness of the case for the Bill becomes, in my view, even more apparent, owing to the refusal of the Government to make at least one small change on which I believe there could have been agreement, and that is to make it possible for the sons of peers to renounce their right to a seat in the House of Lords, and. in consequence, to retain their right to a seat in the House of Commons. When my right hon. and hon. Friends in another place moved Amendments to that effect they were rejected by the Government.
  I can bring in here a question arising out of that. The Lord Chancellor, in rejecting those Amendments, suggested that this was a matter for the House of Commons. I will not argue about that, but if it is it ought to be settled during this debate. I would like to know the Government's intentions. Are they proposing to put forward an Amendment which would cover the point, or are they prepared to accept Amendments put forward from this side of the House? What is their intention? The Lord Chancellor has said, in. effect. "The ball is now with the House of Commons". Let us hear from the Government how they think it should be played.
  It is reasonable that hon. Members should ask the Opposition spokesmen what real reform, if they do not like the Bill, they would like to see. There is, first, the question whether or not there
  422
  should be a second Chamber. There may be differences of opinion on that subject; do not imagine that they need necessarily be all on one side of the House. There is one distinguished member of the Conservative Party who had rather definite views on this matter some years ago. The right hon. Member for Wood-ford, speaking in 1909, had this to say—[Laughter.] I think that hon. Members will enjoy this:
  "As democracy becomes more numerous and educated, more varied, more complex and more powerful, it is necessary that the House of Lords should recede and retire. It is necessary that it should count less and less. Most men expected that gradually as things happen in our country the House of Lords would pass peacefully and painlessly away. That would have been a natural evolution, much better for us and much better for them."
  Do not point an accusing finger solely against those who are in favour on this side of the House of a second Chamber.
  However, assuming that there is to be a second Chamber—and it is an open question—the first condition of any adequate reform is to get rid of the situation in which there is a permanent Tory majority who can obstruct the will of the House of Commons. This is the basic aim which any reform must have to be worth while at all. There are various ways in which such a reform can be carried out and I ventured, in the course of my speech during the debate on the Address, to mention three principles.
  They were that the second Chamber should not be separately elected, as it were, parallel with the House of Commons. The second was that it should not be hereditary in character, and the third that it should not have power to overrule or obstruct the House of Commons. If there were a question of real reform we would certainly think it right, if those general propositions were acceptable and particularly the point about powers, that there should be an attempt, at reaching an agreement among the parties. We should have to give much more thought to detail of this kind, and so would Government supporters. There would be no purpose in having those talks unless there were a prospect of agreement. These are the sort of principles on which we should go. I would not think it wise to go into further detail at this point.

  423
  I will mention just one other thing that has been referred to in another place, on which I would like to make our position plain. We have stated these principles. The impression that we are in any way committed, in consequence of those principles, to a Chamber wholly nominated by the party leaders as the only possible alternative method, is not correct. I have never said that but it is, of course, one proposition which has been put forward from time to time and which is, in a sense, implicit to some extent in this very Bill. I believe that there are alternatives which could be considered, both to the idea of a separate electorate and to a hereditary Chamber, which would not involve this wholesale nomination by party leaders.
  Be that as it may, the Bill is not really a reform Bill, as we see it. It leaves the Conservative majority in its overwhelming character. It leaves the present powers of the House of Lords unchanged and it gives, conveniently, an apparently slightly more respectable appearance to the House of Lords. We are opposed to a cloak of respectability put upon a person when the reality is quite unchanged. We do not see any case for enhancing the prestige of the House of Lords, so long as it is in all major respects the same as it is now. On those grounds, we submit the Amendment which I have moved.
  4.50 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: The tenor of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, of the Amendment show the trend of Opposition thought, in that the Opposition has not really made up its mind whether it wants a second Chamber at all. It is quite true that the words of the Amendment do not include the word "abolition," but they do refer to the:
  "unimpaired powers to frustrate and obstruct the will of the elected representatives of the people."
  This Bill does not, of course, deal with the powers, only the composition, of the Upper House, but I should like first to tackle the question of its powers, because that is fundamental to the whole of our discussions. I wish briefly to say that I support the limited Bill we have before us, although, as I ventured to say in the debate on the Address, I do not think it
  424
  goes nearly far enough. I can think of a great many other reforms we could usefully have.
  The present powers of the Upper House have been whittled down to the extent that it gives a clear four-year run to legislation in a five-year Parliament. I suggest that the real question which troubles hon. Members opposite is whether the second Chamber should have any powers at all. The powers are not to veto but to delay; to give the public and the Commons time for second thoughts and for a breathing space in certain legislation. This is very important. The Upper House does not seek to frustrate the will of this House, as the Amendment says, but tries to ensure that the will of the people shall prevail. Everybody knows that political parties are elected on broad general programmes and a great many details of necessity cannot be put to the people at the hustings. Even from the earliest days of an elected Parliament fresh situations arise for which new Measures are needed which have never been put before the people at an Election. That is understood.
  It is said that Parliament must lead, but I suggest to the House that one of the most far-reaching heresies is to say that all laws are necessarily good. Do let us take ourselves with a pinch of salt, because people do not think about politics and Parliament all the time. After all, we are elected for a five-year term. On the whole, most busy people let us get on with our work, and the newspapers do not really enlighten them as to what we are up to. If we claim here to represent the will of the people, is it right that an eager Government should press on with some cherished object which is not in the mandate which is far ahead of public opinion, apparently anxious to avoid any revulsion against their action until it is too late? This applies to all Parliaments, particularly in the remaining stages of a five-year Parliament. Hon. Members might say that this applies particularly to us on this side of the House. Therefore, I say this argument will be more powerful coming from the Government side than from the benches opposite. Surely the will of the people is the will of the people when they were last consulted. Obviously, as we get towards the end of the Parliament, and even after the first

  425
  year in the lifetime of the Parliament, the will of the people will not be exactly the same as it was.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: Would the noble Lady be prepared to apply that philosophy to the Rent Act, which was passed by her Government?
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Certainly. My argument has been devoted to showing why it is necessary to have powers in the Upper House to delay legislation passed by a majority Government of either party, particularly when there is a clear four-year run of legislation under the present powers and it is in the last year that difficulty begins.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the noble Lady tell us how and when the other place ascertained the views of this country on the Rent Act, or on any other matter of public interest?
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I am coming to the whole question of the composition of the House of Lords. In reference to an interjection made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) about the Criminal Justice Act, it is quite true that the House of Commons expressed its view on that matter and that view was rejected by another place, but I think it has been shown that general public opinion about the death penalty is, in fact, more in accord with that of the Upper House than that of the Lower House.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I was rather interested in the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) and to find out how the House of Lords managed to discover that it was not necessary to delay the Rent Act because the people were enthusiastic that it should be passed.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I thought the hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) asked whether I would be prepared to have the Rent Act thrown out by the House of Lords. As to how another place would have ascertained public opinion regarding the Rent Act, all I can say is that there are a large number holding views which are quite contrary to those of the party opposite, to the effect that in the long run the Rent Act will be of benefit, and for that reason it was
  426
  passed. For different reasons the Upper House passed nationalisation Measures.
  Let us think about ourselves for a moment. If we claim to represent the will of the people, we cannot therefore claim to be perfect, because if we were perfect it would not be necessary to have a second Chamber at all. I submit that every Government needs the check and balance of a constitution, and we need it as a deterrent to arbitrary power. We all know perfectly well that the real power lies here in the House of Commons, and nothing can ever alter that. The Opposition denies any desire to make the Lords more effective or, as the Leader of the Opposition said, to strengthen its prestige and authority. That drives one to the conclusion that the Opposition does not want a second Chamber. The Opposition does not want the Lords to use the powers so recently agreed, in 1949, and if it does use them there are immediate threats of abolition.
  The Opposition gives the overwhelming impression—although I am sure it does not wish to do se—that it wants the shadow of the second Chamber without the substance. These powers would be very much better accepted by everyone if Parliament were considered as a whole. Surely it is the essence of an unwritten constitution that the second Chamber should be complementary to and not competing with the Lower House. There should be interdependence of both Chambers, a word much used today.
  I come now to the question of the composition of the other House. If we want the other House to be different in composition—not an elected Chamber—from the Lower House, we want it also to look at our problems from a different angle. In the Commons, we have a lot of eager party politicians and a lot of lively debates, but in another place, while it is true that probably the majority of the peers owe allegiance to one party or the other, a great many have far looser party political alignments, and peers are not in the thick of the party controversy all the time.
  If one goes up the corridor one is struck by the difference in their debates. To me, they seem very calm, rather cool; in fact, very polite. Sometimes after our debates here I rather wonder if the general public does not think we need reform rather than the Lords. Because

  427
  Members of another place draw their experience primarily not from politics but from industry, the land, the professions or the Services, they bring, I suggest, another attitude of mind to political affairs. One of the arguments, of course, for having women in public life is that our affairs affect both men and women. I suggest that we need both men and women to look at our affairs differently, but, I hope, with complementary minds.
  I shall be interested to know if there is anyone who does not think that we need a second Chamber for the purpose of revision and for certain debates. The two tasks are very different. For the first, technical and Parliamentary experience is needed, and, for the second, present as well as past experience in many fields. I must say that I entirely agree with the Leader of the Opposition on one thing, and that is that I do not think the creation of a few life peers of either sex is going to meet the problem of non-attendance with only an expense allowance.
  It is said that when Members of this House are elevated to another place it is the start of a new career. That reminds me of Henry Labouchere, who was a Member of this House and who was elevated to another place. A friend of his met him one day and said, "I saw your father in the House of Lords the other day." Labouchere replied, "Oh did you? How interesting. He died ten years ago. I always wondered where he went to."
  Members of this House who receive a peerage, and even if they have outside jobs, are surely going to notice a difference between £1,750 taxable income and a maximum of £300 expenses. It seems to me that until payment of peers is agreed, the Bill is going to make very little difference unless the hours of sitting are altered to the working day. If that happened, it would mean that the House of Lords would sit, roughly, about the same time in the evenings as the House of Commons, and would sit about the same length of time as it does at present. I have often heard Government speakers in another place apologising for keeping their Lordships until the late hour of five or six.
  It is said that one cannot pay peers while so many of them cannot attend. That is why I welcome the proposal that
  428
  Standing Orders should allow for leave of absence. I suggest that, as a temporary measure, that would meet a large part of the objection that the House of Lords is overwhelmingly hereditary in character.
  I very much regret that a great chance has been lost through not trying to tackle a far bigger question of reform. I would most certainly have supported something on the lines of Lord Salisbury's second suggestion which, I feel, incorporated much of what was best in the 1948 discussions. I would just say on that—I do not intend to discuss it in detail—that where peers are not selected to serve in the Upper House, they should be allowed to stand for election to this House and should also have the right to vote.
  I was interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I have examined the terms of the Opposition's Amendment very carefully. I think I am right in saying that hon. Members opposite do not think that heredity in itself is a disqualification for the right of membership of another place. Although I do not think that it can be defended in logic, I wish to put the following considerations before the House.
  In the view of a great many people, another place is considered to be the finest second Chamber in the world today. It follows, therefore, that as its reputation was won at a time when its membership was, and still is, predominantly hereditary, there must be something good in the system. I submit that an element of heredity in Government not only enables the political experience of some families for generations to be drawn upon, but gives the continuity of service in public affairs that is heedless of honours and position. Unless there is a proportion of hereditary peers, I do not see how the younger ones, aged from 21 to 40, could ever enter another place, because it is going to be very difficult for Prime Ministers to take the chance of recommending a life peerage to anyone below, say, the age of 40.
  We have also to remember that the overwhelming majority of people in the country accepts the hereditary principle in monarchy just because it is above faction and dispute. We also accept without dispute the hereditary handing down

  429
  of property. Where such power is abused and hits the public interest we seek our checks and balances just as we do in Government. I submit that in all these things it is the wise exercise of power that counts.
  I will not go further into the matter of the exercise of power in the Upper House during the time of the Labour Government in this House and a Conservative Opposition in another place, except to say that no one has mentioned the Conservative Measures which were also thrown out or drastically amended. They included the Aliens Bill, the Inventions and Designs Bill, the Shops Bill, many Regulations on the Road Transport Bill and one or two minor Bills, including the Protection of Birds Bill on which there was practically a constitutional crisis in the two Houses over the moorhen and the little owl.
  I appreciate the feeling that there might be a permanent majority of one party or the other in another place, but, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said this afternoon, there is no limit to the creation of life peerages, and the consequence of that is, of course, self-evident.
  I will only say one word on the intrusion of women into another place. In war, the country expects women to carry out every task, and it seems to me that it is time that in peace they should be asked to share the life of the Government of the country which, in war, they helped to preserve. I said something in the debate on the Address about hereditary peeresses, and I would only add that, as far as I understand it, a petition should be submitted by an hereditary peeress to the Committee of Privileges that the Rhondda judgment should be reversed. That, of course, is something that does not affect this Bill.
  In conclusion, I hope that in all this the Government will try again to seek all-party agreement. I believe that the country recognises the need for a second Chamber. The main reason is that we in Britain need, perhaps more than any other country, the check and balance to our unwritten constitution. We have no other safeguards against an extreme majority passing an enabling Act to push through any legislation it likes at a speed so swift that the public has no idea of what is being done in its name. Because
  430
  most of us here have only too vividly in mind the lessons of history in arbitrary power, surely we can agree to curb ourselves while yet we may.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) that it would be wholly desirable to have a further conference to consider what other steps are needed for the reform of the House of Lords. While the hon. Lady feels the necessity for further reform, I think she supports the Bill and finds some virtue in it. Speaking for myself, I can find no virtue in it; I think it is a pretence. While pretending to bring in a reform of the second Chamber, all it proposes to do is to add an unknown number of men and women to the already extraordinary number of hereditary peers. I believe that the number of hereditary peers today is 875. I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House had to say about the numbers of life peers that may be created. He said there should be no limit; but I gather there is no intention whatsoever of creating a number equal to, still less exceeding, the number of hereditary peers existing today.
  So in truth and in fact the power will still remain with the hereditary peers. So far as I can see, the real purpose of the Bill, to use a phrase employed by the Leader of the Opposition, is, while making the House of Lords look a little more respectable than it does today as a second Chamber, to bolster up some kind of case for maintaining the hereditary principle as a qualification for membership.
  It is said that Bill will bring about some very much needed changes. Let us consider what those are. I think it is admitted that a second Chamber should have, if not parity, something approaching parity, and that it would work very much better if the parties were somewhat equally divided. But for generations the overwhelming majority in the House of Lords has been Conservative, and it is proposed to maintain that position. The overwhelming majority in the second Chamber have belonged to the Conservative Party and have exercised their power even though the Conservative Party has been in a minority both in this House and in the country. So far as one can see, that situation will still be maintained

  431
  when the Bill becomes law and new life peers are created. The Bill will not in any way affect the present position, that of there being an overwhelming majority maintained by one party over the other.
  The Leader of the House said that it is necessary to inject new blood to enable the House of Lords to discharge its duties, the implication being that today it does not fully discharge its duties as it should do. Therefore, it is considered necessary that the House should be strengthened by admitting men and women who today are not prepared to undertake the burden of a hereditary peerage, persons of distinction in professions, in industry, in education, in public service or in public experience, and that will strengthen the second Chamber in so far as there will be better advice and better guidance. To whom will that better advice and better guidance be addressed? Not to men and women of similar calibre but to those who, apparently, in the words of the Leader of the House, are not able today to discharge duties which are required of a second Chamber. Even if they listen to the advice which is tendered to them or the guidance which is suggested to them, they need not nay any attention to it but can reject it overwhelmingly.
  There was a third point to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. We all realise the tremendous burden which is today being put upon the Labour Opposition in the House of Lords. It is suggested that its position will be eased and that more persons can be induced to undertake the burden of attending and taking part in debates in the second Chamber if they are offered a life peerage as against a hereditary peerage. What is the inducement to all these people, whether the peerage is being offered to them on political grounds or whether their qualification is that they have obtained distinction in a profession, industry or public service? What inducement is there for them to devote the time required to undertake duties in another place when all they get are their bare expenses, just £3 a day? Can one imagine any member of the Labour Party, whom we will assume to be a working man, giving up what he is earning today —because he cannot possibly carry on his work and be ready to take up a life peer-
  432
  age—for a remuneration of £3 a day to meet his expenses?
  The whole thing is absurd. As I have said, the reason underlying all this is the maintenance of the hereditary principle as a qualification for membership, whereas in truth and fact the hereditary principle today is a complete anachronism. In a debate in another place last Session before the introduction of the Bill, Lord Home said that it is difficult to justify in theory or in logic a Parliamentary system which includes the hereditary principle. It will be noticed that he did not say "which is based upon the hereditary principle." Yet it is proposed—that is the whole object of the Bill—to continue the hereditary principle and to make it a qualification for membership of the House of Lords. I do not see that it can be justified in any way to an enlightened people, all of whom today, if they are over 21, are in a position to choose whom they would wish to represent them in the House of Commons.
  Some in the other place found it possible not only to favour the Bill but to vote for it, and they did so because for the first time it is proposed to admit women and life peers. What in the name of reason would they think it was possible to do about reforming the House of Lords unless one created life peers and admitted women or had an elected Chamber? It seemed to me that all that they saw in this was a necessity, and that they turned that necessity into a virtue.
  The Parliament of Britain has always claimed the proud position of being the Mother of Parliaments. I think one can claim a prouder position for it. For generations now it has been the pattern of Parliaments, and I think it should still be the pattern of Parliaments. Yet in no other country in the world is the hereditary qualification admitted as entitling anyone to membership of a Parliament. I would particularly emphasise that point at this moment, for democracy as we understand it is today on trial for its very life. It has been threatened by another system which would overwhelm it. How can it possibly be suggested that democracy as we have preached it and taught it to the rest of the world can be defended by persons whose only qualification is that they are sons of peers of another generation? In those circumstances it is a farce and an impossibility

  433
  to put up the case that one would otherwise put up against those who would challenge the very position of this House.
  Of course the House of Lords needs reform. That is admitted by everyone. But if we are to reform it, let it be a true reform and not the mere sham that this Bill is. I believe now that a second Chamber has some value, but I will admit at once that I thought otherwise in those early days when one witnessed the debates that took place in this House. The majority elected in 1906 was bigger than any majority returned for any party since 1832—a majority not even exceeded by that of the Labour Party's majority in 1945. This House spent week after week upon a Bill which was then sent to another place, only to find that even if that Bill was kept alive it was mauled out of all recognition. In two cases this House spent weeks and weeks on Bills, but they were voted out without debate in another place.
  I agree that, in those days, when asked whether the House of Lords should be mended or ended, I as a young man said "end it". But it may be that one sees usefulness in it today, so I have changed my mind in that regard, but if we are to reform it and continue to have a second Chamber, let is be a second Chamber that will command respect and confidence and one in which one knows that the men and women in it are there because they deserve to be and not merely by accident. How can one respect the present second Chamber or defend it to other countries when we have to admit that today over half of the present 875 members have not even set foot inside the building? What justification can there be for continuing such a system?
  I would remind hon. Members that this House has been responsible for the creation of several Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. In not one of them was it ever suggested that the example of the House of Lords and its hereditary system should be followed. What I should really like now to ask the House is: Why have the Conservative Party and the Government abandoned the principles to which they agreed in April, 1948? It is right that the House should have its attention directed to that. I had the privilege of attending the whole of that conference. The representatives of the Conservative Party at that time were Sir
  434
  Anthony Eden and, if he were absent, Mr. Oliver Stanley; the Marquess of Salisbury, Viscount Swinton and the present Lord Chancellor. I do not think anyone would suggest that they were the left wing of the Conservative Party, if such a thing as a left wing there be.
  The discussion did not take long. It was amazing how quickly agreement was reached. There were two matters to be discussed—the composition of the reformed House of Lords and its powers. Even with regard to the powers we were in complete agreement, except on the one point of the extent of the power of delay. Ultimately, the discussions broke down on a question of a mere three months, but there was complete agreement that the hereditary system should go once for all.
  Here it is just as well that one should recall paragraph 5 of Cmd. 7380 of 1948. It reads:
  "Proposals relating to reform of the Composition of the House of Lords were discussed first. If it had been possible to achieve general agreement over the whole field of Powers and Composition, the Party representatives would have been prepared to give the following proposals further consideration, so as to see whether the necessary details could be worked out, and, if so, to submit them, as part of such an agreement, to their respective Parties."
  The proposals are then set out as follows:
  "(1) The Second Chamber should be complementary to"—
  everybody agrees that today, even in another place:
  "and not a rival to the Lower House, and, with this end in view, the reform of the House of Lords should be based on a modification of its existing constitution as opposed to the establishment of a Second Chamber of a completely new type based on some system of election."
  We agree that if it were elected it might challenge this Chamber, claiming equal rights because it had been elected just as this one is.
  The second proposal reads:
  "The revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure as far as practicable that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political Party."
  What is the position in regard to that today? It is proposed to create a few life peers, something that will not in the slightest degree affect the overwhelming Conservative majority in another place.

  435
  The third proposal is:
  "The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber."
  The Marquess of Salisbury, Viscount Swinton, Sir Anthony Eden, Mr. Oliver Stanley and Lord Kilmuir all agreed—
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Surely all they agreed to was that the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just read out might be further considered and referred to their respective parties. That is very different from agreeing them.
  Mr. Davies: I have said so, but they were the leaders chosen by the Conservative Opposition to attend the conference, just as I was chosen, with Lord Samuel, to represent the Liberals, and there were others representing the then Government. The sole reason that it was not taken further was that discussions broke down on the question of a mere three months.
  The fourth proposal reads:
  "Members of the Second Chamber should be styled 'Lords of Parliament' and would be appointed on grounds of personal distinction or public service."
  That means, not a few of them, but all of them:
  "They might be drawn either from Hereditary peers, or from commoners who would be created Life Peers.
  (5) Women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men. …
  (7) In order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration would be payable to members of the Second Chamber."
  We took a far broader view of the duties we expected them to perform than do the Government today in merely offering them their expenses of £3 a day.
  The next proposal reads:
  "Peers who were not Lords of Parliament should be entitled to stand for election"—
  the very point made by the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir)—
  "to the House of Commons, and also to vote at elections in the same manner as other citizens."
  (9) Some provision should be made for the disqualification of a member of the Second Chamber who neglects, or becomes no longer able or fitted, to perform his duties as such."
  436
  What happened? As I say, there was an agreement on the formation of that second Chamber and on what its powers of revision should be. There was disagreement only as to the extent of its power of delay of legislation passed in this House. Even that three months was done away with within a few weeks because of the new Bill that had already left this House and was awaiting the decision of the second Chamber, which shortened the time of the 1911 Act from two years to one year. Therefore, there really was no difference at all between the leaders of the respective parties.
  I want to end on just this note. I have already referred to the fact that, in the past, this House has been a pattern of other Parliaments. It is still revered by other Parliaments, as was seen last August and September when the Inter-Parliamentary Union met here. Representatives of fifty-one Parliaments then attended and discussed matters of real interest to Parliaments. Supposing, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this question had been asked of them: "If you have a second Chamber, how should it be constituted?". Is there anybody on the other side who would have stood up before the fifty-one Parliaments represented there and said, "We have the finest of all; ours is the one most respected, and we ask you to follow that example"?
  The whole position is too absurd. Yet that is the position which is still maintained by the Conservative Party and the Government. It is one of such absurdity that I certainly cannot support it.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I believe that the House will make a mistake if it passes the Bill into law.
  There is no possibility of arguing that the present composition of the House of Lords can be justified either by logic or by reference to any preconceived constitutional theory. It is the result of a long, even a tortuous, process of historical evolution. Its authority rests upon the acceptance of the result, handed down to our time, of that historical process. It is the authority of acceptance, the authority of what Burke called "prescription".
  The House of Lords shares that characteristic with many of our most cherished

  437
  and important institutions. Trial by jury, for example, is not to be justified in logic; it does not rest upon statute; it came to us by a strange historical evolution out of the sworn witnesses of a neighbourhood. Neither logic nor statute nor theory is a basis of that other hereditary institution by which it comes about that a young woman holds sway over countless millions. The authority of this House itself does not, in the last resort, rest upon any logic in the principles upon which we are formed or elected: it rests upon the acceptance by the nation of an institution the history of which cannot be divorced or torn out of the context of the history of the nation itself.
  I am far from saying that one should never alter or interfere with an institution of this kind. There are many instances in which such interference has taken place. There are many cases where a change has, in fact, resulted in preserving, and even enhancing, the institution in question. If one looked for it, one could find such an example in the history of the House of Lords itself, where, probably, the device of transferring from other honours to barony itself the notion of conferring a dignity by patent—the creation, in fact, of barons of patent—has been the means of preserving the House of Lords as we have had it through the last four or five centuries.
  But, although it is not possible to say that one should never reform, alter, or interfere with prescriptive institutions, I do say that, such is their nature and the nature of the authority they enjoy, we should not undertake that interference except of necessity, for the avoidance of an evil which is clear and imminent, and in such a way that the result will evidently be to remove the evil.
  It is because I believe that the Bill is a serious interference with a prescriptive institution and that the reasons which have been given for that interference are not such as to justify it—not such as to show that only by this change can evident and imminent difficulties be avoided—that I find myself obliged to condemn it.
  That this is a serious change which is proposed is not, I think, open to dispute. It was certainly admitted very candidly by those who supported and proposed the Bill in another place. The noble Earl, Lord Home said—and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition
  438
  quoted his words today—that it modifies the hereditary principle. The Lord Chancellor went farther still and said:
  "I am not one of those who would admit for one moment that the introduction of the principle of life peerages is a mere tinkering operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 936.]
  Indeed, it is not; for here is an institution of which, ever since it has been recognisable as the House of Lords, no temporal Lord has been a member except by virtue of a heritable dignity, and that basis it is proposed to alter.
  There is no analogy with the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, which we have had since 1876, with the originally four, and now nine salaried, specialist Lords created to discharge a specific purpose and created—this is where the exception indeed proves the rule—because their addition to the House of Lords was the only way in which the loss of its appellate jurisdiction could be avoided; for the House will recall that the appellate jurisdiction had already, by statute, passed from the House of Lords and was recovered for it only by means of the Act of 1876.
  That apart, there is really no basis for arguing that this is not a fundamental change. I know that it is argued—it was argued in the Wensleydale case—that the Crown had, five centuries ago, possessed the right to introduce Members into the House of Lords in virtue of a dignity limited to their lives. For my part, I assert that there is no valid case to be adduced in support of that proposition. But be it so, the resuscitation of a prerogative which has not been exercised for 500 years is, in effect, indubitably a constitutional innovation.
  Here, then, by common consent, we are faced with a proposal which represents a substantial and basic alteration in the character of a prescriptive institution; and we have to ask ourselves whether the reasons which are alleged to be compelling—and compelling they must be for this change—are adequate. Two reasons have been given over and over again in the other place and given this afternoon by my right hon. Friend. The first is—I will in both cases quote the words of the noble Earl, Lord Home—
  "to enable the Socialist points of view to be put more effectively from the other side of the House of Lords."

  439
  The second is
  "to give the Prime Minister a wider range of persons from whom to draw those who can contribute to Parliament from their expert knowledge of this or that aspect of our national life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 610 and 615.]
  We have to ask whether those two reasons are necessary and compelling reasons for the institution of a system of life peerages.
  First, the Government wish to strengthen Socialist representation in the House of Lords. Is it essential for that purpose that the present hereditary basis of that House should—to use Lord Home's word—be "modified"? When the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was Prime Minister, he succeeded in prevailing, according to our Parliamentary Companion, Dod, upon no fewer than 86 persons to accept hereditary dignities. On the calculations of the Lord Chancellor given to another place, 54 of those were political creations. So the party opposite, when in power, found the necessity of conferring a hereditary peerage no insuperable obstacle to what it regarded as the necessary manning-up, in quantity and quality, of the then Government Bench in the House of Lords.
  It may be said that the same ease and advantage would not be enjoyed by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, that he, unlike the noble Earl, would find insuperable difficulties in manning up the Socialist Opposition in the House of Lords with anything but life peers. Here I was afraid that I might have to ask an indelicate question, but I have, fortunately, been saved from the necessity of doing so by the candour of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. In another place, the Lord Chancellor said:
  "… when the Prime Minister is looking for those who might be able to help the Opposition, he would desire to seek the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, in regard to the time and any other aspect of the matter as is appropriate. In cases like that it would seem prima facie appropriate, when the object is to find people who will help the Labour Party, that the Prime Minister would consult the Leader of the Opposition".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 941.]
  I had it in mind to inquire whether, before deciding that life peerages were indispensably necessary in order to help him, a Conservative Prime Minister, to
  440
  strengthen the Socialist Opposition in the House of Lords, my right hon. Friend had taken the precaution of making a few inquiries to see whether on the present basis he could not obtain the necessary reinforcement, and whether, in the course of those inquiries, he had gone to a quite natural source, the Leader of the Opposition. The indelicate question was already answered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who told the House, quite candidly, that there had been no inquiry made whatsoever before this proposal was made, that from the first beginnings until the present moment, so far as he knew—he was in a fairly good position to know—no attempt had been made upon the present basis to induce persons of Labour Party sympathies to become members of the Upper House. It is really very difficult for us to decide that this constitutional change is indispensably necessary when we know that not even preliminary inquiries as to the attainability of the object under the present system had been made.
  But I believe that all this is to misconceive the true function of the House of Lords and the true functioning of the House of Lords when it is at its best. We make a great mistake when we figure to ourselves another place as a kind of replica of what we are here. I do not believe that the House of Lords is at its most useful or most effective when it is dividing and debating upon party lines. In a relatively short experience, I have known many instances when great influence was exercised upon a Government—much more than by the opinions of hon. Members opposite in this House or that—by the known opinions of noble Lords behind the Government and on the Cross-Benches in another place. So the whole notion of enabling another place to operate as a kind of replica of the party system as we have it here is misconceived.
  I now come to the second alleged indispensable necessity for this constitutional change, namely, that on the present basis the House of Lords cannot be made, or be kept, representative of all aspects of the national life. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) made a most effective reply to that when she referred—and how rightly—to the immense variety, the almost inexhaustible

  441
  variety, of experience of every kind which is represented in the House of Lords as it exists at the moment. I invite any hon. Member to take a list of the creations since the end of the war and look down it to see the variety, the width and the scope of the interests which those creations cover—science and the arts, the professions, medicine, the law, agriculture, the Press, the trade unions, the Services, both fighting and civil, industry, trade and commerce in every branch. Is it possible, in view of that recent experience before our eyes, to conclude that only if we abandon the present basis of membership of another place can we preserve there a wide and representative selection and presentation of every aspect of the national life?
  What I have said upon these two points—the manning up of the Socialist Opposition and the representation of the various national interests—disposes altogether of the allegation that it is necessary to have a new basis because there are—and here I quote the words of the Lord President of the Council—
  "… too few to carry out our daily business." —"OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 846.]
  If that be the case, clearly on the evidence of our own recent experience that lack, if it exists, can be filled without this change. I remind the House that there is no greater guarantee of regular attendance in the recipient of a life dignity than of a hereditary dignity. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was right when he separated, poles apart, the issue as between hereditary and life peerages, on the one hand, and the issue of the payment of peers on the other.
  To conclude, we are being asked to make a serious constitutional change and to make it without evidence of grave necessity. It is admitted that this is a substantial change. The case to show that it is necessary is not proven. The constitution of Parliament, in both its parts, is a matter which concerns this House just as much as it concerns another place. It is a matter upon which this House has the right to make up its mind as maturely as another place; and I find that, as a matter of interest, this is the first occasion for 31 years on which this House has debated either the composition or the reform of the House of Lords, upon a substantive Motion.
  442
  This Bill is one which clearly is not desired by the parties opposite. I believe that it is not desired by many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I suspect—it would not be right for me to say more than suspect—that it is not greatly welcomed by many Members of the Government. In that case, the best thing is not to pass it.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Bowles: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has already given the Government two shocks this year. I hope that tomorrow, when we vote, he will give them a third shock by voting against this Bill. He is a man for whom we have very great respect. He is a very learned man and also a great historian. I hope that he will allow me to put my point of view about the position of the House of Lords. I agree with him. We on this side oppose this Bill, but for completely different reasons.
  On the whole, five grounds are usually advanced on which the House of Lords is required. Four of them are set out in a letter summing up the results of the Bryce Conference, 1918, and they were these:
  "The examination and revision of Bills brought from the House of Commons, a function which has become more needed since, on many occasions, during the last thirty years, the House of Commons has been obliged to act under special rules limiting debate."
  Hence the revision which has been mentioned again today by the Leader of the House.
  The second is:
  "The initiation of Bills dealing with subjects of a practically non-controversial character which may have an easier passage through the House of Commons if they have been fully discussed and put into a well-considered shape before being submitted to it."
  The third is:
  "The interposition of so much delay (and no more) in the passing of a Bill into law as may be needed to enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it."
  The fourth is:
  "Full and free discussion of large and important questions, such as those of foreign policy, at moments when the House of Commons may happen to be so much occupied that it cannot find sufficient time for them."
  A fifth reason, which is given by supporters of the House of Lords, is that we should not break from tradition.

