Sitting of 10 June 1958

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 23rd May, 1958, for the Whitsun Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.
  PENYBONT MAIN SEWERAGE BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRANSPORT BILL [Lords]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
ALL HALLOWS THE GREAT CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]
  ALL HALLOWS THE LESS CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Caravan Sites, Berkshire
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many caravan sites are in existence in Berkshire without having received planning approval; how many have received neither planning approval nor a public health licence; and how many applications are under consideration.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I understand that my hon. Friend has now received this information from the county council.
    Mr. Remnant: As I have not received this information, will my hon. Friend please stop stalling and give me the information and attend to this highly chaotic state of affairs which is doing a great deal of harm and causing hardship to these caravan dwellers?
    Mr. Bevins: I assure my hon. Friend that I have no intention whatever of stalling, as he calls it. My information is that these details have been passed to him by the county council. I might also add that my right hon. Friend has agreed to meet a deputation of my hon. Friend and certain other hon. Members on this subject.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for other Members of the House besides the

    3
    Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), who asked the Question, to know what this is all about? The Question put down by the hon. Member for Wokingham asked the Minister for certain information. The Minister's reply has been that the hon. Member has received that information from somebody else. Does that absolve the Minister from the obligation to give the information to the House?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question is one asked by a certain hon. Member, and the Answer is personal to him. I do not think the Question was so phrased that the Minister should be obliged to publish the information on a local matter.
    Mr. Remnant: As I have not received the information, unless the reason be that it was not available, would my hon. Friend mind if I put the Question down again? Would he then give me the Answer?
    Mr. Bevins: As my hon. Friend clearly has not received this information, contrary to my advice, I will very gladly give it to him.
    Mr. Silverman: Why does the Minister not give it to the House?

    Tyne Port Health Authority (Report)
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the annual report of the Tyne Port Health Authority calls for action to end the potential danger to health on Tyne-side; and what action he will take to extend their powers to remedy this state of affairs.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is aware of the contents of this report. I understand that it has been circulated to the local authorities on Tyneside, who will, I am sure, give it full consideration. The primary responsibility must rest with them, and my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be appropriate to extend the power of the Port Health Authority for this purpose.
    Mr. Randall: That is not a very helpful reply. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that as far away as the northern part of Chester-le-Street sewage is passing
    4
    every day into the Tyne, close by Gates-head, that the medical officer of health of the port has stated that the Tyne is an open sewer, and that the chief pollution officer has estimated that about twenty-four million gallons of untreated sewage is passing into the Tyne every day? Does he not regard that as a shocking state of affairs and think that something ought to be done by his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, this is a serious matter, as the hon. Gentleman says; but the position at the moment is that tests are being carried out to ascertain whether this untreated sewage can be discharged into the open sea. If those tests indicate that that cannot be done, it will rest upon the local authorities to bring in new schemes for the treatment of sewage before it goes into the River Tyne.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will the Parliamentary Secretary or his right hon. Friend make a statement about the position on the Tyne in relation to sewage as soon as he is in a position to do so?
    Mr. Bevins: This is a matter which we have constantly under review, and I would be perfectly happy to make a statement to the House at a later date.
    Mr. Randall: In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Bevins: If I may—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice has been given that the matter is to be raised on the Adjournment.

  HOUSING

    Land, Manchester
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to receive the report of Mr. J. Ramsay Willis, Q.C., whom he appointed to inquire into Manchester's need of land for housebuilding purposes.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I have received Mr. Willis's report and, in consultation with my colleagues, I am considering it.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of people in Manchester continue to live in great unhappiness, with their homes decaying around them, and that so far they regard the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to this problem as being one to put the maximum amount of obstacles in the way of the corporation solving the problem, apart from having to put the tenants' rent up?
    Mr. Brooke: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman takes a strong line against my action in setting up a wholly independent and impartial inquiry into this matter.

    Thermal Insulation
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what has been the outcome of his discussions with local authority organisations with regard to the proposals in the Thermal Insulation (Dwellings) Bill; and whether he is now in a position to make a detailed statement of Government policy with regard to this matter.
    Mr. Bevins: While there is general agreement that the aims of greater fuel economy in domestic heating and warmer houses should be actively pursued, the local authority associations thought that thermal insulation could not satisfactorily be divorced from other aspects of house building and ought not to be made the subject of separate regulations. The Government share this view.
    As my hon. Friend knows, the insulation of houses is in fact already dealt with in building byelaws made under the Public Health Act, 1936. My right hon. Friend, who has been in close touch with the Ministers of Power and of Works, now proposes again to consult local authority and professional associations on the question whether the standard adopted in the byelaws should not be raised. If it appears that the byelaw standards should be raised, he will most certainly ask local authorities to strengthen their byelaws on this point straight away.
    Mr. Nabarro: Having regard to the fact that the Measure referred to has now been before the House for six months, can my hon. Friend tell the
    6
    House how soon he hopes to complete his further negotiations with the representative bodies of the local associations?
    Mr. Bevins: I can tell my hon. Friend that our further discussions with the local authorities will start almost at once. If they are in agreement that the standard of the byelaws ought to be raised, we shall take the necessary action to that effect.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am very much obliged.

    Compulsorily Acquired Property (Rents)
    Captain Corfieldasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that cases have occurred in which local authorities have compulsorily acquired property for the sum of £1 and have thereafter installed tenants at rents of as much as 15s. per week; and whether he will take these cases into account in the course of his current study of the problems arising from compulsory purchase.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am not aware of any such case. The normal practice is for local authorities to continue collecting from the tenant, until he can be rehoused, the rent previously payable. That is what happened in the particular case which I think my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind and about which I have written to him.
    Captain Corfield: Does my right hon. Friend think it justifiable for a local authority, having paid a maximum of £3 for a site, then to exact some £28 in rent and a further £9 10s. in rates? If he does, can he say on what possible grounds the rent and rates could be right if the purchase price is right? And if the rent and rates are right, on what possible grounds can the purchase price be right?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend's Question suggested that the local authorities have installed new tenants. I know of no such case, and the case to which I think my hon. Friend is referring is one where the local authority was not able immediately to rehouse the tenant after it had acquired the property. I understand that the local authority concerned, if my hon. Friend and I are thinking

    7
    of the same case, is going into its policy in the matter to see whether it can in fact be improved.

    Rent Act, 1957
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many tenants in the London area he now estimates will be evicted in October next.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Few.
    Mr. Lipton: While the new Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill may postpone some of the evictions for a little while, has the Minister any idea how many families are to be turned out? Has not he seen the figure of 3,000 families put forward after recent consultations between the London County Council and the Metropolitan boroughs?
    Mr. Brooke: I have seen many grossly exaggerated estimates, and, as the hon. Member knows, as he was a member of the Standing Committee, there is a Landlord and Tenant Bill before Parliament at this moment which will clearly have a bearing.
    Mr. Mitchison: Does the Minister regard the figure produced by the Metropolitan boroughs as grossly exaggerated or as roughly correct?
    Mr. Brooke: I was thinking of one figure which I had seen earlier, which was later reduced by two-thirds by the same people who had made the original estimate.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to what extent the Rent Act, 1957, has increased the number of unfurnished dwellings available for letting in the London area.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Rent Act has given landlords an incentive to re-let unfurnished accommodation as it becomes vacant instead of selling it, as in the past, to avoid control, and there is evidence that this is already happening.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House, particularly those Members representing London constituencies, where this new, additional accommodation is becoming available? Does the right hon. Gentleman know what he is talking about?
    8
    Where is this supply of unfurnished accommodation to let that is supposed now to be on the market?
    Mr. Brooke: There are certainly more dwellings coming into the market—[HON. MEMBERS "Where?"]—that otherwise, but for the Rent Act, would not have been let unfurnished. There would, of course, be far more but for the Socialist Party's proposals.
    Mr. Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I must give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    New Towns
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the increasing numbers of people who are living in the new towns but working elsewhere; and, as this tendency is contrary to one of the objectives of making such towns self-contained and is leading to the establishment of a fresh pattern of wasteful travelling between home and work, if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bevins: It is to be expected that as the new towns grow in size an increasing number of the people living in them will work elsewhere. They also provide employment for an increasing number of people who live in neighbouring areas. I do not think the situation should be considered alarming.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, although it may be difficult, it is nevertheless desirable that some housing priority should be given to the workers in these towns, otherwise ultimately one of the best objectives of the whole scheme will be lost?
    Mr. Bevins: It is the general rule that the new town corporations offer accommodation to people who intend to work in the new towns, but, of course, we cannot prevent people from changing their jobs, nor can we evict them if they are already living in a new town.

    Easington
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what further detailed proposals he now has for relaxing the present restrictions on housing

    9
    construction to enable the Easington Rural District Council to proceed with its building programme, in view of the continued need for more housing in the area.
    Mr. H. Brooke: If the Easington Rural District Council wishes to make special provision for old people by building flat-lets, I will see what can be done to help them. I have already told the council this and am now awaiting its proposals.
    Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman will admit, that applies to old persons; but my Question is about the present restrictions on house building. Is the Minister aware that the present restrictions are imposing considerable hardship as well as a considerable amount of unemployment on building trade workers? Cannot he do anything about that? How long will these restrictions remain? Can he answer that?
    Mr. Brooke: At the moment, we are seeking the programme for this year, and I have given the rural district, council an allocation which will enable it to maintain its rate of building broadly at what it has been doing for some time past. At the same time, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Peterlee new town is in the area, and Peterlee's rate of completions is going up.

    Wandsworth
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses in Wandsworth he has authorised the Wandsworth Borough Council to purchase during this year; whether, in view of the fact that there are 2,000 families living in requisitioned houses in Wandsworth and that most of the owners of these houses have refused to take the families as statutory tenants, he will urge the borough council to speed up the acquisition of sufficient houses in order to avoid difficulties for those tenants when requisitioning powers end.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The council has been informed that in my opinion it will need to purchase 700 to 750 properties in order to help complete the task of derequisitioning by 31st March, 1960. I have for some time been urging the council to press on with this task.
    Mr. Gibson: While I am obliged to the Minister for his very frank statement, may I ask him whether he will press the local authority all he can to carry out the suggestion which he has made, because the situation is getting very difficult in the Borough of Wandsworth? The Minister has not replied to the first part of the Question. Have any authorisations been allowed this year to the Wandsworth Borough Council?
    Mr. Brooke: I said that I had recognised that the council had a need to purchase 700 to 750. I believe that it is in process of acquiring a small number, but on my information I should think that it was not enough. I intend to continue to watch the position carefully.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Land
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what acreage of land has been purchased in Northern Rhodesia by the Miami Estates Company.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): None, Sir; this company is not registered in Northern Rhodesia and holds no land there.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Nationalist-controlled companies in South Africa are now buying up some of the finest farmland in Southern Rhodesia and that the Miami Estates Company, which has on its board of directors, or had until recently, a South African Cabinet Minister, a provincial administrator and a Nationalist Member of Parliament, has itself bought 27,000 acres in Southern Rhodesia? Will the Under-Secretary give an undertaking that this or any similar company will not be allowed to purchase land in any of our Protectorates?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot possibly answer for Southern Rhodesia.
    Mrs. Castle: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to answer for Southern Rhodesia. I asked him to give an undertaking that these companies would not be allowed to buy land in Northern Rhodesia or any other of our Protectorates.
    Mr. Profumo: In Northern Rhodesia, South African companies in the past three years have purchased land to the extent of 12 acres only.

    Farms, Mkushi Area
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies from whom applications will be considered for farms in the Mkushi area of Northern Rhodesia; and on what conditions.
    Mr. Profumo: Anyone may apply who can satisfy the Agricultural Lands Board that he is an experienced Virginia tobacco farmer and that he has capital of the order of about £3,000 or more. Successful applicants will receive a partly developed plot on a 30-year lease with option to purchase after 10 years; they will be expected to plant a crop in the 1958 season and to follow the broad line of the farm plan prepared for each farm.
    Mrs. Castle: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, when 250,000 acres of what Mr. John Roberts has described as some of the finest land in Northern Rhodesia is being settled in this way, it is imperative that steps should be taken to give Africans financial help to enable them to start tobacco farming in what is, after all, primarily an African country, instead of encouraging white immigration, which will only make the problems worse?
    Mr. Profumo: The hon. Lady knows, I think, that the Lands Board deals with only about 6 per cent. of the total area of the territory. The fact is that Africans can obtain land in native reserves or trust land free of charge and unencumbered on far easier terms than they could Crown land.
    Mrs. Castle: Am I to take it from that reply that no African is either to be allowed or encouraged to take up tobacco farming on an equal basis with Europeans in Northern Rhodesia on what is Crown land?
    Mr. Profumo: There is no legal obstacle whatever in the way of Africans, but at the moment none of them can qualify and they are not Virginian tobacco farmers.

    African Boys, Lusaka (Sentences)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the sentences of whipping passed on Stephen Rise Mpande, Santi Meleki and Stanley Jeremiah, at Lusaka in January were carried out by instalments; and, since this is contrary to Section 27 (g) of the Penal Code of Northern Rhodesia, whether he will take steps to ensure that the law is enforced in future.
    Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member has been misinformed. None of these sentences was carried out in instalments and there was no infringement of the law.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if I have been misinformed I have been misinformed by his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, who replied to me on these cases on 24th April when I was pointing out that an excessive number of strokes was being administered? In his reply, the Colonial Secretary said:
    "At the time of the intervention eight strokes were still due to be inflicted on Stephen Rice Mpande, eleven on Santi Meleki and nine on Stanley Jeremiah."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 94.]
    In view of this, is it not clear that we are constantly being fobbed off in this House with inaccurate replies? Instead of giving slick answers, will not the hon. Gentleman get down to the job of seeing that the penal code is enforced?
    Mr. Profumo: I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not like my answers, but I have told her the truth. If she looks at her Question, she will see that I have answered it. The hon. Lady was misinformed. The sentences were not carried out in instalments. No further instalments were administered and the law has not been infringed.

    Education (Economies)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the economy measures that are about to be taken by the African Education Department in Northern Rhodesia; and what effect this will have upon the fees for boarding school education.
    Mr. Profumo: Boarding grants payable by the Department will be reduced from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. for boys, and

    13
    from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. for girls. A boarding fee of £5 per annum for vocational students in teacher training colleges and the Hodgson Technical College is to be introduced. A relative slowing down in the school building programme must be expected.
    Mr. Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman not regard this as scandalous? Would he not agree that, whatever the fall in European copper taxation, African education should never be a casualty? Will he further agree that there is need to Africanise the Civil Service and that we must educate the Africans to take their place in public life in what is basically an African society?
    Mr. Profumo: That supplementary question goes rather wider than the original Question. May I, however, say that the measures are being taken as part of a general economy drive which has been made necessary by a reduction in Government revenue largely due to the fall in the price of copper.

  CYPRUS

    Situation
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement about the future of Cyprus.
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement on the future of the Colony of Cyprus.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I have nothing to add to my statement of 19th May.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are well prepared to wait another week or so for the solution to this problem? Is he also aware that when a solution is propounded to the House there is bound to be disagreement in some quarters? Will he, therefore, consider proposing a solution that can be enforced and pursued to a successful conclusion and so end the present uncertainty?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bevan: Do the assurances that we were given before the Easter Recess still stand and are we to have a statement next week?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I repeat what I said before, that the Government statement will be made in any case not later than next Tuesday.

    Government Installations (Sabotage)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the estimated cost of sabotage committed in Government installations in Cyprus during the emergency; how many cases of sabotage have occurred in guarded camps; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend is obtaining this information and will write to my hon. Friend.

    Detainees and Prisoners (Escapes)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the last escapes occurred from Camp K, the Central Prison and other places of detention in Cyprus; who were the detainees who escaped; and which of them had escaped previously from detention, and on how many occasions.
    Mr. Profumo: As the answer is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Last escapes of detainees from places of detention are as follows:
    Kyrenia Castle, on 23rd September, 1955, the following escaped:
    Name.

    M. Kyriacou Firillas.

    Marco Kyriacos Drakos.

    Harilaou Xenophontos.

    Evangelos Evangelakis.

    Lambro N. Kafkallides.

    Lefkios C. Rodosthenous.

    Pavlos Nikita.

    Kokkinotrimithia Detention Camp. On 26th October 1956, the following escaped:

    Andreas Georghios Sophocleous.

    Soteris Y. Yiannakos.

    Andreas I. Ioannides.

    Antis G. Soteriades.

    Pyla Detention Camp. Between 13th and 16th March, 1958, the following escaped:

    Christakis Michael Tryfonides.

    Andreas K. Karios, alias Kaloyiros.

    Photios Stavros Pittas.

    Frixos Demetriades.

    Of the above, Evangelakis and Firillas have been recaptured, and Drakos was shot dead in a gun battle with the Security Forces on 19th January. 1957.
    From the Central Prison a convicted terrorist, Polycarpos Georgadhis, previously a detainee, sentenced on 24th April, 1957, 10 life imprisonment for possessing firearms and ammunition, escaped on 1st May, 1958. He bad previously escaped from Kyrenia Castle on 19th January, 1956, was recaptured on 2nd June, 1956; he escaped again from the Nicosia General Hospital whilst undergoing treatment ex-'K' Camp on 31st August, 1956, and was recaptured on 21st January, 1957.

    Murders and Acts of Violence
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the recent murders and other acts of violence committed by terrorists in Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the last two months three United Kingdom members of the security forces and eleven Greek Cypriots have been murdered by EOKA. The Turkish Cypriot terrorist organisation has murdered two members of its own community. Four Greek Cypriots have been killed in clashes with Turkish Cypriot mobs during the weekend. A Turkish Cypriot woman has been murdered in her home and a Turkish Cypriot Auxiliary Policeman has been killed by an unknown gunman. A great deal of other violence and damage to property has been done.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it a fact that a British subject was slowly beaten to death in the presence of his wife very close to a police station, and is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything is being done to maintain the discipline of the police force, to ensure that full protection is given to Her Majesty's subpects, and that law and order are rigorously maintained at this important time?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is indeed one of the major preoccupations of the Governor and of Her Majesty's Government.

  MALTA

    Constitution
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement about constitutional developments in Malta.
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement on the situation in Malta.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am at present engaged in discussions with the Governor of Malta and hope to be able to make a statement in the reasonably near future.
    Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that some of the trouble is the dependence of the Maltese on the dockyard? Will he make it clear to the House that the statement issued by Dr. Borg Olivier yesterday, in which he said that the reduction of the dockyard would cost Malta more than the £5 million that Britain has offered, is incorrect, and that it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to keep the highest level of employment in the dockyard and to develop other industries in the island?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very conscious of the importance of the dockyard, and I made it quite clear at the time that we regarded the cost of converting the dockyard, or any part of it, to civilian use as falling outside the £25 million undertaking for capital works over the next five years.

    Mr. Mintoff (Letter)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the letter from Mr. Dom Mintoff asking for a neutral United Nations commission to supervise any future elections in Malta; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Acting Governor has replied on my behalf saying that I regret that Mr. Mintoff did not avail himself of the Governor's invitation to the leaders of all parties to meet him before he left for the United Kingdom, but that the letter would be considered during my present discussions with the Governor, together with the views of those political leaders who did take advantage of the Governor's invitation.
    On the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have given today to Questions Nos. 20 and 41 by my hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams).

    Commissioner-General
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present status of the office of Commissioner for Malta in London; to whom the holder is responsible; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The office of Commissioner-General for Malta in the United Kingdom is a post in the Maltese Public Service; in the absence of an elected Maltese Government, the Commissioner-General is directly responsible to the Governor of Malta. In a statement issued in Malta yesterday, the resignation of the present holder of the post was announced.
    Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that the present holder of the office until yesterday was the direct appointee of Mr. Mintoff, and constantly made the other two parties feel at least unhappy in the statements he made with regard to their criticisms, is it really necessary now to have anybody as Commissioner, especially in view of the fact that he must act on the instructions of the Governor, who in turn acts on the instructions of the Colonial Office?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, arrangements must be made for the proper representation of Malta in the United Kingdom, and I would like to say, on behalf of many who know him and have been his friends, that we are grateful for many courtesies from Mr. Ellul in recent years.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Sewage, Household and Trade Refuse
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) to what extent municipal authorities in Colonial Territories arrange for their sewage to be treated together with household and trade refuse and made into compost;
    (2) to what extent municipal authorities in Colonial Territories recover valuable materials such as metals, textiles, paper and glass from household and trade refuse before disposing of it.
    Mr. Profumo: I have asked the Governments of the territories to provide me with the information asked for and I will write to my hon. Friend when I have received it.

  AFRICAN TERRITORIES

    Moscow Radio Broadcasts
    Colonel Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date Moscow Radio started daily half-hour broadcasts in English and French
    18
    intended for listeners in the African Continent; what reports he has had from British Colonies or Protectorates in Africa about the quality of reception and the content of the programmes; whether he is aware that this, coupled with the announced Soviet intention of broadcasting in several languages of the African peoples, is only one aspect of the fast-growing Soviet interest in Africa; and whether he is satisfied that there are adequate facilities in the African territories to counter the growing disruptive Soviet propaganda.
    Mr. Profumo: These broadcasts began on 19th April. Reports are coming in from British territories. The broadcasts follow the familiar line of Soviet propaganda in distorting the aims and achievements of this country in colonial development.
    The answer to the third part of the Question is "Yes". It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to develop the local broadcasting services in the African territories to the greatest possible extent. Much has been and is being done to provide them with assistance—financial and otherwise—and the territories themselves have also made substantial contributions. The recent expansions of the B.B.C. Service in Swahili, Somali and Hausa are a welcome addition to the local services.
    Mr. Wade: Does the Minister not agree that, in the long run, it is British policy in the Colonies and Protectorates that will count most? Nevertheless, is he satisfied that everything possible is being done to extend broadcast services in view of the importance of this medium?
    Mr. Profumo: I share the hon. Member's sentiment. The answer to both parts of the question is "Yes, Sir".

  KENYA

    Executive Council (African Members)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many elected African members of the Kenya Legislative Council have been invited to join the Executive Council; and how many have agreed to do so.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One elected African, Mr. Amalemba, was invited and agreed to join the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that this African was one of those elected indirectly by the Legislative Council, and in view of the fact that the popularly elected Africans still decline to operate the Constitution and of the dangerous situation in Kenya, where many other movements are arising and charges are being made about conditions in detention camps, is it not very desirable to meet the demands of the elected Africans?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Amalemba is a special elected member and just as much an elected African as the African constituency elected members. It is precisely the mentality which clearly still dominates the hon. Gentleman's thinking which must be eradicated if there is to be real progress in Kenya.

    Land
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what area in the Kenya White Highlands remains undeveloped; and what proposals have been considered for bringing this land into productive use.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no more up-to-date figures than those for 1954 to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 9th November, 1955. It is the Kenya Government's policy to enable all suitable land to be brought into full production, in the Highlands and native areas alike. In 1956 alone, the Land and Agricultural Bank made advances of more than £1 million to farmers, mostly in the Highlands, and since July, 1956, £350,000 has been spent in development loans to farmers under the Agriculture Ordinance.
    Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the fact that there is still very great overcrowding in the reserves, can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible for Kenya to implement the suggestion of the Royal Commission that the land in the White Highlands should be opened up for non-European occupation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think we would all agree that the real remedy—and there are no politics in this—for overcrowding in the reserves is the profitable use of the land there, and we hope to achieve this by schemes similar to the Swynnerton plan. With regard to the second part
    20
    of the supplementary question, my attitude and the attitude of the Government of Kenya to the Commission's Report is fully set out in Cmd. 9801, copies of which are in the Library of the House, and, apart from that, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that its recommendations also apply to African-owned land and not solely to the White Highlands.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Is it not a fact that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Michael Blundell, said that it would be a good thing if African farmers were allowed to farm on this white land, and why cannot the Minister support the senior Minister of the Kenya Government on this?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Blundell and I see eye to eye on this matter, which is one of husbandry and not of race.
    Mr. Bottomley: Do I understand that we have no details further than 1954, and, if that is so, why have we no further information?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have not the information yet, and naturally I shall get further information; but I thought it best to give the answer I did today.

    Prices
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what effect the recent Budget changes in Kenya will have on the prices of necessities.
    Mr. Profumo: It is estimated that the value of the commodities entering into the calculations used by the Wages Advisory Board will show a net increase of about 1 per cent.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Has the Under-Secretary's attention been drawn to the memorandum produced by the Indian Chamber of Commerce in Nairobi that the cost of basic necessities of low income groups in Nairobi will go up by more than £6 a year as a result of these changes, and is it not disgraceful that these changes should bear most heavily on the low income groups?
    Mr. Profumo: I have not had my attention called to that yet, but I will read it with the greatest pleasure.

    Manda Island Detainees
    Mr. Footasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the persons now detained on Manda Island

    21
    have appealed against their detention to the Advisory Committee; and whether he will place in the Library the reasons for their detention furnished to each of those persons prior to their appearance before the Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of the 167 detainees on Manda Island, 102 have appealed to the Advisory Committee. On the second part of the Question, I should be prepared to consider such requests in individual cases.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that these internees, or nearly all of them, have been in prison for more than five years without any form of trial, and ought not this House to know the reasons why they have been locked up for that time?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well, a summary of the evidence against them was given to everybody at the time of their detention. They have appealed to the Advisory Committee, which in all cases has recommended their continued detention. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that they are considered to be among the hard core of the Mau-Mau movement. There are administrative reviews of each case at regular intervals.

    Mr. Sowah (Visitor's Pass)
    Mr. Footasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Government of Kenya in refusing to allow a member of the Ghana Bar, who had been briefed for the defence in the trial of Mboya and others, to enter Kenya; and whether he will make a statement on the reasons for this action.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On 23rd May, two of the defendants informed the authorities that, as a result of an appeal for assistance which they had sent privately to the Political Union in Ghana, Mr. Sowah would arrive in Nairobi on the following day, and they asked for a visitor's pass on his behalf to enable him to enter Kenya to take part in the case.
    The Governor felt this was not a case where Mr. Sowah's services were genuinely required for professional purposes. Amongst his reasons were that Mr. Sowah had not been instructed by
    22
    the defendants' local advocate, who had already instructed Mr. D. N. Pritt, and had not obtained, or applied for, the Chief Justice's permission to practise in Kenya. The application for a visitor's pass was therefore refused, and in view of the resources of the local bar and the arrangements already made by the defendants for the conduct of their case, I am satisfied that they were not prejudiced by this refusal.
    Mr. Foot: Is there any reason why defendants in that case should not have been allowed to select their own counsel? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that counsel of this country freely go to Kenya and have frequently done so in recent years to appear in litigation of all kinds? Is there any reason to differentiate in this matter against the Bar of Ghana?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is just what did not happen. Mr. Pritt was counsel selected. He complied with all the requirements and no difficulties were put in the way of his journey to Kenya. I think that the arrival of Mr. Sowah surprised the defendants as much as it did the Government of Kenya. He was in no sense their chosen advocate.
    Mr. Bottornley: Does not this raise a wider question? Ghana is the youngest member of the Commonwealth and we pride ourselves on freedom of movement. A Ghana lawyer could have come to this country, and is it to be said that he cannot go to Kenya?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The action taken by the Governor of Kenya has nothing whatever to do with this particular counsel coming from Ghana. The same regulations and restrictions would apply from whatever territory he came.
    Mr. Paget: Why is that so? Why does it matter whether he is briefed or not? Cannot any member of the Bar from this country who is interested in a trial in Kenya go and watch what is happening? Why on earth is this gentleman excluded from Kenya, whether he is taking part in a trial or not?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should know about the practice in Kenya and other territories, whereby the Chief Justice himself has to give permission to practise in Kenya in the interests of the local

    23
    Bar. There are at least 300 barristers there, most of whom are fully qualified to undertake a defence of this kind. An eminent silk from the United Kingdom was asked for and complied with the requirements and is now there.

  THE WEST INDIES

    Federal Capital
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been reached regarding the capital for the West Indies Federation.
    Mr. Leatherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the official statement issued by the Federal Government of the West Indies on 3rd June stating that they could not accept the view of the British and United States Governments on the report of the joint commission relating to the capital site; and what steps he now proposes to take to assist the Federal Government.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The question of the Federal capital has not yet been decided and will be for the new Federal Government to decide. Though I am naturally sorry that they have been unable to accept, in the light of the Commission's findings, that the release of all or part of Chaguaramas is impracticable, I appreciate the restrained wording of their statement. Beyond that, I think it better not to comment while I am in communication with them about it.
    Mr. Brockway: Will not the right hon. Gentleman have to eradicate his own state of mind if he is to find a solution to these problems in the new self-governing territories? Is it not an impossible situation that this new self-governing Federation should begin without the right to select its own capital?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There was, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, a technical commission on which there were United Kingdom and West Indian technical representatives. It came to certain unanimous conclusions, which I would commend to the hon. Gentleman to read. In the light of this, it seems to be inescapable that Her Majesty's Government must make their own attitude to this report clear.
    Mr. Leather: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that the West Indies Government find themselves in this embarrassing situation solely as a result of previous action by a previous United Kingdom Government and the West Indian Government feel that we had pledged ourselves not to make a statement without consultation with them? Will he therefore make it quite clear that our only interest is to try to help them to solve this problem and not merely to appease the United States Navy?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I fully agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. In regard to past commitments, of course an undertaking was given by the war-time Government on behalf of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and as a result of commitments made all over the world we won the war. The West Indians profited by that as well as we did. I agree with my hon. Friend that our joint effort should now be designed to help them to reach a solution of their problem.

  UGANDA

    Constitution
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given to the recent demands made by the Buganda Lukiko with regard to constitutional changes in the Protectorate.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No resolution of the Lukiko recommending any constitutional changes has been submitted recently to the Governor. I understand that certain constitutional matters were considered by the Lukiko on 15th May but that no conclusion was reached other than that legal advice should be sought.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Can we ask the right hon. Gentleman to disregard the pressure now being brought on him by Mr. Sempa, the Minister of Health of Buganda, in view of the fact that he has not public support outside Buganda and that even in Buganda political parties are opposed to his suggestions?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it would be unwise for me to comment on the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

  WINDWARD ISLANDS

    Pension Increases
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) when the improved pension schemes for Windward Island pensioners, which he discussed with the Governor of the Windward Islands in 1957, are to come into operation;
    (2) whether he is aware that the matter of improved pensions for Government pensioners in Dominica was discussed between the Governor of the Windward Islands and a deputation of four of the pensioners in the latter months of 1957, and that at this meeting an undertaking was given that such improved pensions would become operative at an early date; and if he will make a statement on the steps which are being taken to implement this undertaking;
    (3) whether he is aware that there is a general opinion amongst the Government pensioners in the Windward Islands, and particularly in Dominica, that the delay in implementing the undertaking to improve the pension rates, as agreed in 1957, is due to failure on the part of Her Majesty's Government to give the necessary sanction to the authorities on the spot; and what steps he is taking to allay this disquiet by publishing among those affected the true facts of the case.
    Mr. Profumo: I have now approved further cost of living increases for Windward Islands pensioners who retired prior to the 1st January, 1952. These increases will be payable with effect from 1st January, 1957.
    Mr. Jones: May I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply? It will make some restitution for the long delay?

  HONG KONG

    Textile Mills (Conditions)
    Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now received the report of the Governor of Hong Kong on conditions in the textile mills there; and if he will fix a maximum of six working days a week for women and girls.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have not yet received it. I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on 15th May.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that last week a further four Lancashire mills closed down because they could not compete with textiles produced by operatives working in many cases 84 hours a week? If the British Government could end such scandalous exploitation in Lancashire 100 years ago, why cannot they do the same thing in Hong Kong today? How much more suffering in Hong Kong and in Lancashire must there be before the Minister acts?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member ought to apply his mind to the circumstances of Hong Kong, with a vast population on a tiny island, with a density fourteen times that of Manhattan, and the necessity to see that there is employment in that critical corner of the world.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are also large numbers of people living in Lancashire who depend upon the textile industry for their living and do not see the point or the fun of their market being taken in order to provide a market for sweated products from Hong Kong?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept the description of Hong Kong products as sweated—that is, their general description—as witness previous reports by people who have looked into the industry. I think that the House will want to await the report of the Governor, to which I promise to draw attention as soon as I receive it.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Hong Kong expectant mothers in an advanced state of pregnancy are working nine hours a day seven days a week and that the conditions in these factories are known by experts to be the very worst in Asia? In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he intends to do about it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I completely repudiate the last part of the right hon. Lady's statement. As soon as I hear from the Governor, I will acquaint the House.

  SIERRA LEONE

    Diamond Mining (Prosecutions)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the 962 successful prosecutions in 1957 under the Sierra Leone Alluvial Diamond Mining Ordinance, 1956, resulted in prison sentences; what was the average period of imprisonment; and what was the average fine imposed in respect of those not receiving prison sentences.
    Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend is asking the Governor of Sierra Leone and will write to my hon. Friend when he has the information.

  NIGERIA

    Civil Service (Report)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet considered the report on Civil Service problems in Nigeria; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume the hon. Member is referring to Sir John Martin's report following his mission to Nigeria to look into this question. As a result of his examination of the problem certain proposals have recently been put to the Nigerian Governments, and I am awaiting their comments.
    Mr. Hall: May I ask my right hon. Friend if in time he could make the report available in the Library?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. It was a confidential report to me.

    Students, United Kingdom
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Nigerian students in Britain have been repatriated during the past twelve months; and for what reasons.
    Mr. Profumo: Seven, due to mental illness.
    Mr. Hall: May I ask my hon. Friend if it is not a fact that a number of Nigerian students have been repatriated recently by the Nigeria Office in London because they have been found unsuitable to continue their training in this country? Can he make representations to the
    28
    Nigerian Government to ensure that, before students come to this country, their background and general education fits them to get the fullest benefit from the courses they take?
    Mr. Profumo: That procedure is adhered to, and my hon. Friend might like to know that the number of Nigerian students who have been affected in this way is not any greater than for United Kingdom students generally.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Beswickasked the Prime Minister to what extent the official proposals of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with regard to the appointment of an expert technical committee to study and recommend an inspection system for the supervision of any agreement to suspend nuclear tests are in accordance with the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government on several occasions; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Elwyn Jonesasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on British policy with regard to the proposed technical discussions on controlling nuclear tests.
  Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister what is his policy in regard to British official participation in the proposed Geneva Conference of Scientists representing countries who are immediately concerned with nuclear tests whose aim is to produce a report showing how far secret violations of a test suspension agreement are possible; what communications he has had with Mr. Khrushchev on this matter; and who are to be the United Kingdom scientific representatives.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  I think that the Soviet position and our own position are now quite close, and I hope it will be possible for experts to meet within the next few weeks. Representatives from the United Kingdom will certainly take part in any such talks, but I can as yet give no details.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not received any communication from Mr. Khrushchev; negotiations are being conducted with the Soviet

  29
  Government by the United States Government; but Her Majesty's Government are being fully consulted on all points.
  As negotiations are continuing on points of detail, it would not be appropriate for me to say more at present.
  Mr. Beswick: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two question? Firstly, if we come down to devising some inspection machinery for the control or suspension of tests, would Her Majesty's Government put forward as a point of principle the necessity for having directly employed United Nations inspectors as a nucleus for an eventual inspection machinery for complete nuclear disarmament? Secondly, if there is agreement on the feasibility of inspecting and controlling nuclear tests, can we take it that Her Majesty's Government will be quite happy to proceed with an agreement to suspend tests?
  Mr. Butler: That is a broader question about which there are some Questions later on the Order Paper and on which Questions have been answered before. I am answering simply Questions on these technical matters which are on the Order Paper, but in relation to the hon. Member's first point, I will certainly take note of his request in that connection.
  Mr. Mason: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that, even though Her Majesty's Government are not prepared at this stage to agree to the suspension of tests proposed by the Soviet Union, they will sympathetically consider the American Government's proposal that tests shall cease until the findings of the Scientific Committee are reported?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot go further on the general issue than the statement already made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I have answered the Questions on the Order Paper in relation to this matter, on which I am glad to say, as I have said already, that our own position is now quite close to that of the Soviet Union.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the allegations contained in the recent Note received from the Soviet Government, that the practice of Her Majesty's Government of establishing a danger zone in the central part of the Pacific
  30
  Ocean in connection with British hydrogen bomb tests was contrary to the principles of international law, Her Majesty's Government will refer the matter to the International Court of Justice; and whether Her Majesty's Government will, in the meantime, suspend all hydrogen bomb tests in the central Pacific.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." Her Majesty's Government do not accept the Soviet allegations. My right hon. Friend described the situation to the House on 16th April, 1957. The answer to the second part of the Question is also in the negative.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that both Governments disagree on this legal matter, would it not be a good thing if Her Majesty's Government were to indicate that, in agreement with the Soviet Government, they would be willing to refer it for the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice?
  Mr. Butler: I have ascertained that it is not open to individual States to seek advisory opinions from the International Court.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the finding of the 15-country United Nations Committee to the effect that the nuclear test explosions that have already taken place will produce anywhere up to 120,000 cases of major genetic defects a year, he will now suspend British nuclear tests and agree to negotiate a treaty banning tests immediately, without waiting for agreement on other aspects of disarmament.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  The draft report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on Radiation is still under consideration by that Committee and has not been published. I am sure that the House would be well advised not to take account of speculations on what the report may say but to await its completion.
  The position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the suspension of tests and disarmament was explained to

  31
  the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on 19th May.
  Mr. Zilliacus: But is it not a fact that the American Press has already published lengthy extracts from this report, including the data indicated in the Question, and will not the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government will take account of the genetic damage being done and will not adopt the position of being the last Power ready to suspend tests, showing total indifference to the genetic damage that is being caused?
  Mr. Butler: Her Majesty's Government have always given the House the information they have received on this matter and the information which they think is the best they can possibly obtain. I understand that the draft report of the United Nations Committee is likely to be completed by 1st July. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of any extracts which may be said to come from that report which is not yet complete.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will Her Majesty's Government give the fullest publicity to the number of tests carried out, respectively, by the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Butler: We have already indicated that the U.S.S.R. concluded a very large series of tests before making its recent announcement.

  SWALLOW AIRCRAFT (PROJECT)
  Mr. Peytonasked the Prime Minister if, in order to keep the development of the Swallow project in this country, he will now review the decision of the Government to discontinue support for this project.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply said on 22nd May during the debate on the aircraft industry.
  Mr. Peyton: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give this matter his further consideration, as it is a quite unique project which may have untold influence on
  32
  the future of British aviation? Will he generally review the arrangement which now exists for bringing this kind of project to the notice both of the military and the civil users at a very early stage?
  Mr. Butler: It is quite clear from a study of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply on a previous occasion, and from Answers already given, that we are clearly aware of the importance of this invention. Naturally, I will reply to my hon. Friend by saying that it would be very wrong not to watch these future developments with every intention of making all the use we can of the advance of science.
  Mr. Beswick: Does the Lord Privy Seal remember that in the debate to which he has referred the Minister said that he had asked the company concerned to submit further proposals? Have they done so and, if so, what consideration has been given to them?
  Mr. Butler: I have nothing further to say on that point, although I remember it being said by the Minister.