  443
  Let me answer the last point first. The whole history of our people has been breaking with the past. We have had long constitutional and historical struggles with the Crown and, later, with the Lords, and unless there are many other good reasons I see no reason, on the ground of not breaking with tradition, why we should continue to have a House of Lords at all.
  I believe that Lord Bryce's first point about revision is a quite false and unreal argument. Let me give the House some figures concerning revision. In case there is ambiguity about it, revision means that when the House of Commons has passed a Bill on Third Reading it goes to the House of Lords and, there, their Lordships examine whether it is legally watertight and carrying out the intentions of the Government. That is what revision means. It does not mean changing the law. It means to put it in a form and shape of words which carries out the Government's intention.
  Let me take the case of the Rent Bill, last year. It is always under discussion nowadays. The House of Commons Standing Committee, of which I had the honour of being Chairman, sat for 75 hours. Then, the House of Commons Report stage lasted for 13 hours 43 minutes. That is a total of over 88 hours. When the Rent Bill went to the House of Lords for the purpose of revision, the Committee stage there lasted 8 hours 34 minutes, instead of our 75 hours. Secondly, the Report stage, instead of our two days, lasted 2 hours 37 minutes.
  There was no proper revision. This is proved by the fact that there are repeatedly contradictory judgments from learned county court judges on some of the matters that the Minister of Housing and Local Government thought were of great importance and covered in the Bill. Hon. Members who follow law reports will notice that last week there was an appeal to the High Court.
  In other words, I say quite seriously that the House of Lords' use of revisory powers is derisory. Let the final revision —this is a new proposal which I am putting forward—come after we have finished with the Report stage of our Bills. Let us have one final stage, which
  444
  I might call the revisionary stage, between the Report stage and Third Reading. Let the Minister, his draftsmen and Members appointed by, perhaps, a Committee of Selection, sit on a body to examine a Bill in its final form before it goes to the House of Commons for the final Third Reading.
  That, I believe, would cover the whole aim and object of hon. Members who desire to retain the House of Lords as a revisory body and it would save any necessity for a continuation of their Lordships' existence. Therefore, I suggest that that would be the best way of ensuring that our legislation was as watertight legally and verbally as possible.
  I was reading the other day about the position of this country in the 1930s, when, as everybody will remember, there were large areas of unemployment. A Bill which was passed in 1934 was first called the Distressed Areas Bill. Their Lordships' only contribution to revising it was to substitute the word "Special" for "Distressed". I came across this in a book by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), whose comment is worth remembering:
  "This indeed was a pail of lordly whitewash on a sepulchre."
  Lord Bryce's second point is initiation, which is sometimes argued as an invaluable reason for retaining the House of Lords. In other words, while we are having Bills introduced and dealt with in this House, their Lordships at the other end of the corridor can have Bills introduced and debated there; and as the Session is half-way through, their Lordships' Bills come to us and our Bills go up to their Lordships' House and each House, as it must, has to examine the Bills of the other House. As we know, every Bill has to pass both Houses of Parliament.
  I am certain that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who is a great mathematician, among other things, would agree that there is no saving of time by having Bills introduced in the House of Lords and coming here later and by ours being introduced here and going to the House of Lords later. In other words, I firmly deny the argument that initiation of legislation in the House of Lords is any reason for pretending that it saves time. It

  445
  is complete nonsense, and I am certain that anybody who is anxious to find really good reasons for retaining the House of Lords would not rely on that as one of them.
  Lord Bryce's third point was the famous one, which we have debated some time already, of delay. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech this afternoon, referred to the delay that would hold up legislation only from a Labour or Socialist Government in the House of Commons.
  I also hear people say from time to time that it is desirable that matters should not be rushed through this House which have not been adequately discussed by the public. I have been in the Labour Party for thirty-five years and I have never known any matter which has not been adequately discussed year after year —at the hustings, at street corners, in pamphlets, in the Press, at conferences, and so on. It is absurd to suggest that we are ever likely to pass, or could pass, a matter so quickly that it has never been discussed by the public. This is, as usual, a false argument for retaining an anachronism. I notice that their Lordships never prevent a Tory Government from going too fast. That has been brought out well this afternoon and I simply refer to it again.
  As the House will remember, the Rent Act was referred to as a possibility by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) during the last General Election. He said that if the Conservative Government got back to power, they would introduce a Bill—which they did—along the lines which he suggested and which they have now done. That was denied by the Tory Central Office in an official issue and yet, when the next year arrived, the Government introduced the Rent Bill. There was no suggestion that it should be held up by the House of Lords because the Government had not put it before the people. I suggest that the Rent Act is an extreme piece of legislation, and to pretend that extreme legislation can come only from the Socialist side of the House seems to be a funny way of arguing.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: What about the abolition of the university seats by the hon. Member's own party?
  Mr. Bowles: I have argued for the abolition of the university seats over and over again, ever since I saw a university Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Why did the party opposite not restore them?
  Mr. Bowles: The fact is that their Lordships never delay executive action, either. It may be understandable, but I remember two things in the past year which have shocked me and which went by quite easily. There was the sell-out of the Trinidad Oil Company. It is true that there were some hon. Members opposite who had the decency to resent the transaction, but the House of Lords did not stop it going through. The other thing, which occurred about fifteen months ago, was the tragedy of Suez. Did the House of Lords stop that shocking behaviour on the part of the Government? These things are sometimes much more important in their effects than legislation. Let it never be forgotten that administrative and executive action can be most serious.
  On the matter of delay, I was reading the other day what is referred to as a "long remembered phrase" of Mr. Balfour, which he used soon after the General Election in 1906, when he said:
  "Whether in power or in opposition, the Unionist Party would continue to control the destinies of this empire."
  These are the people who want to be in control of our destinies for as long as they possibly can, whether they have won an Election or not, and the sure way of doing it is to have a Tory House of Lords.
  The Minister of Education, who, I gather, is to reply to this debate, will perhaps deal with that. It is a matter which we have argued for years. We always used to say that the House of Lords was a hindrance to a Labour Government in power, and that when there was a Tory Government it was purely a sub-committee of the Tory Party. That opinion must be as old as the Minister of Education.
  An old friend of mine, and a respected former Member of this House, Mr. Lees-Smith, who was once Member for Keighley, and whom some hon. Members may remember, in a book, "Second

  447
  Chambers in Theory and Practice", wrote, in page 48:
  "A second Chamber which never refuses passage to measures from the Lower House when its own party is in office, and takes every opportunity to obstruct the measures of the opposing party, will increase rather than correct the distortion of the public will."
  In page 136 he wrote:
  "This leads us to the fundamental conclusion that a second Chamber is an unsuitable instrument for ensuring that a lower House will keep in touch with public opinion and attempts to use it for this purpose should be abandoned."
  The fourth reason given by Lord Bryce's Conference is that the Upper House is supposed to be a useful forum for their Lordships to discuss matters of importance. Why their Lordships? Who are they? Why should not the scientists or any body of men get together to discuss the matters of the day? They do, of course. The chairman of a public company spends quite a lot of the taxpayers' money on his annual speech for the annual general meeting of the company which he publishes in the Press. I see no reason at all why Members of the House of Lords, like anybody else, should not use the columns of the local newspapers, or The Times, or the daily Press generally to discuss these matters.
  Better still, why should they not, if they really have points of view to offer, do what is always done by Members on this side of this House—I am not sure about Members on the other side of this House—go to street corners and stand on soapboxes to express their points of view? I am sure that a noble duke speaking at a meeting in "Spouters' Corner", in Hyde Park, would draw a large number of people. I am sure that there is no reason whatever why their Lordships should be regarded as in a position of any superiority over any other body of people, other than those of us who are elected Members of Parliament in this House.
  I am a simple person and I find it very difficult to keep to a line if I leave my basic principles. I am sure that that would be true of a certain number of hon. Members on the other side of the House, especially if they try to trim. Then they have had it. One cannot trim. My first principle is that in this House we are democrats. We believe in government by the people, and for the
  448
  last 125 years, since the Reform Bill, we have striven, stage by stage, to bring about Parliamentary democracy and this democratically elected House of Commons, as we know it is today.
  Major Legge-Bourke: And a fat old hash has been made of it.
  Mr. Bowles: I hope the hon. and gallant Member's electors in the Isle of Ely will realise that one of the persons who has behaved badly and thrown money about this place and disgraced the honourable position of a Member of Parliament is the hon. and gallant Member himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that his constituents will remember that at the next Election.
  Let us see what we have done. In these 125 years we have arranged that every man and woman at the age of 21 shall be entitled to a vote, and only one vote. That he should have only one vote is one of the last steps we have taken to bring about this properly democratically elected House of Commons. We have also been at great pains to see that the constituencies are more or less of the same size. We all represent, as nearly as possible, 66,000 electors each. Sometimes it is inconvenient, because there may be a big area like the constituency of Caithness and Sutherland for an hon. Member to represent, and then it is, perhaps, proper that his electorate should be less than 66,000.
  Only yesterday we were debating a Bill relating to the Boundary Commission. We have a Boundary Commission set up permanently to see that our representation is as fair as possible and that each one of us in this House is equal, that we represent an equal given number of the electorate in constituencies of almost equal size. We do all these things in order that this House shall be supreme as the democratically elected body.
  Each of us is elected to serve five years in Parliament, though it is seldom that the life of a Parliament lasts five years, unless there is an emergency. We can say that, in practice, on the average every four years we have to go back to our constituents to seek re-election. They have the right to chuck us out or to reelect us. The sanction over our behaviour, our votes and speeches, is in the hands and care of our constituents every

  449
  four years. If that is not democracy I do not know what is.
  On this question of constituency control, Walter Bagehot, writing in the middle of last century, pointed out that the fear of an Election in the near future is in itself an effective check on the House of Commons. He said:
  "The dangers arising from a party spirit in Parliament exceeding that of the nation and of a selfishness in Parliament contradicting the true interest of the nation, are not great dangers in the country where the mind of the nation is steadily political, and where its control over its representatives is constant. A steady opposition, to a formed public opinion is hardly possible in our House of Commons, so incessant is the national attention to politics, and so keen the fear in the mind of each member that he may lose his valued seat."
  Since that was written politicians appear and political matters are discussed on the B.B.C. and television and there is a great listening and viewing audience. I have no idea what its numbers are, but it is quite clear that week by week our constituents are watching what we are doing individually and collectively, in parties or in Government. To suggest for a second that we need to be watched by unelected people at the other end of the corridor seems to me to show a sense of a considerable inferiority complex.
  Whoever they are they cannot have any sense of responsibility, for they are not responsible to any electors. They are never called upon to justify their actions or their votes. I do not feel that we have to have a "Big Brother" at the other end of this building, whoever he may be. Whatever their brains, whatever their background and experience, they should have no control over this House. Whether they choose their fathers carefully or are the creatures of party leaders, whether for life or otherwise, they should not exist to say us nay. They should not exist at all. I have heard no valid argument for any second Chamber in this country. We cannot tolerate a hybrid Parliament. We alone, subject to the electors, must be supreme.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. C. W. Armstrong: I think that it has already emerged from the debate that the real difference between the two sides of the House is whether there should or should not be a second Chamber at all. I think that every speech from the other side has
  450
  implied that a second Chamber is completely superfluous in this country.
  Most constitutions, modern and ancient, have been devised with second Chambers, and if there is ever an argument for a second Chamber surely there is an argument for it when the constitution is unwritten and when one Chamber has complete power, unchecked by any written provision in the constitution. Of course, if there is a second Chamber it is liable to interfere more with a party of radical reform than with a party which is conservative by its very nature, whatever its constitution, unless it is the exact replica of the Lower House. For instance, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) raised the question of the abolition of capital punishment. Surely, any second Chamber, merely by virtue of being drawn from rather older age-groups, at that stage would have acted in the same way.
  It is my contention, and, I fancy, that of most of my hon. Friends, that a second Chamber is a valuable part of our institutions. But, having got so far, there is surely a dilemma in all second Chambers. It is that if a second Chamber has substantial powers and is independent, sooner or later it will find itself in conflict with the Lower House and machinery has to be devised, which never works very satisfactorily, for resolving that conflict.
  On the other hand, if its powers are insignificant and it is still expected to do the dull and unrewarding work of revision it then becomes extremely difficult for people of ability, energy and distinction to be members of it. I understand that the House of Lords is already having difficulty in manning its committees; and it is one of the purposes of the Bill to remedy that difficulty.
  On the whole, however, I should have thought that, so far, the House of Lords has managed to avoid that dilemma because, although its powers are very seriously limited, it has still managed to maintain a very considerable prestige as a second Chamber. It is perhaps worth wondering what are the reasons. It seems to me that the first reason is the size of its membership, which creates a reservoir of talent so that, whatever subject is under discussion, expert opinion is available to be brought to bear upon it.

  451
  The second reason is, I believe, the social and historic prestige of the House of Lords itself, which goes some way, at any rate, to compensate for the limitation of its powers. The historical justification for a hereditary legislature in England presumably arises from primogeniture relating to land, whereby the eldest son had imposed upon him certain rights and obligations. In the case of very large and important estates it was not unreasonable that those rights and obligations should affect his position in the constitution. Nowadays, of course, those rights and obligations have practically disappeared, and it would be manifestly wrong that the hereditary principle should prevail in any Chamber which had overriding authority. But in a Chamber which has very limited powers there is still very practical value in the hereditary principle.
  Prestige is clearly a valuable adjunct of any second Chamber. Illogical and unreasonable as it may seem, there is prestige attaching to the ancient hereditary peerages in this country. If hon. Members like it put that way, it is equivalent only to the prestige which attaches to antique furniture or old silver, but that does not make it any less real, and in a sense it makes it more permanent. The prestige of the House of Lords no doubt depends largely on peers of new creation, with their distinguished public service, on the bishops and on the judges, but surely it also depends upon these peerages of ancient origin.
  If it is important that we keep a second Chamber and that we avoid the dilemma of, on one hand, significant powers and fighting with the other House and, on the other, insignificant powers and no public esteem, it seems to me that we should exploit all the natural advantages which history has given us. It seems to me that one of those advantages is the hereditary peerage and that we should be sacrificing quite unnecessarily one of those advantages if we abolished it.
  6.16 p.m.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: If anyone felt that backwoodsmen were figures of a dim and distant past, the speeches which we have heard from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Armstrong) would have disabused them
  452
  of the illusion. We have heard their authentic voices in those two speeches. The interesting thing is that both hon. Members not only believe in the House of Lords as constituted today, but they say so.
  I find myself immediately in conflict with both hon. Members. I do not believe in the hereditary principle, although I have hereditary views on the matter. My family motto, as far as the House of Lords is concerned, has been, "End and not mend", although it was not always expressed in such moderate terms. It was generally expressed in what the Leader of the House would no doubt have called hysterical terms.
  We are told that this is a minor Measure, and it certainly has all the appearance of a modest, innocuous Bill. The Leader of the House said that its main object was to facilitate the work of the House of the Lords. That was not quite the way it was put when the Bill was first introduced in another place. We were then told that one of its main objects was to assist the Labour Opposition in the House of Lords, but perhaps that did not ring quite true. Indeed, it was too good to be true. The Greeks were overloading us with gifts. We could hardly expect them to offer us kind hearts as well as coronets.
  Nobody could really believe that hon. Members opposite could no longer bear to see a small band of Socialist peers in the House of Lords carrying such a heavy load. Such attentions, of course, were very touching, but so very sudden. After all, they have been able to bear this sight with fortitude for a long period. At any time in the long years during which the party opposite was in power before the war, when there were far fewer Labour peers than there are today, the party opposite could have come to their rescue.
  In those days there was only a handful of Opposition peers. Today, there are, at any rate, 55. But now, suddenly, this has become a matter of great urgency. It is so urgent that the party opposite tells us that the machinery of the House of Lords is in danger of breaking down. It is very difficult to follow the logic of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. When they are arguing against the radical reform of the House of Lords they tell us that it has never

  453
  worked better, or more smoothly, and has never carried out its function of revision better than it has done it in recent times. They cannot have it both ways in this matter.
  I suggest to the House that there are other reasons for this Bill about which we have not heard one word today. The House of Lords, as constituted today, has become, in one sense, rather an embarrassment to the Conservative Party. It is too much of a Tory thing. It is composed of over 500 Conservative peers, representing 55 per cent. of the membership. It is true that 32 per cent. of other Members do not take the Tory Whip, but everybody knows that, when the acid test comes, the majority of them will be found in the Tory Lobby.
  Therefore, such a majority is not really necessary any more. It is too blatant. It is almost shy-making. A smaller majority would serve the purpose of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite just as well. So many of them have come to the conclusion that they wish that this too solid majority would melt a little. They have thought of various ways of reducing the number of hereditary peers. Lord Salisbury brought forward his scheme. Lord Swinton and his Committee evolved another, whereby the House of Lords could grant a peer leave of absence, and if a peer did not ask for this within a suitable time he might be deemed to have so applied.
  Those proposals were not taken up. In fact, there was a great danger that if they were taken up other and larger issues might have been raised. The door might have been opened wide for a challenge to be made to the whole constitution of the House of Lords. So the Government have decided on this simple, ingenious, and disingenuous expedient of giving the House of Lords a new look without altering its character, its power, or its function. This Bill is the result.
  No doubt the recruitment of eminent men and women from various spheres of activity will strengthen the other place Every recruit of distinction will help to make it more respectable and, therefore, more dangerous and less vulnerable to attack. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer. Now the truth is really coming out. Now the cat is being let
  454
  out of the bag. Of course they will make it more respectable, and, therefore, more dangerous and less vulnerable. In that respect, I would say that even Lord Attlee made it more dangerous.
  This Bill will, for all its modest, quiet, unassuming appearance, give the House of Lords greater authority and will strengthen it in every way. This Bill is what members of the party opposite want because they know that they are not likely to get anything more. What they want before the next Election is a House of Lords less unbalanced, with a greater number of regularly attending, working peers. It will look better, and in all essentials it will be exactly the same. In fact, the party opposite gains everything by this Bill and gives practically nothing away. All the substance is retained—the hereditary principle, the permanent majority and the delaying power; all the features which are so objectionable and which are, indeed, completely indefensible in a democracy.
  It has been said this afternoon that the House of Lords has behaved so admirably that there is no more need to reform it; that a little Measure of this kind will do, that there is no need to reform the House of Lords because it has reformed itself. It is not that the House of Lords has changed: it is the instinct of self-preservation that has made it cautious, canny, careful.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that that is true. They have had some very rude shocks in recent years. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Tomorrow."] And tonight. When the Lords threw out the Budget, in 1909, they asked for trouble, and got it in full measure in the Parliament Act of 1911. In 1949, they brought more trouble upon themselves and their powers were still further curtailed. So it is not virtue that has kept the House of Lords in order so far, but fear—fear of the consequences of that action.
  One other curious argument has been raised in the course of this debate, to which I would like to refer. It is said that if the House of Commons gets out of touch with the electorate, and when it exceeds its mandate, at that precise moment, whenever it may be, Members of the House of Lords, representing nobody but themselves, with some infallible sixth sense, with the kind of sensitive antennae which obviously belong

  455
  only to hereditary peers, are able to judge to a nicety, as Members of the House of Commons are not able to do, what is the feeling in the country.
  The interesting thing is that this remarkable instinct is never called into play when a Conservative Government are in office. There has not been a single instance—and I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite to refute this—when the House of Lords has come to the conclusion that a Conservative Government have exceeded their mandate. I will gladly give way to the noble Lady if she wishes to interrupt.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Lady has asked whether there were any Conservative Measures which had been challenged by the Upper House. There were the Aliens Bill, the Inventions and Designs Bill, large parts of the Copyright Bill, a large part of the Shops Bill, and a large part of the Regulations made under the Road Traffic Act. Those are quite enough justifications for its existence.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: There was also another important Measure which the noble Lady forgot to mention, which had something to do with wild birds. Of course, those were all very important matters, but I hardly think that they affect the constitutional position. I still say that there has not been a single instance where a Conservative Government, in the judgment of the House of Lords, have exceeded their mandate.
  Mr. Farey-Jones: Will not the hon. Lady agree that, indirectly at any rate, over the Criminal Justice Bill, the House of Lords did the very thing that she said it had not done?
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: I would have said that it did the very reverse. I would have said that there was an occasion when the House of Commons, on a free vote, clearly came to a decision and the House of Lords reversed that decision—
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: This is not an argument; it is a debate.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am deeply grateful to hon. Members for
  456
  their interruptions, for they have assisted me greatly in making my point.
  I repeat that there has never been a moment when the other place has thought it necessary to ask a Conservative House of Commons to have second thoughts about a major Bill. There has been no question at all of the House of Lords asking the House of Commons to think again about the Rent Act, an Act so unpopular that even some hon. Members opposite have shied away from it, and when by-election after by-election makes clear the reaction of the people against it. There was not a squeak from the House of Lords, not a warning note, not even a peal from the famous bell.
  What right, therefore, has the House of Lords to decide when and if the mandate from the people has been exceeded? It has none at all. I quote again famous words by a famous man who has already been quoted today:
  "They are representative of nobody. They are inaccessible to argument. When you hear it said that all the House of Lords wish to do is to ascertain the will of the people, do not be deceived by that."
  Those words were used not by the Leader of the Opposition, but by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). It is a melancholy reflection that, while some people change for the better, others change for the worse.
  Tomorrow, we shall vote against this Bill because, modest though it looks, it will, in effect, strengthen the other place. We believe that any Measure for the reform of the House of Lords must be based on two principles: first the abolition of the hereditary principle, and secondly, if there is to be a second Chamber at all, it must not be able to overrule, but must be subordinate to this elected House of Commons.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) has given us a lurid picture of the evils of a House of Lords. She has even spoken about hereditary peers having specially sensitive antennae. I am not sure whether they transmit them to their daughters or not. I was much more concerned to try to discover whether the hon. Lady was in favour of replacing the House of Lords with another second

  457
  Chamber or whether she was against the whole idea of a second Chamber altogether.
  When we were listening to the Leader of the Opposition I noticed that he was very careful not to commit himself as to whether or not he really believed in a second Chamber.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) referred to the 1948 discussions between the parties when a wide measure of agreement on general principles seems to have been achieved. It is a little disappointing that we do not seem to have progressed much in inter-party agreement since those days. Indeed, we had very little indication from hon. Members opposite as to whether they were today even willing to enter into conversations, if they were so asked, with a view to the reform of the second House. They seem to me rather to be trying to avoid coming down either way on this issue.
  My chief reason for intervening is that I believe in the importance of a second Chamber, and it seems to me that there is a danger that we should be gradually drifting away from the conception of a second Chamber by failing to introduce any measure completely to reform the House of Lords. Let me say at this juncture that I give a welcome—not a very enthusiastic one, it is true—to the Bill. It is simple and will probably do some good. Frankly, however, I believe that it would have been better to tackle the question completely and, if possible, by agreement between the parties.
  The Bill is obviously in the nature of a blood transfusion to enable the other place to go on functioning satisfactorily for a term of years, but I disagree with the hon. Lady when she says that it will in the long run strengthen the House of Lords, for I cannot believe that will be the case.
  In effect, the Bill extends the principle of nomination, which is one of the many remedies discussed by the Bryce Committee and other people who have examined the problem. Most of them have come down against the idea of nomination. Indeed, in recent years it has been rather discredited in second Chambers in other parts of the world. I believe that the principle of nomination has serious disadvantages, including the very disadvantage pointed out by the
  458
  Bryce Committee, that there is a danger that it will mean that appointments will become much too much a party matter: that they will degenerate into a subject for party reward, in the words used by the Bryce Committee.
  For that reason, I was very glad when the Leader of the House indicated that there will be an attempt in respect of life peerages to cast the net rather wide and not seek nominations on a purely party basis. I believe that, as the powers of another place have been very much restricted and must remain restricted, it is not so important that the parties should be fully represented there as that there should be a number of people who are not particularly tied to any one party and who can bring their minds to bear on debates on general issues, which, I think, all agree represents one of the most important features of that House.
  Its other important feature is that of revision. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) say that, although there are now five different occasions on which we discuss Bills—it is true that one stage is formal—he would like to add a sixth. My view is—I think that many of us feel this—that we see rather more than we want of many of the Bills that come before the House, and to introduce yet another stage in the life of a Bill would, in the great majority of cases, be rather an imposition on the House. I, for one, am thankful that there is another place to which Bills can go to receive proper revision.
  I am very much in favour of the principle of a second Chamber. Many pundits have discussed this matter in the past, including such curiously selected people as Lord Milner and Oliver Cromwell, and they have, one and all, come to the conclusion that a second Chamber is a very useful place.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Will the hon. Member explain to the House just what powers the first Chamber, the House of Commons, had in the days of Cromwell?
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: The first Chamber was the Rump Parliament. It considered itself thoroughly representative of the people of this country although it had expelled all but about 97 of its members. That is rather a good example against the case of the hon. Member.

  459
  There is no doubt that, in theory, there is a very strong case indeed for a second Chamber. The case for the second Chamber is much more important than the actual form it should take. I understand the views of hon. Members opposite about the hereditary principle, but I, for one, would welcome talks and agreement between the parties to achieve a reformed second Chamber, which I believe to be important because of the very fact that in this country we have a sovereign Parliament and what has virtually become a sovereign House of Commons which can do everything, including prolonging its own life almost indefinitely—as the Rump Parliament did—and which has been strengthened in very recent times by the growth of the party system which has given rise to the strongest party allegiances inside this House.
  That is why it is important that we should not seek to set up any rival in reforming the House of Lords. To have a directly elected second Chamber would expose us to that danger, and I think that practically all are agreed that for that very reason we would not wish to tolerate another directly elected Chamber which could in the long run only rival ourselves. It would be equally wrong to go entirely in favour of the principle of nomination, and I was rather glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition also indicated that he would not be in favour of that principle being applied exclusively if any reform of the House of Lords were to be agreed.
  In short, I welcome the Bill, although I do not have great hopes that it will achieve a tremendous amount. In particular, I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about the all-important question of salaries for Members of the House of Lords, because I do not see how we can attract those whom we want to have there unless we tackle that matter, and I should have thought that there was fairly general agreement about it. If that were done, the Bill could achieve very much more than will otherwise be possible. I welcome the Bill, although I am disappointed that it has not been possible to go further.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. William Stones: I do not propose to deal specifically with the arguments adduced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken, but
  460
  I shall deal with some of them in a general survey of the situation and I believe that I shall express an opinion which is widely held. I cannot support the Bill, not because of that which is contained in the Bill, but because I disagree with its basic assumptions which are that there is a need for the continuance of the House of Lords and that it needs to be strengthened.
  I am against the Bill, because I am against the principle of the second Chamber in its present form—let there be no ambiguity about that. Although the Bill will proceed through its various processes and eventually become law, I look forward to the day, in the not-too-distant future I hope, when a Bill with the object of abolishing the House of Lords as we know it will be presented.
  Along with other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, I regard the present situation in which we have the noble Lords of Britain participating in the legislative affairs of our country as an anachronism. The proposals in the Bill do little, if anything, to improve that state of affairs. We are a country rightly priding ourselves on our democratic way of life and on our democratic Government and yet we have persons who, either by hereditary rights or patronage—certainly not by election by the people of the country—are permitted to exercise power, very limited but nevertheless real, in our legislative affairs.
  I draw some consolation from the fact that this is, and must be, just another stage in the development and inevitable decline in the power of the noble Lords. The ultimate ending of this form of privilege is not far distant. I used the term "privilege." Much as been said today about the history of the House of Lords, and we need to have some regard to historical facts in trying to arrive at conclusions on matters such as this. A little understanding of the long history of the House of Lords will support my point of view.
  As a matter of convenience, we can take the history of the House of Lords from the year 1295. Throughout the centuries, it has retained its name and its form, although its character has substantially changed. Whatever changes have taken place, one thing is certain, that the membership of the House of Lords

  461
  has been a privilege throughout that long history. The lords were originally tenants in chief of the Crown, and, as such, they were entitled to receive summonses to attend Parliament. That right was hereditary and still is.
  Later, lords were created by letters patent granted by the reigning monarch for one reason or another and sometimes, very often as a political expedient if my reading of history is right, there were even less desirable reasons for such creation. These persons, although not elected by the people, have wielded great power and have even gone to the extent of deposing monarchs and, at times, condoning regicide.
  Our thanks are due to those who have gone before us and whose work and efforts have made it possible for us to say today that once the House of Commons has decided a course of action and is determined to pursue such a course, the House of Lords can do little more than delay the proceedings. But the House of Commons must be very determined, and it ought to be so. In other words, the real Parliamentary power is vested in the House of Commons, freely elected by the people in the various constituencies which we have the honour to represent. I express the fervent hope that that situation may never be changed. I cannot believe that there are many people who would disagree with those sentiments. It is not in the best interests of the country that the power to govern should be vested in any Tom, Dick or Harry—or in any Algernon Augustus, for that matter—by reason of patronage or the pure accident of birth.
  I do not say that all the noble lineages are feeble and incompetent to govern wisely, according to their own political and ethical beliefs; indeed, it is true to say that much of our social progress is due to the efforts of some of the noble lords in the past. One name that comes to mind is that of the Earl of Shaftesbury, who, at the beginning of the last century, did so much in connection with the employment of children in the mines and drew attention to the fact that women worked in the mines right up to the point of giving birth to children.
  Nor am I saying that the peers created in recent years are not competent or deserving of honour. All I am saying is that it is quite wrong to talk proudly of democracy and at the same time to
  462
  accept the principle of government, in however small a way, by people other than those elected by the people. We have heard the phrase "set the people free" on many occasions. If we are really to set the people free we must first give them the right to select their rulers.
  My opinion of the Bill is that athough it goes so far as to make it possible for life peerages to be created, expiring upon the death of the person upon whom the peerage has been conferred, and provides for such peerages to be conferred upon women, it does not go far enough. I would have welcomed the Bill if it had proposed the abolition of the House of Lords as we now know it, together with all the privileges inherent in it. I have no objection to the creation of women peers and their right to sit in the House of Lords, so long as it exists. Women should have the same rights as men, for equality of the sexes is the order of the day, but I deny women, as I deny men, the right to govern other than when they have been elected to do so.
  The Bill is a political expedient, calculated to pour oil on troubled waters. Time and time again when the power and influence of the House of Lords have waned or been threatened, efforts —not always unsuccessful—have been made to restore that power and influence. As the idea of democracy became more popular, suggestions were made for the democratisation of the House of Lords in order to make it more acceptable to the general public. We remember reading in the history books that the Civil War compelled the aristocrats to recognise the power and influence of the squires and burghers, and large numbers of the new ruling class were elected to the ranks of the aristocracy and made peers.
  In that way the power of the House of Lords was retained, purely by way of compromise—and the Bill seems to be just another example of compromise. As a result of compromises in the past the number of Lords increased from 150 in 1642 to over 700 in the nineteenth century, and the number in the House of Lords today has been given as 875. Reference has been made to the fact that their Lordships find it very difficult to man Committees. I should have thought they ought not to find it very difficult when they have 875 Members.

  463
  The expansion of industry finally resulted in the emergence of two classes —the factory owners and industrialists, on the one hand, and the working classes on the other. With a greater realisation of the anomalies of the existing governmental system, efforts were again made to weaken the power of the Lords, with varying degrees of success. During the last century the Reform Bills gave power to the people by placing the representation of the people before the representation of material interests. The power of the Lords was thereby diminished.
  Efforts have been made to justify the existence of the House of Lords and the augmentation of the number of its Members as provided in the Bill. During the nineteenth century justification for the House of Lords lay in its executive experience, as it was called and as it was accepted by most people. Assuredly, they, and only they, had had the experience of governing for centuries. But that is not so now. In this capacity they are now redundant. Much can be said for the utilisation of the experience of elder statesmen and other experts, but even that argument cannot sustain a proposal for the continuance of the House of Lords, because the benefit of such experience can be obtained in other ways.
  In an effort to rid the House of Lords of the adjective "undemocratic" some people have suggested the democratisation of the House of Lords. The Parliament Act of 1911 has been referred to, and also the Bryce Committee, which was set up in 1917 as a result of that Act, and which considered the question of an elected House of Lords. One reads that proposals put forward on such a basis made little impression. Any attempt to democratise the House of Lords by making it subject to election has been mentioned as something that we must fear, for it could mean the setting up of a rival, if not a duplicate, of the House of Commons. The more elected and democratic the House of Lords becomes, the more it resembles the House of Commons, so why have it at all?
  It has been claimed that the existence of the House of Lords and the present processes of law making are necessary to prevent the hurried passage of Bills which, upon becoming law, could be injurious and detrimental to the people.
  464
  Sufficient has been said about the matter to prove conclusively that that does not occur. A Bill can go from one place to another ad infinitum and one can still find anomalies existing in it. We must give the necessary amount of consideration to any legislation proposed, but it is not beyond the capacity of the House of Commons so to readjust its law-making processes as to insure against hurried and ill-considered law-making.
  After much consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the Bill is intended simply to bolster up the House of Lords and to perpetuate an institution which is undemocratic, unnecessary, and an outworn relic of a despotic and tyrannical past. I hope that the House will reject it.
  7.0 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Stones) has clearly expressed his detestation of the House of Lords and his determination to get rid of it. He accompanied his speech with a wealth of historical research which clearly impressed the House. I doubt whether even the French revolutionaries would have been able to go so carefully into the antecedents of the aristocrats they were executing as has the hon. Member who is driving the tumbril today. He said that the House of Lords from time immemorial—I think he got the date right, 1295—had been a place of privilege. But if he is interested in historical research—I am sure that he is, and, as time goes on will become increasingly so—he should read Appendix B of the recent Report of the Select Committee on the Powers of the House in Relation to the Attendance of its Members, where it clearly shows not only that attendance in the House of Lords was not a privilege, that it was not only not a duty, but that it was a very great burden indeed. And it is still a burden today for noble Lords.
  For example, on 9th April, 1679, the Lord Chancellor had
  "to write to every peer absent and able to travel without danger to life to attend forthwith. House to send Serjeant to bring them in custody if they fail".
  On 22nd March, 1688, no Lord could go out of town without leave—the Clerk had to furnish a list of Lords absent without being excused—and on 31st October, 1690, even the House of Commons had to

  465
  come into the picture. The House in Committee had to consider ways of making the Lords attend.
  Mr. Stones: I have no doubt that what the noble Lord is saying is right, and that it was an obligation to attend the House of Lords at some time. But I suggest that membership of the House of Lords is a privilege.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Historically, the fact is that ever since the beginning of time noble Lords have found that it was extremely difficult to attend another place, and they are finding it so today. That is one of the actual facts of life about another place which will make it more easy to reform than might at first appear. I will say something about that at the end of my remarks.
  I wish to offer a few remarks to the House on this slender little Bill and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). My hon. Friend made a brilliant and logical speech, and came to the conclusion that the Bill must be killed. There are many ways of killing a Bill. I do not propose to do into the Division Lobby tomorrow night with the Opposition, because I do not like the terms of the Opposition Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper. At this stage, I doubt whether I shall even go into the Lobby against the main Motion, if it is put. But there is just the possibility that during the Committee stage discussions and on Report all sorts of things may be done to the Bill. All sorts of exploratory work may be attempted. The Government may do research in a number of different particulars, and we can see whether it is possible to make anything of this Bill. "One must not kill, but need not strive officiously to keep alive." If during the Committee stage and on Report nothing whatever is forthcoming from the Government to improve this Bill, if it remains the meagre little document it is today, then on Third Reading we may give it the final coup de grace.
  Several hon. Members have talked about party agreements on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal dwelt on that theme extensively in his opening speech. For the life of me I cannot see why it is more necessary to have party agreement about a Bill
  466
  changing the constitution of our country and reforming the House of Lords than upon any other matter. Surely, it should be the duty of a Government of the day of one political persuasion or another to decide according to their own policy what they conceive to be a Bill or Measure which satisfies their supporters, which satisfies the country, and to go forward with it. The Labour Party did that with nationalisation, and we certainly have not deserted that principle. We have carried out denationalisation, and in the case of road haulage and steel it may very well be that we shall be proved to have been right.
  The great point to remember about this question of party legislation at a moment of time is that water flows under the bridge, and public opinion has a different comprehension of the facts in four or five years' time when another party may be in power. Although it is irrelevant to this Bill, and I must not pursue the matter, I do not find anything to suggest that, if and when hon. Members opposite do come to power, there will be the support from the country which they now think there is for doctrinaire reasons for the renationalisation of road haulage and steel. Likewise, if my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government had the courage to put forward a comprehensive Measure reforming the House of Lords on Conservative lines, it is equally possible that were the Labour Party to come to power it would find it, shall we say, inconvenient to alter it, whatever that party might have said about the proposal heretofore. So I reject the doctrine of all-party agreement on constitutional legislation as I do on economic and financial legislation.
  There is little to say in favour of the Bill. It includes a tiny little Clause allowing women to enter another place. The real issue is not whether women should enter another place, but whether they should be in public life at all. However, they having established great inroads into public life and built many powerful bridges, I cannot see why we need boggle about a little "catwalk" to another place. The two noble Ladies who have addressed the House today will, I am quite certain, despite the prejudice one of them may feel this afternoon, walk very delicately and

  467
  gracefully along the corridor in due course.
  Why is it alleged that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and Members of the Labour Party in general are reluctant to accept hereditary peerages? Not much has been said about the real purpose of the Bill today, but a great deal has been said about it in the past. I do not think that I am misquoting him if I say that my noble Friend Lord Salisbury has said on many occasions in another place—as have other Ministers—that it is essential to fill up the deficiency in the ranks of the Labour Party in the House of Lords. Why are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and Members of the Labour Party, reluctant to accept hereditary peerages? Lord Attlee, their erstwhile leader, accepted one. What is the fear? What examination has been made of the likes and dislikes of the sort of people who are being urged to come along and sit upon the Opposition benches in the House of Lords?
  I do not think that any examination has been made at all. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition has not been consulted about the Bill makes it absolutely clear to me it has been framed speedily on a priori grounds without any careful behind-the-scenes examination—with the utmost discretion, certainly—of the sort of people who would be willing to sit on the Opposition benches in the House of Lords. I consider that is very hard.
  Suppose that the Bill is enacted and that noble Lords of a temporal character are created—life peers—and then payment begins, what about their sons? It is alleged that they cannot take an hereditary peerage because it is very disagreeable in industry for the eldest son to feel that one day he is going to step into his father's shoes in the House of Lords. What happens when payment begins? There are certain classes of eminent Labour peers, hereditary peers, in the House of Lords who, I think, in due course, will follow their fathers into industry, commerce or anywhere else, to receive payment, because it is not going to be possible to deny the House of Lords the same sort of salaries that we have here, once reform of its composition has been made. It will be very hard on
  468
  the sons of life peers, who are likely to say, "Dad, why take a life peerage when Bob, round the corner, is going to succeed his father quite soon and receive £1,750 a year?" Have the Government thought of that one? I do not think they have.
  What is the guarantee of opposition once the creations have been made? I think the Labour peers are doing a fine job in another place, but there is no guarantee, when we select somebody for a life peerage, that he will go on sitting on the Opposition bench day in and day out and do his duty. What is the duty? It depends on the character of the legislation and the political climate of the time. We cannot put forward puppet creatures and lay figures and guarantee that they will behave in a certain way in Parliament. The creation of life peers to constitute an opposition is a fiction.
  It seems to me that there has been insufficient thought behind the Bill, and that it is misconceived. I must admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was right; it is a patronising Bill, patronising to the Labour Party. Why should not hon. Members of that party, in due course, if their philosophy changes, receive hereditary peerages? I am perfectly certain that they will.
  One final remark, and it is a rather serious remark. I feel it fundamentally, and it constitutes the basis of my opposition to this Measure. I believe that in many ways this rather terrible social revolution—I am not talking about the elevation of life of the masses; that is grand, that is wonderful—I mean this hysterical bitterness in public life these last 50 years, this divergence of the parties on grounds of class and privilege, rather than on grounds of ideology, is an appalling thing to contemplate. I think it has done terrible damage to our country, and that it will take a very long time to recover from it, but that we are recovering from it slowly I am quite certain.
  I am certain that, as time goes forward this horizontal division between the parties on grounds of class will give way to a vertical division on grounds of political belief—free trade versus protection, State control versus freedom of the individual—whatever wide issues one may care to suggest—and that in time we will get together with a rising social

  469
  consciousness, a satisfactory platform of life for all, the sort of ideological division between the parties which we had until the beginning of this century.
  If that is the case, the House of Lords will divide naturally on grounds of ideology. It is bound to do that. Why tamper with its constitution at the end of a social revolution? We made no proper attempt to accommodate the rising tide of radicalism at the beginning. I think the House of Lords was wrong in 1911 to admit the Budget. It ought to have stood by its principles and been swamped by radical peers. There would then have been no need for these reforms today. Why make this silly, futile experiment at the end of an era?
  I hope that the House will cogitate in Committee and on Report, and see if it cannot amend the Bill. But if we cannot make a satisfactory Bill of it, for heaven's sake, let us drop it. There was an occasion when, in Charles II's time, a Measure of this sort introduced by Cromwell was done away with, for reasons which are very difficult to find out. [Interruption.] Yes, indeed, a life peerages Measure introduced by Cromwell was eliminated after the Restoration for reasons which are rather difficult to ascertain, but it was done, and there must have been sound reasons for doing it. Do not let us today introduce a Measure which we will find specious, inconvenient and inadequate, and which we may have to repeal in ten years' time.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: The speech of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is the second speech we have heard this evening putting forward, extremely ably in both cases, a strongly-held individual point of view which is not the point of view of either side of this House.
  I thought the noble Lord wrongly assessed the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It was not, it seemed to me, a logical speech; that was not the dominating characteristic of it. It was a speech which was essentially mystical— with the mystique of far-back Conservatism, expressed extremely ably in logical form. When I say it was not essentially logical, I am not being disrespectful to the hon. Member. We are all like that.
  470
  We all think that we are being logical when the real thing that decides our point of view in the long run is not logical argument at all; it is our attitude, our beliefs and the mystique we happen to believe in.
  Both the noble Lord and his hon. Friend take the same point of view, and one could sympathise with it if one started from their starting point. There is a great deal in what the noble Lord said by way of background to his main points with which I and a great many hon. Members would certainly agree. The description of his point of view as that of extreme Conservatism seems to be borne out by the noble Lord's attitude to women in public life. That, however, is an issue which I shall not pursue just now. I had assumed that, in spite of what took place in another place, the question whether this Bill was right to include women or not would hardly be raised in this House.
  The issues which we have been discussing have been fairly wide, much wider than "this slim little Bill", as the noble Lord described it. It is one of the habits of the House, in putting down reasoned Amendments, to widen the field of discussion considerably. There has been a great deal of general discussion on the House of Lords itself, its qualities, its membership and its future. The question has been raised in many speeches whether there should be a second Chamber at all. My answer to that question is, "Yes." If, however, there had not been a second Chamber, I would not have supported the idea of bringing into existence this particular kind of second Chamber; but, since it is there, it seems to me that we might as well make use of it.
  For what?—to take away some of the load of work which sits like a sort of Old Man of the Sea on the shoulders of this House, and has done so now for some decades. It is a load with which we have not as yet found any satisfactory way of dealing. The Chamber at the other end of the corridor—another place —does take a small part of the work which we have to do, and if it did not do that we would have to do it, and as has already been suggested, we might have to have a fourth, fifth or sixth stage in our deliberations. We should need to have an additional revising stage.