  RADIATION HAZARDS (DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY)
  Captain Pilkingtonasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that medical diagnostic radiology is responsible for about 22 per cent. of natural radiation and that nuclear fall-out from hydrogen bombs is responsible for about 1 per cent., what representations he has received for mitigating the possible dangers of medical diagnostic radiology.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  The Medical Research Council's report on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations recommended a review of present practice in diagnostic radiology, and a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Adrian is at present engaged in such a review.
  Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend explain why it is that campaigners for nuclear disarmament and certain hon. Members opposite appear to concentrate on the 1 per cent. and ignore the 22 per cent.? Are they really concerned with radiation, or is this a Left-wing political stunt?
  Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend has done a service in drawing attention to the potential dangers of this type of radiation. To get an exact appreciation, however, we should await the report of Lord Adrian's Committee.
  Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the recent overtures of the American Government to the important proposals of the Soviet Government are a Left-wing stunt?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Butler: I have said before at this Dispatch Box in answering Questions of this sort that I find it quite sufficient to answer on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the preparations for the proposed Summit Conference.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister when he expects to be in a position to announce the date of a Summit Conference of heads of Governments.
  Mr. Elwyn Jonesasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations with regard to the holding of summit talks.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  The talks between the three Ambassadors in Moscow and Mr. Gromyko are continuing. We have agreed with the Soviet Government that they should be confidential. All I can say, therefore, is that some progress has been made. It will be for the Foreign Ministers, when they meet and if they conclude the preparatory work to their satisfaction, to make further arrangements for a summit meeting.
  Mr. Henderson: Despite the pessimistic statement made by Mr. Dulles last week, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether we can take it that it remains the view of Her Majesty's Government that the proposed Summit Conference should and will take place well before the end of this year?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot give a date, of course, because that is precisely what
  34
  is being discussed. The first thing I can say is what the Prime Minister himself said that the future of the Summit Conference depends on two things: First, on the work which the Ambassadors are now doing and, second, on us all being able to feel that we can have a meeting with some reasonable chance of progress. As my right hon. Friend said, we do not want a Summit Conference which has no results and leads not to the removal of tensions but to their acceleration.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Whilst there is undoubtedly something to be said for secret talks at this stage between the Ambassadors and the Soviet Foreign Minister, can the Lord Privy Seal give us any indication of when this series of discussions is likely to be concluded?
  Mr. Butler: Between them the Ambassadors have had six meetings with Mr. Gromyko since the talks began. I cannot give an actual date as to when they will be concluded, but I feel certain that the present activities of the Prime Minister, and recent developments, will not mean that they will go any slower.
  Mr. Swingler: Did I understand the Lord Privy Seal to say it is the aim that the present discussions should lead to a date for the Summit Conference, or is it still proposed that there should be a Foreign Minister's meeting before the Summit Conference and that it should be left to the Foreign Ministers to decide the date of the summit meeting?
  Mr. Butler: As I said in quoting the Prime Minister and in my original Answer, it will be for the Foreign Ministers, when they meet and when they have concluded the preparatory work to their satisfaction, to make the actual arrangements, which include the date.
  Mr. Bevan: Are we to understand that the decision as to whether there will be some reasonable hope for an agreement at the summit will be decided by the Foreign Ministers' meeting and not by the Ambassadorial meetings?
  Mr. Butler: That is as I stated in my Answer.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is it possible or expedient for the right hon. Gentleman to give some indication of the nature of the difficulties which may be standing in the way of these talks, if any?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. As I said in my original Answer, it has been agreed that the talks should be confidential.

  GENERAL DE GAULLE (PRIME MINISTER'S MESSAGE)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister why he sent a message of congratulation to General de Gaulle on his investiture as French Prime Minister.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister why, in view of the circumstances in which General de Gaulle acceded to power, he considered it desirable to send the General a message of congratulation couched in the particular terms used.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend's message to the Prime Minister of France was designed to accord with the spirit of friendship between this country and France.
  Mr. Swingler: Are we to take it that it is now routine custom for the Prime Minister to send a message of congratulation to all incoming Prime Ministers? Whilst nothing can, of course, change General de Gaulle's historic reputation as a great war leader, is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that he came into power as the result of a blackmailing threat of armed rebellion and immediately sent the French Parliament packing? How do congratulations serve the interests of either discretion or democracy?
  Mr. Butler: I think there is nothing unprecedented or improper in the Prime Minister sending a message of congratulation to another Prime Minister, nor can I find anything that is open to criticism in the terms of my right hon. Friend's message. In fact, so much so, that although the messages have been published, if it will suit the House, I will arrange for them to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend know if the Leader of the Opposition has yet sent a telegram of congratulations to his Socialist confrères in General de Gaulle's cabinet?
  Mr. Zilliacus: Whilst appreciating the desirability of maintaining the best possible relations between this country and France, would it not have been desirable, if a special message had to be sent, to indicate that the people of this country would look with disfavour upon the French Republic being subverted by Fascism and by rebellious generals?
  Mr. Butler: I am not aware that such an interpertation would be accepted even by General de Gaulle himself.

LONDON OMNIBUS DISPUTE
Mr. Robens(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he had any statement to make in connection with the present London bus dispute.
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): Before the House rose for the Whitsun Recess I invited representatives of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the London Transport Executive to have separate talks with the Chief Industrial Commissioner on Wednesday, 21st May, to see if there was then sufficient common ground on which the parties might get together with a view to reaching a settlement. As a result of this, the parties met on the 23rd but were unable to find a basis on which negotiations could be resumed.
On Thursday, 29th May, the Trades Union Congress approached me and I met their representatives. This discussion was followed by their meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport on 30th May.
The Trades Union Congress deputation urged that negotiations should be resumed, on the understanding that the workers excluded from the arbitration award should be included in the negotiations.
The Prime Minister said that he was not prepared to bring pressure upon the Transport Commission or the London Transport Executive to alter their present position. Nevertheless, he felt that the sensible course would be for the two sides to discuss ending the strike on something like these terms:

1. The acceptance of 8s. 6d. for the Central London busmen.

2. The inclusion of the Green Line men in this settlement.

37

3. That negotiations should take place between the London Transport Executive and the Union in order to fix definitely the date for the review of the remaining men not included in the award.

As a result of the Trades Union Congress mediation, talks were resumed on 31st May between the London Transport Executive and the Union on the basis suggested by the Prime Minister. The talks continued on 1st June, but then broke down. The Trades Union Congress again saw the Prime Minister on 4th June and, following upon further discussions on the Trades Union Congress General Council, an invitation to further talks was issued by the London Transport Executive; these talks took place on 5th June, but again broke down.
The Government are, naturally, anxious to see an end to this unhappy dispute, but there does not seem to be any immediate prospect of a resumption of negotiations.
Mr. Robens: I think that the House and particularly the users of London buses will be extremely disappointed with the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. While he concludes by saying that the Government would like to see a resumption of negotiations, does he not feel that the time has arrived, in view of the narrowness now of the disagreement between the parties, for him to try once again to act as a mediator in the dispute? Does he not think it is clear that the small differences which remained in the direct negotiations can, possibly, be finally settled only by a form of mediation? Therefore, would he not consider it worth while at this stage to act as a mediator in the dispute between the two parties?
Mr. Macleod: Nothing in my statement excludes that, but it makes it clear that there have been a great number of interventions of one sort and another. The parties have been brought together on three or four occasions. I genuinely regret that a basis of settlement was not secured in the way outlined, or something near the way outlined, by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made it clear then that he did not feel it right—he said this in response to the T.U.C.—to ask the London Transport Executive to go beyond its stated position. That, of course, is the present position.
38
As to the future, the fact that at the moment no negotiations are taking place does not mean that negotiations will not take place. Of course they will, though at present it is hard to see exactly how they will be resumed.
Mr. Robens: I think that the right hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstood the point that I was making. There have been direct negotiations as the result of the various interventions which have taken place, and they have failed. There is now a very narrow difference between the parties. The suggestion that I am making is that the difference would, possibly, now best be settled under the chairmanship of a mediator with the two parties present, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether, in these circumstances, he feels that he could provide such a mediator to try to settle the final small difference that lies between the two parties in view of the fact that direct negotiation between the two parties have failed to bring about a settlement.
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. As I said, I myself do not think that at this moment a settlement would follow from such a bringing together as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We have succeeded three times, or perhaps more than that, in bringing the two parties together, so far without success. I am bound to say that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the differences are narrow. The differences are still very serious indeed.
Mr. Gibson: Will not the Minister start a fresh initiative to try to get the two parties together? Surely it is unfair to say that the Government think that the London Transport Executive ought not to move from the position which it took up, but expect the Union to move. The Minister knows that the two parties got very close to an agreement. It seems to me, and, I suggest, to the public of London generally, who, I believe, are behind the busmen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that it is the duty of the Government not to cease trying to bring the two sides together and to produce a settlement, which, it seems to most of us, ought to be easily possible.
Mr. Macleod: I have not ceased trying. It is a fallacy to assume that because negotiations are not taking place

39
there are not contacts between my Ministry and the two sides. Anybody who knows anything about industrial relations knows that contacts go on all the time. The London Transport Executive, first by including the Green Line men in the offer, secondly by offering a review first in the autumn and then bringing it forward to the summer and to July, and, finally, in giving what I called in a speech last night a wide and generous interpretation of the Prime Minister's third point in relation to the review, has itself moved a very long way indeed.
Mr. Mellish: Prior to the Recess the Minister conceded that a very difficult situation existed vis-à-vis the relationship between the nationalised industry, the unions, and the Government, and admitted that it is a problem which has to be faced some time in the future. Meanwhile, the dispute is going on. I suggest to him that as the Government are so very much involved in the reasons for the dispute, special action ought to be taken by him and his Department to solve it. Will he please make arrangements to call these people together to try to sort out the problem now?
Mr. Macleod: If I thought that it would result in a solution, I would do so.
With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am content to leave it to the people of this country to judge where the responsibility for the strike lies.
Mr. W. Edwards: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Prime Minister's proposals, in which it was said that the Government agreed to the arbitration award plus an allowance for Green Line drivers and a review of the position of the other men concerned in the pay claim, is it to be understood that no steps will be taken to solve the dispute unless the Transport and General Workers' Union agrees to the Prime Minister's proposal? If that is the case, is it not a sheer case of the disruption of collective bargaining as it has existed in this country for years?
Mr. Macleod: It would be equally easy to put the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question precisely the other way round and ask whether there can be a
40
settlement only if the London Transport Executive agrees in full to the union's claim. That is not the position. The position is that negotiations which were patiently achieved have broken down, and that has happened on three or four or five occasions. The parties will, of course, again come into negotiation, and when they do I shall be very happy to see it, but I cannot see that a resumption of the negotiations would be fruitful at the present time.
Mr. Shinwell: Assuming that there are faults on both sides—on the side of the Transport Executive and the busmen's union—is there not some responsibility resting on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman? Is he not concerned with the convenience of the general public—[HON MEMBERS: "The busmen are not"]—I am saying, assuming that there are faults on both sides, is it not the responsibility of the Government, in the interests of the general public, to try to bring the dispute to an end? Although there may be a certain amount of amour propre or face-saving, is it not desirable, in the interests of those who are concerned and who have to walk and who wish to use public transport, that the Government should seek some form of mediation?
Mr. Macleod: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not interested in the personalities of this dispute and I have made no reference to them in my statement or speeches about the dispute. I have done that quite deliberately. I certainly accept that the Government, and the Ministry of Labour in particular, have some of the responsibilities outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. It is merely a question of how those responsibilities can best be discharged.
As my statement made clear, on many occasions the parties have been brought together, but the immediate present position, following on the latest breakdown of negotiations, does not seem to me to be one in which I can helpfully intervene at this stage.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not the case, nevertheless, that throughout the whole of the dispute the Minister of Labour and the officials of the Ministry of Labour have not participated as mediators? Is it not a fact that, although there have been direct negotiations, there has been no attempt

41
to find a formula to settle the dispute? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the difference between the two sides now is certainly no greater than the difference, for instance, between the railway union and the Transport Commission a few weeks ago?
In those circumstances, would it not be worth while inviting the Chief Industrial Commissioner to meet both sides to see whether he could not find a formula to close the gap, so that the great inconvenience and discomfort being suffered by the general public could be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Macleod: As the Leader of the Opposition will remember, I said in response to an earlier question that I did not exclude that. These things are always a matter of timing. The intervention which I made immediately before Whit-sun did not, in the end, prove successful, although it seemed at the time that that was a suitable time to try to move. My officials and I have tried, by bringing the parties together in the one instance and by meeting the T.U.C. in another and by being closely concerned with other meetings, even if not physically present, to do what we could to bring the sides together towards an honourable settlement. I believe that an honourable settlement, in the interests of all those in the transport industry and all those who use transport, can be achieved on something like the principles laid down at No. 10 by the Prime Minister to the leaders of the T.U.C.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We cannot carry this matter further today.
Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Sir. Are we not to have a statement about the docks dispute?
Mr. Speaker: I have not had any notice of a statement about the docks dispute. I had notice of the Private Notice Question of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), but that was concerned solely with the bus strike.
Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order. Is it not typical of the ineptitude of the Government that we have a strike at the docks involving—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot raise that matter now.

COAL SUPPLIES AND PRICES (DECONTROL)
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Government have now decided that the statutory control of house coal supplies and prices, which has been in existence ever since the beginning of the war, should be brought to an end at an early date.
The restoration of free competition and freedom for the householder to buy from any merchant should encourage producers and distributors to offer the public the qualities of coal they need at the most competitive prices. With the ending of control, administrative expenditure of nearly £1 million a year will be brought to an end.
In reviewing the question of decontrol, the Government have been materially helped by the Report of the Robson Committee on Coal Distribution Costs, which has been published today and which is now available in the Vote Office.
I would like to take the opportunity of thanking Sir Thomas Robson and his colleagues for a Report which provides detailed and authoritative information about the organisation and economics of coal distribution. The Committee has made a number of recommendations which the Government will consider in consultation with those concerned.
My noble Friend proposes to have immediate consultations with the National Coal Board, the merchants, the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, and the local authorities to ensure that the transfer from control to free competition is effected smoothly.
The Government have it in mind to end the control about the middle of July. Control of the prices of coke and manufactured fuels would end at the same time.
Mr. Robens: Everyone will welcome the announcement that after nearly twenty years coal rationing is now to end, but we shall have to see what happens, whether the Minister's prophecy, that free competition will deal effectively

43
and properly with prices, comes about. We join in thanking Sir Thomas Robson for the Report and at some stage we shall probably want to discuss it.
Now that the control of house coal supplies and prices is to be discontinued, does that also mean that the prices charged by the Coal Board are now to be settled by the Board and not made under the usual arrangements between the Minister of Power and the Board?
Mr. Maudling: The prices charged by the Coal Board to the merchants will be settled under the same procedure as prices charged by the Coal Board generally; in other words, what is known as the "gentlemen's agreement".
Mr. Robens: Does that not mean that under this new freedom which the Minister is imposing on the industry the Coal Board is to be the prisoner in this matter while the distributors will be entitled to charge what prices they like for the qualities they offer? In view of the shortages of many qualities of coal which are widely in demand, will not the Coal Board probably have to offer coal at prices at which it ought not to offer such coal, while the retail distributors will be able to take advantage of the shortages to ask any prices they like?
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has not observed that, while the Coal Board is a monopoly, the distributors will be subject to keen competition.
Mr. Nabarro: While warmly congratulating my right hon. Friend from this side of the House on his long overdue statement on the end of coal rationing, may I ask whether he can give the House an assurance that the additional supplies of large coal which will be necessary will not mean any resumption of the imports of American coal?
Mr. Maudling: It is certainly not my noble Friend's intention to resume the importation of coal. One of the reasons
44
why this move is possible is that the Coal Board has been successful in checking a decline in the relative proportion of large coal mined. In fact, there has been a slight increase. It is most important that that improvement should be maintained and my noble Friend is confident that it will be maintained.
Mr. Robens: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about the allocation of scarce qualities of coal for the domestic market, since he has now said that the Coal Board will not be a free agent in this matter?
Mr. Maudling: That will remain in the hands of the Coal Board, which will allocate scarce grades and qualities of coal as it considers right. It will make it a condition of contract with the merchants that the coal so delivered by the Board shall be distributed within certain areas, so that the distribution over the country of the various types of coal will remain the responsibility of the Board.
Mr. Blyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prices policy and the "gentlemen's agreement" and the relationship of the Minister and the Board have been considered by a Select Committee, which unanimously recommended that the present "gentlemen's agreement" should be abolished and made other recommendations about the Board's future prices policy? Has any consideration been given to the recommendations of that Select Committee?
Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. The recommendations of that Select Committee were carefully studied, but so long as the "gentlemen's agreement" remains in being it must apply to house coal as well as to other coal.
Mr. Gibson: Does what the right hon. Gentleman has said imply that the present elaborate arrangement, by which distributors are guaranteed a certain amount of profit, will also go?
Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. That is one of the main purposes of the exercise.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1958–59, AND MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1958–59
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the following services connected with Disarmament, namely:—

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1958–59, AND MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1958–59

    £

    Class II, Vote 1 (Foreign Service)

    …

    10

    Ministry of Defence

    …

    10

    Total

    …

    £20

  DISARMAMENT
  3.50 p.m.
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I must confess at the outset that I rise to open this debate with a very considerable sense of inadequacy. The issue that is raised here is so profound and so complicated, involving so many nations and so many aspects of human behaviour, that I feel entirely incompetent to be able to discuss the question in the way that I should like. All I can say in justification is that a very long study of the documents concerned convinces me of the equal inadequacy of everybody who has been dealing with the question before.
  It is very difficult indeed to disentangle any sequential thread from the various sub-committees, semi-secret and secret, the various speeches and documents, the discussions in the United Nations, letters from statesmen, speeches in this Chamber and demonstrations in different parts of the country. I would, therefore, ask the indulgence of the Committee if I try for a moment to get away from the documents—though I shall return to some of them later—and to consider the argument as it seems to me to be developing.
  There were many discussions and commissions on disarmament before the war and they almost invariably broke down—
  46
  I think that is the expression—upon a failure to reach agreement as to which in the discussions should come first: the abolition of arms as a means of removing fear, or the abolition of fear as a reason for removing arms. There was what I think was called the "French thesis." that it was quite impossible to expect nations to disarm themselves if they still felt afraid; that the organisations of the world would have to provide a sense of security for the nations before they would agree to give up weapons of defence.
  There were those who argued, on the other hand, that the existence of the great war machines in themselves created fear and made war inevitable, and that, therefore, it was essential to try to reach agreement about disarmament in order to bring about a cessation of what many felt to be the principal cause of war—the existence of these great, expensive and growing war machines. But, on the whole, in the years between the wars the French thesis won the day. It did so because of considerations of great antiquity as between citizens inside countries and as between nations themselves.
  Arms have never been given up unless people first of all felt that they would be safe without them. The evolution of the legal system inside nations has gone on on the assumption that private citizens cannot be expected to surrender any means of personal self-defence unless the legal institutions could give them protection. Indeed, over and over again, when those institutions have broken down, the private citizen has resorted to private defence.
  There has always been the feeling—whether it is based on rational considerations or not it is of considerable antiquity—that until the institutions of law can get behind the backs of individuals and protect them from the assassin, they will try to protect themselves. The same considerations have applied between nations. So long as nations felt that they were not safe; so long as they felt that they might be the victims of aggression, they were not prepared to give up the means of defence.
  It is perfectly true that between the war years those means of defence were beginning to generate their own causes of fear. But, nevertheless, as I said earlier, the balance of argument came down on the side of the French thesis. It was not

  47
  the argument that, by the maintenance of defence weapons, war could be avoided. It was the argument that people could not be persuaded to surrender the weapons until they felt safe. It is my view that the failure to reach agreement within recent years is due to the fact that it has not been recognised that a complete change has taken place in the relations which were reached in the old argument.
  I believe that I shall be saying what most hon. Members opposite will agree with when I say that the character of the modern weapon has changed the nature of the argument. I believe it true to say that at present the principal cause of fear in the world arises no longer from ancient antagonisms between nations, but from the deadly character of the weapons now in the possession of the great Powers.
  To try to emphasise and to underline that, may I say one thing more? It was possible to say—in fact, it was said—that the arms that nations possessed could, in the last resort, be a means of arbitration between nations. Deadly though they were, expensive though they were, vicious though their consequences were, nevertheless, it was felt that in the last resort it was better to resort to them than to put up with intimidation, or injustice or oppression. In other words, it was still felt that nations could afford to invest in arms for their prestige and protection. Hon. Members must recognise that that is no longer the case.
  It is no longer the case that any one of the major Governments believes that any quarrel exists between them that would justify the cold use of existing machinery of war. The means of defence have outrun the need for defence. It is impossible to conceive—I challenge any hon. Member of this Committee—of any difference of opinion, of any injustice, of any cause, that would justify the unleashing of the hydrogen bomb today. It is impossible to say—I confess that it has been said so often that even as I am going to say it I am getting tired of the cliché—that the hydrogen bomb is a means of national defence. No weapon whose use would result in universal destruction can be regarded as a weapon of defence.
  I am quite certain that hon. Members opposite take the same view about that as
  48
  do hon. Members on this side of the Committee. They do not contend now that it is a weapon of defence. Its justification has been that it is a deterrent. But it is no longer a method of defence. Its consequences are too appalling. Nevertheless, though it is no longer a method of defence, it is a method of coercion.
  There was a British economist called Hawtrey, a Treasury economist, I think, who wrote a book, in about 1933 or 1934, in which he said that when a nation felt that its diplomatic influence was less than the essence of its own striking power it went to war. For the very good reason that any further expenditure on arms from that point on would be a waste of money, it went to war to re-establish its diplomatic influence. That was the old logic, and it applied.
  No one can say that, as a means of diplomatic coercion, the modern war machine is of any use. One cannot very well say to the chap on the other side of the table that, if he does not agree, one proposes to commit suicide—only here it is called universal murder. It is neither a weapon of defence nor a means of diplomatic influence. The old relationships have completely changed. Our thinking has not followed the change. We still adapt a policy which confuses them both, as I shall try to show. In other words, we do not say here that we must consider arms separately from policy. That is what we should say if what I am contending is correct, that the modern war machine in the possession of the great Powers is neither an instrument of defence nor an instrument of diplomatic influence.
  We should go on to say that we should consider disarmament on its own merits, quite independently of political policy. If political policy cannot be effected by the existence or the use of the arms, it is confused thinking to imagine all the time that one cannot start to disarm so long as certain political injustices exist. Yet that is precisely where the Western Powers have put themselves. For example, there was President Eisenhower's statement in Paris on Tuesday, 17th December last year, at the N.A.T.O. Conference. He said:
  "We cannot ignore the fact that arms reduction has rarely occurred in the face of acute political tensions and of international injustices."