  471
  Where could we find time for that in our existing time-table? That, it seems to me, is the essential question in connection with the future of the House of Lords.
  I do not take my stand as a unicamerist or as a bi-camerist; indeed, I would quite happily support a third Chamber if there were any practical necessity for it. I view this question in relation to the House of Commons. Our Constitution is Commons-centred and Commons-based. Our legislative processes are centred around the House of Commons. Our methods of criticising the Executive are centred in the House of Commons. The co-ordinate position once occupied by the second Chamber has ceased to be. It has become a subordinate position. That is one of the matters on which we pretty well all agree. It was expressed by many of the noble Lords who spoke in another place. I do not think anyone nowadays would want to make the second Chamber coordinate with this Chamber.
  That being so, one must view the future of the House of Lords in relation to the House of Commons. Coming from a Member of this Chamber that might seem slightly arrogant, but I do not think it is: we are here only as nominees of our constituents. It is only in the interests of our constituents that we make up our minds in one way or another about the worth or the value of the two Chambers. As the House of Lords is subsidiary to the House of Commons its powers also should be subsidiary. I shall not try to follow this point out on its main lines, because it has been dealt with fully and forcefully by one or two of my colleagues.
  There is no case for anything more than an amending power in the House of Lords, and the amendments should be approved by this House. Roughly, it should have the power that we give to a Standing Committee, to make Amendments and to have the Amendments confirmed when the Bill is reported back to the House of Commons. That is the kind of thing the Lords should do.
  I am not one of those who say, in an unqualified way, that the House of Lords does this job or any other part of its work with very high quality or very great efficiency. Not merely should the
  472
  House of Lords revise; it should also have freedom to initiate Bills and to hold general debates on public matters. These things it does now, but not nearly as well as popular legend tries to make out. In the House of Lords it is certainly true that there are a number of able people, and in most of the major debates there are a number of first-rate speeches made by people of intellectual pre-eminence and in many cases of great personal experience of the subject under discussion. We also find a great deal of work that is not well done, for instance, in legislation that is initiated there.
  I have looked up the histories in the House of Lords of two Measures, one of which was recently before this House and one of which will shortly come here. Both of them are, in their ways, a little outside the ordinary run of Measures. One would say of them, "The House of Commons won't take much interest in them because they are not strongly party matters, but the House of Lords, with its array of distinguished experts from all walks of life, should produce a good debate on each of them."
  One of the Bills was the British Nationality Bill. It came to us from the House of Lords. Their Lordships' House spent from 4.19 p.m. to 5.10 p.m. on the Second Reading of that Bill, while the Committee and remaining stages went through on the nod. That was a Measure of great constitutional importance on which one would expect the House of Lords to produce a far better debate than we could, but it went through with hardly any debate at all.
  The other Measure—I said these were a little off the ordinary beaten track—is a specialised one entitled the Solicitors (Scotland) Bill. One would not expect the House of Commons to take any tremendous interest in that, but one would expect the House of Lords to produce enough knowledgeable Members to make a good debate. The total time on Second Reading was 33 minutes and in Committee seven minutes. The remaining stages were taken on the nod. The total time given to all stages of the Bill in the House of Lords was 40 minutes.
  Not only that, but a great many of the debates in the House of Lords are repetitive and platitudinous. In legislative assemblies we are bound to talk a lot of temporary stuff and sometimes

  473
  a certain amount of nonsense, but those who have a veneration for the House of Lords must agree that, on comparison, the House of Commons does not come out so badly.
  The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. When comparing our work with that of the House of Lords, has he paid attention to the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who is a very experienced Member of this House and who went out of his way to compliment the Lords upon the quality and speed of their Committee work, the lack of unnecessary talking, and their getting down to the necessary decisions?
  Mr. MacPherson: Yes. I agree both with my right hon. Friend and with the Minister, but I do not think that told the whole story. I started by saying that many of the speeches in the House of Lords were first-rate, but a lot of the work which we might expect them to do well because it is not essentially party work is done in far too skimpy a fashion. I do not know whether hon. Members spend very much time reading the debates in the House of Lords. If They did, they might be disappointed with the amount of repetition and platitudinousness that goes on, regarded even from the lenient point of view of our experience of this House.
  I do not want to comment in any detail on the membership of the House of Lords except in relation to the new type of member that is being suggested. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), expressed a great deal of dislike of the principle of nomination to the House of Lords; but the House of Lords is very largely nominated. The bishops, the Law Lords and first-creation peers are all nominated. It is very largely a nominated House, as we see when we look at its whole membership, but it is still more largely nominated proportionately when we look at the active membership. A good deal has been said about the hereditary element already and I must not use up more time.
  In reading the debates in another place I see that none of the noble Lords who spoke for the Government claimed there
  474
  was any hereditary principle that could be defended. They have all put forward the idea of heredity in connection with the second Chamber as a matter of expediency rather than a matter of principle.
  On the question with which we are dealing in the Bill, I think we run into a number of difficulties, some of which have been stated and one or two others I wish to state. The actual creation of life peers seems on balance a good thing. I can give it the same kind of tepid welcome which my noble Friend, Earl Attlee, gave it in another place. It is a small business, but the direction in which it goes is satisfactory.
  What kind of people are we going to get? I am puzzled by what we are told by spokesmen of the Government. Lord Home in another place described them as:
  "persons who can help the working of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 610.]
  The Leader of the House today referred to "people of distinction in all walks of life." The two do not necessarily match. It is one of the pleasant delusions which people have, particularly when planning a second Chamber, that one can get all sorts of distinguished people from all sorts of walks of life, put them into a second Chamber and have the most wonderful second Chamber on earth; but they do not always fit in that kind of place. I wonder how far the Leader of the House will get in his search for men of distinction who will not simply take a life peerage but will actually become active members of another place? I doubt very much whether more than a small proportion of those selected on that basis will stand the repetitiveness, the chores and the humdrum business of legislative and other work involved in membership of another place.
  There is the major question of remuneration. I want to say only one thing about that. The main point has been stressed. It has been thumped home that we can get a good working second Chamber only if we pay the members. The membership of a second Chamber does not depend on geographical constituencies, but there is a very important geographical element. It will not do to make a payment which is adequate only for a London member, who can carry on some other job half the

  475
  time. We have also to allow for members coming from other parts of the country. If we do not make that allowance in other ways as well as in connection with a salary, we shall run the danger of creating something like a super London County Council. That is always one of the dangers of any body which is not based on geographical constituencies. The danger, I think, will arise more with the creation of life peers selected for the particular job than it has arisen in the past, because there has always been a handful of hereditary peers willing to undergo the difficulties that geography imposes, such as travelling long distances.
  A further point, which I must make my last, because I am coming to the end of a proper time limit, is in connection with the titles of members of the House of Lords, whether they are hereditary or not. One part of the Bill seems quite superfluous. Clause 1 (2a) entitles a person:
  "to rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent;"
  all that is needed in a second Chamber is stated in subsection (b), that he shall be entitled
  "… to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly."
  There is no point in making life peers barons with a particular style or rank beyond that of "Members of the House of Lords."
  In talking about the barriers which people find to undertaking membership of the House of Lords, the actual phrase to be used for the title should not be underestimated. Titles like, "lord," "duke," "viscount" and so on nowadays are not only out of date but carry with them—I do not mean to be disrespectful to any individual—a certain touch, not only of quaintness, but perhaps something a little more reprehensible. I will not use the word I had in mind, because I do not want to get into trouble. I take off my hat to those who undertake this business of calling themselves lords, but it is a difficulty for them.
  Viscount Lambton: I should like an elucidation of the word "reprehensible."
  Mr. MacPherson: It is not a very exact expression of my meaning. I
  476
  should like to add to the word "quaintness" something suggesting a rather more critical attitude. I withdraw "reprehensible," but I will not say the word I had in mind because I do not want to be offensive.
  Viscount Lambton: I think it matters so much that we really ought to hear what it is.
  Mr. MacPherson: No. I suppose there is a stage when one should say less or more, and I seem to have got myself in between the two. Having done that, I think I had better stay there rather than try to extricate myself. Perhaps I can put it generally. It seems to me that it takes a certain amount of strength of mind, a certain touch of moral courage, for Mr. John Smith, an ordinary, plain, everyday chap with an interest in public affairs, or with a certain distinction in some line, suddenly to find that almost of necessity he must turn himself into Lord Smith the next day. That is not altogether a happy or attractive situation to be in.
  One should remember that in connection with the disincentives, as we call them nowadays, to accepting peerages. There is no need for membership of the House of Lords to carry with it any title. Membership is all that is wanted. I should have thought it would be a happy situation to have a House of non-Lords rather than a House of Lords, a second Chamber consisting of people who are Members of one House of Parliament and do not carry any rank, style or title.
  I am afraid I have been somewhat discursive and have got into a little difficulty in the last point I have made, but I come down in favour of the principles enunciated by the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The hereditary principle, although I have not said much about it because it has been dealt with by my hon. Friends, is something which does not seem to have any place at all in a legislative assembly. The powers that presently exist in another place are too great for the work that that other place should be expected to do.
  7.38 p.m.
  Sir Thomas Moore: I do not propose to comment on some of the extravagant and largely irrelevant attacks made

  477
  on the House of Lords and on the hereditary system generally, because most of the hon. Members who made them have left the Chamber and, therefore, could not profit much by anything I could say. I wish to make one preliminary comment. That is to say how pleased we all are to have the charming reminder of a great father and to notice that many of the little mannerisms of the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George)—although I do not suppose she knows it—are those to which we were accustomed to look for from him.
  I do not suppose that any of us was surprised to see the Amendment on the Order Paper. Everyone knows that the Opposition do not want a continuation of the House of Lords. They do not want it to be changed because, if it were changed, the question of further and wider powers would be raised. I do not think, however, that in their hearts hon. Members opposite would like it abolished, because, if it were, that would destroy one of their favourite platform targets and deny them the unthinking guffaws of their unthinking audiences. That kind of thing falls very pleasantly on an unthinking ear.
  Apart from that, I think we all also realise, and have realised for a long time, that there is something not quite suitable to our needs in the present composition of the House of Lords. Unique though their qualities are, and held as they are in the highest regard in the country and overseas, there is something in its composition that fails to match up to the requirements of today. But I cannot believe—and I share this view with many other speakers—that the creation of life peers and peeresses as proposed in the Bill would rectify the position or save the Lords.
  The words "life peers" raise grave misgivings in my mind, for two reasons. When the new creations, after this Bill has been lamentably passed, grow old and senile new creations will have to be nominated or adopted to do the work. So, one fine day a question will come up before the Lords of vital interest to the country—possibly the reintroduction of capital punishment or corporal punishment.
  Then, immediately on this vital call of duty, we would have the old and senile, the young and vigorous, backed, of
  478
  course, by the alleged backwoodsmen, all rallying to the call. The only result of that would be or could be an adjournment to the Albert Hall. I cannot imagine that the Albert Hall is a very good place for the cut and thrust of debate. There would be no limit to the numbers. There would be no place within the Palace of Westminster that could possibly deal with the conglomeration that one day might find itself called the House of Lords.
  The second misgiving is that, although undertakings were given by the Leader of the House today, and also by Government spokesmen in the other place, only those people of wide public service and of erudition and knowledge and suitable to be appointed would be made life peers. There is nothing in the Bill to show, or guarantee, that a Prime Minister or a Government of the day, when this Bill becomes law, would not be attracted by the idea of creating peers who would give them their political support. In that case, there would be ultimately a gross preponderance of one political party in the House of Lords, of which we justly complain today.
  In my opinion, the Government, in bringing forward this Bill, have not displayed their usual courage. Their approach has been tremulous and timorous. It is because of a strong desire to obtain some sort of general agreement to this nibbling effort that they have produced what I can only describe as a rather cock-eyed Bill. Most of us would prefer—I certainly would—a more robust and comprehensive effort to deal with this problem, which nearly fifty years ago, "brooked no delay." We all recognise the difficulties; but as someone has said—I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill); it is like him, anyhow—difficulties are created to be overcome.
  What are the difficulties? The first is the existence or continuation of the hereditary system. That, as has been assumed today, is considered by a number of people to be archaic. The second difficulty is introducing the elective principle without competing with the House of Commons. The third is the advisability of having much more substantial representation of the great professions and the trade unions. Finally, there is possibly the demand which might arise of giving a

  479
  reformed Chamber the powers suitable to its stature.
  How could these difficulties be resolved? I am reminded of the informal Committee that sat on this subject over twenty-five years ago. It was presided over by the late Lord Salisbury. I was then a very junior member of that Committee. It reached conclusions somewhat similar to those I am now seeking to put forward, and it also corresponds to the system which is working quite satisfactorily in Belguim.
  Working on the basis that the active strength of the present House should be drastically reduced so as to conform both to seating and business requirements, we might fix the total at, say, 425. I will give the reason for that in a moment. Of that 425 the following distribution should be made. One hundred of the existing Members of the House of Lords should be elected by the peers themselves. That would carry on to a limited extent the hereditary principle, and, indeed, would be an adaptation of the system adopted by our Scottish peers.
  The second 100 would come from the same House of Lords, but would be elected by Members of the House of Commons. Thus, democracy would be given its pound of flesh. The second 100 would be elected by those already elected by the votes of the people. The third 100 would be elected from their own numbers by the great professions—doctors, architects, lawyers, and the like—and this would ensure a wide knowledge and great experience being brought into the discussions.
  The fourth 100 would be elected from their own numbers by the trade unions, thus providing what everyone knows is very essential in the House of Lords—the authentic voice of labour. Finally, for the remaining 25 I suggest that they should cover those members of the Royal House who have the right to sit there now or such others as might be chosen, such as representatives from the Commonwealth, together with leaders of the various religious communities, established and otherwise. I then suggest, in regard to that last category, that they should be nominated by the Prime Minister of the day.
  Mr. Edward Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us for how long
  480
  he proposes that these people should be elected?
  Sir T. Moore: I am coming to that point. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reminded me of it. All these categories would hold office only for the lifetime of the Parliament, but would be subject to re-election or reappointment if desirable. Thus the Chamber would be continually refreshed, continually strengthened, and continually more able and adapted to discharge whatever functions might be entrusted to it.
  This, of course, raises what has been already referred to—the vexed and controversial issue of powers. What powers would the House of Commons now be prepared to concede to the House of Lords, reformed as I have suggested? I believe that even the most Left wing critics of the House of Lords would, on the whole, be prepared to grant the powers suitable to the composition of the House that I have set out.
  That is the scheme as I have conceived it. That is the broad outline of the view which I have held for many years. It would require a lot of work, attention and thought. Certainly, as my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said, it would be far better to grasp firmly the nettle which we all know exists, and will continue to exist after the Bill is passed, and to deal with it confidently and courageously instead of by this timorous, tremulous and, no doubt, pilot scheme, which, in my opinion, will make no difference whatever to the present position in the House of Lords.
  I am convinced, also, of one other thing. I believe that only when the Government, Parliament and the people face up to the problem on these lines will they create a Parliament in its broadest sense that will be worthy of the country.
  7.51 p.m.
  Miss Elaine Burton: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) as he does not consider this a good Bill. I hope that it is a Bill which will not make much progress, and I should like to give my reasons for saying that.
  Ever since the reform, if one can so call it, of the other place was mooted, the public has been given three reasons by the Government and by the newspapers

  481
  which support the Government for the necessity of this reform. The first is that there is a feeling in the country that the other place is far too large in its nominal strength. I think it is right to say that twenty years ago the membership of the other place numbered 772 and that today the number is 872. Presumably, if this rate of increase continues, perhaps in some twenty years or so the number will reach 1,000. The Bill makes no attempt to deal with that problem.
  We have heard criticisms today about the size of the House of Lords, and I do not think any hon. Member would disagree when I say that nothing that the Government have put forward in this House contains any suggestion for dealing with that problem.
  The second point which has been put out to the public is that in the other place there is a huge majority for one party, which means that far too much work falls on a minority. That is generally admitted, because Lord Home, speaking in another place, said:
  "I believe that all of us have recognised that the existence of the large number of peers who seldom, if ever, attend this House but who, if they did attend, could in theory dominate a vote exposes this House to criticism,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 611–12.]
  That obviously is recognised, and yet the Bill makes no effort to deal with that aspect either.
  The third point which has been promulgated in the Press for some time is that people who could give useful service and help to redress the balance between the parties in another place are prevented from doing so for two reasons. The first is their reluctance to accept a a peerage with a hereditary obligation; and the second is the lack of financial means to enable them to give voluntary service full-time.
  I was rather amazed to hear the Lord Privy Seal—I took down his words—say that people were not debarred from the House of Lords today because of lack of payment. That was an extraordinary thing to say. It is particularly extraordinary in view of the fact that in another place the spokesman for the Opposition put forward the point that any strengthening of the Opposition in another place would be limited to a very small field of choice, because there
  482
  would be very few indeed who could afford to go to that place without adequate annual remuneration.
  That point was strengthened when a Member on the Government side said in another place that as the House of Lords sat for only 100 days in the year, payment would amount, at the maximum, to £315 per annum. In view of that, it really was quite extraordinary for the Lord Privy Seal to make that remark this afternoon. It is quite obvious that nobody without other means could work full time for a payment of £315 a year, and yet the Bill we are discussing today makes no provision for that whatever.
  Another reason for the Bill—a Government reason—which has not been put out to the public, is the belief that a little reform now, particularly if it were what I might call a somewhat liberal—with a small "I"—reform, would be likely to postpone indefinitely a bigger reform. It is because of this argument that I particularly welcome the Amendment put down today by the Opposition.
  Like some of my hon. Friends who have already spoken, I am in favour of a second Chamber, but I am not in favour of a second Chamber unless the hereditary principle goes first. I would not touch anything which retained the hereditary principle, because I believe that by accepting this Bill we should be bolstering up the present system. We should be giving it a new look which is not a particularly good one, which might lead moderate opinion to think that as this reform had been put through the House of Lords can be left as it is for the present.
  Presumably, if life peers are to be appointed they will have to be Labour peers for the time being, otherwise the unbalance in the Lords will become even worse than it is today. Equally, they would have to be paid for a full-time job. Coming to a different point, I would have expected most hon. Members to agree that in the world today, the hereditary principle is really and truly out of date. Although we may accuse the Lord Privy Seal of many other things, we do not usually accuse him of being out of date, but I understood him today to say that the reform introduced by the Bill was in line with the times. I do not think it is. I

  483
  cannot imagine that anything which maintains this hereditary and out-of-date principle is in line with the world of today, and I do not believe that a few Labour life peers and the admission of women should be used to bolster up this idea.
  The proposals of the Government are very simple: the admission of life peers, the admission of women and the continuation of the payment of expenses, which has begun in the limited way that I have mentioned. When Lord Home was speaking in another place, however, he said:
  "I do not at all visualise that there would be very large numbers of life peerages created quickly which would transform the character of this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 30th October, 1957; Vol. 205, c. 589.]
  If a large number of life peers are not to be created quickly, I cannot see how we are to make the unbalance in the House of Lords any better than it is at the moment.
  We have been given various reasons why members of the other place do not attend as well as they should, and we were even told that with a roll of more than 800 members it is difficult to man committees. We have been told:
  "A Peer uses Parliament when he has some first-hand knowledge to contribute to … debates."
  Lord Home went on to say that as a peer
  "is not under the necessity of proving to his constituents at regular intervals that he is in fact alive, he does not have to come here and assert himself at regular intervals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 30th October, 1957; Vol. 205, c. 591.]
  That may be all very well, but we on this side of this House do not see why people who do not of necessity have to prove themselves alive to their constituents should be given the power to vote.
  A statement was made by a spokesman in another place that although we might have a comprehensive reform which would limit the number of hereditary peers, there were two conditions before it could be done. The first was a great measure of agreement between the parties. The Lord Privy Seal said today that it had not been possible to secure agreement between the two parties to any radical reform, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said we had not been consulted in the matter. I cannot help wondering, and I should
  484
  think the general public would wonder, too, if we cannot secure agreement between the two parties on radical reform of the other place, whether that means we have to keep the present House of Lords for ever. I would have thought that there would have been disagreement between the two parties about reform, because I am convinced that the other side is not likely to agree with our attitude to this matter.
  I should have thought there were four points of agreement in the country on this affair: first, that we should not have a Chamber consisting of a great many people who never enter it; second, that there is a necessity for a second Chamber; third, that women should be admitted; fourth, that people would he willing to serve if life peerages were introduced and if the financial question could be settled. I believe that the majority of people would agree with those four points.
  Who will disagree? First we have the die-hard opinion which we have heard expressed and which we have read about in the other place, and which says there should be no change at all. We have the opinion of extremists in the country who say there should be no second Chamber at all. In between we have the moderates who say, "Let us have changes and see how they work." I believe the Opposition is doing a service to the country by saying we are in favour of some of these changes, that we are in favour of a second Chamber, but only on one condition, and that is that the hereditary principle goes first.
  I would ask the Government whether they would tell us how they propose to pay a selected number of peers. Presumably, it would not be intended that a full salary should be offered to some 800 or 900 members, many of whom never go near the place at all. Secondly, how does one justify a Chamber which is not elected having voting powers? Third, how does one justify a system when there is always available in it a crushing majority for one party? My noble Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), whose speech we all enjoyed so much—I will not say she got herself into hot water, because I am certain she would never do that—raised this question which I want to put. When has the other place sent

  485
  back or turned down important Measures sent up to it from the Commons when there has been a Conservative Government? The noble Lady certainly made her point, that there had been nothing more exciting than a Measure about wild birds which had been produced in evidence. This question was raised in the debate in another place on 3rd December, and there was not one Government spokesman who could produce one single title of one major Measure which had been sent up to it from this Chamber during the time of a Conservative Government which the other place had turned down.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I thought the hon. Lady was in the Chamber when I ventured to interrupt the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and gave a list of various Bills, whose names I do not want to repeat, not only thrown out but drastically amended, quite apart from that important Measure, the Protection of Birds Act.
  Miss Burton: I have been here a long time, and I was in the Chamber when the noble Lady made that interruption, but I did not think, I hope I may say without discourtesy, that the list she produced was really worthy of the noble Lady. I thought it would have been much better to let it go by default than to produce a list of birds. It really strengthens the argument on this side of the House.
  Suggestions have been made for reducing the enormous number in the other House. It was suggested that some peers might agree not to go there, might agree not to vote. There was the very ingenious suggestion that there should be a scheme whereby the peers, whether hereditary or newly created, would be allowed to sit and speak but that only a limited number of peers would have the right to sit, speak and vote. Various suggestions have been put forward, but I hope very much that we shall be reinforced in our objection to this Bill by hon. Members on the Government benches who have spoken against it, and I hope that until the hereditary principle has disappeared we on this side of the House will continue our opposition.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has asked a great many questions and I am not skilled enough to answer them all, but I will try to say something about some of them. She said there were too many peers, but she also admitted that too few attend the other place. The hon. Lady criticised the existence of what she called backwoodsmen. I would point out that proposals are afoot for getting rid of this problem. The idea of leave of absence has not been abandoned.
  I think that the hon. Lady got the Lord Privy Seal wrong when she talked about the financial position of peers. What my right hon. Friend said, if I understood him aright, was that the possession of great wealth or landed possessions was not by any means the only reason why a peerage should be created at the present time. I do not believe that the present somewhat inadequate expenses allowance should necessarily bedevil this discussion, which, after all, is about another proposal, but that would not preclude the later adjustment of such matters.
  I am only a very inexperienced Member of this House and I am not a lawyer, nor am I a logician. I have, however, spent a certain amount of time, I hope without neglecting my duties in this House, listening to their Lordships in another place, and I have been very impressed by what I have heard and seen. I would say this about proposed reforms of the other place. If they are needed they should, indeed, be gradual reforms. This present Measure is drawn in very narrow terms, but the Opposition's Amendment is couched, I feel, in somewhat bitter tones and has rather widened the issue. They oppose the Bill, though, if it is passed, no doubt many of them will take advantage of its provisions. We must wait and see, but I feel that that will be the position.
  I should like to take up a few minutes defending the hereditary principle, about which much has been said today. Surely hon. Members would concede that they would hope to pass on such good qualities as they possess to their children. I should like the House to follow me into the realms of fantasy and imagine for a moment that every hon. Member

  487
  who sits in this Chamber will be succeeded by his eldest son. Is any hon. Member so doubtful about this hereditary principle that he feels that it would be a national disaster if his son succeeded him?
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: But it does not rest with him here.
  Mr. Cooke: Let us follow that in a parallel to their Lordships' House. Peers of the first creation are presumably sent there for worthy reasons. Why, therefore, should not their children be worthy persons to serve in another place? It is suggested by hon. Members opposite that many centuries could dilute the virtues of many people in the other place, but I should like to quote the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), who is the twenty-ninth of his line. I am sure that his worst enemy in the House, if he has any, would not call him a degenerate person. The popular view of the ancient peerages is clouded by the antics of the alcoholic and frivolous noble earl, Lord Littlehampton, fortunately a fictional peer. The gossip columns and cartoons which we see in the Press and the glossy magazines to some extent colour the public's imagination. People get an impression which is far from reality.
  I do not believe that the other place, as now constituted, is all that unrepresentative. Some noble Lords cling to ancient homes and landed estates, but they certainly do not live a life of luxury in so doing. Many are in business, or in the professions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) gave a catalogue of the various walks of life represented. I have made my own catalogue. Their Lordships at present include among their numbers distinguished Parliamentarians and people skilled in local government, soldiers, sailors, airmen, farmers, churchmen, doctors, lawyers, trade unionists, architects, artists, scientists, even poets, philosophers, musicians and university dons. But, far more important than any of those when it comes to the point, their numbers also include a large body of ordinary folk who express public opinion.
  488
  Much has been said about the fact that the other place is too large at present. The leave of absence proposals may well remove that difficulty. Many schemes for reform have been suggested. I would submit that an elected House of Lords is not the answer, and I believe that we in this House are in general agreement on that point. A House wholly nominated also would not work. Are we to have only Lords of Parliament who would cease to be Lords at the end of the life of any one Parliament? I do not favour that view, because I feel that what we would get would be something like a monstrous, popular brains trust. No doubt it would create a great deal of interest in the Press for a short time, but then we should have the surfeit of clever talk that we get over the broadcast at present.
  Another problem which has not been mentioned today is the question of how to get young people into the other place. There are people who think that young men should not pursue Parliamentary careers, that they should wait until they have reached years of discretion. That is as it may be, but I think that it is generally agreed that a few young people, even if they have strange ideas, can sometimes be of value; and the only way that we can get young people into the other place is by means of the hereditary principle. We have sitting on the benches opposite a virile and provocative embryo second viscount in the person of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), yet he wishes not to go to the other place. He now also wishes to reform this House in various directions.
  As to the question of women in another place, I do not want to get involved in undue controversy. It is surely a domestic matter for their Lordships. They had an interesting debate on the subject and decided in favour of the ladies. That is their affair. On the question of powers, surely composition and powers have always been inseparably fixed together when we have discussed the other place. Powers are outside the scope of the Bill, but they are hinted at in the Opposition Amendment. If the other place is to have a revisory function that must involve a moderate amount of delay, and that is what we experience at present. Their Lordships seek to provide time for reflection. They do not want power to frustrate the will of the people.

  489
  As to the qualities of the other place, their Lordships have a far less hectic procedure than we have in this House. They can have, at almost a moment's notice, a full and reasoned debate on a wide variety of current topics. They have the procedure of moving for Papers, though whether any noble Lord has ever actually received those Papers I am not quite sure. Their Questions are far fewer than Questions are in this House, and they are far more fully answered. Indeed, the object of asking them is not, as it is all too often in this House, to try to catch out the Minister or the Government. In the other place, Questions are really regarded as an opportunity to acquire information and to ventilate a matter which is current in the public eye.
  I have noticed that their Lordships indulge in very healthy criticism of Government policy and that they are not unduly tied to party. If this proposed reform is carried out, it should be given time to work before any further changes are made to the House of Lords, unique among second Chambers in the Parliaments of the world.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) on the ingenuity which he demonstrated in his speech, because he rested his case for supporting the Bill upon the virtues of a hereditary second chamber, and, in doing so, overlooked the fact that his own Government have now introduced a Measure which makes a breach in the very principle to which he attaches so much importance.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope that the hon. Member will not take anything that I said as being in support of the Bill. I merely discussed the Measure at large.
  Mr. Benn: If the hon. Member admits from his own mouth that his speech was irrelevant, it is not for me to step in and perform the function of the Chair. If the hereditary principle is as good as the hon. Member believes it is, it is surprising that he will be finding himself tomorrow in the Lobby in support of a Bill which makes a breach in that principle.
  This is an interesting debate, because we are concerned with something more than a second Chamber. First, Parliament is one body. As the hon. Member
  490
  for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out, both Chambers are Houses of one Parliament. In addition to the political aspect, we must look upon the House of Lords as a tribal assembly. There is a very strong tribal element in the peerage, and, indeed, its only effective spokesman today has been the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who, in his honorary capacity of custodian of the tribal records, has perceived that in the Bill great damage has been done to the tribal aspects of the House of Lords in pursuit of a political aim. I hope briefly to deal with this tribal point.
  Although the hon. Member for Bristol, West referred to my particular difficulty, this Bill has nothing to do with heirs to peerages who will, in due course, be translated to another place. The view I take on this point, which I stick to and which I believe is right, is that this has nothing to do with House of Lords reform. I am a Member of the House of Commons and I do not believe that peers should be allowed to sit here, even if they renounce their rights. In my view, arrangements should be made under which a peer can become a commoner for himself and his descendants, and then, automatically, he would enjoy the rights enjoyed by other commoners. Therefore, I hope that I have never confused the issue of a peerage with the issue of membership of the House of Commons. Of course I am the victim of my father's virtue. In the Letters Patent there is this phrase: "Heirs male of his body lawfully begotten." I am told that this is sometimes known as a "Special Reminder." Anyhow, the difficulty that arises comes from this curious tribal characteristic.
  We are discussing today the question of the House of Lords as a political body, and it is no use trying to confuse it with the matter of the family. The reason why this Bill has been introduced is readily available. I think the best answer comes from a pamphlet published by the Conservative Political Centre in 1947. I quote from it because it is a most authoritative document. It poses the following question for young Conservatives to discuss in the early days of their discussion circles:
  "Is a House of Lords as at present constituted just the right sort of body to exercise and to be allowed to exercise such a discretionary power against a Socialist as well as

  491
  a Conservative Government, and, even more important, might not its consciousness that it is not such a body restrain it from taking action in the national interest which in fact a differently constituted body would take with assurance?"
  That is really the explanation of the Bill. If there were an Explanatory Memorandum on the front of the Bill, it ought to be that. The Conservative Party feels that the House of Lords as now constituted is so absurd a body that it would be incapable of challenging a Socialist majority in the House of Commons and carrying the public with it. What we are engaged on today, therefore, is a piece of political repair work, designed to establish for the House of Lords the respectability which it lacks.
  Of course the main efforts in this direction were made by Lord Salisbury himself. He and his family have for generations laboured on the problem of creating a second Chamber that, in a storm, could stand up to a House of Commons determined to get its business through. He failed, and he failed for the simple reason that the instinct of self-preservation is very close to the hereditary instinct, and from a House of Lords to which their Lordships were not willing to come, they were not willing to be kept away. Lord Salisbury knew perfectly well that if one wanted to establish a second Chamber which was at all logical, one had to get rid of the backwoodsmen. He was unable to carry his own party with him. It is not the case that the Labour Party has held up the reform of the House of Lords. It is the case that no Conservative Cabinet has been able to persuade itself that it would or could carry a Bill through which would cut out the backwoodsmen. If I may come back to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, why I liked his speech was that he was the authentic voice of self-preservation expressed in the House this afternoon, and it has not been expressed anywhere else in the House.
  I have said that Lord Salisbury failed. Incidentally it is a curious reflection on the great argument for the House of Lords that it is a forum for the nation that Lord Salisbury's final trumpet call should have appeared in the columns of The Times. His letter in that newspaper said what he was not willing to say in the House of Lords and was a reflection on
  492
  the House of Lords as a forum for the nation.
  And so what finally happened was that there was an alternative plan worked out in three stages and today we are only debating one of them. The first stage of the plan was plain. It was, "If you pay, the peers then will come." And indeed Labour peers do work long hours with little reward and little recognition from their own party. So pay was the first weapon in making the House of Lords effective. I have a son who, in due course, will be involved in this, Just as I am told that amongst the Earls of Glamis they kept until the 21st birthday the horrible truth of the monster from their children, so I hope to keep from my child as long as possible the knowledge that £3 a day awaits him if only he puts in an appearance in the House of Lords. I have always believed the Conservative propaganda in this respect, that the Welfare State removes initiative, and I have thought that if my child hears of this too early he may not be willing to think of a career for himself. At any rate, pay is better than a whip, and it has worked so far.
  The second stage of the plan was what is called the Swinton proposal. It began with a proposal from Lord Exeter that we should somehow keep away backwoodsmen, if possible by changing Standing Orders. It was discovered that this could not be done because they would still come along and produce their writ of summons. So a new scheme has been evolved, which will shortly be brought before the House of Lords, by which if a peer does not come for some time it will be assumed that he wants to stay away. But if later he does come all the same he can only be discouraged. How fine it would be in the Commons if the same principle were applied. How fine it would be if I did not appear in the House of Commons for two weeks, not having got a pair, and the Whip said, "You did not come so I assumed that you would not come again and in future you will not need a pair."
  The second function is to keep Tory peers out of the Lobbies, because the last thing that is wanted is a Division in the House of Lords which results in a vote of 484 against a Bill and 15 for it. The function of the Whip in the Lords is to keep the backwoodsmen out so that they

  493
  do not demonstrate their strength. Under the new proposals the peers will not be bothered if they do not want to come, and if they do come on the day that interests them, they can be kept away.
  The final stage of the ersatz Salisbury plan is this Life Peerages Bill which we are debating today. It is designed to fill in the gaps in order to get the attendance of some respectable people, if I have not misunderstood it. I look at this in another way as well, as yet a further form of honour which is available by patronage. I have looked up—I have no doubt many hon. Members have done so—the way in which patronage is already distributed in this country. I do not know whether other hon. Members feel as I do, that whenever a birthday Honours List comes out a great deal of attention is given to hon. Members opposite. They get very well treated.
  I thought I had better find out whether my impression was correct, and with the help of the Library of the House I obtained the figures for the honours given by the Labour Government when we were in power and the Conservative Government while they have been in power—honours to their own Members only. It is very easy to make comparison because the Conservative Government has now lasted just about a month longer than the Labour Government did; so the periods are comparable.
  During the period from 1945 to 1951, Mr. Attlee gave 23 peerages to Labour Members of Parliament and former Labour Members. Three were peerages in connection with Government reshuffles, and I think we might exclude them. I shall exclude the Conservative ones as well. Thus, 20 peerages were given. There were no baronetcies, but there were three knighthoods. These knighthoods were to three Law Officers, so I will regard them as business honours and discount them. We are thus left with 20 honours given to Labour Members of Parliament during the period of office of the Labour Government. If we take the 20 as a proportion of the Labour Members of Parliament who came to this House in 1945–393—we find that about one in twenty of the Labour Members received honours.
  Now let us look at the Conservative record. It is very interesting. Twenty-seven peerages were given to Conserva-
  494
  tive Members of Parliament. One was a business honour, that given to the present Lord Chancellor, and if we discount it we are left with 26. There were 28 baronetcies, plus two in the latest Honours List, which makes 30. Knighthoods numbered 48; one was given to a Law Officer and should be discounted, but there was another in the last Honours List, so we remain with the figure at 48. Thus, 104 Members out of about 340 who were elected in 1951 have been honoured. We arrive at the staggering result that about one in three of the Conservative Members of Parliament who entered the House in 1951 have now been given an honour by the Conservative Government.
  It is clear to me that this is the secret of discipline in the Conservative Party. Accusations are made against us in respect of the card vote and the block vote in Transport House, but in the case of the Conservative Party we have the Patronage Secretary skipping about with his cornucopia full of honours to be given to the good boys. Now I understand why the Government have come along with a Bill to provide a new lot of honours; probably those already available are not quite enough. In respect of all those honours and peerages, I do not mean to say that one cannot pick oneself up by one's own bootstraps, but one can kick oneself upstairs by getting the Patronage Secretary to pull one up by one's bootstraps. This is the method which has been used.
  The question which arises for us today is whether this plan of pay, the Lord Swinton proposal and life peers is an acceptable plan to the Labour Party. The answer is that it is not. It cannot be an acceptable plan for the second Chamber because it is designed to strengthen a body whose main characteristics remain absolutely unaffected. There are 484 Conservative peers taking the Whip in the House of Lords—55 per cent.—and there are 5 per cent. of peers who take the Labour Whip, and nothing in the Bill alters that balance. There are 547 peers who in the course of an average year turn up fewer than 10 times, and they constitute the great reserve power whenever it is necessary.
  The key question is that of power. It is no good saying that composition is the central problem of the House of Lords.

  495
  It is not. The problem is one of power. Peers who speak in these debates always say that they have the right of interpretation of the popular will. This point was dealt with brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), who denied that the Lords had these antennae tuned to the public will. I not only deny it, but assert that it is quite wrong and quite contrary to our Parliamentary system that we should vote on the basis of the public will. In this House we do not vote on the basis of the public will; we vote, and we ought to vote, on the basis of maintaining in power a Government which has won a General Election.
  I would totally repudiate the doctrine that even if the House of Lords always accorded with the Gallup poll it would thereby acquire the right to deny an elected House of Commons its right to do the things that it thought correct. The whole principle of our Constitution, if we think about it seriously, is that we maintain the Government in power while it remains loyal to its principles. That does not mean that we do not believe that one day the party forming the Government will go out, but we maintain it in power; to think that it should be subject to the whim of public opinion every day on every issue is absolutely wrong.
  Then we have the argument that the House of Lords is an excellent revisionary body. I am all for revision; but let us not deceive ourselves about the massive revisions made during the period of the Labour Government. Very often figures are given, such as 500 Amendments to the Transport Bill. What actually happened was that the Minister in the House of Commons made his promises, and then when the Bill got to the House of Lords the Labour Ministers walked around and said to the other peers, "Look here, old boy. Would you do me a favour and move these Amendments, because we should really like to get the Bill tied up?" The idea that there were 571 inspired Conservative Amendments which somehow tidied up Socialist legislation is a very attractive dream, but a dream for all that.
  I do not deny the necessity—
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will the hon Member say how many of the Clauses of the Transport Bill were discussed in Committee in this House?
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Member was in the House at the time and I was not. I could hazard a guess and make up statistics, but the fact of the matter is that it does not really justify the second Chamber. The idea that this House gets overburdened is a case for looking at the procedure of this House, which we are soon to do, and not for establishing a Conservative ancillary body which does what the House of Commons is not able to do.
  We are not arguing today about the need for revision, because revision is not at issue. What is at issue is what ought to be done when the Lords want to revise and the Commons do not. It is the stage after revision which is the point of the argument and here I believe that the power of the House of Commons ought to prevail.
  Lord Hailsham, when still a Member of this House, wrote a book called "The Purpose of Parliament." In those early days of his pre-campanological wisdom he quoted with approval what Professor Laski said, which was that the House of Lords was a perfect second Chamber, when a Conservative Government was in power. I absolutely accept that it is a perfect body then, because it does not try to challenge the Conservative Government in the House of Commons. What can be learned from that is that the House of Lords needs no power at all to be at its best and that, in giving it this power, one precipitates these great crises about its composition.
  Once the House of Commons faces up to the problem of the powers of the House of Lords, then the composition of the House of Lords is a very easy question. It is no good attacking nomination. One quarter of the membership of the House of Lords is nominated and is composed of the bishops and law lords. Of the viscounts, 35 per cent. are first creations and 23 per cent. of the barons are first creations. That all adds up to the effective membership of the House of Lords and shows that the people who do the work are the nominated members.
  In that direction lies the answer to the problem. Why bother to ennoble them? What is the point of creating a new system of original honours? Here I again agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Simply to put in the people and leave them there to help

  497
  us to do our job is quite sufficient. Let us take the case of a man like Lord Salisbury who is often held up as an example of the virtue of the hereditary system. However, he did not wait for his father to die before entering the House of Lords. He went in on a Writ of Acceleration which means that he ran there, getting the Writ issued to him in his courtesy title. Lord Salisbury is a classic example not of the value of the hereditary principle, but of the value of nomination. I hope that he will not dispute that, because he did sit with his father in the House of Lords.
  Do not let us make the mistake of thinking that distinguished men will do the donkey work. They will not. We know from this House and from our party in this House that the donkey work is not done by the people who are likely candidates for life peerages. The donkey work in Committee is done by the people who are willing to regard Parliament and Parliamentary work as their first call.
  If a lot of nominated people are to be put into the House of Lords, why need the hereditary peers be there at all? There is no need for them. It is not for me to suggest what should be done with hereditary peers. [Laughter.] There has been a discussion about A.I.D. Perhaps as honorary donors under the Health Service there may be a rôle for them so that we can all be ennobled. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has paid great attention to the value and necessity of getting over the class system, and perhaps the answer lies in that way.
  Seriously, I believe that it is not enough just to reject the Bill. It is incumbent upon my right hon. Friends at some stage to put forward an alternative to it. It is not sufficient always to be attacking the constitutional basis of the Lords without being willing to come forward with something else. I do not believe that that is such a very difficult thing to do. In the Amendment we have an answer to this question, which is that if we get rid of hereditary peers and take away the powers of the House of Lords, we will be left with a nominated Chamber capable of doing a very useful job.
  Incidentally, I believe that the Bill provides quite a useful means of destroying the hereditary principle. Again I
  498
  agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. The Bill attempts to throw daylight on to the second Chamber. Once we get people there who are not sent there upon the hereditary basis, people will begin to say, "Why should those who are there on a hereditary basis continue to sit?" The Bill is the beginning of the end of the House of Lords. That is no reason why we should support it—because we do not regard it as an answer to the problem—but it is a very useful weapon for a Labour Government.
  Let us not make any mistake about it. When the Leader of the House said that there was no upper limit to this process he was creating for us a weapon which I hope a future Labour Prime Minister will be ready to use. I have the right hon. Gentleman's words in my mind now, and they will be in HANSARD tomorrow. He said, "We think the discretion of a Prime Minister ought to be sufficient to decide how many life peers should be created." The weapon of swamping the House of Lords with life peers, if ever it has to be done, will be in the hands of a Labour Prime Minister
  It is too late for the Bill to be dropped, but in the future, if ever we should need to use that power we shall do so. We shall never allow a situation to develop as it developed in 1910, with a special General Election intervening between our action and our capacity to carry it through. We shall use the Life Peers Bill of 1958. That does not mean that we shall not vote against it with great joy when the time comes, but I hope that the House will not ignore the real lesson, which is that when the Conservative Party loses confidence in the hereditary system we may truly say that we are turning the corner to brighter and more democratic days.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), I very much agreed with the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—who has made his usual brilliant contribution to our debate—when he implied in his peroration that this was a constitutional Bill of some importance. He is right. I do not think it is the little, unimportant Bill that some of my hon. Friends imagine.

  499
  Nevertheless, although I realise the implications of the Bill, I shall be rather exceptional as a Member on this side of the House in also trying to defend it. Since 1911, the only agreement that we have about what to do with the other place is an agreement to do nothing whatever. In our hearts, most of us would probably agree that, on balance, the House of Lords has worked well in the past. Many of us would also agree that the present difficulty—which is the reason for the introduction of the Bill—is that the machinery is in danger of breaking down. The Bill seeks to strengthen the composition of the other place, and in particular of the Opposition in the other place.
  At the moment, a very heavy burden falls upon a very small number of working Opposition peers. They have carried this burden magnificently, but they should not be asked to carry it indefinitely. It is not quality that they lack, but numerical strength. I am sure that their burden can be eased if their numbers are reinforced, and without the introduction of life peerages it would be very difficult to obtain the right reinforcements for them. If once life peerages are accepted in principle—and I think that most of us do accept them—it should be a comparatively simple matter to help the work of the Opposition in the other place, provided—and I always make this proviso, as other hon. Members have—that the question of pay is tackled. The Bill does not do that.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: If the Bill is being introduced in order to help the Opposition, does not the hon. Member think that the Government ought to have consulted the Opposition to see whether they wanted help?
  Mr. Fisher: I imagine that the point of that intervention is that the hon. Member does not think we are concerned to help the Opposition. I do not say for a moment that I am concerned only with the difficulties of ennobled members of the Labour Party; I am concerned also with the constitutional issue and the future of another place. But I think it would be wrong to disregard the views—I must not quote them, because it would be out of order—of those peers of the Labour Party in another place who have
  500
  undergone a good deal of strain. Attention was drawn in general terms to this by Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who said the strain was intolerable and could not be realised unless one had experienced it. Lord Silkin has made similar observations. I think that those two noble Lords, and Lord Ogmore and a few others, have done a fantastic job. They have brought infinite credit to their party and to themselves and have for years literally preserved the House of Lords.
  Unfortunately, these noble Lords are not immortal, and eventually they will have to be replaced. They may desire to retire. This Bill gives them their chance, perhaps the only chance they will have—certainly the first chance they have had—of hoping for a little leisure in the future. I am not solicitous only for them, but also for the future of another place. I believe, and I think most hon. Members would agree, that it cannot work properly unless there is an efficient Opposition to make it work. No democratic assembly in the world can work without a proper Opposition.
  Either we must reform the House of Lords or we must leave it to die a slow death. There may be said to be four other courses of action other than reform on the lines indicated in this Bill. We might leave things as they are so that in the course of time the work of the House grinds to a slow stop through lack of Opposition Members to carry on the work of a revising Chamber. I believe that to be the course favoured by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). The right hon. Gentleman has said so from time to time. But that is not a final course. It leads to the next proposition, that we should have in this country single Chamber Government, which is the logical final result of his proposition.
  As we have no written constitution, I feel that it would be a dangerous and mistaken decision to adopt single Chamber government in this country, and I do not think that the country as a whole would view it with much favour. The House of Commons has great power. Having elected it for five years, the people have no say whatever as to what is done during that time. Bills may be passed which were never put to the electors or, at best, were mentioned perhaps among many other proposals

  501
  in a patty manifesto at election time. Disraeli, that great Parliamentarian, made a comment which I think is a legitimate one. He said that the House of Commons by itself could never preserve liberty. Alone it might easily become a weapon of despotism and one against which there would be no appeal. I believe that to be quite a possibility.
  The third course as suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East is a nominated Chamber, nominated presumably by the Prime Minister of the day for the duration of that particular Parliament. That would put into the hands of one man a large new area of power and of patronage, and again I do not think it would be entirely acceptable to the people of this country. At any rate, I think the party opposite should put it forward in their election programme to see what the country thinks before finally deciding on a nominated Chamber as the best second Chamber.
  The fourth and last course is an elected Chamber. I do not think any of us would desire that alternative. We do not want a sort of Senate that might be or become a rival to this House. I do not think anyone, either in this House or outside, would want that. We cannot have two assemblies both deriving their authority from the people.
  It may be difficult, and at this stage of the debate it has become even more obvious that it is very difficult indeed, to achieve any unanimity, any all-party agreement, on the composition of another place, but I honestly believe that it would be a hundred times more difficult to try to find all-party agreement or, indeed, any sort of agreement on an alternative type of second Chamber. That, I think, would really be an almost impossible task, and I see no great advantage in even trying to do it. The House of Lords has worked perfectly effectively in the past, and can, I believe, by this Bill be made to work efficiently in the future. If that be so, there is nothing to be gained by setting up a new Chamber, on which it would be difficult to get agreement, when the present Chamber can quite easily be made to function efficiently. I think almost every hon. Member would agree that there is a certain amount of truth in that.
  I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite dislike this Bill
  502
  because many of them want to see the House of Lords abolished, and they think that if we do something by this Bill to improve the House of Lords, it may be a little more difficult for them to abolish it. I think that is the root of the objection by the party opposite to this Bill. I appreciate—and it has been often stated in the course of the debate today—that hon. and right hon. Members opposite, by and large, dislike the hereditary principle. I quite understand that, and I quite see that one cannot possibly defend the hereditary principle in theory. I think it is very difficult, at any rate, to defend it in theory, but I think that I can try to defend it in practice, which is more to the point.
  I venture to defend it, therefore, on the grounds of its unique independence. I believe that because of that it is a real protection of the liberties of the people, despite the fact that that might sound an odd thing to say of an undemocratic assembly. I will explain why I say that. Members of another place are not beholden to anyone, they are not answerable to anyone, and they are not seeking votes from anyone; they really have no axe to grind. I think it would be fair to say that most of them have very little personal ambition, and that they work in the House of Lords for two principal reasons. They are interested in politics or in some aspects of politics, and/or they have a genuine sense of public duty.
  If it were not thought very old-fashioned and wrong to say so, I should mention the further point that they were educated and brought up—I know that this is a terrible thing to say in the House nowadays—to play a part in public life. They were taught at school and brought up by their parents to do that, and they do so without fear and without favour. They are not influenced by angry letters from constituents. They are not influenced by uncomplimentary paragraphs in constituency newspapers, and I think that, as a result of this independence, they are respected by the public as a whole.
  I think that another place enjoys— personally, I think rightly—a very high reputation in this country today. There is another aspect, to which one of my hon. Friends has referred, arising out of the hereditary principle, and that is that the House of Lords can command the

  503
  services of some young men of great promise and ability, and we can only get that under the hereditary principle. Most second chambers are composed of middle-aged or elderly men, and I cannot really think that that is a good thing.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said that somebody had to do the donkey work, and I quite agree with him that elder statesmen, ex-pro-consuls and ex-ambassadors are not the most suitable men in the world to do the donkey work, the Committee work in the House of Lords. The truth is that on the Government side of the House of Lords, the donkey work is done by the younger hereditary peers.
  Mr. Benn: Could we not get just the same result by getting "Ernie", the mechanical calculator, to work on the Electoral Register?
  Mr. Fisher: I am not making that point. I was saying that because of the hereditary principle we get young men into the House of Lords whereas in an ordinary elected second Chamber we would get only the elderly men.
  We need not apologise for the House of Lords. It has played a distinguished and, indeed, a splendid part in our history. Lord Attlee, who himself created no less than 86 new hereditary peers, acknowledged that the other place worked very well indeed. Lord Pethick Lawrence has paid tribute to its prestige and influence. We can be proud of the quality of its work. I hope that, as a result of the Bill, this work will continue.
  May I say a word about the so-called backwoodsmen? To my surprise, they have not been very much referred to. It is true that the existence of a large number of peers who do not normally attend leads to some criticism of the other place. But the proposals of Lord Swinton's Committee are worth trying. The composition of the Chamber will, I imagine, continue to be roughly what it is now, but the Swinton proposals will banish the bogey of the backwoodsmen which Members opposite continually use, I think, rather unfairly, to frighten and mislead their constituency supporters.
  The backwoodsmen bogey is not really a very serious one. There has not been a backwoodsmen invasion since 1910.
  504
  There has not been anything like that since. The usual size of the attendance is now about 100.
  Mr. Thomas Williams: Is the hon. Member not aware that, following the General Strike of 1926, a Bill was passed through this House and went to the other place to extend the hours of working of coalminers and that all the backwoodsmen who were required were available to see that the Bill went through?
  Mr. Fisher: I accept absolutely what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is really a matter of degree. I said there had not been a backwoodsmen invasion since 1910, while the right hon. Gentleman says there has not been one since 1926. In any case, it is a matter of 30 or 40 years. In theory it is still possible, but in practice that bogey has ceased to exist. The proposals of Lord Swinton's Committee should be welcome. They will no doubt be effective and they are certainly worth trying.
  Then there are the ladies. I am personally all for the ladies. With a gracious lady upon the Throne of England and with ladies in this Chamber, it would be illogical and unreasonable of us to deny to the third branch of the Legislature the pleasure of their company and advice. It would be unsuitable of us to do so. Another place, not without misgivings on the part of some of its Members, has agreed to welcome the ladies to its deliberations, and it would be inappropriate for us to take a contrary view.
  I do not think that in practice the presence of women in the House of Lords will make very much difference one way or the other because, with great respect to hon. Ladies in this House, I do not think their presence here has made very much difference one way or another. Generally speaking, I am personally delighted that they are here, and indeed I met my wife because she was here. Most of us enjoy looking at most of them, and even working with some of them.
  The exclusion of hereditary peeresses is certainly unjust and illogical if life peeresses are to be admitted, but then, the other place cannot in any case be justified in logic. If in this Bill we are modifying the hereditary principle, it

  505
  would be inconsistent and unsuitable at the same time to extend it by admitting hereditary peeresses for the first time.
  There are two or three questions I wish to ask about the new life peers. How many will there be? How are they to be chosen? How much will they be paid? Those who are chosen ought to be people qualified and prepared to help in the work of the House of Lords. They ought to give much time to the service of the House and they ought not to be too old. I quite understand the argument—which has not been advanced today, but has been put forward in The Times newspaper by the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne), and which was described by Viscount Samuel in another place as "blurtmanship"—that there should be somewhere for the old war-horses to be put out to grass, but that is not the object of this Bill. The life peers should be working peers.
  That is the whole point of the Bill—they should be men and women young enough to play an active part in the work of the House. They should be not men who are being pensioned off, but men who are chosen purely on the grounds of their fitness and ability to serve the nation. They should be drawn not only from this House but from all walks of life. They should be people who can not only make a contribution to debate, but are also prepared to take part in Committee chores which now fall to such a small heroic band. It may be difficult to find these life peers, and they may be quite expensive, but I think the attempt should be made. I hope some of them will come from the Empire. In that way a new and important link could be made between the United Kingdom and the great self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. They could be a source of new strength and vigour, not only to the other place, but also to the Commonwealth as a whole.
  Lastly, I come to the question of pay. On this point there has been complete unanimity on both sides of the House throughout this debate. If this Bill is to be of any real practical value, the question of pay has to be faced, but this Bill does not begin to face it. I think that is a most serious defect, and it is my only real criticism of the Bill. Payment of expenses of three guineas a day, or a
  506
  maximum of £315 a year, is only a reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses and could not possibly attract the sort of people we want. Only those with private means will be able to accept the new life peerages under this Bill.
  By failing to deal with this matter and by not enabling otherwise perfectly suitable people to become active members of the House of Lords, I think the Government have done much to destroy the main purpose of their own Bill. We cannot expect people to give their time and their earning capacity without adequate financial recompense. It is not just a question of refunding out-of-pocket expenses. They must be paid enough to replace, at least to a minor extent, the income they would otherwise be earning.
  I think that pay for a peer should be roughly on the basis of our own pay. We get £1,000 as pay and £750 as out-of-pocket expenses. The peers should perhaps get £1,000, or that sort of figure, as pay, plus three guineas a day out-of-pocket expenses on the days they attend, but I think they should get the £1,000 only for maximum attendance. If they attended only on 50 per cent. of the sittings, they should be paid £500. If they attended on only 25 per cent. of the sitting days they should be paid £250. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Should that apply here?"] We have other duties in our constituencies and elsewhere. I think we should make some difference between those who work regularly in another place and those who attend infrequently. Of one thing I am quite certain; if the peers are not paid this Bill will not work. It is because I want this Bill to succeed that I beg the Government to look again at the question of remuneration.
  Subject to that very important proviso, I wish the Bill well. I congratulate the Government on its birth after more than 40 barren years. I hope that it will be a sturdy child and a worth-while reinforcement to the other place and to the Constitution of our country.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Although I cannot agree with most of the arguments that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has advanced, I concur with him in one thing, namely, that this is a significant Bill. The picture that he drew of the objective and disinterested Tory peer, solely devoted to the

  507
  public weal, was one that I failed to recognise. They have other interests as well.
  Not only is this Bill a significant Bill; it is also a dangerous Bill. I will seek to show why. In a speech which he made in the House on Friday, 31st January, the Lord Privy Seal made this statement:
  "That raises in my mind the fundamental issue of Parliament today … and that is we are here in a struggle for power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 764.]
  He did not say that today, but he could well have done so. The point is that, however much the Government try to clothe this Bill with a cloak of sweet reasonableness, it is a vital stage in the struggle for power to which the Lord Privy Seal referred.
  It is all very well to say that the creation of life peers of both sexes is a reasonable thing. In isolation, that may well appear to be so, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said when he moved the Amendment. None the less, it remains a device to fortify the other place, to give a new appearance, while leaving its basic character unchanged. After the Bill becomes law, the Upper House will remain an archaic hereditary Chamber, with an overwhelming Tory majority. For the party opposite to say that it wishes to add to the debating strength of the Labour Party in the other place while retaining the ultimate power there itself is sheer political hypocrisy. This Bill is nothing but a coat of varnish on timber which is already riddled with dry rot.
  I said that the Bill is part of the struggle for power. Of course it is. Although the power of the other place was reduced in 1911 and 1948, it is still capable of frustrating the work of this House on major issues and still retains real power. That power resides in one political party.
  This point has been put better than I can put it in the introduction to the 1939 edition of Dicey's book on constitutional law, which is the classic on this subject. It is there stated:
  "There remains the threat to democratic government in an Assembly when members of one opposition party can be numbered on the fingers of one hand while in the background lies the menace of the legion of Conservative peers who might once again emerge from the backwoods to defeat a progressive Government."
  508
  Those are the words of a great constitutional lawyer.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is obviously inspired by the highest constitutional doctrine. Is he aware that the House of Lords proposed, under their Standing Orders, to look into the question of backwoodsmen?
  Mr. Hughes: I am; but I am suspicious of what that House will do. I doubt very much whether it will deprive the Conservative Party of an adequate majority in the House of Lords.
  We have heard a good deal today about the sensitivity of noble Lords to the wishes of the people. The Television Bill was one Measure for which the last Conservative Administration had no mandate at all from the electorate. When the Television Bill went to the Upper House there were distinguished leaders of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords who disapproved of that Measure and who voiced their disapproval. Among them was Lord Halifax. Yet, when that Bill came to a Division, the loyal backwoodsmen came to the rescue and saw the Bill through. They were not especially sensitive to the feelings of the electorate on that matter, although they had not been given a mandate.
  Mr. Fisher: Independent television is very popular. Would the hon. Member's party repeal the Act?
  Mr. Hughes: Certainly not, although it is not necessarily popular in Wales. But the Labour Party must use all the weapons of propaganda which are at its disposal. It is only in the same position as hon. Members opposite, who vote against an increase of salary but accept the money in due course. The Upper House still remains a source of power to the party opposite. That explains the affection for it and for the Bill by hon. Members opposite.
  It is also quite unreasonable that there should be in the Upper House a number of peers who hold important offices of State and who cannot be engaged in debate or questioned in this House by the elected representatives of the people. They are the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, the Minister of Power, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, to the chagrin of

  509
  the Welsh Members of this House, we now have the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs there as well.
  We cannot engage those Ministers on the Floor of the House, or in Committee upstairs. The Lord Chancellor has always been out of reach. There is a wide range of subjects upon which we should like to tackle him from time to time and upon which it is right and proper that we should. Indeed, there was an important occasion last week when his presence in this House was very desirable, but we could not reach him. Is it anticipated that now that the prestige of the Upper House is to be enhanced, more Ministers will be appointed there? The House should have an assurance about this. Lord Hailsham spoke of the dictatorship of elected Members. He did not speak thus when he was struggling to keep his seat in this House. What we dislike and fear is the domination of hereditary Members.
  I wish to examine the Bill from two other standpoints: first as a nonconformist; and secondly, as a Welshman. In this context, I wish to ask two questions. First, what connection has the other place with Wales? Secondly, what relevance has the Upper House to nonconformity and the Free Churches? There are not more than two or three Welsh peers who know anything about the Principality. The Scots have 16 elected peers, but the Welsh are a democratic nation and our aristocracy faded out in the sixteenth century. There are, of course, many peers who carry Welsh names, but they are no more Welsh than the Sultan of Zanzibar. As the late David Lloyd George once said of a so-called Welsh peer, the only Welsh thing about him was his rent roll. Wales, however, is affected by the behaviour of the Upper House. All this is manifestly undemocratic. Whoever else is enfranchised in the Upper House, the Principality is not.
  Another anomaly is the representation of the Church of England in the other place. The Prelates of the Church of England intervene from time to time in debates on major issues, and I often agree with what some of them say. But what about the Church of Scotland? What about the nonconformist denominations? What about the Roman
  510
  Catholics? If we are to have ecclesiastical representation at all, let it have some relation to reality. In Wales, we disestablished the Church over thirty-five years ago, and it has been a good deal healthier and more virile since it was disestablished.
  As a Welshman and a nonconformist, I say that the Bill does not touch the fringes of the real constitutional problem. There are arguments in favour of a limited revising Chamber on some nonhereditary basis, and there are strong arguments for one-Chamber government, but we shall make no real progress towards unity in this matter until the party opposite shows a willingness to abandon its attachment to the majority which the present hereditary Chamber gives it and which this unfortunate Bill does nothing at all to modify.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I have to keep my remarks short, and I am better able to do it because I so much agree with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), who was the last speaker before me on this side. I think that both he and the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) made a far better assessment of the importance and significance of this Bill than did the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who affected to find, as did many other hon. Members on the other side of the House, that the Bill would fortify the other place, clothing it with an appearance of respectability but leaving its basic character unchanged.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East took a very different view of the effect of this Bill, and I am sure that he was right. This is not a minor Measure. It is a most important Bill which, in effect, abandons the hereditary principle in this country for the Upper House. Let us make no mistake about that. We shall not have two kinds of peerage coexisting indefinitely. The revolutionary effect of this Bill will be much swifter in its operation than most people realise, and probably in a generation it will transform the character of the Upper House.
  It is also an irrevocable step. No one can so resist the movement of the times as to set up now a new hereditary institution, and if we abolish the hereditary

  511
  House of Lords we can never restore it. This is something which has to be decided now permanently.
  I take the view that a second Chamber is a necessity in this country. I think that probably a second Chamber improves the government of almost any country, but I am quite sure that in a country like ours, with no written constitution and no limit upon the sovereignty of Parliament, a second Chamber is essential. Therefore, the question we have to ask ourselves is: what sort of second Chamber shall it be?
  Many attack the House of Lords upon the ground that it is based on the hereditary principle. There are two alternatives to that. We can either have an elected Chamber, which I think nobody wants because then we merely have two elected Chambers, or we can have a nominated Chamber. We have already in the House of Lords an important element of nomination the hon. Member referred to it—the creation of new peerages and, of course, the bishops. However, it is a far step from that to a wholly nominated Chamber. Not only would that create a vast area of patronage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton rightly said, but it would deprive us of a distinctive element in British public life. I am an unrepentant believer in the value of the voice in our Legislature of people who are not normally political. One of the greatest strengths of the House of Lords is that it brings into consultation in Parliament men who are not taking part in the ordinary daily business of public affairs.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East would say, "So be it. Perhaps that would be a very valuable thing, but why not let 'Ernie' pick them?" I could answer that by saying that I do not think that "Ernie" would pick such a good team. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that those who come into another place, with that family training to which my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton referred, bring something valuable to it. But I am prepared to answer more simply than that. The answer surely is that the hereditary principle of the present constitution of the House of Lords is the only practical way acceptable to the country of doing just that. It is the only acceptable method
  512
  of bringing that voice into the centre of public affairs.
  It is acceptable because it is rooted in our history, and because it is the existing, established state of affairs. If we abolish that method we cannot introduce any other which will be acceptable to the people. That is a sufficient defence of the hereditary element in the House of Lords. Surely, a well-balanced constitution should be one in which there is diversity. Here, in this Chamber, we have the elective principle very strongly and keenly established, with General Elections every four years, on the average, with constituents writing to us every day, and with an almost feverish contact with the public pulse.
  If we are open to any criticism here it is surely that we tend to regard too much the fluctuations of public opinion. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was a little near to the truth when he said that. It is not our job to reflect exactly the movements of public opinion, but it is a temptation against which we have to be constantly on our guard. And in the second Chamber we want a diversification, some element of a different kind of person from us who are inevitably caught up in the fever of politics. Therefore, I am not at all abashed when people refer to backwoodsmen. I sometimes think that they are one of the more important and valuable elements in the House of Lords.
  The House of Lords is a uniquely British institution. It is easy to mock at the hereditary principle, especially in 1958. It is fashionable to mock at such things, and it is extremely difficult to defend them without appearing to fall into naivety. I believe that the country has derived great benefit from the family pride and sense of public duty which in this country has been associated with hereditary honours. In that respect our country is unique, and by abandoning this principle we should make poorer and eventually destroy something which we should never be able to create again.
  I am sorry, therefore, that the Bill proposes a change in the constitution of the House of Lords which, if enacted, will not stand still but will grow and alter the character of that body and destroy a valuable element in the British constitution. I hope that my fears are wrong, but, with the best will in the