  49
  That states the old argument I was putting just now, that people will not disarm so long as they feel a sense of injustice.
  President Eisenhower went on to say:
  "One such injustice afflicts one of our N.A.T.O. members, the Federal Republic of Germany."
  What does the association of those two arguments mean, except confusion? The confusion would not be so important if it did not lead to infirmity of decision or wrong decision. The President said, of course,
  "I should like to reiterate most solemnly our abiding determination that Germany shall be peacefully united in freedom."
  All right. If that be the case, why talk in the first part about arms in relation to German reunification? Which leg does he want to stand on? Is there not here a clear revelation of the failure to recognise that, the character of arms having changed, we should not seek to think of them as a means of effecting political settlements, but separately? Both are joined in the same mind. Thus, we are left with the assumption all the while that the arming of the West is not only for the purposes of deterrence but for the purpose of coercing the Soviet Union to agree to a solution of the German question.
  If hon. Members deny that, I will go on to quote from the letter of the Prime Minister to Marshal Bulganin, in June last year:
  "Unfortunately, your views on partial disarmament appear to differ in certain respects from my own. For example, you propose immediate full-scale reductions in the armed Forces of the major Powers"—
  Listen to that. The right hon. Gentleman says:
  "You propose immediate full-scale reductions"—
  What a naughty thing to do. That is what I thought we were seeking to do—
  "down to levels that were originally suggested for the final stage of a comprehensive plan."
  Apparently, Marshal Bulganin's offence was that he wanted to hurry up; he was telescoping the two stages. However, that is not the main point I wish to make.
  "But you must be aware",
  went on the Prime Minister,
  "that the United Kingdom could not support these very extensive reductions in Western defences without also being assured of parallel settlements in the political field."
  This is characteristic confusion.
  50
  If the thesis I am trying to lay before the Committee is correct, that nuclear weapons are not instruments of diplomatic influence or effective means of defence, what is the good of trying to associate them with the practicability of political settlements, unless they are considered to be a sanction in the background, in the final resort?
  Sir James HutchisonI am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for interrupting him so early in his speech, but it seems to me that his whole approach is based upon a fallacy, in the sense that nuclear weapons as a deterrent are weapons of defence. Take them away, and what happens to one's defence?
  Mr. Bevan: If I may say so, that is an illogical position. One can argue that we should have nuclear weapons in order that the other fellow might be deterred from using them. In that sense, they are preventive weapons. But it is surely a curious use of the word "defence" to say that one can then resort, in defence, to the use of a weapon which destroys everybody. The illogicality lies with the hon. Gentleman. I am always prepared to give way, as, I think, hon. Members know, but I think that interventions ought to be used not for the purpose of continuing the argument—that is the purpose of some other speech—but for the purpose of explanation.
  I really want to try to insist upon my main point, which is this. If it be the fact that the existence of the hydrogen bomb or the existence of these great war machines cannot be considered as a sanction in order to bring about a political settlement, why does the Prime Minister associate the settlement of the German problem with disarmament? That is what the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) and his hon. Friends opposite have to answer. What is the purpose of saying, in effect, that disarmament cannot proceed beyond a certain stage unless there is a German settlement, unless the arms are considered as a sanction in the final resort if a settlement is not reached? That is our approach.
  Our view is that hon. Members are confused. They are trying to run the two old arguments. They are arguing all the time, if not explicitly then implicitly, that the old situation still exists, that the

  51
  character of the modern war machines still enables them to bring about political settlements either by war or by the threat of war. They run both together. That is what President Eisenhower did and that is what the Prime Minister did. Our view is entirely different.
  We have said—we said it last July in Vienna and we have said it over and over again in the House—that, in our view, disarmament must now be considered as a separate issue, that the danger facing mankind, not to speak of the awful material consequences of trying to maintain these vast war machines, is such that disarmament can now, for the first time—I ask hon. Members to remember that I concede that point—both physically and psychologically be separated from political settlements between the great Powers. I admit that it is the first time. The situation is so novel that we have not adjusted our minds to that fact. We still, therefore, consider the existence of the war machine as a way of establishing the settlement of grievances.
  It has been said by hon. Members opposite on many occasions that it is not only for this purpose that we are arming the Germans or insisting upon relating political settlements in Germany with disarmament, but also because we wish to increase the Western defences by joining the German armed forces with them. That is an argument which, as hon. Members know, I do not share. I have never held that the rearming of Western Germany is a source of strength to the Western Alliance. I have always taken the opposite view. I have taken the view that the sense of security in the Western world does not grow as German strength grows—it lessens.
  That point of view is shared by many millions of Germans themselves. There was a difference in this country and in our party about that, but, nevertheless. I am quite certain that the overwhelming majority of people of Europe would say that it is criminal folly, in these circumstances, while there is a grievance in existence in the centre of Europe, to rearm the German armies with nuclear weapons.
  Why are we doing it, or suggesting that we should do it? It is because we consider that it is not logical for the armies of Britain and France and the United States to have tactical nuclear
  52
  weapons and for the German armies which are integrated into N.A.T.O. forces to be denied them. Our view is that to supply nuclear weapons to German forces in the present circumstances is an act of criminal provocation at a time when the possibilities of progress on the disarmament front are better than they have ever been. It is provocation to the Russians in the first degree.
  I have spoken to very many Russian statesmen and I have been deeply impressed by one fact. Whatever else may be propaganda, whatever else may be deception, nevertheless I have always been deeply impressed by the Russian fear of Western German rearmament. It exists right throughout Russia, from the top to the bottom. Russian statesmen in the highest positions have in their own lives suffered from two German invasions. On two occasions, their homes have been destroyed.
  It is not because Russia fears—let us be clear about that, she does not fear—the addition of Western German strength in the N.A.T.O. Alliance. It would be a delusion to believe that. Russians think themselves sufficiently powerful to deal with that situation and, indeed, they are. So are we, all of us, powerful enough to wipe each other out. They are not afraid of the additional German might, but what they are afraid of is German intransigence. What they are afraid of is that if Germany once more becomes militarily strong she will again go out on military adventures and Russia will find herself face to face with a third invasion, or have to surrender unless she suffers invasion. She is afraid that there are elements in German society who are prepared to take advantage of a rearmed Western Germany to satisfy and fulfil German ambitions.
  Who can say that those who are afraid of that are wrong? Is civil government on the Continent of Europe so deeply rooted that we can expose it once more to German military juntas? Whatever may be said about recent events in France and the existing situation there, one thing surely can be read by every intelligent observer, that in no circumstances should we encourage the rising of a military junta in Germany.
  This point of view, as I have said, is shared by millions of Germans. They believe, as the Russians do, that the

  53
  safety of the world and the peace of Europe must be predicated not upon rearming Western Germany in present circumstances, but by relying upon the military stalemate which has been reached already without rearmament. It has been said that the reason we have proposed to rearm Western Germany with tactical nuclear weapons—although behind that fond phrase there lurk weapons of the most deadly destructiveness—is that the N.A.T.O. Powers are saying that we must do it because of the preponderance of conventional Russian strength. We have been arguing all along that we must arm ourselves with these great nuclear weapons because Russia has massed armies.
  Hon. Members appear to forget that it was Russia, as far back as May, 1955, which offered to reduce conventional forces. In fact, we have never had any explanation from the Government of why the Russians suddenly changed their front. Here I must agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker). On 10th May, 1955, the Russians suddenly changed, after years of obstinate delaying tactics, and suddenly brought forward the most ambitious disarmament proposal which has yet been brought forward by anybody.
  I had better give the headings to the Committee. It was in two stages and provided:

  (a) A freeze of levels of manpower and expenditure.

  (b) The establishment of agreed levels for the armed forces of the five main Powers—the levels suggested were 1 million to 1½ million and 650,000.

  (c) The reduction within one year of the armed forces and armament of the five Powers by 50 per cent. of the difference between existing levels and the above figures.

  (d) A world conference to determine the reductions for other States and also to prohibit atomic weapons.

  (e) The discontinuance of tests under the supervision of an international commission.

  (f) A solemn obligation not to use nuclear weapons except for defence against aggression

  "when a decision to that effect is taken by the Security Council."
  I accept at once that the argument against that has some validity because, so long as one Power can utter a veto, the definition of aggression can be abortive, but that proposal must be considered in the context of the others and not by itself. It was a part of the general plan and we do not operate in a vacuum. The proposal went on:
  (g) Bases
  "in the territories of other States to be liquidated in accordance with an agreement to be reached."
  Then it went on to the second stage. The first stage was to be carried out in 1956. To use the description used by the Prime Minister, it was "too ambitious". The next stage, to be carried out in 1957, provided:

  (a) The discontinuance of the production of nuclear weapons.

  (b) The reduction within one year of the remaining 50 per cent. of armed forces to the agreed levels.

  (c) The complete prohibition on the use of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction to enter into force when armed forces have been reduced by 75 per cent. of the total reduction—conventional as well as unconventional weapons.

  (d) The destruction of these weapons and the final reduction of 25 per cent. to begin simultaneously and to be completed in 1957.

  Then they went on to discuss controls, because all these proposals may be regarded as academic unless they are accompanied by effective controls. They suggested rights and powers, perhaps of an international control organisation which was to be set up, divided between the first and second stages of the plan. The first was the establishment of control posts at ports, railway junctions, main roads and airfields, the task of which would be to see that there was no "dangerous concentration".
  The Russian contention was that no major attack could possibly be mounted without such physical movements taking place that could quite easily be observed beforehand. That, of course, is peculiarly applicable to a nation which is charged with having superior conventional forces. This proposal of the Russians had, therefore, a peculiar appositeness to that. If our fear is, as we

  55
  have said all along, that if we deprive ourselves of weapons of high technique the Russians would roll their massed divisions to the English Channel, here are Russian proposals that, so long as these fears exist, should, be scrutinised, and warning would, therefore, be given before any considerable movement could take place.
  Then there was the right to require any necessary information on the execution of disarmament measures, including unimpeded access to budgetary records, and, for the second stage, the exercise of control to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the treaty. There were to be permanently in each signatory State of this international control organisation its own staff of inspectors, internationally recruited, who would have, within the bounds of the control functions they exercise, unimpeded access at all times to all objects of control.
  As far as I know, we have never been told at any time why these Russian proposals were not accepted. This is a very serious matter. I hope that no one will accuse me at this time of day of putting in special pleading for the Russians, but I am bound to say with the utmost frankness that, after having studied this history from 1955 onwards, the burden of guilt for no progress in disarmament does not lie primarily with the Soviet Government. It lies elsewhere, and this is one of the charges which Her Majesty's Government have to answer.
  Instead of going on, as the Russians wanted to do, in the Disarmament Sub-Committee—I know that subsequently they gat sick of it, and nobody can blame them, but they wanted to go on discussing this proposal when the Western Powers wanted to adjourn, and they did adjourn. We did not know at that time what was happening. This was going on in secret, or in semi-secret. There were leaks, but how far we could trust them we did not know. The facts are only now being disclosed to us.
  Although I am neither his consultant nor his publisher, may I suggest that any hon. Member opposite who wants a complete record of the facts, written with extraordinary skill and lucidity, should read a book recently published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby,
  56
  South, which will remain for very many years as the source book on the problem of disarmament and the history of disarmament matters.
  We require to hear now, in the House of Commons, from the Government why these Russian proposals, which, I agree, were sprung very suddenly, and were wholly out of keeping with their behaviour before, were never seriously considered, and why they were not implemented. We are not discussing a trivial matter. We are not discussing an increase in Purchase Tax. We are discussing the very future of mankind. We are discussing nothing more or less than the future of the human race, yet it was felt, after having had proposals of that sort from the Soviet representatives, that the Disarmament Sub-Committee could quite safely adjourn, although the authors of these new proposals were begging that the discussions should go on. We want from the Government, before the bar of history, a statement of their case. We want to know what was their answer.
  Why is it that these proposals were carried no further, and that all that was left was for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends to win a procedural victory at the General Assembly of the United Nations? We are getting "fed up" with procedural victories. In disgust, the Russians at the Assembly of the United Nations refused to have anything to do with the Disarmament Sub-Committee, and, of course, a majority was obtained for the Western Powers. Why on earth did we not go on with this Russian proposal in the Disarmament Sub-Committee?
  I apologise for talking for so long, but there is one more subject that I must touch upon, and that is the subject of nuclear tests. I have used very strong language in condemning the Government on other proposals. I am bound to say, after having looked at the chronology of nuclear tests, that I consider that right hon. and hon. Members opposite ought to be deeply ashamed of themselves. Perhaps they do not know the facts, so for the purpose of the record I am going to read them out. After all, this is the first disarmament debate which we have had for a very long time, and I think that we now ought to have the record clear.

  57
  I hope that hon. Members will watch very carefully the development of the argument, and the kind of Madame Bovary career which the Government have been carrying on since, going from one miserable squalor to another. I hope that they will end up in the same way.
  On 3rd September, 1957, the Japanese Government protested to the U.S.S.R. against a new series of Soviet atomic and hydrogen tests announced on 27th August, 1957. On 5th September, Professor V. Beloussov, a leading Soviet geophysicist, informed an international scientific conference in Toronto that "many hundreds" of Russian scientists had petitioned the Soviet Government calling for the cessation of all nuclear tests. That is in the "slave State." [Interruption.] Hon. Members will not like it when it is finished. He stated that,
  "The territories of the Soviet Union, like other countries, are widely contaminated with radioactive fall-out from past tests."
  That is from the Daily Telegraph.
  On 9th September, 1957, the U.S.S.R. announced the testing of a nuclear device of "moderate intensity" in connection with the testing of an intercontinental ballistic missile. On 14th September, 1957, a British atomic device was exploded at Maralinga, in South Australia. On 19th September, 1957, the United States Government announced their intention to resume H-bomb testing in the Pacific in April, 1958. On 23rd September, 1957, Japan appealed to the United Nations General Assembly for a general suspension of nuclear tests to last at least until the 1958 session of the General Assembly. It was not granted.
  On 24th September, 1957, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission reported a Soviet hydrogen bomb explosion in megaton range north of the Arctic Circle. On the same day there was the second British atomic test at Maralinga. On 7th October, the Soviet Union announced the explosion of a "mighty hydrogen weapon of a new type." The Sputnik was launched three days earlier. On 8th October, 1957, the United States completed a series of 24 atomic test explosions at Las Vegas. On 10th October, 1957, the third British atomic test explosion took place at Maralinga. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission reported a small nuclear explosion in the U.S.S.R., north of the Arctic Circle.
  On 10th—20th October, 1957, the U.S.S.R. proposed two resolutions in the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, one providing for the multilateral suspension of nuclear test explosions for two to three years from 1st January, 1958, and the establishment of an international control commission to supervise the suspension, and the other calling for a five-year moratorium on the use of nuclear weapons. They were countered by the Western proposals. I beg the Committee to realise that that was a concrete proposal, which was afterwards followed up by the letter from Marshal Bulganin suggesting that there should be no further nuclear tests from 1st January, 1958. Let hon. Members remember that.
  The New York Times reported on 14th October that up to then more than twice as many nuclear explosions had occurred in 1957 as in any previous year. In a telegram to Mr. Kishi, on 15th October, the Prime Minister stated that the suspension of nuclear tests would not by itself be a measure of disarmament, as existing nuclear Powers could continue to add to their stocks, thus retaining or even increasing their military advantage over other countries. That has been known all along. That is the reason that people have always talked about suspension in the hope that, suspension having occurred, arrangements could then be made for further steps to be taken, like a cut-off in the making of fissile materials and then, later, under proper inspection, the destruction of existing stocks. We have always said that. The Prime Minister did not say what anybody did not know. All the Prime Minister said was that he insisted that we were to go on having our nuclear tests.
  On 16th October, the British Government established an aircraft danger zone around the Christmas Island area in preparation for H-bomb tests. On 27th October, the Minister of Defence announced a forthcoming series of British test explosions in the megaton range. On 8th November, the British Government rejected a Japanese Note requesting the suspension of the Christmas Island tests series and a British nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude in the Christmas Island area. On 28th November, Mr. Nehru appealed to Britain, the United States and the U.S.S.R. to end nuclear