  513
  world, I cannot find that they are and I hope that in due course my right hon. Friends will have second thoughts about the Bill.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) will also have second thoughts about this Bill, and that on reflection he will change his view and come to the conclusion that it is worthy of his support.
  Listening to the debate today, it is clear that the actual contents of the Bill have not aroused any strong party feeling. Indeed, in seeking to justify the intention of the Opposition to vote against it, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) had to range far outside its scope and base the attitude of his party on a variety of grounds. His main allegation was that the chief motive for this Measure was to increase the powers and authority of the House of Lords. It is also true to say that most of the other criticisms made of this Measure have been made not of its actual contents, but because of what it does not contain or because of some defect advanced in relation to the House of Lords itself.
  Before I reply to the extraneous criticisms which have been advanced, I will say something about the Bill. I regard it as an important Measure, and not one which of itself will tend to increase either the power or the authority of the House of Lords. There are bound to be in this House those who are not in favour of a second Chamber of any kind. That is to be expected. If, however, the view of the majority is that there should be a second Chamber, then surely the observation of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was right, namely, let it be one that commands respect and confidence. Whilst not of itself tending to increase the power and authority of the House of Lords, this Bill will help to enhance the respect and confidence in which that place is generally held.
  Perhaps the most serious criticism of this Measure came from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Powell)—I think I have his words correctly—when he said that he
  514
  regarded the Bill as a serious interference with a prescriptive institution. My hon. Friend said that there was no basis for not regarding it as making a major change, and that really it made a substantial and basic alteration. I regard that language as somewhat exaggerated, certainly compared with some of the proposals that have been discussed today, although I say at once that I do not deny that the Bill is an important one.
  My hon. Friend went on to assert, as one of the grounds for the views he expressed, that all Members of the House of Lords had always been hereditary. That never was the case. Before the dissolution of the monasteries the bishops and abbots normally outnumbered the hereditary peers. Coming to a later time, it is interesting to note that in the controversies over Catholic Emancipation and the Reform Bill it was not the hereditary element, but the bishops and the peers of the first creation who constituted the bulk of the opposition to those Measures. Nor is it by any means clear that peers of the House of Lords have always been hereditary.
  There is very considerable support for the view that just as it is possible for the Sovereign to create a peerage by the issue of Letters Patent to a man and his heirs so is it possible for the Sovereign to create other men or women peers and nobles for life. That was the view of Blackstone, Coke and many other legal writers and lawyers of authority, and it was that view that fell to be considered in the Wensleydale Peerage case in 1865, a case not judicially determined by the House of Lords but referred by the House of Lords of its own motion to the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords, after a Division, by a majority of 33, 59 proxies being cast for the Motion and 52 against. Some may perhaps regret that the facility of voting by proxy no longer exists in either House.
  The question was, as my right hon. Friend has said, whether Baron Parke, who had received Letters Patent creating him a life peer, and a Writ of Summons, could sit in the House. As sometimes occurs even to this day and in this House, the Committee of Privileges was divided. It seems to have been rather a large Committee even for the House of Lords, for 92 voted in favour of the Report that he was not entitled to sit, and 57

  515
  members of the Committee voted against. The Report was agreed to by the House.
  Frequently since then, attempts have been made to reverse that conclusion, a conclusion which appears to have been contrary to a considerable body of legal opinion. Speaking for myself, reversing the decision of a majority of the Committee of Privileges is something that on some occasions I, personally, should welcome.
  That decision of the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords was in 1865. In 1869 two Bills were introduced to permit the creation of life peers. In 1888 there were two more for the same purpose, and there were other Bills in 1907, 1929, 1935 and, most recently, 1952. Therefore, there is a considerable number of respectable precedents for the introduction of a Measure such as the present one. Whatever else can be said in favour of this Bill, I regret that the Government cannot claim the credit for any very novel idea in that respect.
  I suppose that seldom have so many Bills been introduced to reverse a decision of a Committee of Privileges, but I should be surprised if, in relation to any of those Bills, any language of the character used by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was uttered at all. Indeed, I think the only novelty in the Bill is the proposal that life peerages should be conferred on women and that these women should sit in the House of Lords. I am not sure that even that is wholly novel, for as I have said, Blackstone said that the King might create either men or women noble for life. However that may be, the fact remains that by this Bill the decision of the House of Lords in 1865 will be reversed, and life peers can be created with the right to sit in the House of Lords, and also life peeresses will be created and will also be able to sit there.
  One thing at least is clear from the Motion and the debate that is taking place today, that the Socialist Party takes the view that the Bill should be rejected. That means—I hope it will be clearly understood—that the Socialist Party proposes to vote in favour of the exclusion of women from the House of Lords. That will be the effect of its vote. Unless the Bill is passed, there will be no power to appoint life peeresses. The effect of a
  516
  vote against the Bill will be to vote against their inclusion in the House of Lords. That course will no doubt be welcomed by those in another place who have already strongly expressed the view that the House of Lords should continue to be labelled "men only".
  However, that is a reactionary course, but it is a course which, I gather, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition proposes to follow, despite the fact that he said at the opening of his speech that the principles of the Bill had much to commend them. In these days, with ladies Members of this House and with ladies playing a valuable and active part in many walks of life, most people would regard it as an anachronism that they should continue to be excluded from the House of Lords. If the Bill is not carried, that will be one consequence. I believe that they would play a very useful part in the deliberations of that House, and, as I said, to vote against the proposal can properly be stigmatised as reactionary.
  Again, a vote against the Second Reading is a vote against the creation of life peers, whatever may be the reasons in justification for following that course. I must confess that I was under the impression that the party opposite was not opposed to either of the proposals contained in the Bill, and the Leader of the Opposition rather supported that view in his opening remarks. It now appears that Members opposite propose to vote against the Bill on grounds which do not appear to me at all convincing.
  It is said by some of them, and by the Amendment that the Bill will leave the House of Lords overwhelmingly hereditary. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), said that the Bill would bolster up the hereditary principle. The answer is quite the opposite, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) indicated. If passed, the Bill will constitute a breach in the hereditary principle of membership of the House of Lords and no one can justly say that the creation of life peers will fortify that principle.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked why this change should be made. I have already indicated one reason, but there is another and much more powerful reason. There are many people in these days who

  517
  would be reluctant to accept an hereditary peerage and who would much prefer, if they could, to be made a life peer. Few will dispute that the acceptance of an hereditary peerage might well prove most disadvantageous to their sons and grandsons in earning their livelihood in certain professions and occupations. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that that could be a handicap in starting in certain professions.
  It is right that the House of Lords should not be deprived of the services of some individual of distinction, when all parties would agree that he would be of great value in the House of Lords, because of his reluctance, on account of his particular family circumstances, to accept an hereditary peerage. The real difference which the Bill makes in that respect is that in the case of a peer created after it is passed it will not be necessary for his son also to become a peer. The life peer and the peer who holds on the hereditary basis will be of equality; the effect of the Bill will be felt by their respective successors.
  In this House we are fairly well accustomed to party discipline.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question that I put earlier on? What is the Government's attitude to the position of those who are sons of peers today and who may not wish to go to the other place?
  The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether an Amendment to deal with that matter could be put into the Bill. I think that the answer is in the negative. I do not think that the Title would permit of any such Amendment, although the Chair will rule upon that in due course. If the Bill had been on the Statute Book some years ago, however, the position which has no much affected the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East might never have arisen. The passage of the Bill will play some part in preventing that situation from arising again. In the interests of other people, therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East will give his support to the Measure.
  Mr. Benn: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman also admit that a simple change of sex would have the same effect? I could then stay in the House of Commons as "Lady Stansgate".
  The Attorney-General: I entirely agree. Although the hon. Member describes it as simple, I am not sure that it would necessarily be painless.
  I believe that it was during the course of this debate that it was said that one of the mistakes that we are apt to make is to regard the other House as the replica of ours, with its keen party divisions and strict party discipline on both sides. No longer does this House contain a substantial number of Members who have no party allegiance. Some people may take the view that that is a good thing, and others may say that it is not, but it is clear that in the House of Lords party ties are not nearly so strong. There are a great many more Members in the House of Lords who are entirely independent.
  I have heard it said that in the House of Lords the Conservatives cannot issue a three-line Whip. [Laughter.] No, because it is too dangerous. Although it might compel attendance, there is no knowing how the peers might vote when they reach the House. That might apply sometimes, in a lesser degree, in this House.
  If we are to have a second Chamber, perhaps it should be one which is more independent of party political considerations than we are in this House; perhaps it should have more independence of mind and more freedom to express individual points of view. The passage of this Measure will make it possible to recruit to the House of Lords not only distinguished Members from both sides of this House, but men of distinction from all walks of life who, for family reasons which, in many cases, are very pressing nowadays, would not even contemplate becoming Members of the House of Lords if it meant that their sons, grandsons and great-grandsons would also succeed them as Members. For that reason, I believe that the passage of this Bill will advance considerably the reputation and standing of the other House, but will not add to its power or its authority. If the party opposite is ever again called on to form a Government, I feel sure that it will find this Measure a useful addition to the Statute Book.
  I wish to examine the reasons advanced today for voting against the Bill. In the Amendment it is said that the Bill will leave the House of Lords overwhelmingly

  519
  hereditary in character. The Amendment does not say that the House of Lords should be abolished or that it should cease to be hereditary in character. It just says that the House of Lords will be left overwhelmingly hereditary. That depends on the use made of the Bill. There is no limit to the number of life peers which can be created. I am not suggesting that the Bill will lead to the House of Lords being swamped with life peers—it would be just as easy to swamp it with hereditary peers—but it cannot be denied that every creation of a life peerage will pro tanto reduce the hereditary character of the House.
  The Socialist Party might well have taken the attitude of regretting that this Bill does not go further while not opposing its passage. It is obvious that there are many who would regret that this Bill does not go further. The trouble is, as we have seen during the debate today, that those who would like the Bill to go further and be more of a reforming Measure are not in agreement about the direction in which it should go. Sometimes their views are directly opposed. If one is tackling any reform and change in the constitution either of the House of Lords or the House of Commons, there is force in proceeding gradually, in taking those steps which there is grounds for thinking will not give rise to acute party differences and controversy.
  I would remind the House of something I remember being said on more than one occasion by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) when he was a member of the Socialist Government and when his words carried great weight with the party opposite. He used to say "Let not the better be the enemy of the good". That may be said in relation to this Measure. There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who would like to see a Measure involving a greater degree of change or reform in one direction or another. Few would be prepared to deny that the principles advanced in this Bill are good, sound and desirable. I say to those who wish for a larger degree of reform: let not their desire for more drastic reform lead to the rejection of what is good in this Measure.
  I emphasise that this Bill deals only with the constitution and not with the powers of the House of Lords. That is quite a different question. The right hon.
  520
  Gentleman seemed to think there was something sinister in altering the constitution. I do not suppose that he will take it from me that there is not, but I can see nothing sinister in it. A change making possible the creation of life peers instead of hereditary peers and the admission of women to the House of Lords does not seem to me to be capable of any sinister interpretation at all.
  Then, one comes to the second ground put forward in the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill. It really seems to me an illogical argument to say "We will reject this Bill, which relates to the constitution of the House of Lords, and is good so far as it goes, because it does not deal with a different subject, namely, the powers of the House." The Amendment also refers to frustration and obstruction of—
  "… the will of the elected representatives of the people."
  It implies, I think clearly, that their will is and should be sovereign, but anyone familiar with the realities of Government and administration—and I must include in these words the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen whose names are attached to the Amendment—knows perfectly well that the will of the elected representatives is not generally and is indeed very seldom sovereign. No Government worthy of the name would abdicate their responsibilities for governing the country. They have to take their decisions and to act, and if those actions do not accord with the will of the elected representatives, then, of course, the Government fall, but it is not the will of the elected representatives that is sovereign in the first place.
  Nor is the will of the elected representatives sovereign in another sense. One can go back—and I do not want to be engaged in controversy—to what happened in 1948 in relation to capital punishment. There was a Clause introduced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and the Government of the day initially opposed that Clause, which was however carried against the Government.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: By a free vote.
  The Attorney-General: I quite agree, by a free vote, and may I say that in that case it was the will of a majority of the elected representatives of the people, using the words of this Amendment.

  521
  We know what happened on that occasion in the House of Lords, but the Government of the day did not persist in trying to get the Clause carried into the Bill and into the Act. They did not insist, and the will of the majority, as shown by that vote, was not carried into the Statute. I only mention these facts because it is an exaggeration to talk as if the will of the elected representatives of the people were sovereign. Of course, it is not sovereign when it goes back to the electorate, who may disagree entirely with what their representatives have done.
  The right hon. Gentleman said, in the course of his speech, that the question whether there should be a second Chamber or not was an open question, and he did not, I think, give any indication of the view of his party on that matter, although the terms of the Amendment itself would seem to imply that the second Chamber should continue. What the right hon. Gentleman did say, among other things, was that if there were a second Chamber it should not have power to override or obstruct the House of Commons. I must say that I find it difficult to see why, if the will of the elected representatives is to be treated as sovereign and sacrosanct, there ought to he a second Chamber, for if the second Chamber disagrees with the first it is wrong, on that argument, and if it agrees, it is superfluous. But the right hon. Gentleman has not really expressed any view on that question.
  The Amendment goes on to use the word "frustrate", and that surely is rather exaggerated language. The House of Lords cannot frustrate the will of this House. It cannot do so. It may be able to delay the passage of a Measure, but the party opposite, by the Parliament Act, 1949, prevented the House of Lords from being able to frustrate it.
  Then one comes to the word "obstruct". If the function of the House of Lords is to revise, then perhaps, in some circumstances, to delay the implementation of a Measure for a further period might well be regarded by some people as obstruction. I would say that that language was somewhat exaggerated.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: Does the Attorney-General take the view that delay may not amount to frustration?
  The Attorney-General: No, I do not, but this delay can be only for the time stipulated by the Act which the party opposite passed. If the party opposite think that the powers of the House of Lords are excessive, it is curious that they did not pass a Bill of a more restrictive character in 1949.
  I find the attitude of the party opposite towards this Measure difficult to understand. If they think that there should be a second Chamber—and they have found it very useful in the 1945–51 period in passing a large number of Amendments to their Bills—it must have some powers. If they would have a second Chamber but are opposed to the hereditary principle, the Bill certainly does not assist in maintaining that principle. If they think that sons of peers should be able to renounce their rights, surely there is something to be said for life peerages where no question of renunciation by sons of peers would be involved.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the House of Lords had always been used by the Tory Party as a machine for delaying Socialist Measures. The experience between 1945 and 1951 shows how exaggerated a statement that is. I will leave that point.
  The criticism made from several quarters was that this was not a reforming Bill. It is a reforming Bill in two important respects. I do not wish in the least to minimise their importance, but I recognise, as I think all of us who have attended the debate do, that various views are held in different quarters as to the nature of other changes that may conceivably be made in time to come.
  During the debate there has not been advanced any adequate ground for the rejection of a Measure which will enable the inclusion of ladies in the House of Lords and which, in my belief, will facilitate the recruitment to the House of Lords of persons of distinction who, I think we would agree apart from party prejudice, would probably be great assets in that House, whether or not they belong to any party or have done so in the past. In those circumstances, I support the Bill and trust that it will have the support of my hon. Friends.
  Debate adjourned.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL
9.59 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Park Lane Improvement Bill that they have power to consider the advantages of an Underpass providing for four lanes of traffic in two tunnels between Piccadilly and Knights-bridge, as compared with those of the Underpass for which provision is now made in the Bill; and that they have power to make amendments to the Bill accordingly, if they think fit:
That any Petitions against such amendments of the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the seventh day after this day, in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, be referred to the Committee.
I should like to call attention to the unusual procedure which is needed for the introduction into a hybrid Bill of new work, that is, the second underpass, and an amending work, the Knightsbridge widening, in these circumstances. I find that the last precedent was in the nineteenth century, namely, in 1876, in connection with the Toll Bridges (River Thames) Bill.
The purpose of the Motion is to bring within the scope of the Select Committee any petitions of those who may be affected by the proposed addition to the original Bill. The Motion is permissive. The Government's objective is to provide at the rebuilt Hyde Park Corner two underpasses instead of one, as at present provided in the Bill. The proposal then was for one two-lane underpass to carry traffic from east to west and west to east, from Knightsbridge to Piccadilly and vice-versa.
In the Second Reading debate, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House urged on us the necessity to duplicate the provisions we were making as, indeed, was the case in the original layout for the new Hyde Park Corner. This second underpass will cost an extra £830,000 and will have a common entrance and exit with the underpass already provided, but it will bifurcate from it at the western end so that it will run north of the other at Hyde Park Corner Underground Station, and its path will be north of the Wellington Memorial.
524
The underpasses will then emerge at the same point to join again, making one exit portal into Piccadilly. It will touch neither the Decimus Burton screen nor Apsley House; neither will be affected by it. The reserve capacity of the roundabout and the single underpass was estimated to be 40 per cent. over the 1956 peak figures. The reserve capacity of the two underpasses and the roundabout is estimated at 70 per cent. over the 1956 peak figures.
In our initial consideration of this matter, in the light of the heavy extra cost of the second underpass and the considerable reserve of the roundabout and one underpass, we concluded that we should recommend that layout, as we did in the Second Reading debate. However, no one would deny that two tunnels will be better than one and make a better job. As my right hon. Friend said, we are anxious to over-insure rather than to under-insure for the future provision for London traffic. In the light of the very weighty advice we have received from both sides of the House, we decided to accept that and I therefore submit this Motion to the House.
10.3 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Davies: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wish to commend the Minister for having come to his senses and listened to the weighty advice, to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has referred, and the good sense of hon. Members on both sides of the House, who, during the Second Reading of the Park Lane Improvement Bill, urged the Minister to reconsider his opinion that a single underpass with one line of traffic in each direction was adequate to meet the situation which will confront London traffic at Hyde Park Corner in future.
I cannot quite understand how the Minister's mind has been working in this respect, because, when he moved the Second Reading, he told us that the experts who had examined the scheme had not considered that any underpass was necessary. Exercising his better judgment or wisdom, and looking ahead somewhat, he decided to have an underpass which the L.C.C. had recommended and then chose to cut down the L.C.C. recommendation from four lanes to two lanes, with one tunnel rather than twin tunnels, and suggested that that was quite an adequate provision. If we are to look

525
ahead and provide an underpass at that intersection, surely it is sensible to look to the future and provide an adequate one.
It is difficult to understand why, when spending more than £4½ million on this scheme for the sake of saving what, on Second Reading, he said was £¾ million, and what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary now says is over £800,000, the Minister should decide in the way he did. He then stated, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, that there would be, according to the experts, an excess of 30 per cent., and then he decided on a further count that it would be 40 per cent. excess capacity at peak periods. Now we are told that with the larger provision for underpasses there will be an excess of 70 per cent. over the 1956 figure.
From all the experience that we have had in this country and which other countries on the Continent and in the United States of America have had, it is clear that road traffic will increase very considerably in London, as in other large cities. It is essential, therefore, when we are engaged upon any large improvement, to make provision for a very substantial increase.
The House will, I am sure, be gratified that the Minister has taken this step now. I can assure him that there will be certainly no opposition, but only congratulations, from this side. We on this side, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), in winding up the Second Reading debate, urged this change upon him. The reason why the Minister acted as he did was because of the confusion of advice which he received, because of his parsimony and because of inadequate information concerning traffic flows in London.
Unfortunately, the Road Research Laboratory has nowhere near sufficient funds to carry out the essential investigation into traffic flows which is necessary if we are to embark upon the wise and expert traffic schemes for relieving congestion. The most important investigation required today is one of directional flow to find out where the traffic comes from and where it wants to go. Only in that way can we make the necessary provision for the road improvements which will bring the greatest benefit to the largest amount of traffic.
526
Having now decided on the larger underpasses, I hope the Minister will once more consider Marble Arch. If we are embarking upon this greatest improvement to London traffic for fifty years and spending this large sum, the same treatment should be meted out to Marble Arch as has been meted out to Hyde Park Corner. Is it really impossible, or too expensive, or would it involve too much demolition, as the hon. Gentleman said, to build an underpass at Marble Arch? The excess capacity there is far less than it is at Hyde Park Corner, or will be far less when the new roundabout is built. If the excess capacity there will be so much less than at Hyde Park Corner, I would have thought that there was an equally strong, or far stronger, argument for building an underpass there.
The experience of our traffic improvements in London has been that we have not provided adequately for the future. We have had several cases recently where the Minister has had to change his mind, or perhaps other people responsible for the traffic schemes. We have had the Hammersmith flyover. From this side, at Question Time, and from the other side, the Minister was urged to provide for a flyover at Hammersmith and include it in the extension of the West Cromwell Road. Unfortunately, the L.C.C. was not favourable to that, and the flyover was not, at first, provided for or built.
Only now, after two years of pressure and experience, have the Minister and the L.C.C. agreed to build this flyover. In the meantime, other works have been done there which would not have been necessary.
Mr. Nugent: That is not right, and the hon. Member knows that it is not right. That point was put to my right hon. Friend and to me, and we made it plain that the work already done there would have been needed, anyway.
Mr. Davies: I must accept what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says. However, he did say that at Question Time. But I cannot believe that the work being done there now would have been necessary if work had started on a flyover at the outset.
Mr. Nugent Mr. Nugent indicated assent.
Mr. Davies: The Minister says that it would.

527
We have one further case, concerning the Markyate by-pass. Here again, as with the London schemes, inadequate provision was made for traffic and already on that by-pass—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): Is the hon. Member not going rather far away from Park Lane?
Mr. Davies: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it is an important area, also.
I suggest that whether it be Markyate, Hyde Park Corner, Marble Arch, or the Hammersmith flyover, more imagination and vision is needed when we are planning these traffic improvements. I hope that the lesson of the underpass at Hyde Park will be taken to heart by the Minister and his advisers and that in their future schemes they will look a little further ahead and will not have to hold things up and then come here and eat humble pie after listening to the views of Members of Parliament.
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Norman Cole: I join issue with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). It is not right for him to accuse my right hon. Friend the Minister of parsimony in this matter. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on deciding to have the double underpass instead of the two-lane underpass at Hyde Park Corner. The hon. Member for Enfield, East first accused my right hon. Friend of parsimony and only a minute or so later spoke about the vast amount of money that was being spent on the scheme anyway. Those two remarks do not tally.
I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Enfield, East in hoping that the need, which obviously exists, for the double underpass at Hyde Park Corner will initiate some new thinking about Marble Arch. I hope that in the not too distant future we may have a scheme which will help to relieve the difficult position at Marble Arch.
The very good reasons why we should have a double underpass at Hyde Park Corner are, first, the obvious and continuous growth of traffic, and not only in London. Any growth of traffic in the country means that London in turn gets some of it, because it comes here in due course. A second reason, which, so far,
528
has not been mentioned, is that the better the facilities at Hyde Park Corner, when there is an option of two routes to a driver, the greater the likelihood that the new facility at Hyde Park Corner will help to relieve points of pressure elsewhere in the vicinity. I am the last person to suggest that we need more traffic at Hyde Park Corner, but there are other spots not far away which are congested and anything that is provided in the way of extra facilities at Hyde Park Corner will help the general overall position.
When the Bill was introduced on Second Reading, we saw an excellent model in this building of the new improvement at Hyde Park Corner. I wonder whether, without going to any great expense, it would be possible to adapt that model and display it once more so that we may see the picture of the new plan with the double under-pass. I commend my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on extending the excellent improvement at Hyde Park Corner.
10.13 p.m.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: By the Bill, we are to spend £14½ of £5 million, and criticism has been raised outside against some of the steps which are being taken. I should like, therefore, to take up two minutes to run over some of the points which have been made against the scheme.
The first criticism is that the scheme itself, particularly the double underpass, will not clear up the congestion that does and will arise at Knightsbridge. That, however, is not a valid objection against going ahead with the scheme at Hyde Park Corner. The fact that we cannot completely clear up a blockage there does not mean that we should not clear it up elsewhere. I hope that in time we shall be able to go ahead systematically and clear up the bottlenecks throughout the whole of the area.
I understand, incidentally, that an additional road is to be put in hand shortly near Albert Gate, which will considerably improve the traffic position at Knightsbridge.
Another criticism made is posed in the question, why should we have such an expensive scheme as this when most of what we want to do could be achieved by a system of channelisation? This,

529
of course, is a very complicated matter, but it seems to me that the problem could not be solved by channelisation. Here we have a road junction with no fewer than seven roads coming in and out of it. It is not like a straightforward crossing in America or Germany. Moreover, channelisation would mean having the traffic lights at Hyde Park Corner which this scheme of a roundabout and an underpass is designed to obviate.
The third reason why I have doubts about channelisation is that we have to take into account the driving habits in this country. They may be quite different from those on the Continent and in America. We in this country are much more used to the weaving of traffic. It seems to me that the roundabout as envisaged with the underpass, with the habits of driving which are natural to the denizens of this country, will probably provide an ample solution of our problem at this point.
Another criticism made is that it is a pity to knock down 148 Piccadilly, which is a beautiful house; but no doubt the Select Committee will be able to go into that question to see whether it is really necessary to knock the house down, though it looks on the plan that such will have to be the fate of that house.
Having just gone over those criticisms which have been made of the scheme, and having looked into this, I am fully in favour of the double underpass and the scheme as proposed by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
Question put and agreed to.

OLD PEOPLE (WELFARE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I wish to raise tonight a very important question which often occupies my attention, and rightly so—the question of the welfare of the old. This was last discussed here in a most fruitful debate last November, the debate started by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas). That was a whole day's debate which ranged over a large number of subjects. Tonight I wish to take this opportunity of the Adjournment Motion to draw attention to only one aspect of the care of the old.
530
Care of the old is in the family. It is commonly said that in these days the family does not look after its old people in the way families used to in our grandfathers' time. I think that criticism is unjust. Furthermore, one must reflect that perhaps in days very long ago the alternative to old people being looked after in the family was their not being looked after at all and having to undergo extraordinary hardship entirely by themselves. Nevertheless, I do not admit the criticism that families today are any less mindful of their obligations to their old people than families used to be in the past. Indeed, the affection and good will in families is, I should think, greater now than in harder days of old.
Nevertheless, in this House and in local government we have been very much preoccupied with the necessity of providing accommodation, Part III accommodation, or hospitals and almshouses and so on, for old people, with accommodating them in institutions of various sorts, and I feel that there is a slight tendency to forget the rôle which the family still plays in the care of old people. After all, the family is the centre where most people today still grow old and where most people today still die. It has been calculated recently that only 3 per cent. of those who are retired are cared for in institutions of one sort or another, and there must be at least three or four times that number of people, and probably more than that, who are looked after by their families. Indeed, family ties become stronger as people get older. That is natural, because people are thrown together very much more. I know the House is well aware that retirement is for many people an absolute disaster, and especially for those who are the least well-off section of the population.
First, there is a remarkable fall in income, to perhaps half or even less than the amount the retired person formerly earned. Secondly, it is found especially by men who retire from work that they have no more friends. They discover that the only friends they had were the friends they made at work. They are no longer able to meet them in the day or to frequent the clubs which they used when they were at work. They drift apart from their former friends and then find that they have no others.

531
Thirdly, they find that their status in the home has fallen. The man used to be the breadwinner. He was able to put his hand in his pocket and hand out a tip to the children or put his wages on the table when he came home at the end of the week, and he earned the kudos that came from doing that. When a man retires he no longer has that status of breadwinner. The person who runs the family after retirement is generally the wife or mother, because she is in charge of the kitchen on which the family life centres. Therefore, retirement is a disaster and old people must necessarily turn more to the family than they did previously.
The criticism is frequently made that families do not shoulder the responsibility of looking after the old people in the way they used to do. I submit that that is a mistaken impression. It has been calculated that 2 per cent. of the old people in the country have the services of home helps. If that is true, it is a very low figure indeed. I should like to ask the Minister whether all things possible cannot be done to increase that percentage of old people who have some help in the home from organisations or local authorities.
In a recent sample which was taken in Bethnal Green, which is not a rich area, it was found that 6 per cent. of retired people had the services of some sort of home help and that more than 50 per cent. were looked after by the family or, in a small number of cases, by neighbours. That is the measure of the difference in responsibility which the community and family take for old people—that is 6 per cent. as opposed to 50 per cent. It was also found that between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the old people were entitled to National Assistance but did not draw it. A few did not do so because they were not aware of their rights, and a few because they refused to do so out of pride. The vast majority, however, did not do so because they were helped by their families. In fact, their families were paying them the National Assistance which is the obligation of the State. Therefore, that demonstrates again how the family its shouldering its responsibilities.
I wish to make certain deductions from these facts and to ask the Minister some
532
questions. In the first place, it is clear—though perhaps it is not a question for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health—that when old pepole are rehoused they should be rehoused as closely as possible to their families. Secondly, I should like to know what is being done and will be done to improve and extend the domiciliary services which are available to old people. The visiting which is necessary to help these old people must start with the problem of finding them. It frequently happens that old people, and especially single people who have no families, are found in a state of poverty and neglect because nobody knew that they were there until the milk was not taken in several mornings running. Nobody knew the conditions under which they lived.
I do not believe that it is beyond the possibilities of organisation to have a regular visiting system to discover where, in any area, there are those who are housebound. Secondly, having found out who they are and where they live, it is necessary also to visit their families. If far more than half these people are being looked after by their families and have no desire, and there is no real necessity, to be taken to institutions, then the strain falls upon the families, and the families must be kept under observation just as much as the old people. I am sure that every hon. Member of this House will know from personal experience of cases where the daughter or the niece has finally collapsed under the strain of looking after the old person, and both have had to be taken away.
Something, therefore, might be done in advance to help the families who are looking after the older people by, for instance, the older ones paying visits to institutions for a short time as a rest as has been done in many cases. Would my hon. Friend consider asking his colleagues whether something would not be possible on the lines of the constant attendance allowance paid to war pensioners for families looking after housebound relations who are constantly in bed?
Lastly, there is the problem of visiting and looking after those who have no immediate families. It may be necessary to take these people ultimately to institutions, but it is essential to find out where they are so that people may be in a position to take them away when it is necessary.

533
My object in raising this subject in these few minutes is to concentrate for a short time on the service of the family to the old people of this country and to make sure that it is not forgotten. I believe that timely help to the family, and organisation which can help the family, may save the great expense to which the community is put by taking these old people into institutions to which, by and large, they do not wish to go. Thus, we may both save the country a certain amount of money and greatly increase the happiness of the old people concerned.
10.27 p.m.
Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad to have the chance to echo what my hon. Friend has said and emphasise the part played by the family in social life. It may seem trite to emphasise the family in this way, but the family is still the major influence in the lives of the majority of our fellow countrymen.
The author of the book on the study of Bethnal Green, to which my hon. Friend has referred, summed up his careful study of the situation thereby concluding that there is no justification for an attempt to supplant the family with State services. The job of the State services is to support the family and provide substitute help when the family can no longer manage on its own. All over the country there are imaginative schemes, often combining voluntary and local authority bodies who supply this kind of help to the family, ranging from light attendance, laundries, schemes for sitting With the dying, holiday relief; ranging from the extensive, almost comprehensive, scheme of a place like Salford, to the attempts of our 900 old people's welfare committees to co-ordinate all the activities for the care of the aged.
Most people have some help from their families supplemented by this kind of service. However, the poorest—the poorest not only financially—are those without active family life. Though it is a comfort that the proportion of unmarried in the community is falling, there is still a great burden upon those who have no family to help them. I am glad to see here the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, because this is a very fruitful
534
field of research. It is true that 3 per cent. of the old are in institutions today and, but for the care of their families, a far larger number would obviously be in institutions. What we do not know is how many of those who are in institutions would never need to have gone there if there were more home helps available to succour them before they became housebound or unable to look after themselves.
It was the National Corporation for the Care of the Old which in its report in 1955 suggested that 50 per cent. of the people who received the services of home helps would be in institutions today but for the care of those home helps. It was the same Corporation which in its 1956 report drew attention to the fallacy of concluding inevitably that home help actually saves cost. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that in certain circumstances the keeping of a person at home, while much pleasanter for that person, might cost the State far more for home help, district nursing, and the like, compared with the relatively low cost of a bed in a hospital for the chronic sick. Therefore, I am not maintaining that domiciliary care must be cheaper than institutional care, but only that in many cases it is, and, particularly, that the domiciliary care may prevent a person from becoming an inmate in a hospital for the acute sick where the cost of a bed is so much higher.
May I conclude by suggesting to my hon. Friend that there is here a really genuine case for a survey, and perhaps for experiments in controlled areas, both to produce economy and to produce a humanitarian relief to the family on which the vast bulk of the citizens still depend for succour.
10.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) for raising this matter this evening. I only wish that limitations of time gave us more scope to debate the subject, which is a very large one, as fully as I am sure he would wish.
My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that we had a full discussion on this matter on 29th November last year but as he has narrowed the scope of his remarks to the particular aspect of the

535
amount of care that we can give to elderly people in their own homes, I welcome the opportunity of giving a summary of what we are now doing and of our general thinking on the subject.
I am quite sure that no hon. Member of this House would look forward to spending his declining years in any kind of an institution, however well run and however humanely administered. I am sure that my hon. Friend is on absolutely the right lines when he pleads for more emphasis to be placed on the care of old people for as long as possible in their own family and in their own homes. I am sure that is what elderly people themselves want.
In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), I am not at all sure—when I say "economical" I do not use that word in the peculiarly pecuniary sense—that it is not the most sensible way of coping with the problem. I also think it is sound that the family today should still continue to recognise that it has some responsibility for elderly people when they have passed the age when they can do useful work and when they require considerable care.
This problem is very severe because of our ageing population; in other words, it becomes more severe every year. Hon. Members probably know that one person in every nine today is at least 65 years of age, and by 1975 it is expected that one in every seven will be 65 or more. Of these elderly people, about 95 per cent., roughly the figure my hon. Friend gave, live at home, and most of them certainly wish to retain their independence as long as possible. I should like to say that it is our wish that they should do so.
It might be helpful if I quickly ran over the specific health and welfare services which are available in the home. Reference has been made to health visitors. A local health authority is required to provide a service of health visitors to give advice about the care of persons suffering from illness and others. The total number of visits by general duty health service visitors in 1956 was about 11 million, and it is estimated that about 1 million of the visits were to the aged and chronic sick. The health visitor's advice on diet, hygiene and
536
general care can, of course, be of the greatest value to the elderly and to those living with them and helping with their care.
The next important aid is the home nursing service. Under Section 25 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, local health authorities are required to provide a service of nursing to those needing it in their own homes. There has been encouraging growth here, and there is no doubt that it has met an increasing need on the part of the aged sick who might otherwise have had to go into hospital. The number of nurses employed has risen from 7,758 at 31st December, 1948, to 10,104 at 31st December, 1956, and during a roughly comparable period the number of patients attended has risen from 865,000 to 1,097,000. That is the measure of the growth of the problem which is on our hands. These cases involved more than 24,652,000 visits, of which more than half were to patients who were aged 65 or over at the time of the first visit during the year, and the increasing proportion of the demand by the aged is shown by the fact that only three years earlier, in 1953, the proportion of the cases in respect of those aged 65 and over attended was one-third of the total number.
The next important contributory service to which reference has been made tonight is home helps. They undoubtedly do a remarkable job. All local health authorities have made provision for such a service, and it is being increasingly used for old people who through a few hours' help each week may be enabled to continue to live in their homes. Old people often need such help for an indefinite period, but the extent of the help given may be limited—indeed, it often is—by the pressure of other demands on the service, some of which, maternity cases for instance, must be given priority.
The number of home helps employed has increased from 11,338 at 31st December, 1948, to 39,056 at 31st December, 1956. Sixty-eight per cent. of the applications for home help so provided during 1956 were from households needing help because of the presence of somebody who was elderly or chronically sick.
I should like to dwell in some detail upon the other services which contribute to this conception of care for elderly