  59
  tests. On 15th November, President Eisenhower stated, in reply to Mr. Nehru, that cessation of tests must be linked with a ban on weapon production; to do otherwise could increase rather than diminish the threat of aggression. This is very relevant to what the President is now proposing.
  On 18th November, the Soviet Academy of Scientists appealed for a world meeting of scientists to discuss nuclear radiation risks. On 29th December, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission reported Soviet test explosions in the Asian northlands. On 17th January, Dr. Libby, of the U.S.A., reported that the radioactive effect of an American atomic test explosion carried out 800 feet underground had been completely contained underground. That was afterwards discovered to be absolutely wrong, because it had been detected 2,000 miles away. On 1st February, the United States decided to proceed with a series of thermo-nuclear tests beginning in the Pacific, owing to the lack of progress "towards a safeguarded disarmament agreement."
  On 13th February, the White Paper was issued by the British Government which repeated that the suspension of nuclear tests must be linked with further measures of disarmament. On 15th February, 1958, the U.S. Government announced limits of a danger zone covering 300,000 square miles of sea in the Pacific. The Japanese Government again protested. On 12th March, 1958—here we are beginning to change the story—U.S. atomic scientists were instructed to study whether an effective inspection system can be devised to cover an agreement to suspend nuclear tests. For the first time the possibility of isolating nuclear tests from a general disarmament had come to the surface.
  On 16th March, a Soviet atomic test explosion was reported by United States observers. On 18th March, Mr. Lester Pearson stated that Canada should support the immediate ending of nuclear tests. In March, three Soviet atomic test explosions took place in three days. On 31st March, the Soviet Government announced the unilateral suspension of nuclear tests and called on Britain and America to follow suit.
  Over and over again, at Question Time in the House, whenever this has been mentioned, there have been jeers from the Government side. Hon. Members have said, "They suggested suspending nuclear tests after they had had their own." In fact, they had suggested suspending them, before they had their own, from 1st January this year, and we failed to follow suit. When the question was asked in the House whether we proposed to follow suit, it was stated by the Home Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Government, that we had to have our tests because we were a small nation, it was necessary for our defence and they would be considered part of a general disarmament agreement.
  Up to now—right up to the Whitsun Recess—the British Government's position has been that a suspension of nuclear tests must be included as part of a general disarmament agreement. Is that their present position? I should like an answer. Is that their present position? At the very moment when the Foreign Secretary was telling the House that this was the British Government's position, the Americans had changed their position. The Americans had made proposals for experts to meet to see whether they could not devise a system of inspection.
  We have always contended that for all serious explosions inspection is not necessary, but that they can be detected; and up to now, they have all been detected. If, however, there emerged from the conference of experts at Geneva, or from Moscow, proposals for effective systems of inspection and for the detection of nuclear tests, is it the British Government's position that they no longer insist that suspension must be part of a general agreement? We should like to have the answer to that question, because there is a very general suspicion that there has been a greater readiness to suspend tests at the White House than at No. 10.
  The whole history shows that the movement of public opinion inside the United States against tests has been growing so strong that the President of the United States has been ultimately compelled to repudiate Mr. Dulles. Although Mr. Dulles had gone on record up to the very last moment that they must be regarded as part of the general disarmament agreement, the President made his

  61
  proposal for the experts to meet to consider the situation. Are we sending our experts? If we are, do we accept that we shall suspend our tests if we are satisfied about the technical requirements?
  I conclude by saying this. We, on this side of the Committee, have always paid very special attention to the suspension of tests—for a number of reasons that I think are now obvious. I do not believe that any country has the right to condemn unknown, unnamed and unborn children to mutilation and torture and death merely by experimenting in weapons for its own defence. I believe that that is a fundamental immorality. I call the attention of the House of Commons and of the country to the fact that the nation that has up to now, and up to the last moment, insisted on this dreadful thing is the nation that has as its symbol the suffering body of Christ, and that the nation dedicated to atheism has suspended the tests. It is an ugly comparison.
  When we consider the appalling consequences involved it is very difficult to use hyperbole. When we say, as the Prime Minister has recently been saying in America, that we are trying to uphold the institutions, the standards and codes of free civilisation among the uncommitted nations, what spectacle are we presenting to them? Up to now, it is Europe and the West that has slaughtered people by using atom bombs. Up to now, it is the West that insists upon poisoning the atmosphere in order to make these deadly weapons. Among the uncommitted nations we are faced with the appalling fact that the example of Russia is better than the example of the Western Powers.
  That has to be faced. Those who have travelled among Asian people know this very well. Even if our motives are pure, it is of no use imagining that they are understood there. What is being understood there is what actually happens, and what has actually happened is that, up to now, the Western nations have insisted upon continuing with these tests. I believe that the dangers involved are so dreadful that there is arising in the world a will to grapple with them.
  I believe that if Governments had vision, if they were prepared, to use Lincoln's classic phrase, to disenfold
  62
  themselves from the past, face the realities of the second half of the twentieth century and not allow themselves to be confined by orthodox and conventional ways of thinking; if, even now, we set an example to the world—where we still occupy a very high position indeed—we could lead the world out of this dreadful impasse into which it has brought itself. I think that, in this matter of disarmament, the statesmen can cover themselves with far greater glory by acting with vision now than ever anybody could on the field of battle.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) started by expressing a sense of humility when approaching this tremendous problem. I share that sense of humility, though I must say that I observed that the right hon. Gentleman very quickly got over his initial diffidence. He said that we on this side were confused about disarmament. I must say that I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which I tried to follow carefully, left us with the impression of any shining clarity on his side.
  I confess that I was a little distressed that the so-called "shadow" Foreign Secretary of the Labour Party should have been wishing to stress all the time that everything the Russians do is right and everything we do is wrong. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but that was the general impression. [Interruption.] I am not trying to quote the right hon. Gentleman, and if he wishes to correct me I shall certainly give him the opportunity.
  Mr. Bevan: Really, if that is the standard that the Minister is to adopt, he will not do very well. In the course of my speech I stated, and it is perfectly correct to say, that up to 10th May, 1955, the Russians had been obstructing in every conceivable way any progress towards disarmament, but not after 10th May.
  Mr. Sandys: Anyhow, that is the general impression. [Interruption.] The general impression given by the right hon. Gentleman to me is that, at the moment—I am not talking about 1955—the Russians are more sincere and genuine in their desire for disarmament than we are. All I can say is that I do not

  63
  believe that it is possible for them to be more sincere or more genuine than are we and the other Western Governments.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the possession of nuclear weapons is not a factor in negotiations. We have certainly never contemplated using nuclear weapons as a means of bringing pressure to bear upon Russia to agree to a political settlement acceptable to us, and I do not think that anybody has seriously suggested that. All I would say is this. If the West agreed to the abolition of nuclear weapons on both sides, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Russians would use their overwhelming conventional superiority as a factor in the negotiations? The possession of nuclear weapons may not be the bargaining counter, but the abandonment of them, without general disarmament, would hopelessly weaken our position and the cause of peace—
  Mr. Frank Beswick: What about the Russian offer?
  Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his speech.
  I should like to clear up another point made by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that Germany was being rearmed with nuclear weapons. That is not correct—or, at any rate, it is only half the truth. As he knows, the North Atlantic Council has decided that, where the military command thinks it necessary, nuclear weapons may be sited in N.A.T.O. countries, with the agreement of the Governments concerned. The nuclear weapons that may be operated by German forces will, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, be American nuclear weapons and, in the same way as is being done with the Thor rocket in this country, the nuclear warheads will remain in American custody. Therefore, it is really misleading to suggest that the German forces are being rearmed with nuclear weapons—
  Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that it is not the intention of the Supreme Command in the West to train Germans in the use of nuclear tactical weapons?
  Mr. Sandys: The nuclear warheads of any such weapons will, under the
  64
  American law—and there is no sign that the Americans intend to alter that law—be retained in American custody.
  Mr. Bevan: But I have been accused of a half-truth. Is it not also correct to say that it is admitted that, at any time, the German forces, having been trained in the use of the nuclear weapons, could physically seize them?
  Mr. Sandys: That is up to the American forces. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry, arrangements are being made. These warheads will not necessarily be stored on the sites where the troops are, until an emergency arises.
  To turn to the broader issue, I would say that the prize we seek through disarmament is the establishment of secure and lasting peace. We must, therefore, in all these discussions apply to any disarmament plan the simple test: Will it make peace more secure or less secure? We must recognise that at present the peace of the world is in one way or another being maintained between East and West through a balance of force, in part nuclear and in part conventional.
  Since both sides deeply distrust one another, neither can be expected to agree to any scheme of disarmament which would have the effect of upsetting the military balance to the advantage of the other. We must recognise that that is the basic starting point for any negotiations.
  The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale accused the Government of dragging their feet on disarmament. Public attention is at the moment largely concentrated upon the prospects of the summit talks. We are determined to pursue disarmament by any method and through any channel that is open to us. A Summit Conference is one such method, and we are most anxious to bring it about under conditions which offer some reasonable prospect of achieving progress. But we must not allow the difficulties over the Summit Conference to make the world forget—and I would ask the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale not to forget—the continuous efforts which we and the other Western nations have been making over a number of years to achieve disarmament, and, in particular, the bold and far-reaching proposals which we initiated through the United Nations.

  65
  I do not think that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale ought to jeer at the idea of putting forward proposals through the United Nations and say that it is purely a tactical success, or something of that kind. I can remember in earlier debates hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite telling us that we ought to use the United Nations more—that we ought to put forward our proposals there—and asking why we did not make more use of it. When we do so, we are told that it is purely a tactical demonstration.
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman really does not understand the facts. The Sub-Committee to which we have referred and to which the Russian proposals of 10th May, 1955, were sent was a Sub-Committee of the United Nations. It was the Western Powers who postponed the Sub-Committee for many months.
  Mr. Sandys: I really do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can suggest that the Western Powers have been lacking in their readiness to use the machinery of the United Nations or say that the fact that discussions are not now proceeding in the United Nations is due to our side and not to the Russians, after they and their allies failed to support proposals which were supported by the overwhelming majority of the United Nations.
  Nothing short of comprehensive disarmament, with full international inspection and control, can, we believe, really assure the permanent maintenance of world peace. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is worth remembering that in June, 1954, the British and French Governments put forward a plan for disarmament by stages which would have gone a long way towards attaining that goal. In this plan we proposed the total prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, together with major reductions in conventional forces—and the whole to be subject to inspection and control. The Russians refused to accept this plan unless it was amended in a way which would have given them a decisive and dangerous military advantage during the process of disarmament.
  Mr. Beswick Mr. Beswick rose—
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South) rose—
  Mr. Sandys: I do not want to keep the Committee too long, and there is a good deal which I want to say.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker Mr. P. Noel-Baker rose—
  Mr. Sandys: I noted that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that interruptions should not be used to continue the argument, but only to seek an explanation.
  Mr. Beswick: I agree with all that my right hon. Friend said about the Anglo-French proposals. The fact is that the Russians put forward proposals which embodied these precise proposals about which the right hon. Gentleman is talking. The explanation that we want is why the Government did not then accept their own proposals when they were made by the Russians.
  Mr. Sandys: I think the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) is doing what his right hon. Friend said he should not do, that is, continuing the argument.
  I propose to deal with the Russian proposals, if the hon. Gentleman will give me the chance. It is quite a complicated subject and I think it is better to try to deploy it in an orderly fashion.
  After three more years of continuous discussion in the Disarmament Commission, the four Western Powers—Britain, Canada, France and the United States—put forward in August, 1957, a somewhat less far-reaching scheme for partial disarmament. This included the immediate suspension of nuclear tests, to which reference has been made, the stopping of production of fissile material for weapons, an all-round reduction of conventional forces and the establishment of an international system of inspection and control.
  The Western plan, although less audacious than the earlier Anglo-French plan, was designed with two aims in mind. The first was that while reducing the general level of armaments on both sides, the relative military strength of each should be maintained substantially unaltered. The second was that, in view of the state of mutual distrust, the agreement should be confined to matters which could be effectively verified and controlled by inspection. As the Committee knows, this Western plan was approved by an overwhelming majority of the United Nations.

  67
  I now come to the Russian proposals. As the Committee knows, the Russians have at different times put forward a variety of counter-proposals of their own. Some were made at conferences, others in speeches or in correspondence. Unfortunately, all these Russian counter-proposals have, without exception, contained two features which make them wholly unacceptable. They have repeatedly proposed the total abolition of nuclear weapons, but without any effective system of control or any corresponding abolition of offensive conventional forces.
  Mr. Beswick: Completely untrue.
  Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman will be able to explain to us later the system of control and inspection which the Russians have proposed. I do not know of it, but we shall be very interested to hear details about it.
  Since 1955, the Russians have proposed the total abolition of nuclear weapons, but without any effective system of control or the abolition of effective conventional forces.
  Mr. Beswick: That is completely untrue.
  Mr. Sandys: When I talk about abolition, I mean reducing them to a level where they will not constitute a threat to other countries. I am not talking about a reduction to a level which would probably result in the United States having to withdraw all its forces from Europe and leaving Russia with reduced forces, but, none the less, with an overwhelming military superiority in Western Europe.
  Since 1955, the Russians have proposed the immediate banning of the use of—and I stress "the use of"—nuclear weapons, even in self-defence. But this proposal—and I would like to draw attention to the fact—would not forbid the possession, or even the further production, of nuclear weapons.
  The most objectionable feature in all the Russian disarmament proposals up to date is undoubtedly that they make no satisfactory provision for ensuring that any agreement made is actually implemented. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Uxbridge evidently disagrees with me on that point. After going through
  68
  the various Russian proposals I am quite satisfied—I am proposing to quote what Mr. Khrushchev has said—that there is no evidence that the Russians are prepared to have an effective system of inspection or control in their country. All these proposals for banning nuclear weapons without any system of control and banning their use without banning their production presupposes a mutual confidence in one another's good faith which clearly does not exist in the present international situation.
  Throughout the protracted negotiations the Soviet Government have made it abundantly clear that they dislike the whole idea of international inspection, whether it is on the ground or from the air. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Uxbridge deny that?
  Mr. Beswick: Yes, I do. It has already been quoted by me in the House of Commons that the Russians have given completely detailed accounts of the sort of machinery which they would have applied to nuclear disarmament. They have asked for all-round weighing, measuring and analysing of all nuclear material that went into the country. The Minister knows that perfectly well.
  Mr. Sandys: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what Mr. Khrushchev said in a speech on 10th April. He said:
  "We are in favour of control".
  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Uxbridge has already interrupted me. I hope he will give me his attention for a moment. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] Mr. Khrushchev said that they were in favour of control and went on:
  "… but the Western Powers want the sort of control that would be tantamount to … infringement of our sovereignty. The rulers of the Western Powers say: 'Let our aircraft fly over your country and we will allow your aircraft to fly over ours.'"
  He went on to say:
  "We don't want to fly over their country; and we don't even want the smell of them over our country."
  Mr. Beswick Mr. Beswick rose—
  Mr. Sandys: Those words do not indicate a great enthusiasm for a system of international inspection. The Russians have hitherto always treated inspection as a matter of secondary importance which should be left over to be dealt with after

  69
  the disarmament agreement had been concluded. On the other hand, we and our allies have always regarded inspection as an essential and absolutely inseparable condition of any substantial measure of disarmament.
  Not only do the Russians dislike inspection but they appear to question whether it is feasible at all. In a speech in Moscow last month Mr. Khrushchev seemed to suggest that the most that really could be done and that was practicable at the moment was what he described as a
  "moral undertaking by States, not to use nuclear weapons."
  In this connection he went on to say that it was not possible to establish foolproof control over nuclear weapons, and that it would be easy for either side to manufacture these weapons without being detected.
  In the same speech Mr. Khrushchev said:
  "Things must be viewed realistically. Under present circumstances, the way to eliminate the threat of nuclear war is by moral condemnation of the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons."
  Moral condemnation by the peoples of the world would, he thought, provide a most effective means of control. So far as the democracies are concerned, Mr. Khrushchev is no doubt right. If we signed an agreement banning nuclear weapons, public opinion here would insist that we respected it; but I am sure that Mr. Khrushchev, who is a very realistic man, does not seriously expect us to place a similar reliance upon the power of public opinion in Russia.
  Mr. Bevan: This is a very serious statement that the Minister is now making. I ask him this question here in the Committee in order that it might be answered, if not here, then elsewhere. Has Mr. Khrushchev stated that these proposals or generalisations of his are now in substitution of the Russian disarmament proposals?
  Mr. Sandys: These are the most recent expressions of Russian policy.
  Mr. Bevan: Is policy expressed in speeches?
  Mr. Sandys: If it were not so, there would immediately be Questions in the House of Commons asking whether my
  70
  speeches represented the policy of the Government.
  Mr. Bevan: A number of definite proposals have been put forward by the Soviet Union. We would like to know whether the quotations given by the Minister are to be regarded by us as substitutes for the original concrete proposals put forward by the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Sandys: The trouble is that the proposals have not been very concrete. That is the trouble about these proposals for inspection. There is nothing that we would welcome more than to find the Russians suddenly favourable to a system of inspection. I believe that inspection is the crux of the whole of this problem of disarmament. For instance, the way in which the Russians reacted to the recent United States proposal for an Arctic inspection system is a classical example of their attitude. It indicates that they are more concerned with the propaganda effect than with actual disarmament. Having complained to the Security Council that American bombers were patrolling in the Arctic area, the Soviet Union used its veto to defeat an inspection system designed to obviate the very dangers of which the Russians had complained.
  We, on our part, have always attached the very highest importance to effective inspection. In fact, we consider that a disarmament agreement without the means of verifying that the other side is implementing it might well do more harm to international confidence and to the prospects of peace even than the continuation of the present arms race, with all its disadvantages and dangers. We have already made it clear, and I repeat it today, that we set no limits whatsoever to the degree of inspection that we are prepared to accept, if others do the same. There is no nuclear plant, arms factory, laboratory, military establishment or airfield, which we would not be prepared to throw wide open to international inspection under a disarmament agreement.
  I turn now to the subject of nuclear tests. The purpose of nuclear tests is, of course, to maintain the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent. On the question of the necessity of the deterrent there is very little difference between the two sides of the Committee; at any rate, between

  71
  the official Labour Party and us. I do not think that anything which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has said throws any doubt upon that. In his speech at the Labour Party Conference the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale effectively answered those who said that Britain should unilaterally abandon nuclear weapons. I will not trouble the right hon. Gentleman with quotations from his speech. They always cause him embarrassment. All I would remind him of is his final phrase in which he said:
  "Such unilateral action is not necessarily the way to take the menace of the bomb from the world."
  More recently the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), in his very lucid pamphlet on the H-bomb, wrote:
  "There is no moral advantage in scrapping our own bombs if we keep our alliances and so depend upon American bombs."
  He went on to point out that there would be no practical advantage either. He said:
  "We should be just as much in the front line in a third world war if we did not have our own bomb as if we did."
  We entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and we are indebted to him for making the position of the Labour Party so clear on this important and difficult issue.
  Once we have decided that we must make nuclear weapons we have, of course, to accept also the necessity for testing them. A year ago, after our first thermonuclear explosion, we were pressed to stop further tests. If we had done so, our knowledge today would be very much more limited. I am not sure whether, in those circumstances, the United States would now be so interested to collaborate with us in the nuclear field.
  I cannot, of course, go into detail, but in broad terms I can say that our first test on Christmas Island was to satisfy ourselves that we could produce a thermonuclear explosion. The subsequent tests had two main objects. The first was to reduce the size and weight of the nuclear warhead which, for ballistic rockets, is of decisive importance. The second object is to increase the explosive yield of a given quantity of fissile material. Fissile material is not unlimited. That, again, is of very considerable importance in building up any necessary stockpile of
  72
  the weapons that we may require. Thanks to the very remarkable ingenuity and skill of our scientists, we have, with very few tests indeed, achieved significant advances in both directions.
  Apart from its possible psychological effect upon wider disarmament negotiations, about which I will say something in a moment, the case for suspending nuclear tests rests almost entirely upon considerations of world health. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale referred to the tests at Maralinga in Australia. These tests are, of course, atom or kiloton explosions as distinct from thermonuclear explosions. Nuclear explosions in the kiloton range, as distinct from megaton explosions, are not powerful enough to project fission products into the stratosphere. Any radiation effects are, therefore, largely confined to the limited area around the site of the explosion. Therefore, provided the location of the site and the meteorological conditions are carefully chosen, no adverse consequences need be feared from kiloton tests. On the other hand, the much greater power of a megaton explosion has the effect of throwing radioactive particles up into the stratosphere from which they gradually fall out over a wide area of the earth's surface.
  The physiological effects on the human body must be considered from two standpoints—the possible harm to the health of those living at the time and possible genetic effects upon future generations. It is wholly inconceivable that external radiation from nuclear fall-out from weapon tests, as distinct from a nuclear war, could reach such an intensity as to affect significantly the health of the peoples of the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Significantly?"] I will explain what I am saying; I am talking about external radiation. The possible risk to health could, therefore, arise only from the absorption of certain fission products, such as strontium 90, through eating, drinking or breathing. This aspect must be most carefully watched. [Laughter.] I do not think this is a laughing matter, but it should be pointed out. Hon. Members opposite have said again and again that we were casual or indifferent to this question. Now that we are discussing it they are just rocking with laughter about it.
  As I have said, this aspect must be most carefully watched. I am now

  73
  talking about the absorption into the body of fission products. However, it should be pointed out, I think, that the average amount of strontium 90 in samples of human bone in this country is estimated at present to be only about 1,000th part of the maximum which is considered permissible in industrial occupations where workers are exposed to this risk.
  As regards possible genetic consequences, it is known that the effect of radiation on the reproductive organs could produce abnormalities in future generations. It depends upon the intensity and duration of the radiation. This is a matter which we must consider with a great sense of responsibility, but also, I think, with a proper sense of proportion. The radiation emanating from all the tests so far held is altogether negligible in comparison with the radiation to which we are subjected all the time from natural cosmic rays, from medical X-rays, luminous watches, shoe-fitting tests, and so forth, or from living in brick or stone houses, or on a hill, or on certain types of rocky or sandy soil. In fact, I am told that the general radiation produced by the fall-out from nuclear tests is much less than the difference in natural radioactivity between London and Aberdeen.
  What is more, we should remember that radiation is not the only cause of genetic mutation or abnormality. For example, a group of Swedish scientists has just completed a study which shows that the unnatural heat caused by the wearing of trousers is likely to have a cumulatively serious effect upon the male organ. [Laughter.] This is a serious medical study. The scientists point out that this mode of dress might well involve genetic hazards of between 100 and 1,000 times greater than those estimated from all the various sources of radiation. Incidentally, they conclude by recommending the general adoption of the Scottish kilt.
  What I have said is not intended to suggest that nuclear tests involve no risks of any kind. My purpose is simply to emphasise that they should be looked at in proper perspective against the background of the far more serious radiation and other hazards to which we are constantly exposed in our every-day lives and which we had hitherto accepted without undue anxiety.
  The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale referred to the Russian announcement
  74
  that they were suspending nuclear tests. I cannot say more than the right hon. Gentleman, but it is impossible to say whether this is a genuine suspension or whether it is merely an unavoidable interval between two series of tests. The suspension of tests is, of course, not a measure of disarmament. We have, therefore, considered that this question should be dealt with as part and parcel of a wider agreement. If, however, the suspension of tests were accompanied by the setting up of some system of inspection for this purpose, this would certainly constitute an event of some importance.
  As I have explained we have been much disappointed by the Russian attitude towards inspection. We are, therefore, glad that the Russians have now accepted in principle the proposal that experts should at least discuss methods of inspection for the limited purpose of detecting nuclear tests. We have offered to send British experts to Geneva for this purpose on 1st July. We must sincerely hope that this development, this first step in the direction of inspection, may possibly constitute a first step towards the breaking of the deadlock which now unhappily exists all along the line.
  We have so far proceeded on the assumption that any disarmament plan would necessarily have to be carried through by stages, since it would be too much to hope that comprehensive disarmament could be effected in a single step. A central problem of any scheme of disarmament by stages is to maintain at each successive stage the existing balance between the two sides and to provide mutual safeguards and assurances against bad faith. Our experience in the negotiations over the past few years has, unfortunately, shown this to be extremely difficult.
  The arms reductions in the early stages are unlikely in practice to be sufficient to reduce appreciably the danger of war. In the subsequent stages, it becomes increasingly difficult to preserve the balance and to avoid one side or the other feeling that its safety is being prejudiced. Nuclear armaments would sooner or later have to be reduced to a point where the deterrent would cease to deter, which would give to the Soviet bloc complete military superiority. Alternatively, the Western anxieties might be allayed by reducing conventional forces to a very low level before reducing nuclear

  75
  weapons to the point where they no longer constitute a deterrent. Russia, however, would probably consider that this placed her at an unacceptable disadvantage.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Minister of Defence has referred to the Anglo-French Memorandum of 1954. He will recall that its purpose was to deal precisely with what he is now discussing. Are the Government prepared to adhere to the system which they put forward then in that White Paper?
  Mr. Sandys: What I am about to say has, perhaps, some relevance to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Denis Healey: That is not an answer.
  Mr. Sandys: I think it is, in fact, an answer to it. What I was saying is that we have hitherto assumed that we must try to proceed on the basis of disarmament by stages, because it is difficult to get disarmament all in one step. On the other hand, we have encountered very great difficulties in working out what those stages should be. Nevertheless, we have in the interval, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, put forward these proposals through the United Nations and we have not abandoned our hope that the Russians will seriously consider the Western plan.
  Mr. Beswick: They accepted it on 10th May, 1955.
  Mr. Sandys: I am talking now of the 1957 plan. I shall come back to the 1954 or 1955 plan; there are two plans. I have tried to study the book by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), which represents a great work of collection and assembly of vitally important facts, although some of them are not, perhaps, presented in a way which everybody would consider to be completely unbiassed. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, rendered a service to us all in introducing his book.
  We have not abandoned our hope that the Russians will seriously consider the Western plan—I am referring to the one adopted by an overwhelming majority of the United Nations not so long ago—and we shall continue to press these proposals, because we think they are fair and practicable. At the same time, we shall
  76
  be prepared to consider with an open mind any alternative proposals which may be put forward by the Russians or their allies. If, however, it should continue to prove impossible to make progress towards disarmament by stages, one should, perhaps, think again about the feasibility of achieving comprehensive disarmament in a single step, after due preparation.
  In what I am about to say—I emphasise this—I am not formally putting forward any new plan of this kind. I am merely examining what such an approach might involve. At the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was set up primarily as an instrument for preserving world peace. The signatories of the Charter undertook to make available to the Security Council armed forces and such other assistance as might be necessary to implement its decisions.
  Largely owing to the misuse of the veto by the Soviet Union, which has now applied it on no fewer than 83 occasions, the United Nations has been prevented from discharging its main responsibility for the maintenance of peace; and, in consequence, groups of countries have had to resort to the creation of a series of regional defensive alliances in order to protect themselves against each other. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the failure of the international policeman has made it necessary for the nations to seek other means of self-defence.
  Despite this disappointing experience, there would, I think, be every advantage in basing any plan for comprehensive disarmament upon the principles and obligations embodied in the United Nations Charter. The starting point would have to be a general agreement for the prevention of war, by which all the nations concerned would undertake to reduce their armed forces right down to the level where they would not constitute any threat to any other country.
  To carry out this agreement, a world security authority would have to be set up under the United Nations. Its functions would be to supervise the process of disarmament, to prevent any rearming thereafter and to deal with any acts of aggression by the disarmed countries. In order to carry out these functions, the authority would need two instruments: an international arms inspectorate and an international police force.

  77
  The international inspectorate would have to perform two duties. The first would be to maintain a permanent system of supervision and to report to the authority any infringement of the disarmament agreement. Its other duty would be to provide a corps of observers to report upon any acts of aggression or threats of aggression. The inspectorate would, of course, have to be given completely unrestricted access to any premises or information necessary to discharge its functions.
  The international police force, operating under the orders of the authority, would have the duty of dealing with any infringement of the disarmament agreement or any threat of aggression reported by the inspectorate. The police force would have to possess unquestioned military superiority over the disarmed nations. It would, therefore, need to be of substantial strength and equipped with effective armaments.
  As a safeguard against bad faith, it would be absolutely essential—this is a point I wish to emphasise—that the authority, with its international inspectorate and police force, should be fully established before the actual process of disarmament began. During this preparatory period, which would extend necessarily over several years, the international inspectorate would report what armaments existed in each country and the authority would issue a list of those to be destroyed. Thus, when the process of actual disarmament was set in motion, it should be possible to complete it in a comparatively short time.
  In order that there should be no misunderstanding, I wish to emphasise once again that the ideas I have outlined are not in any sense formal proposals. We are still backing the plan which was adopted by the United Nations. They are no more than thoughts, inspired by the difficulties which we have encountered in the negotiations up to date. They are in many respects a natural development, as, I think, the right hon. Member for Derby, South will recognise, of the earlier Anglo-French proposals.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my right hon. Friend indicate in what way this world organisation, armed in the way he has described, would be restrained from operating against what I might call British or Commonwealth
  78
  interests on the widest possible scale? Would a right of veto be inserted?
  Mr. Sandys: I have given a good deal of thought to this subject, but I am not trying in the course of the debate to produce a blueprint or a charter for this plan. No one should underrate the practical difficulties of any plan for comprehensive disarmament in a single step, but it may be that these difficulties are not any more formidable than those which arise over disarmament by stages. In the end, it will all turn—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to sneer at the idea of a world authority. It may seem all very idealistic—
  Mr. Bevan: I am not sneering.
  Mr. Sandys: —but in the end, unless we create an effective world authority to deal with this problem, we shall get nowhere. In the end, it will all turn on whether the will to disarm really exists. If the Russians desire disarmament, if the Russians—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has said that four times and if he wishes to say it again, I will give way.
  Mr. Beswick: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with everything he has just said but, unfortunately, all the actions which the Government have followed with regard to disarmament have stopped the realisation of the proposals which he is now outlining.
  Mr. Sandys: I was saying—the hon. Gentleman did not desire any explanation or seek any elucidation, so I am not answering his point—that if the Russians desire disarmament as sincerely as we do, the obstacles, great as they are, will surely be surmounted and a workable agreement reached. If, on the other hand, the Russians do not genuinely want disarmament and are merely using the negotiations for propaganda, then no scheme, however ingenious, will succeed.
  For the sake of the peoples of all countries, whether they are this side or the other side of the Iron Curtain, let us pray that by one means or another good sense will win through. In the meantime, while steadfastly pursuing the goal of disarmament, we must be careful not to undermine the structure of Western defence by which alone peace is today being preserved.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, in so far as he attempted to deal with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) as to the shifting of ground on the part of Her Majesty's Government, was not very convincing. He very astutely sidestepped the charge which my right hon. Friend made as to why Her Majesty's Government changed their ground following the publication of the proposals of the Soviet Government on 10th May, 1955. After all, the facts speak for themselves.
  In January, 1952, the British representative at the United Nations made, among other proposals, a definite proposal for the ceiling of conventional manpower forces to be fixed at 1·5 million men. That proposal was repeated in March, 1955, in a memorandum put in by the British and French representatives at the meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee. On 10th May of that year, the Russian proposals, to which reference has been made, were filed at the meeting of the Committee, and on that occasion the Russians, who have quite rightly been accused of obstruction up to that month, changed their ground and accepted the proposal that the manpower ceiling should be 1 million to 1·5 million.
  What we have asked is why Her Majesty's Government have given up their proposal for these manpower ceilings and substituted for them the proposals of August, 1957? Until the right hon. Gentleman or the Foreign Secretary, who presumably is to reply to the debate, can justify that change of ground, I think that we are entitled to say that Her Majesty's Government have been guilty of inconsistency.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence also, for some reason or another, made a charge from which it appeared that the Soviet Government have always steadfastly and consistently refused to accept an effective system of inspection and control. I am bound to say that I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman makes that statement, because I have just been looking at the correspondence published recently in Cmnd. 381—correspondence between the
  80
  Prime Minister and Mr. Bulganin, 11th December, 1957, to 8th February, 1958—and I find that on page 21, Mr. Bulganin makes this statement.
  "This means that the functions and scope of control, and also inspection must be regarded in close relationship to the realisation of measures to lessen tension in international relations and to strengthen confidence between the States, particularly the big powers."
  He goes on to say:
  "To the extent that agreement is reached on disarmament questions, including agreement on a substantial reduction in armed forces and armaments and on the total prohibition of nuclear weapons, the cessation of their manufacture, their withdrawal from the armaments of the states, and the destruction of the stockpiles of these weapons, the obstacles to the widening of control and inspection will disappear. At the appropriate stage the Soviet Government, for its part, will be prepared to regard such widening with favour."
  How can the right hon. Gentleman really justify his statement that the Soviet Government have persistently refused to agree to the establishment of any effective system of inspection and control? I think that the Foreign Secretary, if he agrees with the statement which his right hon. Friend has made, should seek to explain away the statement which I have just quoted from the letter of the former Russian Prime Minister.
  While I agree with the criticisms that have been made with regard to the responsibility of the Western Governments, at least they must share the responsibility with the Soviet Government for the existence of the present disarmament deadlock. I feel that it will not carry us very far merely to look to the events of the past few years. It is too important, it is too urgent, it is too vital from the point of view of the welfare of mankind to bicker too long as to who is responsible for the present disarmament deadlock. Surely, what we have to do in this debate tonight is to see whether we cannot get a measure of agreement or certainly an indication from Her Majesty's Government as to how we are to end the present deadlock.
  I naturally, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence will know, speaking for myself at least, cordially welcome his reference to the necessity for a world security authority. Some of us have been looked at a little askance by all sorts of people in our pursuit of this ideal which, apparently, is becoming less of an ideal and may perhaps in the not

  81
  too distant future become a practical reality.
  I was not altogether satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman said. His sentiments, yes; but what are the Government going to do about it? It is not sufficient to say, speaking informally, that we are in favour of the establishment of a world authority with the power behind it to enforce the rules of law, to enforce any disarmament agreement and to have a police force at its call which will have the responsibility of maintaining world peace.
  I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary what practical plans he has in mind about the proposal. Does he intend to discuss the proposal with other Governments, or are we to take it that this is merely an indication of long-term policy, a long-term ideal which may or may not be achieved in the years that lie ahead? There is a very big difference between the two. If the Foreign Secretary is merely expressing sentiments, I hope that he and his right hon. Friends will think twice before leading the people of this country up the garden, because that is exactly what they will be doing if, in their own hearts and minds, they do not believe the establishment of this body to be practical politics this year or for a good many years to come.
  Many of us have supported the idea of a Summit Conference because we thought that would be one of the means of ending the present disarmament deadlock. I agree with the Minister of Defence when he says that one of the main obstacles to the achievement of an agreement on disarmament is the mistrust and lack of confidence which poisons the international scene and has been poisoning it for some years past. But surely that is no reason for marking time.
  Therefore, I suggest certain proposals to the Foreign Secretary. The pessimistic statement made by Mr. Dulles last week certainly does not hold out very much hope of a Summit Conference this year. The recent French Government crisis will have provided General de Gaulle and his Government with political, economic and constitutional problems which may compel them to devote the best part of their time to their solution in the next six months. If that be so, we must face the fact that there will be an interregnum of three, six or even nine
  82
  months during which talks will be continued about the holding of this conference. But I suggest that this period of time should be utilised to endeavour to make some progress in the dissipation of present distrust and suspicion.
  The Committee will recall the Prime Ministers proposal last January for a multilateral non-aggression pact. In view of the fact that Washington seemed to indicate that it was opposed to it, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether that is one of the matters which is now being discussed by the Prime Minister and President Eisenhower? The Prime Minister also gave a "solemn assurance," as he called it, in January to the Soviet Government that in no circumstances would any British Government condone any act of aggression against the Soviet Government. What a wonderful contribution it would be to the improvement of the international climate if the United States could see their way to assoiate themselves with that solemn assurance.
  I understand that two months ago Her Majesty's Government proposed to the Soviet Government that discussions should take place about the jamming of broadcasts and the exchange of information between the two countries. Has any reply been received from the Soviet Government? If an agreement could be achieved on that problem, it would reduce considerably the effect of the cold war which has been going on for so long. Many of us also welcome the news that the Soviet Government are prepared to take part in President Eisenhower's conference on Antarctica to ensure through an international agreement that that great area of the world should be used hereafter only for peaceful purposes. If that area could be demilitarised by international agreement it would help the cause of international confidence.
  On the question of working parties, many of us on this side of the Committee have been disappointed that Her Majesty's Government have steadfastly refused to take the lead in proposing the suspension of nuclear tests. I think that the explanation which the Minister of Defence gave this afternoon will not convince the great mass of our people that Her Majesty's Government were right in their policy. Nevertheless, I welcome the news published two or three days ago

  83
  that the Soviet Government have agreed to take part in the meeting of technical experts. It is only right to say that the credit, such as it is, for the original proposal to have these technical committees appointed must be given to the Foreign Secretary.
  I believe that the time has come now to get down to brass tacks and away from the endless political debate that has characterised disarmament negotiations and discussions over the past eight years. Here is an opportunity. I hope that there will be no wrangling as to whether the conference should take place in Moscow or Geneva, or whether it should be enlarged to include representatives from countries like India, Sweden or Yugoslavia. It seems to me of little importance whether it is a small conference or a large one.
  One reason why I find myself in cordial agreement with this procedure is that it seems to me to be evidence of intention on the part of both East and West to make progress in achieving practical solutions. But why stop at working parties on tests? My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), in his great book published two days ago, to which reference has already been made, rightly says that
  "while a ban on tests is an essential part of a disarmament programme, it must be kept in mind that a century of tests would do less damage to the human race than a few hours of nuclear war."
  Even more important than the suspension of nuclear tests is the cessation of the manufacture of these horrible weapons for war and the elimination of all the stockpiles of hydrogen and other atomic weapons which exist in at least three countries today.
  I ask the Foreign Secretary, therefore, whether he will not press on with the procedural aspect of this problem of working parties, not only on the suspension of tests but on the cessation of production and the elimination of stockpiles. Many difficult technical problems will arise. The question of inspection and control must be resolved if we are to make progress in this connection.
  The Foreign Secretary knows, perhaps better than I do, the importance attached by the Government and people of the United States to the question of surprise
  84
  attack. They still remember the experience of Pearl Harbour. In my humble opinion, not very much progress will be made in the direction of disarmament unless the United States Government and people can be satisfied on that point.
  The people of the Soviet Union have already manifested serious apprehension at the practice of the United States Air Force of sending nuclear bombers on patrol across the Arctic skies. Surely, the only way to make those patrols unnecessary is to agree on safeguards against surprise attack, whether they are safeguards in the form of aerial inspection, as proposed by the United States, or in the form of ground control posts as proposed by Marshal Bulganin.
  I put it to the Foreign Secretary that here is another aspect. Could he not press for a working party to consider the question of safeguards? There is already agreement in principle on both proposals, so why not have a working party to consider the technicalities of aerial inspection and ground control posts? I believe that a great deal of practical advance could be made along these lines.
  There are those who say that what we need to do, and what would be sufficient for the moment, is to abolish nuclear weapons. I cannot agree with this viewpoint. I believe we must abolish all weapons of mass destruction, both nuclear and conventional. Indeed, I would go further. I am very much afraid that if we were to get rid of all the nuclear weapons existing in the world today, instead of ending the nuclear arms race it would be followed by an even more intensive race in conventional weapons. Therefore, we must try to reach agreement to cover all weapons of war.
  I was interested to read that even Lord Russell, one of our greatest living scientists, in a recent debate in another place said that if there were no nuclear weapons at the beginning of a war, it would last a long time and, during that time, whatever agreements there might be to the contrary, nuclear weapons would be constructed. He stated that it was certain therefore that a big war would be a nuclear war and that we are faced with this situation.
  Our purpose must therefore be to prevent war, and in order to do that we must abolish all weapons of mass destruction,