537
people in their own homes, but I cannot do very much more than mention them simply by name. There is the night attendance and evening service; the laundry service—which is a useful one, because laundry creates great problems for many elderly people, especially the bedridden and incontinent—and the meals on wheels service. In most areas this is provided by voluntary agencies, usually with a subsidy from the local authority, and it is doing a very fine job. Then there is the chiropody service, provided by a small number of local authorities and a large number of voluntary organisations either at clinics of their own or in conjunction with old peoples' clubs.
It is gratifying to think of the very great extent to which we have been able to draw upon the help of voluntary societies in providing this kind of help for elderly people. If we want to keep the service away from the strictly institutional it is important to maintain the co-operation of these voluntary societies whose work is beyond all praise.
I want to say a word about the problem of locating old people, to which my hon. Friend referred. I have looked at the book to which he referred—"The Family Life of Old People" by Peter Townsend. There was a suggestion in that book, which I think my hon. Friend had in mind, namely, that in each area a list should be compiled, in co-operation with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, of all widowed or unmarried pensioners, and that each of these potentially isolated old persons should be visited regularly by the health visiting service in liaison with the home help service and with the aid of voluntary services.
That is an interesting idea, but it presents one or two difficulties when we try to work it out. The Ministry of Pensions has the material, but regards it as confidential. Moreover, the creation of such a list would involve a tremendous amount of work which when completed, would contain an immense number of entries which might not be helpful. The number of men and women of pensionable age—single, widowed or divorced—is over 3 million, and even one yearly visit to all these old people would place a very heavy burden on services which are already under very heavy strain.
538
It is true that a small proportion of these people need help or advice, but a good many others would not welcome visits from members of local health authority staffs or other forms of approach which carried the implication that they were of an age when they needed some sort of surveillance. We need to find a more acceptable way of identifying these elderly people, who at present seem to slip through our administrative net, and perhaps are discovered only when they are in extremis.
There is a good deal more that I could say upon the subject, but there is one matter upon which I should incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, if I embarked upon it, namely, the reference which my hon. Friend made to a scheme similar to the constant attendance allowance paid to war service pensioners and some industrial injury pensioners. My hon. Friend suggested that that scheme might be extended to cover elderly people and help their families maintain them. That would require legislation.
I approve the emphasis which my hon. Friend attaches to the domiciliary care of elderly people. His thinking in this matter is on the right lines and is entirely in accordance with what experts in these matters regard as the proper approach, and also with what the old people themselves would prefer. I agree with him that the less institutional we can make a great part of this care the better it will be.
We recognise that some people who are very elderly and ill have to go into a hospital or home of some kind, but there are many who do not. With a little help to them and their families, they could be kept in society and made useful members of it. They would be much happier, because they would not be out of the way in institutions but still leading reasonably active lives.
In considering the extent to which we can develop our services, there are all sorts of considerations to be taken into account, many of them financial; but I assure my hon. Friend that we recognise this is the right direction in which the services for the old should be extended, and it will be our intention to see that such resources as can be devoted to that task will be used in the most fruitful way.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  LIBYA (BRITISH NATIONALS)
  LIBYA (BRITISH NATIONALS)
  MIDDLE EAST
  MIDDLE EAST
  VIETNAM (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS)
  VIETNAM (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Dock Regulations
  Dock Regulations
  Building Workers
  Building Workers
  Kelvingrove
  Kelvingrove
  Asian Regional Conference (International Labour Organisations)
  Asian Regional Conference (International Labour Organisations)
  Aircraft Industry
  Aircraft Industry
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Iron and Tinplate Works, South Wales
  Iron and Tinplate Works, South Wales
  Cardiff
  Cardiff
  Brick and Tile Works, North Wales
  Brick and Tile Works, North Wales
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Lost Working Hours
  Lost Working Hours
  School Leavers, Northumberland
  School Leavers, Northumberland
  Abertillery
  Abertillery
BRITISH ARMY
  Wallington Hill, Fareham (Road)
  Wallington Hill, Fareham (Road)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
POST OFFICE
  Parcels (Italy)
  Parcels (Italy)
  Postwomen
  Postwomen
  Independent Television Service (North-East England)
  Independent Television Service (North-East England)
  Capital
  Capital
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Reservists (Transfer)
  Reservists (Transfer)
  El Adem (Catering Conditions)
  El Adem (Catering Conditions)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Education, Khormaksar and Steamer Point
  Education, Khormaksar and Steamer Point
ROADS
  Hounslow High Street ("No Waiting" Restriction)
  Hounslow High Street ("No Waiting" Restriction)
  Accidents, Witney (Whitehouse Farm)
  Accidents, Witney (Whitehouse Farm)
  London—Yorkshire Motorway (Charnwood Forest)
  London—Yorkshire Motorway (Charnwood Forest)
  Parking
  Parking
TRANSPORT
  Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Railways (Lewes—East Grinstead Line)
  Railways (Lewes—East Grinstead Line)
  Motor Cycles (Noise)
  Motor Cycles (Noise)
SHIPPING
  Port of Barry
  Port of Barry
  Passenger Fleets
  Passenger Fleets
CIVIL AVIATION
  Croydon Airport
  Croydon Airport
  British European Airways (Jet Airliner)
  British European Airways (Jet Airliner)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  East-West Trade
  East-West Trade
  Development Councils
  Development Councils
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Cattle Slaughter Control Ordinance
  Cattle Slaughter Control Ordinance
SEYCHELLES
  Medical and Sanitary Services
  Medical and Sanitary Services
TRINIDAD
  West Indies Federation (Capital)
  West Indies Federation (Capital)
CYPRUS
  Situation
  Situation
KENYA
  Council of State
  Council of State
  Schools (Examinations)
  Schools (Examinations)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Football Pools and Greyhound Racing
  Football Pools and Greyhound Racing
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Influenza (Vaccine)
  Influenza (Vaccine)
  Paralytic Poliomyelitis
  Paralytic Poliomyelitis
  Diphtheria
  Diphtheria
SCOTLAND
  Fish Sales (United States)
  Fish Sales (United States)
  Education (Singing and Musical Instruments)
  Education (Singing and Musical Instruments)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHELMSFORD
  Sherard Falkner, Lord Bishop of Chelmsford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE PRIME MINISTER'S COMMONWEALTH TOUR
2.38 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: 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 specific measures are being taken to ensure that the success of the Prime Minister's Commonwealth tour, particularly in the Asian countries, is fully appreciated abroad; and whether such measures will include the wide circulation of films, photographs and Press reports from the countries concerned with a view to full publicity in countries with little knowledge of the Commonwealth.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): Yes, my Lords. Special arrangements were made by the Government. Information Services for the receipt and rapid distribution of the Prime Minister's speeches and other Press material fully covering the Commonwealth tour. All this material was widely distributed by wireless through the Overseas Press Services of the Central Office of Information to all British Information posts throughout the world. During the visit to India, Pakistan and Ceylon the daily transmissions to both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries carried comprehensive reports. Descriptive articles were also widely disseminated; many of these were prepared specially for Middle East, Far East and Commonwealth countries. Press comment from Commonwealth countries and
638
the full texts of speeches were regularly supplied to the external services of the B.B.C., the foreign Press and the Press agencies.
A special film introducing the Prime Minister's tour was made for the Commonwealth Relations Office and newsreels and television material has also been provided to overseas countries. A film from newsreel coverage is being compiled for general overseas distribution, and a short Commonwealth television item, presenting an Asian view of the tour, has been sent to Canada. Over 70,000 copies of a feature poster carrying ten to twelve pictures of the tour will shortly be despatched to Commonwealth and foreign countries. So far, about 2.000 photographic printing plates and 660 Press prints covering the tour have been given world-wide distribution and more will be distributed.
The colour magazine Commonwealth Today, which has a circulation of about 300.000, is giving full coverage to the tour, and the next issue will carry special comprehensive treatment. The magazine is translated into Thai, Sinhalese, Chinese, Tamil, Vietnamese, Burmese, Malay, Swahili, Hausa and Fijian. A round-up item of the tour will be recorded in the fortnightly Commonwealth Survey. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied, having heard that reply, that a considerable amount of publicity is being given.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much indeed for his very complete answer, indicating the full measures that have been taken. Is the noble Earl able to say at this stage whether or not these full measures have been effective in so far as Iron Curtain countries are concerned?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I will certainly look into that matter and communicate with the noble Lord, but apart from the Iron Curtain countries the coverage given, from what I have seen of the Commonwealth Press and the Press of other countries of the free world, has been as satisfactory as it could possibly be.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could we be told upon which Vote of Supply this particular expenditure, which must be considerable, will be carried?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, will let the noble Viscount know, if he will put down a Question. On whatever Vote it has been carried, the expenditure has been worth while.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl will probably know that the Prime Minister's effort, and especially his visit to India, is very much appreciated. But what would be of value would be to have extracts from the Press of the Communist countries as to what they think of our policy. That would be useful to us: not what is turned out and published to us, but what is said by people to whom we are making an appeal. Is that possible?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I will consider all the suggestions which have been made. I was answering the original Question on the Order Paper.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, in the interests of historical accuracy and for the benefit of the record, whether steps will be taken to make sure that what was done and said by the Prime Minister, which obviously gives him and his hearers the greatest amount of satisfaction, will be shown as attributable to those who are now Her Majesty's Opposition?
LORD REA: My Lords, in the interest of historical accuracy, would the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, perhaps agree that the record could go a little further back and point out which principles were borrowed or taken from a previous Government?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think all these researches will really have to go into the dim future to establish anything worth while. But the main point, I think, is that all three Parties are in harmony as to Commonwealth policy.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Earl was right in saying that my request was not referred to in the Question. I would ask him, on its merits, whether he does not think it would do more good if we heard what other people think about us than if we advertise what we think about ourselves?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will put down a series
640
of Questions asking me what other people think about us, I will do my best to answer them.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

SILO SUBSIDIES (VARIATION) (ENGLAND AND WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND) SCHEME, 1958
2.46 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE):My Lords, last year the Government introduced a Scheme under which grants are payable towards the construction or improvement of plant for making silage; your Lordships may recollect that this was done under powers conferred by the Agriculture (Silo Subsidies) Act, 1956. The statutory instruments which I am now asking the House to approve make some modifications in that Scheme, but before I describe them I should like to say a word or two about the progress of the Scheme in general.
Briefly, the response has been even greater than was expected. Nearly 13,500 projects were approved for grant in the United Kingdom as a whole up to the end of December, 1957, and of these over 7,600 have been completed. The detailed figures are: England, 9,700, Wales, 1,711; Northern Ireland, 1,210, and Scotland, 848. The grants approved amount to approximately £2 million, and grants already paid out to £1,100,000. I think, therefore, we can say that the Scheme has been a success and that it must be contributing substantially to the increased production of silage, which is the object it was designed to further.
The Variation Schemes now before your Lordships, which are in similar terms for Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales and Northern Ireland, on the other, introduce certain modifications in the light of a year's experience of the Scheme. None of these involves any point of principle. For example, the definition of "silo" is tightened. The improvement of tower

641
silos (as distinct from pit silos) is excluded from the Schemes, because of the difficulty of ensuring that the existing walls are strong enough to bear extra weight. The Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland are empowered to give grant in special cases where the works to be carried out, though of a like nature, do not fall strictly within the description of works for which grant may normally be awarded. Limits are placed on the amount of grant available for certain types of work wherein practice the amount available under the original Schemes has been found to be unjustifiably high.
These proposed amendments, which have been agreed with the National Farmers' Union, are designed to bring the Schemes more into line with their original purpose, and they are, as I have said, based on actual experience. I am sure, therefore, that they will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Silo Subsidies (Variation) (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1958, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what has been the average paid per silo in the £1 million-odd which has been paid out? What is the average cost at present per silo of the Government's grant?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, the average grant approved has been £147 in England and Wales, £175 in Scotland and £222 in Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SILO SUBSIDIES (VARIATION) (SCOTLAND) SCHEME, 1958
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, this Scheme is exactly similar to the one I have already described. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Silo Subsidies (Variation) (Scotland) Scheme, 1958, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DISTRIBUTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1958
2.51 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, these amending Films Regulations cover a narrow but important point concerning the definition of "television films." These, as your Lordships may remember, form one of the classes of films which are excluded when calculating the payments to be made to makers of British films out of the proceeds of the levy. I should like to emphasise that this is not a change of definition but a clarification which the British Film Fund Agency, as well as organisations in the trade, have requested, on the grounds that the existing definition is not absolutely clear. This is a matter of importance for the Agency, as the payment of substantial sums of money may be involved. It was also found that the Regulations might unfairly penalise films on account of actions taken prior to the publication of the Regulations, and we have also taken steps to close a small loophole.
No point of controversy arises on these Regulations. The Act provides that the Board of Trade shall consult the Cinematograph Films Council before making Regulations. This has, of course, been done, and I would add only that the British Film Fund Agency was also fully consulted, and that the representations made by trade organisations have been taken into account. I hope, therefore, that the House will be able to approve these Regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations 1958, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
2.53 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I must, as I have done on previous occasions when speaking on matters connected with the cinema, explain that I have a personal interest in the matter, in that I am a director of the Rank Organisation and have for many years past, except when I was in office, been connected as a director with the trade. As the noble Lord the Minister has said, no controversial issue arises here, and I may say, in passing and in parenthesis, that, happily there is in the cinema trade no

643
political difference of opinion. In fact, so far as the difficulties of the industry are concerned, the representative of labour, in the shape of an honourable Member in another place, Sir Tom O'Brien, is in complete agreement with the rest of the industry.
Even within the very generous permission given in your Lordships' House to deal in debate with some matters which are perhaps not strictly relevant, it would be wrong for me to say more than a word or two on this particular point, but I think it right to say that the industry welcomes the change which is embodied in the Regulations. It would, however, I think, be legitimate to mention just one or two other matters in connection with the levy. The industry was grateful to the Government for making the levy, which was originally known as the "Eady Plan"—so called after Sir Wilfrid Eady, then a civil servant, who was the originator of the plan by which there was a voluntary levy upon exhibitors in order to enable film production to be carried on—a statutory matter. There is some slight disappointment, in that was hoped that the Fund would raise some £3¾ million a year. In fact, I think I am right in saying it raises only £2,½ million. But without this levy it would be quite impossible to carry on film production in this country, and it is a satisfactory fact that, despite all the difficulties of the industry, there is a growing export trade in certain British films which earn dollars and other foreign currency and without the production of British films it would, of course, be impossible to supply the theatres with films.
The Government assist the production of films in another way, through the grant given to the Film Finance Corporation. But I must make the point (I can refer to it only briefly, otherwise I shall be obviously out of order) that what the Government give with the right hand, they take away with the left. While there is this financial assistance, given through the Finance Corporation on a small scale and while there is this statutory system, so to speak, which causes money to be raised through exhibition for production, the Government take the astronomical sum of £26 million in entertainments tax from the industry. That is a tax not on profits but on takings. It has been condemned alike, not only by the leaders
644
of the industry, but by Sir Tom O'Brien, representing an important part of the trade unions connected with the industry. I hope that it is not improper to say that the cost of this tax to the organisation with which I am connected is, I think, £10 million a year. It is the view of the industry—and I am sure it is the right one—that if this tax could be abolished, the troubles from which this important industry is suffering at the present time would largely disappear.
That is all I have to say but, if I may do so without impertinence, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, whose views I think coincide with mine and who has had a long connection with this industry, will also say a word on this matter, because we who are connected with the industry are anxious to bring to the notice of your Lordships' House the difficulties from which we suffer.
2.57 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I hope it is unnecessary for me again to declare my interest, which is not as direct as that of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton. I am only the chairman of an association of film producers. I must confess that I am surprised that the noble Earl should have raised such wide issues on a Motion on such an extremely narrow point. I do not speak for the industry, but I think I am correct in saying that the Amendment Regulations which have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, have the approval of all sections of the industry. I had therefore assumed that they would go through this afternoon without any comment whatever.
I must, however, as I have been invited to do so by the noble Earl, say that it is common ground in the industry that it is at the moment in an extremely parlous condition. The effects on its fortunes of the development of television and the hampering effect of the burden of entertainments tax on what the industry might do to meet that challenge combine to make an extremely difficult situation.
I feel that it would be quite improper of me to develop the argument about that matter this afternoon, and while endorsing in general what the noble Earl has said about the industry, perhaps I may make one correction. He referred to the fact that there was either slight or mild disappointment in the industry about the

645
shortfall in the amount raised by the statutory levy. I can assure the noble Earl, and the House, that there is the most intense and deep disappointment in the industry about that shortfall. But I would suggest, my Lords, that this situation would be much more appropriately dealt with if the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, would put down the normal type of Motion to call attention to the situation in the film industry, so that we might have a proper debate on it, when the various matters could be gone into much more fully than would be appropriate on this occasion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say I very much agree with that last sentence from the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. I have found that the intervention of our very respected friend Lord Winterton has raised all sorts of matters in my mind instead of giving merely formal approval to the Order, and it makes me inclined, before the noble Lord replies, to ask one or two questions. After all, I have some interest in the welfare of the British Broadcasting Corporation. This is a levy which has no doubt been agreed, but I see it is to be retrospective to October 20 last, although this is not statutory until these Regulations are approved. They are to come into operation on March 1. Perhaps we can know why it is so retrospective. I suppose it is a matter of periodic contracting. The second question I should like to ask is this: what is the levy per unit performance? Thirdly, what is the estimated cost per annum to the British Broadcasting Corporation? I leave the I.T.V. to look after itself, but what is the cost to the British Broadcasting Corporation?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the House will appreciate that, with the Budget not so far off, I am not in a position to make any comments about entertainments duty. Not only am I not in a position to make any comment about entertainments duty, but if I were to do so I should probably find by to-morrow that I should not be in a position. I must say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, and my noble friend, Lord Winterton, however, that the serious effect on all sides of the film industry of the unexpectedly severe falls in attendance at cinema entertainments, which was nearly 18 per cent. lower last year, has
646
indeed been engaging the Government's attention for some time, as also has the fact that over 190 cinemas closed last year in this country.
The All-Industry Tax Committee has in the last week or two made the most urgent representations to the Government about the incidence of the entertainments duty, and these, of course, are being studied. I can say, however, that the Government, which for so many years has supported the film industry in a variety of ways—for example, quota legislation. the operations of the National Film Finance Corporation, and now the statutory levy—is naturally giving earnest attention to this current development. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, told me yesterday that he was contemplating putting down a Motion on the Order Paper on the whole subject as soon as he is fully restored to health. We can properly discuss it then. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked me for a figure, which I cannot give without notice, but I will find out what it is and give it to him as soon as I can.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPAIN AND N.A.T.O.
3.3 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move to resolve, That, in view of the vital importance of the composition and structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, both as an immediate defence against the threat of Soviet armed aggression and as a long-term defence against the spread of Communism, Her Majesty's Government should initiate discussions with other member States within N.A.T.O. with the object of inviting Spain to join the Organisation. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was recently looking through some old papers, and among them I found an old copy of the Eton College Chronicle containing an account of a house cricket match many years ago. Against my own name I found the depressing entry, "Bowled Dunglass—0". To-day, my Lords, I hope to make perhaps one or two singles against the most talented "bowling" which I am quite sure will be put on by the same bowler later in the afternoon.
I have looked down the list of speakers in this debate; I was pleased to see that

647
there were quite a few, because I had done no "lobbying" in the matter. I had not approached anybody, and only one noble Lord happened to mention to me that he would like to speak in support of this Motion. He, however, has gone abroad and is not here this afternoon, and I have no idea what support, or otherwise, I shall obtain for my suggestion—I shall not put it at more than that. Looking down the list, however, I observe the names of two noble Lords of whose views I shall certainly have to take very great notice; and when I have the privilege of speaking again later on in the evening I hope that I may be able to allay at least some of the fears which they will most certainly express.
I should like to start my remarks on the Motion by disclaiming any personal interest. I think that is quite a good thing to do, because quite often on these occasions people feel that there must be "something in it"; that there must be some personal angle to it. In my case, that is not so. I have no connection, in business, in family affiliations or anything else, with the country which I have mentioned in the Motion, Spain. I have been there as a visitor; I know a few Spaniards, but far fewer than nationals of other countries. Therefore, I have no personal interest of this sort, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to say that; I think it is worth saying.
To move to the Motion itself, if you will bear with me for a moment or two, I should like very briefly to read it—it is quite short—because I think there has been a little misunderstanding as to what the Motion really was. One or two organs of the popular Press have already produced a small headline of this type:
"Peer says 'Put Spain in N.A.T.O.'"
That sort of headline is not a very good start. It is not a great help on an occasion when one is trying to urge a gradual and reasonable course of action on the Government. I believe that we are all together, for a start, in agreeing about (to quote the Motion)
"the vital importance of the composition and structure,"
of N.A.T.O., with which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had so much to do in the early days,
648
"both as an immediate defence against the threat of Soviet armed aggression and as a long-term defence against the spread of communism, …"
The Motion goes on:
"Her Majesty's Government should initiate discussions with other member States within N.A.T.O. with the object"—
I might have said "the ultimate object"—
"of inviting Spain to join the Organisation."
That is the Motion, and I was a little encouraged, on the 22nd of last month, in the defence debate in your Lordships' House, by certain words used by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. They were not used in this connection, I know, and I hope that he will not think I am trying to put words into his mouth or to attribute to him ideas he did not have. But he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 207 (No. 24), col. 158]:
"I feel that at the present time there is rather more open-mindedness in the world."
Later he said:
"I believe that at the present time there is a slight relaxation, and I want Britain to lead."
I think the noble Earl was referring to the U.S.S.R. when he said that, and the possibility of Summit talks. I hope that I interpret his words on that occasion correctly. But if he looks for relaxation in the world as a whole, and wishes to see Britain in the lead, I do not think one can confine it to any particular direction. If we are to be open-minded and to relax, surely that should apply to everybody, after due thought and consideration. I hope the noble Earl will not take the view that I have misquoted him. The words are accurate, and I think he used them in the connection I have mentioned.
Now may I briefly quote again a few lines from the communiqué issued at the end of the N.A.T.O. Council Meeting in Paris last December. The communiqué says first of all:
"Our alliance cannot … be concerned only with the North Atlantic Area or only with military defence. It must also organise its political and economic strength on the principle of interdependence, and it must take account of developments outside its own area."
The communiqué goes on later to say:
"We express our interest in the maintenance of peace and the development of conditions of stability and economic and political well-being in the vitally important continent of Africa … Historic, economic and other, friendly ties

649
between certain European countries and Africa would make such co-operation particularly desirable and effective."
Finally, the communiqué states:
"We are therefore resolved to achieve the most effective pattern of N.A.T.O. military defensive strength, taking into account the most recent developments in weapons and techniques."
I submit in all humility that those three quotations, put together, give a clear indication that N.A.T.O. is not to be kept in a little paper bag where it started: that there is reason and hope for expanding the scope of N.A.T.O. and therefore, possibly, the membership. That is the basis of my Motion—the short-term and the long-term objects of N.A.T.O. which I took the liberty of recapitulating in the course of my Motion.
On what grounds other than prejudice can Spain reasonably be excluded? We shall hear later what those grounds are. Let me deal first of all with the strategic position. There is a considerable case strategically for the inclusion of Spain in N.A.T.O. No senior commander with whom I have ever discussed this matter really had any doubts about that. There are those of your Lordships who do not like senior commanders—they say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Even in the United States of America that great man, General Douglas MacArthur eventually ended his career by perhaps not keeping his ear sufficiently attuned to what was going on in the political world. Nevertheless, you cannot say that all senior commanders are wrong. They are the people who are in daily touch, and they know the weapons. They know what the weapons can do, where they should be sited and what effect they will have; and you cannot discount the recommendations of the substantial amount of professional opinion on this matter.
No senior commander of the air or ground forces of any nationality that I have ever discussed this matter with has been able to put up a case against it. The air bases which already exist in Spain—five in number—are American bases at the disposal of S.A.C. and there is the naval base at Rota. I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that those bases are available in time of war only for the use of American forces; they are riot available for our use or that of any other Member State of N.A.T.O. What would happen at the outbreak of
650
war is another matter; it is anybody's guess. But that is how things stand now. It seems to me to be untidy and unsatisfactory, and it is a state of affairs which I, personally, as an old soldier, should like to see remedied forthwith.
Now I turn to the geographical position of Spain. One has only to look at a map of the world to-day to see that geographically it is placed as far as possible from the flashpoint. It must be a good area for bases, particularly as it is a country which is comparatively thinly populated and where the results of reprisals might be less catastrophic. Again, Spain is a stone's throw from the North Coast of Africa. The ill-effects of Arab nationalism, inspired or otherwise—some would say that this terrific "chain reaction" of nationalism, which is the curse of the world to-day, is inspired everywhere by Communism; I am not convinced that that is so, but I would not flatly contradict anybody who said that it was—could be minimised to some extent by Spain's membership of this Western organisation. Closer Spanish-French collaboration within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation can only be helpful: it cannot work the other way. At the moment, as I understand it (I think my information is accurate), the Spanish Foreign Minister has been engaged in a series of productive and friendly talks with the French Government on the subject of North Africa. How much easier it would be if all this could be done within the framework of N.A.T.O.
My next point, although I am still on the strategic angle, which I shall leave in a moment, concerns the question of manpower. General Norstad is continually in trouble about manpower. The day may come when he will not be so troubled, but he is now, so let us consider the present. He is short of manpower. The fact that the West German contribution is coming along so slowly is a source of embarrassment to him. There are other matters connected with the attitude of the Bonn Government at the moment which I will not mention—your Lordships can read them in the papers every day. That matter is unsatisfactory. I will not bring it into this debate, as it would greatly prolong it; and it is not strictly relevant, though it is slightly relevant. The military contribution which Spain could make to

651
N.A.T.O., though perhaps not initially very great, would at least be as great as, or greater than, a number of the present member States—I would cite, for instance, Denmark, Portugal, Greece and Iceland. I think one could not ignore Spain on the ground that her contribution would be negligible. It might not be great, but it would not be negligible; and it would at least compare well with that of some other member States.
I turn from that comparatively simple aspect of the matter to the much more complicated aspect, the long-term political implication of the membership of Spain in N.A.T.O. This is where I am well aware that I shall find myself in some very much rougher water. It would take all day, and would greatly bore your Lordships, if I were to go back to the year 1931 and trace the whole sad story forward from there. I can do it, as a matter of fact, but your Lordships will be delighted to hear that I do not propose to do so. Communist infiltration goes on in so many countries. The membership of the Communist Party in this country was stated in the Press the other day to be somewhere about 25,000. It makes progress in Italy, particularly in Northern Italy, and probably in France; but it is a great deal less likely in Spain, and that would be particularly true if Spain were a member of N.A.T.O. As long as Spain remains outside this "club," one cannot help feeling that the Spaniards resent it to some extent, and that they may look around for other friends. But once a friendly and reasonable gesture had been made by the other countries of the West, it would take the Communists all their time to make any progress.
Those who are not prejudiced on this matter and are able and willing to look at the state of Spain to-day, as opposed to that of seventeen years ago, will certainly have noted that liberal tendencies are showing themselves in an increasing degree, although the method of government is of course still very different from our conception of democracy. Our system and theirs are quite unsuited to each other. The system which we in this country call democratic government would not last a week in Spain, or vice versa. So far as I know, there is no real reason why member States
652
of N.A.T.O. should impose methods of government on other member States. If so, I feel that a very different government would be sitting in Athens at this moment.
The national characteristics of the Spaniards and the events which led up to the Civil War and occurred during that war naturally have had a profound effect, not only on the system which prevails in Spain at present but on their relations with other countries. It may be a matter of some surprise to some of your Lordships to know—and I do not wish to seem to instruct in this matter, but I have studied it in some detail—that the first law to be passed after the war was the Labour Charter, in which the following sentence occurs:
"Because labour is essentially personal and human it cannot be reduced to the materialistic concept of a merchandise and cannot be the object of commercial dealings which are contrary to the personal dignity of man."
That is an admirable statement. I think, and those who have no good to say of the present régime in Spain might perhaps address themselves to those words. Workers in Spain, though they are in many respects treated differently from those in this country or in France, are at least protected by means of labour courts, a national health service, accident and life insurance, and so on. Those services exist. Whether detractors of Spain like it or not, they are there.
On the question of education, which must be basic in these matters, I believe I am right in saying that in the 1930s 25 per cent. of the Spanish population were illiterate. Since 1940 15 per cent. of the national budget is being spent on education. Probably some member of the Government Front Bench can tell me what percentage we in this country spend on education. The number of primary schools there has been nearly doubled in seventeen years, and an enormous programme of vocational schools for workers has been started. At present there are five new labour universities. These are all small points and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for taking up your time with them. I will not keep you much longer, but I am trying to dispel the impression that these are wretched people held down by this Iron Dictator—poor, illiterate people, without a voice.

653
That is not true, and those who say that it is, do so either deliberately or through ignorance.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting his very interesting speech, may I ask whether in these numerous schools, so plentifully supplied by public funds, there are any Protestant teachers, or liberty of Protestant instruction?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I will let the noble Viscount know when I have checked that point, but my impression, is that as nearly 99 per cent. of the Spanish population are Catholic, the teachers are about 99 per cent. Catholic, too—probably a reasonable proportion. in view of the religion of the pupils. When Queen Isabella sent Christopher Columbus to America, it was no accident. Her idea was that he should open up a new continent and increase the influence of Spain in that hemisphere. Spanish influence, particularly in the South American States but in North America, too, is very considerable, and I believe it is largely because of that—and not only for strategic reasons—that the United States of America have been so much in favour of electing Spain to N.A.T.O.
May I turn for a moment to the South American Republics? They still seem rather far away; but distance does not exist any more in these days of sputniks and aircraft travel when one can go at such speed from one place to another. For instance, by the new Russian jet plane one can go from Peking to London in summer in the same daylight. The South American Republics are now quite close to us. They matter; in fact all countries and all peoples matter, and the influence of Spain on the South American Republics is still very great. I feel that here is a chance not only to open up membership of N.A.T.O. but also to extend the influence of N.A.T.O. to that hemisphere.
How much of the European Western heritage does Spain share, and would its membership of N.A.T.O. help or damage that heritage? Might it not tend to expand it? That is the case that I am trying to put. I believe it is important to consider the present and the future rather than to hark back on the wrongs of the past, which are incontestable, I
654
believe that there are in the world two classes of persons: those who tend to look back and those who look forward. It has nothing to do with age, for some people are born old and some never grow old; but the tendencies are there. Some people want to look to the present and to look forward to the future and to get the best out of them, while others want to hark back and say that something cannot be done because of this or that reason. It is that mentality that I would ask your Lordships on this occasion to discard, should arty of you have those tendencies—though I am sure you do not. The United States of America has clearly shown its feelings in this matter, and I ask Her Majesty's Government to use their good offices to persuade other member States to swallow their fears and prejudices, if they have any, and to agree that no harm but much good, both now and in the future, could result from the generous and friendly gesture of inviting Spain to join N.A.T.O.
Before I resume my seat I wonder whether your Lordships will hear with me for two minutes while I quote from Volume VI of Sir Winston Churchill's Book, The Second Word War? He says:
"At the Potsdam Conference Stalin wanted the United Nations to break off relations with Spain and, in Stalin's words, to help the democratic forces of Spain to establish a régime agreeable to the Spanish people'."
It is fairly clear how Stalin felt about it. Churchill says that he resisted this suggestion and that eventually the matter was dropped. Later in the same book Sir Winston says:
"In a letter dated December 11, 1944, I wrote to the Foreign Minister and said, I do not think you have fairly stated the balance of help or hindrance given us by Spain in the war. The supreme services of not intervening in 1940 or interfering with the use of the Gibraltar airfields or Algeciras Bay in the months before Operation Torch in 1942, outweigh the minor irritations which you so meticulously set forth. A little alteration in the wording would, in my view, be compatible with justice and consistency'."
If I am wrong, at least I am wrong in distinguished company. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That, in view of the vital importance of the composition and structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, both as an immediate defence against the threat of Soviet armed aggression and as a long-term defence against the spread of communism, Her

655
Majesty's Government should initiate discussions with other member States within N.A.T.O. with the object of inviting Spain to join the Organisation.—(Lord Windlesham.)
3.30 p.m.
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: My Lords, I rise to support this Motion as one who has close connections with Spain and is a frequent visitor to that country. All of your Lordships, are so familiar with the outline of Western Europe that it is not necessary to look at a map to know that Spain possesses a very large part of the Atlantic foreshore, the shore between North Cape and the Straits of Gibraltar. In a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation why is a country possessing this long shore excluded? Is it not almost as if, when you were choosing a team to represent England at cricket, you excluded one of the largest counties because you happened to dislike its county council? It seems to me that that is exactly what is happening, for it is solely on the ground that some people in this country dislike her present form of government that Spain is excluded.
There are other countries in Europe (it is a platitude to say this, but I must repeat it) with which we make every endeavour, not always successfully, to be on good terms, whose systems of government are quite as far removed from our own as is that of Spain. It is no good pretending that the Spanish system is the same as our system; and it may also be said that the Spanish standard of life is not quite up to ours. But it is surely not on the annual sales of television sets and washing machines that we ought to judge the greatness, or the reverse, of a people. In conversation with my numerous Left Wing friends I have often been told that one of the greatest objections to the present régime in Spain is the large number of political prisoners. I believe that this number is very considerably less to-day than it was a few years ago; but I can from my personal knowledge assert that a few years ago a great number of these people who had been captured by the Government had formerly been members of bands, frequently in the hilly and remote parts of the country, who kidnapped and blackmailed in the name of the Red Republic. Crimes committed merely in the name of the Red
656
Republic are hardly to be said to be political crimes.
I know quite well that when this country wishes to make its relations with Spain more cordial these efforts are nearly always bedevilled by some reference to the question of Gibraltar. I have known many Spaniards, and I have never spoken to one who thought that the question of Gibraltar (which, of course, he would like to see settled in favour of his country) was an urgent or burning question; and they are probably sufficiently logical to appreciate that the Spanish position at Ceuta is no sounder than our position at Gibraltar.
My Lords, the question of the admission of Spain to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation far transcends mere questions of military expediency. Spain feels that she is excluded from an Organisation which embraces the other countries which form West European civilisation. Spain is a very essential element in the civilisation of the West—I repeat, a very essential element. She has been closely connected with this country in its long history; we have not always been in the same camp, but we have on occasions fought shoulder to shoulder. When an Englishman says that "There is no smoke without fire", or that "One swallow does not make a summer", he is paying a tribute to the wisdom of Spain, although he probably does not know it. May I express the hope that this debate will at least turn the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the possibility of inviting Spain to join N.A.T.O. and thereby readmitting her to the comity of Western Europe?
3.36 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord who has raised this question for the chance he has given us of reviewing a neglected but very important aspect of international affairs. Unlike the noble Duke who has just sat down, I have no intimate knowledge of Spain, and therefore I ask your Lordships to forgive me if I concentrate more on the North Atlantic Treaty attitude to Spain, rather than on Spain's attitude to the Treaty; and I ask the forgiveness both of your Lordships and of the noble Earl who is to reply if, in doing so. I stray slightly outside the terms of the noble Lord's Motion.