  85
  be they nuclear or conventional. I will not embark upon a discussion of the merits of the ultimate deterrent. I believe it is serving its purpose as a deterrent, even though I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that it is not a weapon of defence. Although the hydrogen bomb may constitute the ultimate deterrent, in my view it is sheer folly to believe that we can go on living indefinitely in a world in which hydrogen bombs and ballistic missiles are accumulating day by day, believing that under no circumstances will these diabolical weapons be used. Mankind just cannot afford to rule out the possibility of a hydrogen war starting as the result of an error of judgment, or in some other way, as long as war is not outlawed and the arms race goes on. Therefore, I support strongly the proposal put forward by the Minister of Defence, even though informally, that we have to face this problem not on a sectional basis but in order to organise peace, just as we have to organise security within any civilised community.
  I hope the Foreign Secretary will go even a little further than the Minister of Defence did in his reference to the need for a world authority. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that Her Majesty's Government were opposed to a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe and are not in favour of a policy of disengagement. I believe there is a great deal to be said for both a policy of disengagement and a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe, although I agree that this of itself would not be the complete solution since it would create a vacuum which might be full of dangerous possibilities.
  If there were a United Nations police force in existence it could have been stationed in Central Europe between the Soviet Union on the one hand and the Western European countries on the other hand. It would have been an effective means of maintaining peace, whereas we now have diverging policies. Those diverging policies are as to whether we should rearm Germany, whether it should be rearmed with nuclear weapons, whether it should be rearmed with conventional weapons, whether all nuclear weapons should be taken away from countries contiguous one with another in Central Europe.
  I believe that the question of organising peace through a world security authority
  86
  should be considered now. I do not think we should wait until the world has started to disarm, as the Minister of Defence said. If I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, I hope the Foreign Secretary will correct me. Surely he did not mean we should wait until we have started what the Minister of Defence called comprehensive disarmament before we build a world security authority? If we are to get disarmament by stages, as we progress from one stage to another surely we can start, if we can get agreement, to build a world security authority and a world police force.
  The Government have steadfastly refused to accept the proposal made in recent years by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, South and others of us that they should seek to canalise the proposals made at various times and at various stages during the past eight years into a draft disarmament agreement. The fact that some countries might refuse to sign such an agreement does not seem to me to lessen the value of the proposal. Even if the first and, possibly, the second stage is to be confined to the suspension of nuclear tests, to initial reductions in conventional manpower, and possibly to some agreement as to safeguards against surprise attack and so on, why cannot the Government at the same time map out a draft treaty or agreement providing for comprehensive disarmament, and then go to the United Nations and sponsor that method of approach on their own responsibility?
  In conclusion, I would therefore ask the Foreign Secretary not to rule out the idea of embodying in a draft agreement the best proposals to be found in the Russian proposals of 10th May, 1955, and the proposals of the Western Governments in August, 1957. They could then go to the United Nations and father such a draft treaty. I believe that if they were to do this they would receive the support of the peoples in every country who want, above anything else at the present time, action to be taken and some progress made along the path of world disarmament.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. R. M. Bingham: It is a great honour, and an even greater source of anxiety, to be

  87
  speaking here for the first time in this Committee, particularly when I have the honour to follow so experienced and distinguished a speaker as the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). If I have to confess that, although much moved by the views he has expressed I cannot say I am persuaded by all of them, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, I am Sure, that, though we have different views as to the means, nevertheless we all share the same objective, namely, the problem of how to prevent anyone from dropping a nuclear bomb in anger.
  The problem of averting nuclear war is the paramount and overriding question of our time. Sincere minds working towards the same end can travel by many different approaches. There are those—I confess that I number myself among them—who think that strength is the first and best guarantee of deterrence against aggression. There are others who sincerely believe that unilateral disarmament will give the example necessary to reduce tension. If one is frank one recognises that in both those courses and in all that lies in between there are risks which are all the graver if one takes account of the fact that the penalty for failure is such that one will not have the chance to try again.
  I agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton when he said that we must go to all and every length to avert the catastrophe of another nuclear war. We must do that in our bounden duty not only to ourselves and our children but to the generations which will follow us, and also in our duty to the whole concept of human civilisation and belief in our progress. The fear of nuclear war surrounds mankind today as surely as in the past our ancestors were haunted by the fear of famine. How are we to get rid of this most potent menace which surrounds us, perhaps the last fear that man has before he can fully account himself civilised? The suspension of nuclear tests and unilateral disarmament may be good, though I believe they are mistaken, but, even if they are good, they would be palliatives only; they could alleviate the symptoms, but they could never hope to cure the causes.
  88
  What I believe we should do is to recognise war for what it is, an occupational disease of mankind. The causes of that disease, like cancer, are only imperfectly understood even yet. Until we recognise the causes of war with certainty and apply remedies to them, we shall have as much chance of effecting a permanent cure as, for instance, would a layman faced with an urgent case of appendicitis.
  I suggest with all diffidence and humility that there are two, and two only, real causes of war. The first is the want of a proper standard of living, of food and primary resources, in many backward countries today; in other words, their unrequited primary needs. The second cause is the ambition of certain nations, which has existed throughout history, to dominate other nations.
  If those are the two real causes of war, I suggest that it would be wrong to look on unilateral disarmament or a lowering of our strength as any remedy for them or a guarantee against them. It would be like disbanding one's police force. Strength as a deterrent will certainly be of value to control the ambitions of nations to dominate others. Strength would also be of some use, possibly, to hold in check the aggressive aspirations of nations with unrequited primary needs, which wanted to obtain by aggression what they lacked. But if one relied on strength or any unyielding formula as the only expedient, one would be only postponing and not averting the ultimate explosion, and the longer the explosion was postponed, the more certain and the more violent it would be when it came. If strength in armaments can be only an imperfect remedy, unilaterial disarmament, unless it preserved for us a balance of strength, would be no remedy at all.
  What I believe we should do—I believe the time is ripe for it—is first to maintain, and to make certain that we maintain, a strong balance of strength in order to check and curb the ambition of other States to expand and spread their dominating influences over other parts of the world, and, at the same time, to apply all the energies we have to solving the first major cause of war, which is the disparity between nations in their unrequited primary needs and which, in my humble view, has been responsible for about 90 per cent. of the wars of history.

  89
  Here I speak with diffidence, but I am convinced that the magnitude of this aspect of the problem is not fully realised throughout the world. I suggest that there must be some form of institution or institute—there is none known to me in the world today—charged with two specific functions, one of which would be the accurate ascertainment of what the true causes of war are. Those causes having been ascertained with all the accuracy which analysis may make possible, the other function of the institution should be to devise remedial measures which will fully and effectively meet those causes when ascertained.
  In the result, I believe that one would have an ideology—for want of a better word—with which the West could sweep the world and in comparison with which the ideology of Communism would soon find itself relegated in the eyes of the whole world to the lifeless snows of Siberia where it belongs. If that were done, the path would lie open to international police forces and world authorities, for there would then be the firm basis on which peace could be built.
  If it is not done, it seems to me that the changing conditions of the world and the environment in which we live will within the next hundred years produce tensions from countries having unrequited primary needs, which will with all the certainty of a law of nature result in an explosion, and in a nuclear age it will be a nuclear explosion. If we do not have some such design, I can see no alternative to the certainty within the next hundred years of a nuclear explosion, whatever other measures are taken.
  Although I support the maintenance of our strength as our primary aim, that must be the short-term view, and behind that one must have a longer-term view to solve those tensions which are now building up; and I sincerely hope that a design such as I have so briefly suggested will one day come to fruition.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Beswick: It is with pleasure that I follow the hon. and learned Member for Garston (Mr. Bingham). He has entered a debate which has not been without controversy and yet he did so without in any way offending the tradition of the House of Commons about maiden speeches. He
  90
  rightly said, and said with force, clarity and obvious sincerity, that we have a community of interest in our long-term objectives.
  There is a community of interest between us in some of his immediate proposals and some of his methods of achieving the longer term objectives. I entirely agree that the disparity between the material welfare of one part of the world and that of another part is one of the major causes of instability in our affairs, and I am certain that we must have regard to that fundamental difficulty if we are to find a solution to the problem of securing permanent peace. I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee when I say that we look forward to future debates when the hon. and learned Member is able to develop some of the interesting themes which he put before us this evening.
  Having said that, and having had great pleasure in dealing with these non-controversial matters, I now turn to one or two matters of greater controversy. One of the most unfortunate features in the long series of these debates—formally today and in a rather less consecutive fashion at Question Time and on other occasions—has been the way in which some of Her Majesty's Ministers, when cornered and when faced with difficult questions, have impugned the patriotism of those questioning them.
  It was most unfortunate that the Prime Minister should have lost his temper the other day when replying to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker). We had exactly the same thing today from the Minister of Defence—the right hon. Gentleman knew that I intended to try to answer him and I appreciate that he has told me he had to leave the Chamber for a time. It is quite intolerable that when a question is directed to a Minister, when a case is put before a Minister, the only answer given is the sort of thing which the Prime Minister said when answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South. The Prime Minister said that my right hon. Friend was always thinking his own country wrong. When trying to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), the Minister of Defence today said that my right hon. Friend had great pleasure in

  91
  putting forward the case of the Soviet Union.
  That is just not true, and, moreover, it is very dangerous. It is dangerous because many right hon. Gentlemen opposite are now making the charge of a lack of patriotism against some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and are beginning to believe it. Because they are beginning to believe it, they are failing to get down to the basic problems with which it is necessary to deal.
  I am about to say, and I get no pleasure in saying it, that our country, my country, has been wrong in its dealings with other countries on disarmament in the last two or three years. Let us take the matter of nuclear disarmament. The Minister of Defence challenged me to say in what way the Soviet representatives had indicated their readiness to have a measure of international inspection and control. I will accept this challenge and say in detail what the Soviet representatives have proposed in this regard.
  I claim that this indicates that Soviet Russia has been prepared to have inspection and control, provided that there was some agreement on disarmament. Let me read what the Soviet representatives said, as recorded in page 950 of Cmd. 9652. They said:
  "For the fulfilment of the tasks of control and inspection entrusted to the International Control Commission, the latter shall have the right of:

  '(a) Access to any facilities for mining, production, and stockpiling of atomic raw materials and atomic materials, as well as to the facilities for the exploitation of atomic energy.

  '(b) Acquaintance with the production operations of the atomic energy facilities, to the extent necessary for the control of the use of atomic materials and atomic energy.

  '(c) Carrying out weighing, measurements and various analyses of atomic raw materials, atomic materials and unfinished products.

  '(d) Requesting from the Government of any nation, and checking, various data and reports on the activities of atomic energy facilities.

  "(e) Requesting various explanations on the questions relating to the activities of atomic energy facilities.'"

  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Commander Allan Noble): Can the hon. Member give me the date of that publication?
  Mr. Beswick: It was published in 1956.
  Mr. I. J. Pitman: Will the hon. Member say where is the control and where the crunch comes in? All this information is to be made available, but the element of control surely leads to the issue of sovereignty, that somebody must be there to control and prevent manufacture.
  Mr. Beswick: The Russians have proposed for that exactly the same sort of international disarmament agency to which the Minister of Defence referred earlier. I maintain that it is quite wrong for us to say that our country is white and the other country is black when we are faced with facts of this kind.
  There is another example of the way in which the Government have tried to get out of a difficult position when cornered. They have said, "If we have these reductions in atomic armaments, the Russians will have superiority of conventional armaments". This was an argument which we used with great effect for many years until 1955. I recollect Sir Gladwyn Jebb saying in the United Nations Sub-Committee on 28th May, 1952:
  "If we could reach agreement on the levels of all armed forces … I am sure that this in itself would restore international confidence to such an extent that the problem of controlling atomic energy … would present a much less formidable obstacle than it has done in the past."
  That was the kind of argument which we had time and time again in answer to the Russian demand for nuclear disarmament.
  We then reached a position when the Russians said, "We will accept your proposals"—the Anglo-French proposals—"for a reduction in conventional manpower." We then switched our position entirely, and on 7th May, 1956, Mr. Anthony Nutting, who was then Minister of State, told me why we could not accept the Russian proposals, which were in fact the Anglo-French proposals, for a reduction of conventional manpower down to the 1·5 million upper limit. He said that we could not accept the proposals
  "For this very simple reason: to go down to 1·5 million, for example for the United States, would, I am advised, mean that the United States could no longer maintain its commitment within Europe, and that would mean the disruption of the N.A.T.O. defence structure …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May. 1956; Vol. 552, c. 837.]
  That may well have been the case and that may have been a sound argument,

  93
  but it is not good enough for Ministers to say that we could not accept the Russian proposals for atomic disarmament because that would mean leaving them with superior conventional forces.
  On 25th April, 1956, we were told that we could not carry through a programme involving drastic reductions in forces and armaments until political problems had been settled. We are entitled to say that the Government are at fault in these matters, and it is not good enough for them to say that we delight in putting forward the Russian case. That is not so. I delight in one thing only, and that is trying to get at the truth. So far as my research has taken me—and in my endeavours to get at the truth of this matter I have devoted some time to it—I am convinced that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South is absolutely right when he says that since May, 1955, the guilt has passed to the Western nations.
  Why is it that we take this attitude? I try to understand the explanations about why responsible Ministers can take up this obstructionist attitude whenever we are in sight of some agreement on disarmament. I think the reason is that they genuinely fear that once we get some way towards disarmament, there will be a disintegration of the N.A.T.O. organisation. They are afraid to go forward to any other method of defence than that upon which we have relied in the past. They fear the future if it is not backed up by national defences. This argument was very well put in an article in the New York Times on Sunday, 25th May of this year, from which, with permission, I will quote:
  "The most effective unifying cement in any alliance is fear. It has therefore been American policy to insist on the Soviet military menace as a means of keeping N.A.T.O. together. This was the American line at the N.A.T.O. summit meeting last December when Mr. Dulles won acceptance at least of the principle that American missile bases and nuclear stockpiles should be stationed on European soil."
  Of course, precisely the same line was taken by the Americans and ourselves at the Geneva talks in 1955. We fell back upon the Soviet menace, and the subject of disarmament, which the French thought was to be No. 1 on the agenda at the Geneva summit talks, was switched to No. 3. We put as No. 1 the possibility of German reunification. Of course,
  94
  the famous "Geneva spirit" evaporated and no agreement was reached. But there was the possibility of agreement and most of us thought that it would be reached at Geneva. The reason why it was not was that the proposals that the Russians were then putting forward brought disarmament nearer, and, on their own showing, the Americans believe that without the fear of Soviet Russia, the N.A.T.O. alliance will not stand up.
  If there is any truth at all in this analysis, we have to ask ourselves how we can break through this barrier of fear. How can we meet the legitimate doubts of those in the Western world who genuinely fear for the safety of their people were any disarmament agreement reached? I agree profoundly with what was said earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale about the very natural desire of individuals not to give up their own personal arms if there is no national police force upon which they can rely for their personal safety. I agree that this has been one of the difficulties in the past which have prevented us from reaching any disarmament agreement. But to some extent I disagree with my right hon. Friend when he says that now there is a new situation.
  We have reached this nuclear age, and, as the Committee knows, I cannot bring myself to believe that we get any security at all from stockpiles of hydrogen bombs. I cannot believe that in any situation I should be justified in giving an order to drop a hydrogen bomb in any part of the world; and if I cannot bring myself to give that order, I do not believe that I am entitled to expect anyone else to give it in my name. Therefore, I will have nothing to do with the hydrogen bomb. But I recognise that there is this reluctance on the part of many people to give up any national armaments unless there is some other form of security upon which they can rely.
  I think that today the answer is—this is where I agree with what was said by the Minister of Defence in the closing sentences of his speech—that as we dismantle these futile, expensive, tension-provoking national defences, we have at the same time to begin to build up a constructive and hopeful system of collective security. Where, in my opinion, we made a mistake in the past was in confusing collective security with a system

  95
  of national military alliances. The collective security force of the future must be under the control of a central world authority, the United Nations, and this force should be recruited directly by the United Nations and be responsible directly to that organisation.
  The Minister of Defence does not appreciate that when he is cold-shouldering these proposals for disarmament, he is at the same time making it more difficult to build up the kind of collective security system which, apparently, he envisages, and which I certainly envisage. Today the opportunities for building up that kind of collective, peace-keeping system are absolutely immense, and eminently practical. They are bound up with the whole problem of disarmament, and I wish to go on to show in rather more detail what I mean.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: Who is to provide this collective force and who is to control it, if not the great Powers who are at present quarrelling with each other?
  Mr. Beswick: There are a lot of people in this world who will not take readily and immediately to this idea of an international police force. We have to learn to trust an international authority. Therefore, we have to move gradually to the sort of conditions referred to today by the Minister of Defence. I propose to go on to show in some detail how, as a matter of practical politics in the solution of our immediate problems, we can begin to build up this international system.
  First, there is the system of inspection which would be necessary if we are to achieve any measure of disarmament at all. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) really believes that all the talk and protestations by his colleagues about the possibility of disarmament are genuine. But it is the case that if we are to get any measure of disarmament, we must have some inspectorate, some form of international control. I believe that these inspectors must themselves be United Nations officers. We cannot allow teams from Britain or from the United States to go round checking and examining in, say, the Soviet Union, or in the territory of some other nation. The organisation
  96
  must be individually recruited. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt as to the practicability of this, let him look at the Secretariat of the United Nations which is now working very well and has a strong United Nations loyalty, and a very able and efficient staff. In precisely the same way we should get able, efficient and loyal individuals to serve in this other branch of the United Nations.
  Mr. Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer the questions I put to him? Who is to supply this force to start with, and who is to control it if it is not the great Powers who are today so much at variance with each other? Who is to supply the power and the policy?
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question—I think this follows—would he care to comment on the practicability of his suggestion, in view of what happened in North Korea, where it was shown that a United Nations force operates only as long as the operating great Power wants it to, and no longer?
  Mr. Beswick: What I should like to do would be to get on with my own speech and make my own points in my own way.
  The Korean force is not wholly satisfactory. In the first place, it was not organised on a full United Nations basis. It is not organised or recruited on an individual basis now. We made mistakes, and we can build upon them in the future in the hope of avoiding such mistakes. The Korean force served a useful purpose, but it is not a model for the future.
  I tried to make the point at Question Time today, with regard to the suspension of nuclear tests, that if we are to have a system of inspection it must be manned by individuals recruited by the United Nations and responsible to the disarmament agency which I hope we shall set up under United Nations auspices.
  Then there is this idea of a zone of disengagement in Europe. In one form or another this idea of an arms-free zone in Central Europe has been supported by almost everyone who matters, with the exception of the United States of America. I am especially surprised that

  97
  Her Majesty's Government seem to be cold-shouldering this idea, which was originally put forward not by the Leader of the Opposition but by a Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden.
  This is a possibility, something which we could now have and to which the Russians, the Poles and the Yugoslavs have given their support. It is something in which the Eastern Germans apparently believe. We could get it if we now worked hard enough for it. As part of the policy of disengagement in Europe we should, instead of leaving a complete vacuum, have to see stationed there United Nations inspectors, or, better still, a police force properly recruited, armed and trained, and responsible to the United Nations.
  Then, of course, there is the Middle East. There is another opportunity. I recall that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) suggested—in 1956, was it?—that we should have a United Nations force patrolling the frontiers in the Middle East between the Arab countries and Israel, there was, as HANSARD records, an interruption. What actually happened was that several Government supporters, including perhaps the hon. Member for Louth who is now smiling, laughed and said that that was impossible; yet within six months there was in being a United Nations emergency force keeping law and order on the frontier there.
  We now have an opportunity to see that kind of emergency force put upon a proper, permanent basis. If the Minister of Defence is serious when he says that he wants an international police force as well as a disarmament agency he should be doing now everything he can to see that the United Nations Emergency Force is put upon a proper basis.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South that it would be easier to inspect and control a thorough going disarmament convention than to inspect and control some small, modest agreement. Nevertheless, whether we make a modest start or get an agreement upon a comprehensive programme of disarmament, it will be necessary at the same time to have this international organisation, a United Nations organisation, equipped to keep law and order,
  98
  and given the forces needed to maintain law and order in trouble areas.
  Our problem now is that of transferring armed force from individual nation States to a world authority. We are very often called "defeatist" or "neutralist" because some of us on these benches object to tagging hopelessly behind the United States in a policy of fear, so admirably described in the extract from The New York Times. I do not see any hope if we tag along in that miserable and sterile way. And I do not consider myself either neutralist or defeatist, but activist and postivist. I want the Government to take a more positive part in world affairs.
  I want to see a British Foreign Secretary who can get up here and talk, knowing that the rest of the nations of the world are listening. I want a Foreign Secretary again who can say with authority and influence what ought to be done and to expect people throughout the world to listen to him with respect. I want his authority to be based, not upon stockpiles of hydrogen bombs but upon the wisdom that we have accumulated in the past. We have made a great contribution to the development of national democracy and social progress; our next task is to make a similar step forward in the international sphere. We can take a lead in this connection, but not if we fall back upon the sort of reply that we have heard from the Government Front Bench today.
  6.36 p.m.
  Sir James Hutchison: Perhaps I might start my address by adding my congratulations to those that have been offered to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) on his maiden speech.
  My hon. and learned Friend will no doubt be feeling greatly relieved at having got over that extremely difficult obstacle. I well remember when I got over that obstacle, which we all have to get over, and felt the sense of relief which I hope and believe my hon. and learned Friend is feeling. About a couple of days afterwards somebody met me in one of the Lobbies and asked me, "Have you made your maiden speech yet, old boy?" I then realised the amount of impact which had been made by that great oratorical effort of mine. I am sure that