657
My first reaction is a strategic reaction, and the point that strikes me is this: the North Atlantic Treaty was set up for a specific purpose, which is defined in its Preamble. That Preamble tells us we are "To safeguard freedom, common heritage and civilisation" of our peoples, and in the subsequent body of the Treaty emphasis is all on a collective defence. Of the fourteen Articles in the Treaty only one, Article II, is concerned with matters other than defence and the machinery for collective defence. Therefore anything which strengthens the existing defence set-up, so far as soldiers are concerned, is in complete alignment with the declared objective of the Treaty and is surely welcome.
There is another aspect of strategy, and that concerns the new conception which is capturing a great deal of interest, of disengagement. I, for one, have been much impressed with the political advantages implicit in a careful and cautious process of disengagement, and it stands to reason that the greater your land depth on the Continent of Europe the greater your bargaining power if and when disengagement is seriously taken up as the process by which political flexibility may once again be restored to Central Europe. To have Spain as a recognised part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation surely supplies that little bit of extra depth and extra bargaining power.
But I confess that it is more the psychological factors than the strategy that are in my mind to-day. Article X of the North Atlantic Treaty tells us that a unanimous decision has to be reached before an invitation can be sent to a prospective new member. Your Lordships will recall the endless delay which took place in the case of both Greek and Turkish membership. So the question I am asking is whether the time has not come for a re-statement of the purposes of the North Atlantic Treaty. When the Conference took place in Paris in December, in spite of the hopeful communiqué which the noble Lord quoted to us, there was, I think, some disappointment that local political problems concerning members of the Treaty had not been considered: perhaps Cyprus in the case of Britain; perhaps Tunisia in the case of France; perhaps Indonesia in the case of the Netherlands. Yet the Dutch had led us to suppose
658
that they would have welcomed the question of Indonesia being brought before the Council of the Treaty. The answer for those who might have expected these matters to be raised would be, one supposes, that the Treaty does not cover such discussions, and, even if it does, there is this rule of unanimity. In the case of Spain, I understand that opposition has come mainly from Norway, supported by France, Belgium and Denmark; and we could reach a point where we should be up against the old enemy of the Veto preventing Spain's membership.
At this stage I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong for Spain to be a member. I am suggesting that, from our own practical experience, the time has come for the Treaty Powers to discuss whether the Treaty should be revised. I understand that in Paris, for several years now, they have been searching for a way in which to implement more effectively Article II, which speaks of "the strengthening of free institutions", "the promotion of conditions of stability and wellbeing", "the elimination of conflict in economic policies" and "the encouragement of economic collaboration". If we are to make a reality of Article II, who are we to say that Spain is not of the body politic of the economy of Europe? Is not Spain equally capable of making her contribution to Europe and is she not equally—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned "free institutions". Does he seriously suggest that institutions in Spain are free in any real sense of the term?
LORD BIRDWOOD: My answer would be this: it is not for us to inquire whether the institutions within Spain are free or not; the point is that we shall be in a far better position to influence what happens in Spain under the umbrella of the North Atlantic Treaty than outside.
Apart from that, there are other more profound reasons why we should welcome Spain within the Treaty. In the post-war years your Lordships would have been only too conscious of the bickering and bitterness that has persisted between France and Spain. These are not the days when Western Europe can afford her domestic bickering. Would not Spain's membership provide Spain and France with a common focus and the

659
sense of sharing a common purpose, which may finally heal the wound? India and Pakistan have so often looked like going to war with each other. It could be claimed that their common membership of the Commonwealth has prevented that disastrous end. Greece and Turkey to-day glare at each other. I think that it could be claimed that perhaps common membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has exercised the final restraint. If, in some way, Spain were to collaborate in N.A.T.O., not only would her lingering antagonism with France fade but, as I said just now, we should be far nearer to influencing those things inside Spain which some of us certainly regard with disquiet. I refer not only to a natural resentment to dictators but also to the other tendency to the extreme Left within Spain.
It may be that, so far as strategic interests are concerned, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham pointed out, Spain is already some kind of a member, an ambiguous member, of the Treaty through the agency of the United States. But what sort of membership is it? What sort of understanding is it that would sanction a kind of backstairs membership, with the United States lending a cloak of respectability to the Spanish membership? To put it in plain language, can we not "come clean" about this membership?
To-day we all face the sane enemy. My noble friend Lord Windlesham and I have had our differences over the approaches to Germany and her position within the European family. His experience, I understand, has been concerned with war crimes; my own has been concerned with welfare work, so naturally we have slightly different approaches, but I would submit to him that if we are to face this Communist encroachment successfully we must all draw together in defence of our European heritage, of which he reminded us. I would submit also that Spain shares that heritage, that Germany shares it and that Eire, for which my noble friend has a special interest, may one day also make her contribution as a manifestation of her share in that heritage.
In his New Year message to the European Ambassadors in Moscow, Mr. Khrushchev said:
"History is on our side. We will bury you."
660
This is not the time, surely, to set the nations of the West one against the other. Rather we must close the ranks for the single purpose of meeting the common threat. But if we are to draw closer together, we need some reorientation of the North Atlantic Treaty. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I put the case for revision in an analogy relating to my own experience. The point may not be immediately clear, but I shall hope to justify my contention before I conclude. I think that my analogy will be of particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby. In the old days on the Indian frontier we had expeditions. A political officer from our side would receive a bullet fired by a trigger-happy tribesman from his side, and then would follow a military expedition to punish the tribe. A road would be built to maintain and support the expedition, and finally the expedition would be kept there to protect the road. In other words, there would be a confusion between means and ends. The road, which was in fact the means, has become the end.
We set up a Treaty organisation and believed firmly that in doing so we prevented or deterred, whatever the appropriate term is, the potential enemy from encroachment on our soil. We rescued ourselves and not one square yard of territory has been yielded to the enemy. But surely the Treaty was only the means, and not the end in itself. The soldiers, the weapons and the plans to move them are all only means that are not ends in themselves; and as we keep armed forces only for the maintenance of the Treaty for its own sake, we shall be in just that danger of confusing means and ends. May I return to my analogy? If, as the result of that expedition, now visualised in the middle of tribal territory protecting its precious road, there follow schools, hospitals, dispensaries, animal husbandry, agricultural development and so on, then, and then only, is the final position of that expeditionary force rationalised. In the same way I would say that if, following on the perfection of plans for the physical protection of Europe, whether by long-range deterrents or by the procedure of placing men on the ground, there can emerge other symptoms of moral economic and social strength, through a restatement of the North Atlantic Treaty, then all the physical effort and the vast

661
expenditure will at least have been justified.
I trust I have not strayed too far away from the field of Spain. It has seemed to me sometimes that this point about the North Atlantic Treaty and its position should be said and that Spain presented the legitimate opportunity. We could perhaps look into the future in a way which a great American commentator had in mind when he observed:
"A great alliance must be armed not only with rockets, but with hope."
It is in that spirit that I stand firmly behind the Resolution which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has moved this afternoon.
3.51 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I must say, at the outset of my speech, that I have no idea whether Her Majesty's Government, or any member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, wishes to invite Spain to join it, either on military or political grounds. Nor do I know whether, in the event of such an invitation being extended to Spain, she would be willing to accept it. It may well be that her bilateral arrangements with the United States of America for economic aid and for defence purposes are sufficiently satisfactory to Spain. It may even be that those arrangements between Spain and the United States are sufficiently satisfactory to the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation without taking the matter any further. As I say, I do not know and I hope that when the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, replies to the debate he may enlighten us upon that.
The two noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Birdwood, have dwelt at great length, and rightly so, on the purely strategic and practical aspect of the matter. I am grateful for the interjection of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, because I think it shows the line that may be followed by the two noble Lords who will speak after me from the opposite Benches, the feeling which is still engendered by this subject, and the fact that it is predominantly, unfortunately, not a purely strategic and practical matter but one of morals and psychology; and I feel that it may be so treated for some time to come. Therefore, what remarks I make I intend to devote to that aspect of the matter.
662
I am in no position to state what is the situation in Spain at the moment, for I have not been able to revisit Spain in recent years. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, who is to follow, and who knows the country well, may be able to deal with that situation. But I can say that I spent many happy days in Spain just before the Civil War, in the Republican era, and I remember them vividly. At that time I was fortunate enough to be studying affairs in Spain at the Centre of Historical Studies; and that brought me into some contact with the professors and intellectual leaders of the day, who of course were very much involved in the fortunes of the Republic. At the same time I was living with a typical middle-class family who, by the fortunes of war, found themselves divided in sympathies, one member of the family being on the Republican side and the others on the Franco side. The result was that when some of the female members of the family were brought out to be shot for no other reason than that one of the sons was fighting for General Franco, one of the daughters who had joined the Communists happened to be present at the scene and was able to prevent the execution taking place. So one might say, in that respect, that it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
My best friend, who was on the Franco side, was taken prisoner, incarcerated in Barcelona and hung up by the heels until he went blind. I do not wish to indulge in the story of atrocities. It is clear that atrocities were awful on either side. It has always been so, in all civil wars; and it always will be so. I hope, therefore, that nobody will make any play with that particular aspect of the matter. But in view of the tendency which was shown in the interjection of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I think, in spite of what the noble Lord who introduced the Motion said, it is necessary to go briefly over a little old history and remind ourselves of what did in fact happen.
It is true, I think, that the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, which lasted from 1923 to 1930, resulted from the eternal instability of Spanish Governments. It came in, I think I am right in saying, without bloodshed, and for a time there was comparatively stable government. Some good, in the materialistic sense, was done in the way of

663
improving roads and transport and in the building of primary schools. On the other hand, I think it will now be admitted by the historians that the harm done outdid the good; that there was, no doubt, a repression of freedom in all its forms, freedom of speech and freedom of the Press, and that many people were imprisoned. Finally, there was a tragedy, as your Lordships may remember, when there was an uprising in a small village and the two leaders were executed. Their names were Hernandez and Galan, and they became known as the martyrs of the revolution. At the same time, it is an interesting fact that Commandant Franco, General Franco's brother, and General Queipo de Llano, who was subsequently to head the rising of Andalusia in 1936, were on the side of the Republican Forces which were trying to overthrow the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and were instrumental in capturing the military airport just outside Madrid. The fact that the General later turned to the other side may perhaps have some significance in this argument.
When the Republic came in it really started very well, and great credit was due to Señor Alcala de Zamora, who was head of the Revolutionary Committee, for that fact. Credit was also due to the Conde de Romanones, who was the King's monarchist adviser, and also to King Alphonso himself, who made a most dignified parting and, without abdicating, in his own words,
"suspended the exercise of Royal power and left Spain to decide her own destinies".
No blood was spilt, and as a result the Republic had every chance to make good. Unfortunately, in the first few months the Cabinet fell out badly, with the result that the first Prime Minister and revolutionary head. Zamora, resigned on the question of the anti-Catholic law in Article 26 of the Constitution, which was levelled directly against all religious orders. Another minister resigned, and three others refused to vote for it. The result was that Señor Azaña became the new Prime Minister and eventually expelled the Jesuits from Spain.
The result of that, from a more practical point of view, was virtually to close the secondary school system throughout the country, because they possessed seventy residences and thirty colleges, and there was little secondary education
664
apart from the many Jesuit schools. There was then the Law of the Defence of the Republic which was used, to begin with, against Communist risings and against strikes, which were very prevalent, and also against Monarchist risings. Under this law people were put into prison and put away. Nevertheless, that law was used later to suppress the freedom of the Press; and at least ten newspapers were closed down, some of them indefinitely.
I think I must bring up this point, because the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his interjection, asked about freedom, and it must be realised that the Republic, even though it was defending itself, did become very repressive in those first two years. As a result, after the next General Election, out of 473 deputies only 99 of the former Socialist and Radical Socialist Party were returned, and the majority was held by the Centre and Right Wing Republican Parties. Unfortunately, they were not able to govern much better because, instead of giving the government to one side only, there was an unsatisfactory form of liaison or alliance. It did not work out, and there were sporadic strikes and revolutionary movements. Just at the critical moment, when things might perhaps have got better, the Left Wing parties of the Republic refused to accept what we in this country should regard as the normal process of Parliamentary democracy and bide their time for the next election. That Party was instrumental in promoting a serious revolution in Catalonia, which was put down, and a much more serious one in the Asturias, which resulted in a heavy loss of life and the partial destruction of the delightful city of Oviedo.
These points must be borne in mind if we are to discuss what particular form of government is most suitable to Spain, and whether any one form of government is more capable of preserving law and order and freedom than any other. Thirdly, after yet another election, the swing of the pendulum went Left again, and on that occasion general pillage and arson broke out. The Anarchists, Syndicalists and Communists had joined in the popular front with the Socialist leader, Azaña, and he later became President, having removed the President Zamora in the most peculiar manner, if I may say so, and complete control of the country

665
was lost. It was at that period that I was living in the country, and I remember the anxiety of people of all descriptions daring those months preceding the Civil War.
I will not take the matter any further, because I have wearied your Lordships long enough with this little historical interlude. There is no doubt that the Army did attack in the first place, but it is difficult to attribute blame entirely to one side or the other. Therefore I hope that if this matter is to be treated from a moral point of view it will be remembered that possibly it was the character of the Spanish people and the past history of their nation which were as much to blame as any individual on one side or the other. If only we can rid our minds of prejudice in this matter, and if we can be convinced that the form of government now is not unduly repressive but is a comparatively mild form of authoritarian government, then I hope that perhaps we shall be able to get the answer we are seeking this afternoon.
In any case, I welcome the Motion of the noble Lord, for it has given us an opportunity to clear the air, to express our personal opinions and make them known to others, and perhaps make the opinions of the political Parties known to each other, for I do not believe that they are known at the moment. This matter has been in abeyance for a long time, and I hope that this discussion will have served a useful purpose. I neither support nor oppose the Motion; I have intervened merely in order that I might do my best to put a little historical perspective into the matter so that it may be treated as impartially as possible.
LORD WINDLESHAM: While thanking the noble Lord very much for his most interesting intervention, may I say that I should have liked him to take his account of the events leading up to the rising just a little further, to the point at which, as I think the noble Lord knows, the Leader of the Opposition to the Popular Front Government was murdered, and two days later the rising started.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I do not know whether that is an invitation to continue my speech which would hardly be in order. I think the noble Lord has himself made the point. I
666
merely referred to the pillage and arson which took place. Something like 180 churches were burned and 250 damaged, and a great many institutions and newspaper offices were destroyed. Of course the leader of the Right-wing Party Calvo Sotelo was murdered in most unpleasant circumstances which shocked the nation, and the Civil War broke out a week later. I should not like to connect those matters too closely, but obviously the whole thing was leading up to the boiling point, and I have nothing more to say about it.
4.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has done no more, he has deserved well of the House for giving us an opportunity of listening to one of the most interesting and informative speeches that I have heard since I have been here—and I have been here some time—refreshing memories of what has happened during that time. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, did not go further, and I do not think there is any particular advantage in doing so. But he will remember the feeling among the people of this country with regard to Guernica, for example, the bombing and murder of those Basques, on a Sunday, I think it was, in May, 1937, and then the machine-gunning of the people who were lying on the ground. It was a horrible thing, and though it is not for us to discuss it to-day, it leaves an impression on our minds and poses to us the question: What sort of people are we dealing with and proposing to invite into the N.A.T.O. society? That is its only relevance. I do not think anyone who lived through that time will ever forget it. We did not know what carpet bombing was like—there had been no Hiroshima and no R.A.F. bombing of Germany. We knew only that Hitler was arising and that the ruler of Spain sent for the German bombers to perpetrate this atrocity. That is all we knew. It is relevant to this present discussion only, as I believe the lawyers call it, as to credit.
Of course, I am just a civilian, but it seem quite obvious, looking at the map, that Spain is strategically a vital part of the European defence system. If you cannot get a missile fired direct from Chicago to Moscow, you can get a halfway house, and Spain is an extremely convenient place. Nor do I dispute any

667
of the things that have been said about the desire for us all to be tolerant and, as far as possible, to keep together. I was always in favour of the admission of Spain into the United Nations, and all the influences of culture and the peculiar genius of the Spanish people will have the opportunity in New York to help the world. Therefore, in the first part of the noble Lord's Motion I should not find much with which to disagree, if it is a fact, which is now commonly accepted, that we are within fifteen minutes of the possible outbreak of war. After all, when we know—I am bound to bring this aspect in because one must take the whole picture—that American bombers are circling and that they cannot all be on the ground together in case they are wiped out as the American Fleet was in Pearl Harbour, when we are told that everything must be at that degree of alertness, then to talk about refusing the help of Spaniards or anybody else is illogical. But if that is true, it brings home to us, with a terror so horrifying that it has ceased to affect most of us, the imminent danger that this quarrelling world, armed with fatal weapons, presents.
That is not why I—I do not know how many others—object to this Motion. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, It is a pity that we have not had a little enlightenment from the Front Bench. I do not know why not. I am sorry no Leader of the Liberal Party is speaking. Surely they must feel as we feel about this. All we have had is a speech from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham—I am very much obliged to him for coming—a rabble-rousing speech at Rochdale, in which he explained that if we were not up to the Russians yet in missiles it was because we started late, and we soon will be.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? I did not say anything of the kind.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I will send the noble and learned Viscount my second copy of The Times and he can see what he did say.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps I may be allowed to send the noble Lord
668
a copy of what I did say, if he is interested.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I shall be delighted. If I could be put on the general circulation list I should be more than grateful; it would be interesting and very instructive. And if it could be extended to private meetings of his Party, that would be even more helpful. What he went on to say was that America was well ahead. What in?—in the "nuclear potential". This is the weapon that is to be used. I never heard of it before. If your Jupiters have no lightning and your Thors no hammer and your Atlases cannot carry the world, you still have the "nuclear potential." I think that it is a very harmful speech to be made by a Minister of his eminence.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I regard it as very harmful to misquote me. I would far rather the noble Viscount stuck to what I did say instead of distorting it and then saying that the distortion is very harmful.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I can only quote the words. The noble and learned Viscount said—this is really so much outside the Motion that we must not follow it—that the Americans had great superiority in the "nuclear potential" He also said that the Russians were far ahead of us but then "you must remember we started late". These are, I think, textual expressions from a speech which I venture to say will not only lose them the Rochdale by-election but, what is far more important, do harm to the national interest. I want to get away from that point; I mentioned it in recognition of the courtesy of the noble Viscount in coming.
All these things, Spanish culture, Spanish military force, the record of General Franco, are quite irrelevant. What the noble Lord wants us to do is to introduce Spain into a special society. Spain is in the United Nations and should be in the United Nations, and all the problems that affect Spain can be dealt with in the United Nations. The noble Lord said that we want Spain in N.A.T.O. mainly for military reasons. There is a side comment. He has missed the market; the Americans were there four years ago.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I pointed out that these bases which the

669
Americans have built in Spain, together with the pipeline and the Port of Rota, are only for American use; they are not for the use of other member States of N.A.T.O.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If we know now that American preparations in Europe are not for N.A.T.O. purposes and to defend what we call—rather amusingly nowadays—the "Free World'', but are for some American purpose and cannot he got at without special contract with America, I think it gives an idea, a light, on interdependence.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, did the noble Lord say that? I did not understand that from the noble Lord's interjection. I understood him to imply that if Spain joined N.A.T.O. the United States would then be prepared to share these bases which they have already established in Spain with the other N.A.T.O. Powers.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: As I say, on the military question, I should have thought the answer was that, of course, for strategic purposes Spain is extremely valuable. As regards the American position, it is rather complicated, but I have read the agreement of 1950. When the Americans made this deal they never said anything about the United Nations or anything of that kind. It was a commercial deal, and I believe it was not even brought before the Senate; I think that is true. Therefore, as I say, the noble Lord has missed the bus as far as defence is concerned, because the work of value has been done.
I shall make no further references to the speeches of the noble and learned Viscount until after the result of Rochdale is known.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, so long as the noble Viscount makes any future references accurate, I shall not in the least mind whether he does it before or after any by-election. If he does not make them accurate I shall continue to interrupt.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I shall be delighted if the noble and learned Viscount interrupts. His interruptions are usually emphatic and usually ineffective.
What we are asked to do by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is to invite
670
Spain to join N.A.T.O. We are to make a demarche, or whatever you call it, in that direction. I am utterly opposed to that. I do not know what the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, is going to say, but I do not believe the Government is in favour of it. I think we should give a decisive "No" to the Motion on the Paper by Lord Windlesham. All the military help we have got. I will not mention the Blue Division. What do we get in military aid? Nothing. But what do we get? We get a pack of trouble in N.A.T.O. What do people talk about when they go to these little pacts that are arranged in order to save us from international Communism? You go to Baghdad. What are they talking about at Baghdad? How to make perfectly certain that Israel loses the game. When you go to Ankara, what are you talking about? Whether Turkey or Greece is going to get the upper hand in Cyprus. When you go to Paris, what are they talking about? Whether you can possibly reconcile the Algerian war with a proper respect for Arab liberty. That is the case, and the result is that if you would leave N.A.T.O. as a military organisation as it was designed by my noble friend, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and others in its early days, available to fight if and when the Russians attack us, that is a wise thing to do. But to have it as a committee and label it with this title which is becoming increasingly funny, the "Free World", is quite wrong.
Lord Windlesham proposes the inclusion in the organisation of a country where a Protestant cannot "legitimately" marry, where his children cannot be "legitimate" and inherit, and where he is not allowed to read a Bible which is imported into the country by the British and Foreign Bible Society. That may be quite right; it is a Catholic country. But you cannot call it a free country. You cannot be asked to introduce this as a useful element in a free society.
This is the first time in these debates that we have had the issue fairly placed before us: is N.A.T.O. something that is a sort of substitute for U.N.O.? Many people think it is. Many people were so irritated by the constant use of the Veto by the Russians because they were always in a minority, that they said, "Let us get up something where we can

671
get rid of this nuisance of the Russian Veto. Let us get up N.A.T.O. "That was when Mr. Churchill was prepared to give arms back to the Germans because he was afraid of the Russians. Then N.A.T.O. had a practical use. But now the increasing tendency in our policy—I hope this will be debated at some time—is to try to bring in this man and that man and to make the whole thing a sort of organisation which we call the "Free World," and which we really intend as some international authority which will be a substitute for the authority of the United Nations. I say that that is an extremely dangerous thing to do.
I have only one other word to say. The noble Lord quoted from a letter from Mr. Winston Churchill. Mr. Winston Churchill made a treaty with the Russians in 1942, which Treaty was denounced by them. The circumstances then were quite different from the circumstances now, but I am very glad to see that our present Prime Minister made an offer of a non-aggression pact with the Russians—an excellent thing to do. So that part which is not relevant in the extract which I am going to read, which is a weak point in my argument, is, I think, partly dealt with. But the noble Lord gave us to understand that at that time Mr. Churchill agreed to the inclusion of Spain in this crusade for freedom. I readily admit the wisdom of the then Prime Minister in saying everything that was pleasant to the Spaniards. That is quite right. But what he wrote is this—I am going to read it now. It makes reference to the Treaty which has gone. There was a long and argumentative letter, a well-argued letter, which General Franco had sent to the Prime Minister.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Which year is the noble Viscount referring to? Is he speaking of 1942 or 1944?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I think perhaps I was misheard, or I may have made a mistake. Of course, the Treaty was in 1942, the correspondence was in 1944 and it was published in 1945; that is the sequence. Mr. Churchill was writing to a man who, in breach of his oath to the Republic, had invaded his own country and imposed a dictatorship on some form of democratic government. It is nothing to do with us, but that is what he did. Ever since, from that letter onwards,
672
General Franco has said, "There is only one way to fight international Communism and that is my way." Speaking of Mr. Churchill and himself he said, "Let us go forward together" He has never swerved from that. He has always said "The way to fight international Communism"—whatever that may mean; we could take a week in discussing that because nobody knows what it means; it is a phrase—"is my way, and I invite you to join me in an alliance." Mr. Churchill replied as follows:
"It is a serious error to think that His Majesty's Government would be ready to consider any bloc of Powers based on hostility to our Russian Allies, or any assumed need for defence against them. His Majesty's Government's policy is firmly based on the Anglo-Soviet Treaty"—
and would be based on this new Treaty of non-aggression if it were passed—
"and considers permanent Anglo-Russian collaboration within the framework of the future world organisation"—
which is U.N.O.—
"as essential not only to her own interests but also to the future peace and prosperity of Europe as a whole."
It is because I believe that absolutely, and because I believe that by side-winds, by arguments this way and the other (irrelevant most of them), you are attempting to set up an organisation whose main purpose in life depends upon everybody hating Russia, that I think it is wrong. I certainly would do everything in my power to have this Motion decided by this House to-night, in order that it should not be said that the Higher House of Parliament had invited the prime leader of Fascism existing now in Europe to join an organisation which is intended to protect the free world.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me to say a few words in regard to what he has quoted? He made one or two statements which are not, in fact, accurate.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I do not object to the noble Lord's correcting me if I have said something wrong.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I know we are going back, which is what I hoped we should not have to do. I wanted to look at to-day and to-morrow, but inevitably we have been dragged back.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The House is the ruler of this place but I, personally, as a Parliamentarian never in the least raise any objection to anybody interrupting me to correct any error that he imagines I may have made.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I will give way.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, there are some questions which it is hard to discuss without a Motion. In the days of my father he used to say it was the taxation of land values, and the drink trade. Nowadays, one would say perhaps that it is capital punishment and unnatural vice. One interest in the international field which it is hard to discuss without a Motion and without delving into the past is that of Spain. Surely it is as unprofitable to quote what Mr. Churchill said in 1944 before the world saw what Russian post-war policy, unfortunately, was going to be, as it is to go back to the exact merits of the Civil War or further still.
On the whole, in politics it is wise to accept the result of a major revolution or a major civil war as a fait accompli; but, of course, it is far harder to do it if you are on the losing side. I know that my paternal great-grandfather fought at Gettysburg on the Northern side, and my maternal great-grandfather fought—at least he would have fought had he not had boils, but he fought through practically every other battle in the Civil War—on the Southern side. The Battle of Gettysburg is not in the least a vital issue to-day among my Northern relations but it is still a vital and burning one among my Virginian cousins: it is difficult for those on the losing side to accept it. That is an experience to which we in England are not accustomed, as we have never lost a major war; but surely it is a most unprofitable thing to re-fight the civil wars of the past. We may regret the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Revolution in China, the Spanish Civil War or many other things that have happened but surely it is the task of statesmanship to accept the results of those events and to hew our policy in accordance with the facts of the day.
674
One thing which I believe we did see was that, whatever may have been the rights and the wrongs of the Spanish Civil War, it was not part of a great international conspiracy but a purely Spanish affair. While both sides took help from outside, they did so entirely for their own purposes. During the last war General Franco conducted his diplomacy entirely in Spanish interests. He showed no gratitude to the Germans or the Italians when he could easily have opened his country to them after the Fall of France and made the position very difficult for our anti-submarine campaign in the Bay of Gibraltar. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, would be the first to say that had all those ports and air bases been turned over to the Germans, the task of our Navy, for which he was then responsible, would have been far more difficult. In fact General Franco did the minimum possible, as Hitler's letters and documents have since shown, not because he loved us but because he was an entirely selfish Spaniard, thinking entirely of keeping his people out of a world war after they had just gone through a civil war.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, had those places been opened up to the Germans, the strategic dangers to us would have been immense. But I think the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, does not give sufficient credit to our then representative in Madrid, the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for the very skilful manner in which he was able to persuade the Spaniards that to do so would be far more dangerous to them than to ourselves. We took all the necessary precautions, but I wish to give the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, a considerable amount of the credit for that. And let the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, not forget the "Blue Division".
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, if I may add a footnote to what my noble friend has said, I was in the Royal Air Force at that time, and I can say that every movement of our aircraft there was reported from La Linea to Germany.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I, as a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, associate myself with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of

675
Hillsborough, and say how glad I am to hear from the Benches opposite a tribute to the magnificent work done by Lord Templewood in that Embassy. We all know that a great deal of spying went on in Spain, but the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will probably admit that both sides were operating in Spain during the last war and that it was not entirely a one-sided affair.
Surely at the moment, when the strategic balance tends to have been turned against us by the latest developments of rockets and missiles, and when we need all the help we can possibly have in the strategic sphere, we must consider our strategy and our own interests as the supreme factor. Perhaps when America had a monopoly of the atom bomb, a few years ago, our need for such help was not so great; but now we need all the geographical and strategic advantage that we can possibly have. We need bases behind the Pyrenees, in case the next war should turn out to be an "old-fashioned" conventional war, because in that event the Pyrenees would become of enormous strategic importance. Then we have to face the obvious fact that there will be an American Air Force and Navy operating from Spain. Is it realistic to imagine that those forces will operate under one command while General Norstad, sitting at Versailles, is running under another command? Surely we need a united command of the entire American and other forces in Europe if we are to deploy them effectively.
Surely also we have to face the fact that there are various categories of virtue among our Allies. How do we draw an exact distinction between the system in Portugal and that in Spain, neither of which countries has what we should call democracy? We welcome Pakistan as an Ally, but they have not had a General Election for many years. We have, in part of our organisations, the Yugoslavia of Tito, yet no one could conceivably call that a democracy.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, that country is not in N.A.T.O. They have not had an alliance with us.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, Yugoslavia is not in N.A.T.O., but we have had the Balkan Pact, which has been tied up with the defence of the free
676
world, under which the Atlantic Powers have supplied Tito with a considerable amount of arms and military assistance. We all have our emotions in international affairs, and our strongly held feelings, but is it not up to both sides to subordinate those feelings to the main strategic purpose? I would ask noble Lords opposite to remember that we whose views are Right Wing put up with a great many things which we disliked intensely. None of us who was Right Wing cared to be allied to Communist Russia, but we used to hear the most oleaginous and excessive flattery of Russia poured out during the war from the Ministry of Information and the B.B.C.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I remember speaking with several Conservative M.P.'s, and the amount of their flattery of Russia simply appalled me. I was not prepared to join them.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I entirely agree. But for the sake of the common cause at that time, those of us who held that view kept our mouths shut till the war was over, because it was then important to keep Russia on our side against the overwhelming menace of Hitler. From the ideological point of view, many of us have disliked the praise given to Tito. In Yugoslavia there has been the suppression of religion and the persecution of the Catholic faith, which we dislike as much as we dislike the persecution of Protestantism in Spain. We dislike them both intensely, but in neither case is our dislike relevant. What is of the utmost importance is the strengthening of what I believe we can still call the free world against the overwhelming danger of Communism. Both sides must subordinate their own emotions on these matters to the greater necessity of the strategic strength of this country over what is the menace of any particular period in our history.
Some people may say that any move towards bringing Spain in would make it harder to get a settlement with Russia and to improve relations, which naturally every sensible person wants. I think history shows that the Russians are wholly unsentimental; they are cool, strategic calculators, who were quite prepared to make a pact with Hitler if it suited them, and are far more likely to respect and to make an agreement with a strong West. And the stronger we are

677
strategically, the more likely they are to come to terms with us, quite regardless of whether or not we exclude Spain.
Finally, there is this very important question: What is the future of Spain when the day comes that Franco retires or dies? That is the overwhelmingly important question which I think is behind our debate to-day, because if Franco retired and Spain went over to the Communist camp, it would be a major blow to the strategy of the West: their whole strategy would go. We have been told, ever since the Civil War, by our Republican friends among the Spanish exiles that if we boycotted Franco, if we kept them poor, if we made a few rude noises, Franco would fall, because he was on the verge of falling. Unfortunately, or fortunately, those people have been completely wrong. The Spaniards were prepared to accept almost anything rather than have a renewal of civil conflict and the uncertainty which would have followed the fall of Franco in recent years. That seemed to be the strength of his position: not that anybody loved him particularly, but they hated the uncertainty of what might happen if he fell.
It is surely then our major interest—and I hope both sides will agree on this—to look to the future to see what we can do to influence events in Spain so that, when Franco eventually goes, there May be a moderate pro-Western Government, whether it is a monarchy, a democracy, or moderate authoritarian régime. Our one interest is that it should be one of these three and that it should not be a Communist régime, because then the whole strategic position of France would go the whole of the attempt, which I hope is in our minds, to bring a free North Africa into the comity of the Western World would receive a tremendous setback.
We were not able to make the slightest dent on events in Spain by a policy of boycott and unfriendliness. Surely, if we are prepared to have Spain more in our counsels and to treat her with more confidence, and to have closer relations with her, we may well be, indeed probably shall be, in a stronger position to see that the succeeding régime will be one which will help the cause of the West and not the cause of Communism.
4.44 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I find is easy to follow my noble friend Lord Astor, because I agree entirely with the many points and the whole sequence of points which he raised. His principle argument, as I understood it, was that the boycotting of Franco's Government had failed and would continue to fail. It always somewhat surprises me to find noble Lords in the Party opposite expressing resentment of the fact that the, Franco régime is still in existence in Spain, because, as I remember only too poignantly, they did, in fact, in 1946 assist to keep it in its place. They did so reluctantly, I remember.
They objected to a United Nations move, led by the Polish Government—by Dr. Lange, the Polish representative at the United Nations at that time—to break off relations with Spain. But at the end of 1946 (I believe it was in December), there was an action approved by the United Nations and carried out by only three Governments—the Governments of the United Kingdom, Italy and the Netherlands—in withdrawing their Ambassadors from Spain. It seemed to some simple minds at the time that this would have an instantaneous effect on Franco; would make him want to go, and would make the Spanish people want to get rid of him. In fact, the exact opposite was the result. Franco said to his people, "They have withdrawn their Ambassadors; they will send them back in a few years' time." And that is precisely what they did. In 1947 the Ambassadors of these three countries were sent back, for no better reason than that they had been withdrawn.
I was living in Spain at the time, and I remember very well the effect these two actions had upon the Spanish people, who were not predominantly responsive to Franco at this time. They said to themselves "These highly civilised, democratic nations have decided that they will withdraw their Ambassadors from a Government which has remained less altered in the course of nine years than any other Government in Europe, and, after a year, the Caudillo tells us they will be sent back. "When, in fact, that came to pass, the reaction of the Spanish people, I assure your Lordships—and here I am speaking from experience—was, "The only grown-up

679
statesman in Europe to-day is General Franco"; and they became rather proud of it.
It has been suggested by noble Lords opposite, and I imagine that it will be suggested again by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, that the mistake of inviting Spain to join N.A.T.O. would be that it would morally undermine the force of N.A.T.O. in the world. But I am bound to ask: What moral qualification is there which allows a nation to belong to U.N.O. and which excludes it from N.A.T.O? My second question is: How much more authoritarian is the régime of General Franco in Spain to-day than the régime in Portugal of Dr. Salazar, who governs, very authoritatively, a country which is a much respected member of N.A.T.O.? That is no clumsy attempt on my part to provoke the noble Viscount who will speak next, but it is, I think, a perfectly fair question.
I well remember the days when the Spanish Civil War began. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, noted that my noble friend Lord Hastings had not carried his extremely succinct history of recent events in Spain beyond the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. I remember that beginning very vividly indeed, and I should like, in only a few words, to remind your Lordships of what happened. The highly respected and brave leader of the Right Wing in Spain in those days, Calvo Sotelo, was taken out of his flat by two members of the national police, taken down to the river, and shot. It was a political assassination by the State Police. At that time I was the correspondent in Spain of a London newspaper, and I remember telegraphing to my paper that night:
"Who can say after this moment that a Government of Spain exists?"
As a result of that message I was imprisoned three days later, when the war began with a rebellion which directly followed that assassination by the State Police of the leader of the Right Wing Opposition. I am not pretending that the whole organisation for rebellion was built up in those three days. The Spaniard is no fool and knows what is happening in his own country. The Spaniards knew that something was growing up under the
680
wing of the Republican Government which would lead to a Left Wing revolution. It was the only case I have been able to trace in history where a revolution was anticipated by ten days by a military rebellion.
I am not going to discuss intimately what has happened since that war was won. Not only General Franco but Spaniards themselves have always insisted that the war was not won by German and Italian assistance. It was won by 1,200,000 Spaniards fighting against Communism. And I assure your Lordships that in Spain that is held proudly to be true. Physically speaking, the material aid given from Russia and France to the Republican side in the Civil War was infinitely greater than the material assistance given by Germany and Italy to the Franco Forces, the Nationalist Forces, as they called themselves. If anybody travels in Spain to-day he will find that the attitude that Franco was set in power by Germany and Italy, by Hitler and Mussolini, is very much resented all through Spain.
The noble Viscount has referred to the Franco régime as a Fascist dictatorship, and without agreeing, I see his point. But Spain is not a country (I say this with deep respect and love for the country which we are discussing) that is ready for democracy as we understand it. I am not saying that the present Government of General Franco is the ideal Government, but I believe that it will come to an end; and I should like to believe that when it does come to an end we shall retain the respect of the Spaniards by having an informed and understanding attitude to them and to their problems. Between our two countries there always has been a deep and mutual respect. I am convinced that that cannot be maintained by boycotting the present Government in Spain, however much certain sections of the population may dislike it. It is there just as Spain is there.
I think that the strategic case has been argued extremely well by other noble Lords and I need not go into it. I believe sincerely that we shall lose a great deal, not only in strategic advantage but in the moral respect of the Spanish people, if we pretend that the Franco régime is not the Government of Spain to-day which the Spaniards are prepared to follow against Communism. Any

681
country through which Communism has passed is anti-Communist. I have argued frequently with Spaniards, many of them supporters of General Franco, that this régime may be breeding Communism, because whenever there is something of a crisis, the streets are placarded with notices
"Franco—Si: Comunismo—No!"
I have argued that the end of that policy may be that gradually another generation growing up, which does not remember Spa in during the Civil War and the domination of half the country by Communism, will one day say: "If you tell us that there is no alternative to Franco except Communism, we will try that." I do not believe that the best means of getting rid of Franquismo from Spain is to boycott the whole nation and pretend that it would be more of a debit than a credit to us in the defence of the West against the advance of Communism. I came into your Lordships' Chamber a minute or two late, but I heard my noble friend Lord Windlesham say that he did not know whether he could count on any noble Lords to support his Motion. I should like to tell him that he can definitely count on my support for what seems to me a most moderate Motion.
4.57 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I confess at the outset that I speak on this subject with emotions that have been roused by the opposite side. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has deplored that emotional feeling should be introduced into a matter of this sort, but it is interesting to see that the noble Lords who have supported the Motion are as emotionally engaged as anybody else and it is absurd for them to pretend that they are not. I trust that the Government will not accept this Motion, in spite of the fact that all the Conservative Peers who have spoken this afternoon have spoken in favour of it. It is important that this country should be undivided in respect of N.A.T.O., and I can assure the Government that if they accept this Motion they will be splitting the country. Labour Members regard N.A.T.O. as a defensive alliance of countries which are trying to work democracy. All the N.A.T.O. countries, from Scandinavia southwards, are countries which in their own way have free elections and govern
682
through the statesmen who are chosen through these elections.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Including Portugal?
LORD CHORLEY: So far as I am concerned I would have Portugal out. I do not feel that Portugal is in its place in N.A.T.O., and Spain is in the same position as Portugal. Portugal is a Fascist country just as much as Spain is a Fascist country. I think that we should remind ourselves of the historical origins of this situation. I accept what has been said by noble Lords opposite, that when a revolution or a counter-revolution has clearly succeeded one ought to accept the situation; and I do accept it. I am not suggesting that Franco should be boycotted or that an attempt should be made to throw him out or anything of that kind. All I am saying is that we ought not to invite that country to come into this club of nations which is attempting to work free institutions. I do not always agree with the way all these countries are attempting to work their free institutions, but I feel that they are making that genuine effort, and I do not think that anybody can say that that effort is being made in Spain.
I do not pretend to know Spain as well as the noble Lord. Lord St. Oswald. I have never been there, but I have read a good deal about it and studied what is going on. It is quite clear that it is not a country of free institutions. Take religion: is it not perfectly clear that Protestants, for example, are not allowed freely to practise their religion? I rather think that representations have been made by our own Foreign Office in respect of incidents that have happened in Spain in recent years.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, it would be untrue to say that Protestants cannot practise their religion at all in Spain. I am not justifying the attitude of Spain towards anything in particular, but there are Protestants there who practise their religion. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was wrong to say that Protestants cannot legitimately marry. He is under a misapprehension.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says, but I understood—I am willing to take it back if I am wrong—that a marriage to

683
be effective had to be a civil marriage plus a marriage by a priest. I understood that a Protestant could marry, and that Protestants were married, just as Quakers were married; but the legitimacy of the offspring was always in question unless the full official regulations were fulfilled.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, it is a rather curious alliance. In fact I left out of my speech what the noble Viscount has just said. There is not true denominational freedom. Strange to say there is religious freedom in Spain to-day, but not denominational freedom. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will accept this very unwillingly, but I know of many cases where it has been difficult, in fact, impossible, for Protestants to marry.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, cannot possibly contend that there is religious freedom in Spain in the way that it exists in this country, in France, in Scandinavia and in other Western countries.
LORD PAKENHAM: I have never attempted to do any such thing. I was simply saying that the noble Lord was misinforming the House, and I stand on what I said.
LORD CHORLEY: I do not agree that I am misinforming the House. What I am saying is that there is not religious freedom in Spain in the way that it exists in this country, in Scandinavia, in France and in other Western countries. I think that that is typical of the situation in Spain. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said that the Spaniards were saying in 1946: "Our Government is the same as it was when Franco succeeded to power: it has not changed." Another ten years later it still has not changed. It is still not a country that has free elections, and it is still not a country which is making any sort of effort to establish free institutions.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to take him up on this point of free institutions? The wording in Article II, after speaking about the free institutions of the countries concerned in N.A.T.O., goes on to say:
"…by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded."
684
Would the noble Lord say that we can bring about that better understanding with Spain inside, or outside, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?
LORD CHORLEY: I think we can bring about that better understanding without having Spain inside this small circle. I have no sort of enmity towards the Spanish people; I have a number of good friends who are Spaniards, and some are supporters of the Franco régime. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said: that a great deal of progress, particularly in education, has been made in Spain during these last years. Education happens to be one of my special subjects, and there is no question that under the Franco régime considerable educational progress has been made. But that is not an argument for having them inside the N.A.T.O. alliance. I cannot see how that forwards the matter in any way.
I was very much impressed, as we all were, by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, giving the historical events leading up to the present situation. I do not think anybody who has studied the Spanish Civil War, even those of us who were strongly on the side of the Republic, would contend for one moment that the Republic behaved with complete respect for freedom or for justice in that situation, which was a revolutionary situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, many unforgivable things were done on either side. The difficulty was that owing to exactly the present sort of situation having existed under the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera for a period of something like ten years, there were not democratic statesmen in Spain who had acquired the art of government. It is, as the noble Lord who has just spoken pointed out, exactly the same with Franco. Under Franco there has not been that freedom from which democratic statesmen could acquire the art of government or a knowledge of administration. The danger is that when the Franco régime is overthrown, or disappears, there will not be the people to take his place.
That is the danger from Communism. In Spain there is no real danger of Communism, apart from that, and it is rather absurd to suggest that it was Communism that was overthrown by Franco in the years just before the war. There was a small Communist Party, and some of its

685
leaders were in the Republican Government; but there is no evidence that those Communist leaders had, in fact, acquired a dominant position in the Republican Government, and nothing I have seen in the way of evidence has ever supported that view.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord must recognise that in the various countries now under the domination of Communism the Communist Parties were negligible before the event took place. I do not think that that follows.
LORD CHORLEY: They were enabled to seize power only as a result of the military assistance which they received from further East. But does anybody seriously suggest that that is a possible situation at the present time in respect of Spain? Of course it is not. And it can be made possible—and it is a very small chance—only as the result of the continuance of this repressive policy which has been enforced by Franco for the last twenty years. I should have thought that this was perfectly clear.
I accept the view which was so forcibly and ably put by my noble friend Lord Stansgate: that we are not here concerned with enmity towards the Spanish people, or with enmity towards the Government of Franco. If the Spanish people themselves wish to have Franco as their dictator, and wish to have these institutions, which in our view are not free institutions, then they are entitled to have them. How do we know—if they are not allowed to vote on it? I am not going to deny them that right for a moment. But what I do deny is their right to come into the League, so to speak, of people with free institutions, who have banded themselves together for the purpose of defending their free institutions. That, surely, is the whole basis of the case against this Motion; and it is that which I hope will persuade Her Majesty's Government not to accept it.
5.9 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, as there are so many people who know more about Spain than I do. I want to say only one thing—and I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, back in his place, because I think he will agree with what I have to say. In the days when
686
he was ruling this country, when he was Prime Minister in Britain, if he had felt himself compelled to take some action abroad, and in the French Chamber or some other Chamber of some of our neighbours there appeared a Motion such as follows this immediate Business on the Order Paper, he would have found every noble Lord on this side of the House and the whole country solidly behind him for any action or comment he thought fit to make. I think that is true, and I think it will always be true of any civilised country.
The point I am making to-day is that whatever opinions personally we may have of the Government and of General Franco in Spain, there is a great danger to us that every Spaniard, whatever his political complexion, will feel that Britain is unfriendly to Spain and to Spaniards by the very fact of the discomfort of our present political relations. The noble Earl, and every noble Lord on the other side of the House, knows that this is not the first time I have put this matter before the House. There is just one thing I should like to add. Noble Lords opposite have an enormous responsibility because the people in Spain who resent the discomfort of our modern relations are apt to pin their resentment on what is said by the present Opposition in Parliament on the subject of our Spanish relations. I myself feel that the whole of our future may depend on our not cutting off our nose to spite our face, and I hope that we shall take that thought in the near future and decide on a more friendly and accommodating attitude to our neighbours, even though we do not like all they think and all they do.
5.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we have had an interesting discussion, but, if I may speak quite frankly, I do not think we have had a discussion which is likely to increase the amity of our relations with Spain, as is desired in the last few remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. That is why my principal criticism of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would be that in the present state of international affairs, and with the general position of possible negotiations for a general settlement in these matters, no more inopportune time could have been chosen to raise this particular issue.

687
That is why I hope that, although there have been from the Government Back Benches so many supporting speeches inclined to be favourable to the general principle of the Motion, the Government will not be influenced by them, but will hold the proper balance at the present time with the other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries until at least the next few main stages in the development of international diplomacy and negotiation have passed. As I say, I think that this is a most inopportune time for us to be discussing a matter of this sort. That is my first reaction to the Motion.
My second reaction, of course, is that my noble friend Lord Attlee and myself, sitting side by side here this afternoon, perhaps had more to do with the actual foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation than anybody in this House, and probably more than anybody in any of the countries now belonging to it; because, of course, we initiated it. We are therefore entitled to look at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with somewhat special, and maybe somewhat jealous, eyes, to make quite sure that in its steady growth and expansion, both in the interpretation of its first foundational statements, and, what is necessary, in the changing circumstances in the world, it will at least fulfil those great principles to the best of its ability. We are anxious and jealous that that should continue to be so.
There seems to be a grave confusion—which was quite rightly "spotted" by my noble friend Lord Stansgate—in the minds of some of the people who have addressed your Lordships' House, as to what is the proper sphere for dealing with nations who have had the past and the general views of Spain or, you might say, Russia. Is their place within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which was formed for special purposes and in special circumstances, or is the place for the proper expression of their views and the development of their international fellowships in the larger world organisation of the United Nations? I say frankly that I should prefer, for the time being at any rate, that Spain's avenue for expressing herself to the world at large should remain with the United Nations Organisation.
688
Let us see a little more, by her performance at home, how far she progresses until, later on, she may perhaps be invited into the more limited society of nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and for carrying out the specific tasks of that organisation.
This debate seems to have taken a strategic turn. I wondered to myself, as I looked across at my noble friend (as I am sure I can call him) Lord Alexander of Tunis, with all his great achievements in the Army, in strategy in general and in ministerial experience, what he was thinking about the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and others on a strategic case, and whether he was not thinking that perhaps the House of Lords is not the best place to air these opinions. He and I, from different points of view, have lectured over and over again to staff colleges, and in those colleges we have had the greatest possible freedom in what we said. I believe that we must be much more careful in what we say about strategy when we are speaking in the open, public debating place of the House of Lords in Parliament. Even if I agreed with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I should not say so here. I would not say that I did agree with them; but in any case this is not the place to deal with matters like that.
It is because of the expression of these purely strategic and military views that I am bound to say that, when you come down to fighting and strategy—first one and then the other—all the way through our lives, you will find you will line up with anybody who can help you in a particular danger. You do not mind who it is. Was it not Mr. Winston Churchill (as he then was) who said during the war: "If Hitler provoked a war with the devil, I would have a good word to say for the devil". But he said afterwards, "I do not think I would necessarily have to be friends with the devil afterwards". That is how things go on.
Here we have the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, formed for a specific purpose. How was it formed in the first place? I have only one point of disagreement with that remarkably good speech of my noble friend Lord Stansgate, when he seemed—I do not

689
think he meant to—to attach the origin of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation mainly to the views that were being established by the continued use of the Veto by Russia and her supporters. That is not so.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg the noble Viscount's pardon for interrupting, but is not what he is saying a very good reason for being at least on civil terms with the devil beforehand?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am not going back into that now. All I was illustrating was that, certainly in all the wars that have occurred in my lifetime—and I am not a youngster—we have always been anxious to unite with anybody when we have been in difficulty and danger. I am not trying to wriggle out of anything. I remember saying in the debate on the Munich Treaty on October 8, 1938, that, as certainly as we were there, the way we were going on then we should be going into war; and that inevitably, from the policy then being pursued, we should find ourselves standing alone. I am sorry to have to look back upon it and find that that prophecy was fulfilled to the letter in 1940. I am not at all unaware of strategic considerations and fighting and battle considerations. I am anxious to preserve certain societies of nations set up with a specific purpose as long as we possibly can in the sphere in which they were formed.
I come back to the formation. The real fact—and do not let us mince words about this—is that the seeds of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation were really sown in the Paris Conference of 1946, for it soon became established there that there was an alliance already: an alliance imposed by the U.S.S.R. upon all the satellite States. For three and a half months they fought us in the debate concerning proper terms with ex-enemy countries, and it became absolutely clear to Ernie Bevin and myself, who were there, and subsequently to Mr. Attlee and the Ministers in the Cabinet, that that was the process which was going to be pursued by Russia in international affairs.
From that moment we set our face towards the goal of obtaining strength of our own and finding the greatest possible unity with those who agreed with us as to the future objectives in the world. That was how it was formed, through the
690
Dunkirk Treaty, the Brussels Treaty, and then, at the final stages, with the United States of America and Canada especially. Then the whole purpose of that Organisation was, first, to organise views against the kind of military position which was being adopted by Russia to pursue her political and, if you like, her philosophical views; and at the same time to see that we had such arrangements between the constituents of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as would ultimately be not entirely military but would bring them closer together in friendship and in economic affairs, to stand in general for all operations of that kind, in order to bring a real defence—not only physical defence but spiritual and moral defence—to the free nations as we knew them. That is how we looked at it then.
I am not going to deal with all the arguments used in the debate to-day; I am not going to attempt to do it. But if the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, puts the question (it was when I was outside for three minutes) as to how I compare the dictatorship in Spain with that of Salazar, I would say that I do not like the dictatorship in Portugal, but the régime there has always struck me as very much more mild than some of the aspects of the régime in Spain. Moreover, if I look at the extension of the membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in general, I think I can say that I find no addition to that expanding membership which could not be justified upon the original foundation terms of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. If you look at Greece, no one could complain about the admission of Greece. If you look at the modern form of Turkey, no one could complain about Turkey. I do not quite understand the reference made, I think by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to Pakistan. I would certainly call Pakistan a much more free nation than Spain at the moment.
Look at the other members who have been admitted from time to time. Take Italy. Reference was made by one speaker to Italy. Certainly Italy, a Catholic country, has for years had one of the largest Communist national memberships in any of the European States, but the actual fact we have to take into account is that since the end

691
of the war there has been good, Parliamentary, democratic government in Italy. I cannot find in any of those countries any real reason why they should not be included in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, with all the qualifications, or practically all the qualifications, necessary to fulfil the purposes and general foundational beliefs of the original members.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: My Lords, I do not want to cause dissension in the noble Viscount's Front Bench, but what he is saying is in exact contradiction to what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said when he talked about the "so-called Free World."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I would not accept that right away unless I looked at it again.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I said that if you admitted Franco to N.A.T.O. it would be difficult to call it the "Free World."
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: My recollection is that the noble Viscount was dealing with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and spoke of the "so-called Free World" We shall read his speech tomorow.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am quite sure that my noble friend, who was speaking extempore at that time, will see whether he has made an error.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: Perhaps he will confess, like the Chinese.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: At any rate, I have spoken my piece on the matter, and that is how it goes so far as I am concerned.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: I am not disagreeing with you.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Perhaps the noble Viscount will agree with me in the next stage: that is, that at the present moment it is not reasonable for us to take Spain into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, first, because she has not asked for it, so far as I know—I know of no request for it. In the second place, although she has certainly made a good deal of progress since the end of the war, as my
692
noble friend, Lord Chorley, said, in regard to education, I do not think she has yet quite a régime one would like to see in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in its present form. It may well be that we should remember that remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and not always be dwelling in the past. I hope that will apply not merely to Spain; I hope it will apply, when the time comes for Summit talks and for a real energetic effort for the peace of the world, and be equally true for some of us who felt so bitter against Russia, and often have since, for the way they led Europe up the garden by their Treaty with Ribbentrop in 1939. Then we had to come into the war with them in such different circumstances afterwards. Any one of these things can be put into past perspective and subjected to ruthless and devastating attack, but it applies to them all.
I would only say at this moment that to try to raise this matter for discussion amongst the nations of N.A.T.O. and put it in the middle of the negotiations which are going on in Europe to-day would be most unwise. I take note of the things that are passing. The Times this morning, in a leader which has been pointed out to me by my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, takes note of the overtures of Russia from Moscow to Rome, to the Vatican. The London Times takes the view in this leader this morning that there is nothing in that at all. But when one reads that extraordinary piece of news from the Rome Correspondent of The Times on January 24, one sees that the overtures which are being made by Russia to-day are to try to neutralise Italy from the N.A.T.O. Pact. They are trying to do a deal over the Albanian bases, provided that there is an open city for Rome and the Vatican and a fifty-five mile area all around. Mr. Gromyko follows that up by saying that he would welcome official contacts with the Vatican.
On the other side we find Mr. Dulles, who has been regarded by many—not merely in my own Party but in all Parties—as often providing obstacles to the free negotiations we all want to go on. He has said now that he does not want to press home the question of prior meetings of Foreign Ministers and the like before coming to a Summit conference.

693
At the moment the whole world is anxious for peace; the whole world is sick and tired of all this other strategic business, as we call it. Those of us who have had to deal with strategy and defence in the past know that when we are in those circumstances we have to do our duty as the present day requires it. But if, in a period like this, we cannot all work together to try to reach a situation in which strategy is not required, we are letting down not only our fellow-countrymen but citizens of every country the world over. I do not want a new subject to be drawn into the arena to-day by a Resolution of this kind, to upset what is now beginning to be a better channel for negotiation. I want to see it making as much progress towards settlement as possible. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord (whose speech I have not criticised in any detail because I have been anxious not to say things which I could have said but which would have been unkind), when he comes to reply to the debate, will see fit to withdraw the Resolution.
5.32 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his courtesy and co-operation in the matter of the date on which this debate has taken place. My answer to the noble Lord's Motion will be short, but I hope decisive.
This debate has shown how wide apart are the varying opinions in your Lordships' House on the subject of Spain's inclusion in N.A.T.O. These varying opinions reflect the feeling of many, both inside and outside this country. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, it is a subject on which strong views are held. We have heard some most interesting arguments and suggestions, and I should like to be so bold as to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for his balanced and helpful speech. I do not intend to enlarge or to comment on the varying arguments; nor, like the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, shall I go into the history of the past twenty years.
Before I go any further, I think it right that I should state the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Spain. That policy is to maintain normal and
694
friendly relations with that country. Normal and friendly relations exist on the Governmental plane. Trade flourishes between our two countries; contacts between various bodies are on the increase. A party of Spanish mayors, for instance, and a party of Government officials have recently toured this country, and Her Majesty's ships, when visiting Spanish ports, receive the most cordial welcomes. Our own fellow-countrymen and women are going to Spain for their holidays in increasing numbers, and in this way more and more people from this country are getting to know, and I hope to appreciate, Spain for themselves. Her Majesty's Government welcome these signs of friendship.
Since 1955 Spain has been a member of the United Nations and for some time she has taken part in some of the work of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, without, however, being a full member. In short, Spain is gradually becoming more and more associated with the organisations of Western Europe. We welcome this process. I agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington (who has asked me to say that he is sorry he cannot be in his place), that historically and culturally Spain belongs to Europe. Her magnificent cultural heritage is one of Europe's glories. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has asked that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to accelerate the process of integrating Spain into Western Europe by promoting her membership of N.A.T.O. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked whether the Spanish Government would accept such an invitation. I think your Lordships would agree with me that it would not be proper that I should answer that question, though no doubt your Lordships have your own opinions on the answer.
I do not dissent from much of the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, put forward—in fact I agree with a great many of his arguments. I agree, too, with many of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and, surprisingly, though I regret to say unusually, with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate about the strategic advantages of the admission of Spain to N.A.T.O. I would, however, remind your Lordships of one very important thing, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has already men-

695
tioned. For a country to obtain membership of N.A.T.O. requires the unanimous vote of all the present members. We know that the Governments of one or two countries are likely to oppose this membership. Furthermore, one, in particular, has made its negative attitude perfectly clear as lately as April of last year. These Governments are still in power; and it is obvious, I think, from the remarks of the representatives of the country of which I have just spoken, that any suggestion that Spain should join N.A.T.O. would have an instantaneous Veto from them.
As your Lordships are well aware, N.A.T.O. is at present in the process of trying to solve difficult and important problems. Here, Her Majesty's Government's view coincides, I think, with the view already expressed: that by raising this particular matter in N.A.T.O. at this moment—a matter on which strong views are held, as your Lordships have heard, and bearing in mind that only one adverse vote acts as a Veto—strains would be placed on N.A.T.O. which could do it unnecessary harm. And although Her Majesty's Government will continue to foster friendly relations with Spain, nevertheless, in view of what I have just said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will withdraw his Motion.
5.38 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am quite sincere in thanking the noble Earl who has replied, not only for his remarks but for the most reasonable way in which he made them. We have had some correspondence on the subject of this Motion, and I am glad to say that it has been conducted in an amicable manner and brought to a happy conclusion, in spite of the criticism of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who felt that it should not have been introduced at all. That is his opinion, and he is perfectly entitled to it. On the other hand, there may be some who feel that it should have been brought, and I have been encouraged in that view by the number of speakers who put down their names—not a single one of whom was approached by myself.
First of all, perhaps I may go quickly through one or two of the points which have been made. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington (who I am sorry to see is not in his place) made a most
696
attractive short speech, one which befits the holder of that famous name. He must have been thinking of his great predecessor who, if he had been here to-day, would have agreed that the support he received from his Spanish allies in the Peninsula was all-important to the, success of his armies. Then the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, urged a restatement of the objects of N.A.T.O. There seems to me much wisdom in this advice. I believe that any alliance can get out of date after a time, as circumstances change. I think that was his point and I agree with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, then gave us a most interesting account of the events of the 'thirties, leading up to the rising—an account which I am sure every Member of your Lordships' House will have been glad and interested to hear. I had no idea that the noble Lord was to speak and I was particularly glad that his speech took that form, as I believe that many who have heard it and those who read Hansard will from this evening onwards, be a little better informed as to the true events which led up to that rising.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, started to agree (and I was astonished) as to the importance of Spain, strategically and culturally. He then turned on his "big guns" and at close range I naturally winced under the assault. At this point, unfortunately, I transgressed against the rules of your Lordships' House by speaking too soon. What I was trying to say to the noble Viscount what that his case was that made by a great number of people who believe it was so—that Franco was the man who started the rising and that he put himself "in the chair" and has been there ever since. That is not true. General Franco was not even in Spain when the Revolution started. The leader in the first few months of the rising was General Sanjurjo. It was only when he was killed in an air accident, some time afterwards, that General Franco was elected. I make this point because it is quite a general misconception.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that from the beginning General Franco was not in co-operation with General Sanjurjo, who actually led the first few months of the rising, and that Franco knew nothing about this?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I suggest that General Franco knew a great deal about it, but I say that he was not in Spain at that time and was not the original leader of the rising. I am addressing myself to the facts, as opposed to the implications. At this time of the evening, to go back to what Sir Winston Churchill said during the war on the subject of our Russian allies is perhaps straying a little from the centre of the meaning of the Motion, but I am sure that the noble Viscount will agree that what Sir Winston said then on the subject of our Russian allies was said when we were in the middle of the war and they were fighting with us. Surely the circumstances then and in the year 1958—which is what I am trying to discuss now—must be totally different.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, advocated unity of all the forces of the Western world, wherever they may be, and made a case for the integration of N.A.T.O. air and navy bases in Spain in the whole N.A.T.O. picture; and I thought the noble Viscount made an admirable speech. It was obvious that he knew what he was talking about, and personally I was very interested. He mentioned the question of the importance of General Franco's eventual retirement or death and what might happen then. Franco is not a very old man, but he is not very young. I agree with the fears expressed by the noble Viscount. If it happened that a small and violent minority obtained power in Spain, we might get there the situation that exists to-day in Syria, with the defensive line, the bulwark, "leap-frogged" by the Communists. That could happen in Spain unless we keep relations with General Franco on the friendliest possible basis; and, as a start, I feel that an invitation to join N.A.T.O., whether he accepted it or not, would be regarded as a friendly gesture. The noble Viscount spoke of bringing North Africa also into the comity of Western nations; and I believe he definitely had something there.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for reminding the House of two events at the start of the rising and for his reference to the fact that much play is made of the assistance given by Italy and Germany during those three terrible years. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, probably has more direct and personal knowledge of the Civil War than
698
any noble Lord in this House, having taken part in it. It is quite clear—and this agrees with all the information I have heard on this subject—that the outside assistance was much greater on the Republican side.
If I may I will hark back again, for since these points have been mentioned I believe I am in order in trying to speak either for or against them. Without any question, the Spaniards resent foreign interference. They are a proud and rather poor people, an old civilisation. In the days of Philip II they were very powerful. One sees their resentment at foreign interference; but they welcome sympathy, and the sympathy they get will pay far better dividends than hostility. In his intervention the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, seemed to want to standardise democracy and to feel that what was considered democracy in one country should be considered democracy in others.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that Spain is a democracy?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not suggesting that Spain is a democracy nor in my Motion am I interested in that point. It is not part of the Motion. I am suggesting that it would be in the universal interest if Spain were a member of N.A.T.O. But since the noble Lord has taken me up I would suggest that when he reads Hansard to-morrow he will see that he gave the impression that what was considered democracy in one country should go for all other countries, whether Norway, Greece, France or any other. The noble Lord also spoke of the overthrow of the Franco régime, as though it was inevitable. I believe that that is doubtful. Liberalising influences are at work in Spain as progress is made. When little progress was being made at first a firmer grip was kept, but now that progress is being made the grip is much less strong, and in the Spanish Parliament to-day there is far freer discussion than there was ten or even five years ago. I am sure that those are the facts, and I believe that noble Lords on both sides of the House will agree that that is an excellent sign.
Finally, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that this Motion was a pity "at this time." I do

699
not quite know what is meant by "at this time", or what particular conditions exist to-day which make the Motion specifically inopportune, and perhaps the noble Viscount can tell me. I must admit that I cannot see what they are. The noble Viscount seemed also to advocate some kind of secrecy in our deliberations in this matter and referred to the Staff College at which he had lectured. I did the same, and I am also a graduate of the Staff College. I do not understand why there should be any secrecy over matters which appear in the Press, and nothing has been said to-day which is not within public knowledge or has not appeared in the Press. If the noble Viscount has not read of it, that is not my fault.
As was inevitable, sooner or later, the noble Viscount strayed on to the question of the Kremlin and the Vatican. That was bound to come. I am glad to say, however, that he has beside him on the Front Bench a noble Lord who can quickly put him right on matters of that kind; and in his brief intervention that noble Lord instructed him on one small point, saving me the trouble of having to do so. Finally the noble Viscount said, "We all want peace." That is accepted. Which of us in this House does not want peace? He followed that, however, by saying that "We want peace—not strategy" Does the noble Viscount seriously suggest that peace is less likely if proper defensive strategy is ignored? Obviously he does not and cannot say that. To say that "We all want peace" as soon as somebody speaks of airfields or strategy is merely to seek popularity.
My Lords, I had no idea, I may say, when I came to your Lordships' House to-day that I should receive the volume of support which I have received. Nevertheless, I shall withdraw my Resolution on this occasion. I thank the noble spokesman for his reply, his informative reply, and I do not think he has closed the door altogether. With that, my Lords, and with your leave, may I withdraw the Resolution?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
On Question (permission for leave to withdraw the said Motion having been refused), resolved in the negative; and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

FRENCH BOMBING IN TUNISIA
5.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the shock caused to public opinion by the bombing of Sakiet in Tunisia by French aircraft, with the loss of many lives, they will:—

(a) Make available, at once, such medical and other supplies as may be thought necessary by the Red Cross authorities on the spot;

(b) Ask for an immediate meeting of the Security Council to consider the grave situation that has developed between France and Tunisia which is a threat to peace;

(c) Instruct their permanent representative at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to raise with the Secretary-General the question of the use by the French Government in Algeria on this occasion of aircraft and other equipment supplied to them by, through and for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and

(d) Take an immediate initiative to open negotiations designed to secure a just and peaceful settlement of the Algerian question in accordance with the United Nations Resolution of December 10, 1957.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall be very brief. This matter is relevant to the debate that we have been having, and I received my cue from Lord Windlesham's last remarks, in which he complained that Lord Alexander of Hillsborough called this an untimely moment. I cannot imagine a more untimely moment to suggest that the Spaniards should come into N.A.T.O.
I shall simply recite the details of my Question which have been well known since last Friday or Saturday. France is a member of N.A.T.O.; Algeria is named in N.A.T.O. and is a member of the N.A.T.O. Area. France is attempting to impose a Constitution on Algeria which many of the people there do not want, and there has been a Civil War for some time. Tunis has been granted independence—I think that word will pass. Then a few days ago some Algerians, fleeing, I suppose, from the attacks of the French troops in Algeria, crossed the Tunisian border to a little town called Sakiet. They were pursued

701
by a number of bombers, and I believe that seventy-six people were injured—the figures were in the newspapers—and a certain number of them were killed. A Swedish Red Cross observer who was there has put in the evidence that Red Cross vehicles were destroyed.
This, of course, is a matter which affects the whole Arab world. Tunisia is in the Arab world. Egypt, naturally, has protested. Rabat has had a meeting which expressed sympathy with Tunis. Why I say that Lord Windlesham's Motion is so irrelevant is that he proposes to introduce into N.A.T.O. a European Power, namely. Spain, that is not acceptable to the Arab world. Spain has not only the memory of the Riff—that is a long time ago—but she is also engaged at present in some military operations at Ifni; and there is no doubt that at this moment Moroccan opinion, and no doubt the whole of Arab opinion, is extremely hostile to Spain's policy for Ifni. If, therefore, Spain were to be introduced at this moment it would add another element of anger to Arab opinion.
May I come back to the question of France? There has been a debate in France: yesterday M. Gaillard and others had a debate. There was nothing in that debate which could give any comfort to the victims of this outrage, despite the fact that there was some small talk to the effect that if civilians had been injured they would be paid. That is the situation. Then there is one very important point: the bombers which were used in this bombing were planes which were made in America and intended for the use of N.A.T.O. They went, naturally, into the French Forces. This is a very serious point, and I notice that Mr. Dulles himself, in looking into the matter, stated that he cannot say exactly what happens to the American bombers. But the fact is that these bombers (nobody questions this) were made in America and supplied by America. There you have the story: a violent attack on civilians and on the Red Cross in an Arab country; and the attack was made by a country using bombers supplied as part of N.A.T.O. equipment. We are interested because we are ourselves members of N.A.T.O. and we are ourselves members of the United Nations. What I attempted to say in my speech was that matters concerning Spain—and I am no enemy of Spain at all—were properly dealt with in the whole society of mankind.
In my Question I am really asking the Government four things. First of all, whether they will make a gesture of relief. A gesture was made instantly—I do not say for disinterested motives, but it was reported by Moscow radio on the same evening. Secondly, I am asking whether the Government will ask for an immediate meeting of the Security Council, because that is the right place to consider the situation. I understand that Tunis has made some arrangements for this to be brought forward. My third suggestion is to ask our representatives in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to find out about the use of these bombers. Your Lordships must realise what a very serious question that is. If America supplies bombers, possibly with atomic warheads (I do not say that that was so in this case, because I do not know; but planes are going to be equipped more and more efficiently with the most modern apparatus), and if individual members use them for the settlement of their own accounts with their neighbours, or with what they call "rebels", the situation is very serious. The third part of my Question is perhaps the most important of all. Fourthly, I ask that the matter should be brought before the United Nations, which is the proper tribunal to settle it.
I think, my Lords, that you will consider those suggestions reasonable. They are not put forward in any spirit of criticism of the Government, but they are put forward in a consciousness of the very serious position of N.A.T.O., and of the European countries generally, in the face of this situation. I hope that perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, will see his way to give some comfort which can at any rate avoid what is the greatest danger—namely, that this incident will be made the cause of the stimulation of sympathy ill Morocco, because then you may have the new Arab Empire extending to include Morocco, Tunisia, perhaps Libya, Egypt and Syria—from Damascus to the Atlantic Ocean. That is not impossible, though, of course, the suggestion comes merely from the imagination of an ordinary observer and a student of affairs. But the position is serious, so I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give some assurance. I know that the notice of the Question has been short; but a Question has been raised in another place on the subject; the incident happened

703
at the end of last week, and no doubt has been under constant and careful review by the noble Earl's Department. With those remarks, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name.
5.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret that owing to the very short notice which I received that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, had put this Question on the Order Paper—in fact, I saw the Question only this morning—I am unable to give a detailed Answer to his questions to-day. However, somewhat similar Questions have been put by an honourable Member in the other House, who I think has some connection with the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I hope so!
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: With your Lordships' permission I will read the Answer which was given by my right honourable friend.
Her Majesty's Government were gravely concerned by the recent French raid on a Tunisian village. They deplore the loss of civilian lives involved. We are actively discussing the situation with the French and Tunisian Governments, with both of whom we are in close and friendly relations. Our Ambassadors in Paris and Tunis were instructed to urge on the French and Tunisian Governments the need for moderation and restraint. It is true that the relations between France and Tunisia have recently deteriorated; but fortunately not yet so far that wise statesmanship cannot restore that collaboration which is so much in the interest of both countries and of all the West.
The Tunisian representative at the United Nations has addressed a note to the Secretary General which has been circulated to all members. It describes the incident and the measures subsequently taken by the Tunisian Government, and then "reserves the right to have recourse in conformity with the United Nations Charter" to the machinery provided by the Charter. I have no confirmation that the Tunisian representative has in fact requested a meeting of the Security Council. The matter was being discussed this morning in the North Atlantic Council. I have not yet received a full report of the meeting, but I understand that the French representative conveyed certain information to his colleagues.
704
Her Majesty's Government's support of the International Red Cross is by means of regular gifts which are taken into the general fund of the Red Cross and used as they think best. An International Red Cross team was active in the area at the time and in spite of damage is continuing its services. A special contribution does not appear to be required on this occasion. If the Red Cross were to make a request we would certainly be prepared to consider it further. The House will be aware that various private bodies in this country, such as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief and the Save the Children Fund, have been active in helping Algerian refugees in Tunisia and Morocco. Indeed, the Tunisian Government have recently expressed to us their gratitude for the work being done by British societies in this way.
My Lords, I regret that this reply does not answer fully part (c) of the noble Viscount's Question; nor does it answer part (d). But I am sure that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not give a full answer to this Question, in view of the lack of notice which I have already mentioned.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, by leave of the House only, I may thank the noble Earl, but I would ask him—if necessary I will put down another Question to clear up the matter—whether bombers were supplied by America and whether they have been used in this way. Is there any form of restraint on them? If the noble Earl would consider that, I will put down another Question.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I do not quite see that it is our responsibility, but in view of the noble Viscount's request for information, I will try to obtain it for him.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, we are members of N.A.T.O. These instruments are supplied to members of N.A.T.O., and only to members of N.A.T.O. Are members of N.A.T.O. not entitled to ask to what use they are put?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I have said that I will try to obtain the information for which the noble Viscount asked, but Her Majesty's Ministers in this House are not necessarily obliged to reply on behalf of N.A.T.O.
House adjourned at four minutes past six o'clock.