  99
  the impact of my hon. and learned Friend's speech will have been very much greater than that. When he mets a friend in the Lobby the question will not be, "Have you made your maiden speech yet?", but "When are you going to speak again?".
  Now let me turn to the points which have been made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). Particularly was I interested in his excerpt from the New York Times which tended to show that a sort of spurious reliance upon the Soviet menace was needed to keep the unity of N.A.T.O. and the West. How can we have become so blind to the menace which is there? How otherwise can we account for the discrepancy between the, let us say, 170 divisions of the Soviet forces and out pitiful 17, which is all that we have effectively in N.A.T.O., or for the tremendous submarine programme of Russia? That programme comprises 600 submarines, which is a far greater number than ever attacked this country in the past. There is the programme of 20,000 aircraft.
  How can we say that there is no menace? That is not the only menace; there is the one which will ultimately hit us hardest, the building up of industrial and economic competition. There is no need to introduce the idea of spurious menace into the argument. We would be mad if we did not see it and take steps to deal with it.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred to the idea of a nuclear-free zone in the centre of Europe and reminded us that my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, had in fact put forward similar proposals. Quite true; he did, but with the immensely important proviso that it must be accompanied by reunification of Germany. There is no evidence of the Russians being prepared to accept that proviso.
  My speech is becoming very nearly a foreign affairs speech, but I would like to expatiate a little on this point. I am not satisfied that a nuclear-free zone in Europe would diminish tension. It seems to be assumed that if we created a no-man's-land in Central Europe tensions would be reduced. That was not the experience in the First World War; when the no-man's-land was wide I did not
  100
  notice any reluctance of the forces to attack one another.
  I suggest that new tensions might well be set up which could be as dangerous as those which exist at present. It is a fundamental error to assume that if we cleared troops out of Central Europe people in those parts would then be quite happy, there would be no jealousy and no new tensions would be set up.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: Would not the hon. Member agree that it would have the same psychological advantage in the interest of world peace as the withdrawal of Russian troops from Austria?
  Sir J. Hutchison: I do not think that is a complete analogy. Austria is a very small country with limited powers and interests, with little power to do harm and few jealousies. I do not want to stir up antagonisms in Europe, but would the hon. Member say the same would apply in an area which included Czechoslovakia, Poland, a reunited Germany and Hungary, because they think very differently of Communism in those States? I do not want to go further into that because it is a matter for a foreign affairs debate and I want to narrow down my speech to the question of disarmament.
  The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that we were not dealing with trivia. I could not agree more. These are matters of transcendental importance which are entitled to the most serious thought and treatment we can give them. However impressive a plea may be and however emotionally filled in its presentation, that does not turn it into a good speech if the content is unsound. That, in my opinion, is where the speech of the right hon. Member fell to pieces.
  Let us examine three fundamental fallacies upon which the whole of his case was built. He said that fear now arises not from what it arose in the past, but from the very character of the weapons with which both sides are armed. That to me is not the fear. The fear I suffer from and the threat which I am determined to repel is that a foreign nation says openly that it is determined, using any methods at its disposal, to impose its ideological philosophies upon my country, by force if necessary. That is the fundamental fear which divides Russia and

  101
  the West. Drop that threat and all need for these weapons and armaments would be at once diminished.
  That was the first fundamental fallacy in the speech of the right hon. Member. There was another in relation to which I was rapped over the knuckles. It seemed a new line of thought to me that one should only interrupt a speech to clarify something. The right hon. Member said that a deterrent could not be regarded as a weapon of defence. I asked where, if we take away the deterrent, does the defence go? Then he admitted that it could be preventive. It is splitting hairs to say that something is not a deterrent but a preventive of war. That was the second fallacy, that the deterrents of nuclear weapons are not keeping the peace. N.A.T.O. has kept the peace for ten years. People have a great tendency not to notice the disasters they have missed, but up to now N.A.T.O. has done what it was set up to do.
  The third fallacy was that the rearming of Germany was regarded by Russia as an act of provocation, particularly the rearming by nuclear weapons. They were afraid of German adventures. I believe that to be a profound misjudgment of Russian mentality, and I want to tell the Committee two stories to support that view. When during the war Stalin was told that the Pope disagreed with some of the things he was doing, Stalin turned to his interlocutor and asked, "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?" That was all that counted.
  At a conference between my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and Stalin negotiations had been going on for a long time and Stalin was obdurate and unsmiling. No progress was being made and at that stage Stalin turned to an interpreter and said, "Ask the Prime Minister when Britain is going to start fighting." We had borne the heat and burden of the day for years and the campaign in North Africa was going pretty well. The then Prime Minister reacted as we can imagine he would. With eyes flashing, he banged the table and let Stalin "have it."
  For the first time in two days, Stalin smiled. He turned to the interpreter and said. "Tell the Prime Minister I do not know what he is saying, but I very much like the way he is saying it." Again that
  102
  was the only thing that counted—toughness, strength and determination. When people say that because we bring Germany into the Western forces and arm them with nuclear weapons we are really upsetting the Russians, they are quite misjudging the Russian character and Russian appreciation of what counts.
  It was, I think, M. Herriot, that eminent French statesman, who, when talking about disarmament, made the aphorism that the verb "to disarm" was a very irregular verb, with no first person singular and only a future tense. The truth of that sage remark has been borne out in the ten years in which we have tried to make some progress on disarmament, and as we have followed the turns and twists which those talks have taken, the tergiversations which perhaps hon. Members opposite say apply to both sides, but which I think apply to the other side.
  When we look at the sixteen proposals, listed recently in HANSARD, which have been made by the West over the past ten years and turned down, we are driven to the conclusion that there is no really serious intention on the other side to come to a full-scale disarmament agreement, but that some other purposes lie behind the near-comedies which have been going on for some years. Perhaps it is propaganda, at which the Iron Curtain countries, Russia in particular, are so adept, but perhaps also it is to keep our eyes averted from the build-up of economic and industrial strength, which they are openly boasting about, and from which I believe the ultimate threat to us will come.
  The suspicion that there is no real intention behind the major disarmament programme becomes stronger when we realise that only recently the Soviet have refused to take part in the expanded Disarmament Commission or the Sub-Committee and have proposed in contrast that the United Nations should form a permanent disarmament committee. One hon. Member opposite said it indicated that the Russians were fed up with the whole thing and did not believe that we intended to disarm. If so, how could they make the suggestion that 82 nations should form themselves into a permanent disarmament committee? The wildest optimist could not possibly imagine that progress could be made in a body of that

  103
  kind, composed in many cases of nations with only the faintest idea of the problems and with even less idea of the psychological background from which the West suffers.
  I wish to ask whoever is to reply to the debate why no mention has been made in these negotiations, so far as I can see, of the build-up of submarines. I think those submarines are the most menacing of the Russian strength build-up. What rôle can a submarine play in defence? It seems to be a purely and exclusively aggressive weapon. It looks to me as if the Soviets were calculating on a long war and that, once again, the supply lines of the West would be attacked. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) is a great expert in these matters. I wish to know if the question of submarines has been discussed in these talks and if any proposals have been made.
  I am glad, and I believe it is common ground, for there is a good deal of common ground between hon. Members opposite and ourselves, that we cannot, should not, and that it would be extremely dangerous to have a convention on nuclear weapons alone, and that any disarmament convention that is made must make a drastic reduction in the number of Russian conventional troops. Otherwise, supposing that by a process of one agreement after another, we could eliminate nuclear weapons on both sides, there would still be 170 divisions against 17 in the West. It is no good quoting figures of 1 million or 2 million troops in the forces of the West unless they are able to get into the fight. That is a consideration which is so often left out of account. America may be agreeable to reduce her forces to 2 million or 11 million—and such figures have been used—but that means little unless she retains her troops in the West, continuing to play a useful part, in case a war should break out.
  I hope, too, that this country will be able to keep the 5,000 troops in the West forming part of our strategic reserve, which has been subject of negotiation and consideration already. I believe that S.H.A.P.E. would accept that, now that we have got some form of payment for support costs, and, therefore, that difficulty is, pro Canto to the 5,000, out of the way. I think it is doing great damage
  104
  to the reputation of this country in the eyes of some of my colleagues whom I meet in Western European Union that we should go on withdrawing our conventional troops in the way we have been doing. They wonder if we are serious or if we merely threw them into the arena in order to get German rearmament agreed to in Europe, and now we are drawing them all back. I hope the Government will make an arrangement to keep the 5,000 troops in Western Germany, able to be used, and agreed to by S.H.A.P.E., as I am sure it will be, if for any strategic requirements we wanted to move them to another part of the world.
  I am also glad that it has been recognised by everybody that an agreement on disarmament without control and inspection is valueless. This is the core and substance of the whole matter, and I am glad that we seem to be making a little progress in the correspondence which has been passing rather fitfully between President Eisenhower and Mr. Khrushchev on the possibility of the study of the control of disarmament, and especially of nuclear tests. If even this minor advance can be made, it might easily start to break up the log jam, if there is a serious intention behind both parties trying to draw up a disarmament agreement.
  On this question—and I think this will answer one of the points made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge—there is an international agency at the present time which was set up for the control of armaments. It was set up by Western European Union and is called the Armaments Control Agency. It was set up three or four years ago, and is under the control of Admiral Ferreri, an Italian, who has his headquarters in Paris. Its task, under Western European Union, is to see that the nations of the West do not build up forces in excess of what has been agreed, and, perhaps more important, that the Germans do not proceed to manufacture that list of weapons which they have voluntarily renounced.
  I should like to ask whoever is to reply for the Government what lessons have been learned from this international control agency which is charged with doing this international duty. What lessons have been learned and what progress has been made? How far will it

  105
  be feasible? This can be a most valuable trial run, this international agency set up by Western European Union under Admiral Ferreri, and I am sure that lessons can be learned, and probably have been learned, but I should like to know what they are.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to add that the International Atomic Energy Authority now established in Vienna has a very great deal of practical experience, now applied over a limited field, in the technique of inspection and control of fissile material which could be used for atomic weapons?
  Sir J. Hutchison: That is quite true. That is a rather narrower field, hut, added together, we can learn a great deal from the two bodies already set up.
  I wish to make a particular appeal for the widening of the infrastructure system of payments. These are long and important-sounding words, and perhaps I had better explain what the system is. It is claimed that it makes for greater efficiency and reduction in costs.
  It became evident in the defence system of the West that certain countries would have to provide a large number of airfields, pipelines or defence equipment of that kind. If they had had to pay all the costs themselves they would have suffered an unfair and grievous burden. Therefore, it was decided to set up the common fund, the infrastructure fund, to which the nations of N.A.T.O. would contribute, which fund was to be used to meet the costs of providing such things as airfields, pipelines, certain facilities in the port of Glasgow, in which my constituency is situated, and so on.
  It is used only to a very limited extent, in that the regulations lay down that it shall only be used for fixed equipment or fixed assets. Anything that can be moved cannot be provided in this way, Why not? What is there sacrosanct about things that are fixed? Why cannot the fund be used for important articles that can be moved? We can get the pipelines for supplying the petrol needed for defence under this system, whereas the lorries which take it from place to place cannot be provided by the same means.
  I believe that the same fund will be used for setting up guided missile bases, and I think that is a very good idea, but
  106
  I should like to urge—and I am sure that S.H.A.P.E. would be glad to see this—that it should be applied in even further directions, and to things like radar equipment, guided missile launchers and perhaps to some forms of aircraft. If it is true that by combining funds in this way we can get articles cheaper and also achieve greater efficiency, we should lose no chance to promote this efficiency and cheapening of costs, and that is where it links up with the question of disarmament.
  Finally, I wish to say a word about the communications which have taken place between our Prime Minister and General de Gaulle. The recent happenings in France could make Europe much stronger; but they could also make Europe much weaker. During the war, General de Gaulle conceived it necessary and his duty to be "beastly to Britain." He thought that if he was not, people in France would think that he was being dragged at the apron strings of Britain. There is no need for that any longer. I do not wish in any way to indicate that he will be, but I hope that General de Gaulle will recognise his responsibility to Europe as well as his responsibility to France.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I begin by echoing what was said at the opening of their speeches by the two first speakers in the debate—that one approaches any question of arms and disarmament, war and peace, with great humility, for the issues are so immense and the consequences may be so terrible.
  Today is a memorable day, made memorable by the speech of the Minister of Defence. For the first time a Government have made the declaration to the world, and made it solemnly at the Box in the House of Commons, that they are prepared in the interests of universal peace and for the sake of all humanity, not only for the sake of the people of this country, to surrender their sovereignty.
  Mr. Henry Usborne: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman remembers it—I expect he does, because he was in the House at the time—but on Friday, 23rd November, 1945, the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin,

  107
  made a very powerful speech in very much the same terms as those we heard from the Minister of Defence today.
  Mr. Davies: I was coming to that. I think I am right in saying that this is the first time that the specific declaration has been made. I know that a statement was made by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, but not in those exact terms. I know, too, that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) has held this view and that it has been a policy which he would have liked to follow for over a quarter of a century. I also recall the statement which was made by the present Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Defence, on 2nd March, 1955, and there is also the statement in the White Paper issued this year, which we know was written by the Minister of Defence. But never has there been such a clear and definite statement before the whole world of preparation to surrender our sovereignty, if the others will do the same, in the interests of universal peace.
  It is memorable because all the efforts that have been made to secure peace in the world have failed upon that one point. That was the reason why the two Hague conferences failed, because there were too many Governments, and especially the German Government of that time, refusing absolutely to give up any part of their sovereignty, even though it might bring peace to the world. It was the reason why the League of Nations failed, and it is the reason why the United Nations hitherto has not been the succeses that we all hoped it would be when it was started. Certainly the writer of that great Preamble to the United Nations Charter would have rejoiced today had he been alive to hear the statement made from the Box by the Minister of Defence.
  I sincerely hope that now that the statement has been made the Government will not rest with a mere statement but will follow it up. They will find, perhaps partially due to the work of some hon. Members, that in many Parliaments there are those who will be prepared to welcome this statement and to urge their own Governments to adopt it. I can assure the Committee that there are 40 or 50 Parliaments with Members who will say that that is the very policy which they think will bring about peace and
  108
  that they are prepared in their Parliaments to press their Governments to follow that policy.
  In particular, I should have thought that the Government could have appealed to the little nations, for these nations have never been consulted about their position in the great wars. They have never been heeded in the slightest degree. The great ones of the earth have trampled across their countries, destroyed their property and their homes and imprisoned and killed their people. Belgium had no part whatever in the controversies which led to the First World War, nor in those which led to the Second World War. Nor had Holland, Denmark or Norway. But that did not stop the great nations from trampling across them. I should think that the small nations of the world will join together in welcoming this policy, and I therefore hope that the Government will take immediate steps to follow up this statement.
  I can also assure them that they will have support amongst even the great nations, for some of us have already been in communication with both the Prime Ministers and the Foreign Secretaries of those nations. Let them not merely stop at consulting these and asking how many will join. Let them take it up with the United Nations and press it forward there. If the free nations of the world joined together in making this solemn declaration, does anyone think that Russia and her satellites could then stand outside? What a wonderful effect it would have upon public opinion throughout the world to know that the free nations of the world, in the cause of peace, are prepared to surrender their sovereignty and to put the future in the hands of an international police force, and that the disputes which will inevitably arise will be settled not by force but by reason in the course of justice.
  I should think that for the first time the free nations will have public opinion on their side, supporting them as they have never had that support before. Hitherto they have allowed propaganda to come from Russia, but this is far finer propaganda that they can put forward.
  In the meantime, I should like the Government to proceed with other matters. I know that they have been in the forefront in pressing for the best

  109
  means of obtaining effective inspection. Let them also press forward with that and with the establishment of an international police force. If this cannot be done at the moment for the universe, lot them at least try to establish such a small force as may be necessary in such disputes as have recently arisen. The force which was used when the Suez dispute arose was not a proper police force. What is needed is that there should be individual recruitment and responsibility entirely to the United Nations, with the force ordered by and paid for by United Nations. Will the Government follow that up and take that as one of the steps towards the great policy which they have enunciated?
  I do not know why they still want to carry on with tests of the hydrogen bomb. There was a time when they were prepared to give it up.
  Reference has been made time and again to the changes that have taken place in the proposals put forward by the Government and the proposals put forward by Russia. It is just as well that we should refer to the Resolution of 14th November, 1957. It followed very long discussions. It would be as well if I read it. Recalling the Resolution of 4th November, 1954, the Resolution said:
  "Emphasising the urgency of decreasing the danger of war and improving the prospects of a durable peace through achieving international agreement on reduction, limitation and open inspection of armaments and armed forces,
  Welcoming the narrowing of differences which has resulted from the extensive negotiations in the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission,
  Believing that immediate, carefully measured steps can be taken for partial measures of disarmament and that such steps will facilitate further measures of disarmament,
  1. Urges that the States concerned, and particularly those which are members of the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission, give priority to reaching a disarmament agreement which, upon its entry into force, will provide for the following:
  (a) The immediate suspension of testing of nuclear weapons with prompt installation of effective international control, including inspection posts equipped with appropriate scientific instruments, located within the territories of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Pacific Ocean areas, and at other points as required:"
  110
  We voted for that, and so did 55 other nations, but I would remind the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that nine voted against it—Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Roumania, Ukraine and the U.S.S.R.—
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger. The right hon. and learned Gentleman read out paragraph 1 (a) of the Resolution, but there are also paragraphs (b), (c), (d) (e) and (f). It would be most valuable to have that on the record, because there was very much more to it than that.
  Mr. Davies: Of course there was, but I thought I was right in pausing there for the moment and pointing out that at that particular moment Her Majesty's Government were in favour of stopping these tests, and rightly, for I agree absolutely with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale. I do not think any country has the right to inflict damage upon other people—it happens during war, but this is damage that can be done and may be done and, as far as scientists tell us, is being done to innocent people today.
  Very rightly at that time Her Majesty's Government were prepared to stop these tests—
  Commander Noble: Perhaps I might make the position quite clear. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would wish to mislead the Committee. What he is quoting is part of a long Resolution. Therefore, if we voted for that part we did, in fact, vote for the whole of the Resolution. We have not changed our minds since then.
  Mr. Davies: But, in the mind of Her Majesty's Government, is the stopping of the tests really dependent on the acceptance of these matters, when the tests may be an evil in themselves, causing damage to perfectly innocent people who have no way of stopping it, or of entering an effective complaint or anything else? Why not stick to that, quite apart from the other conditions?
  Mr. Bevan: I understood the Minister of Defence said today that the Government were prepared to stop tests if a satisfactory system of inspection were agreed upon, independently of wider agreement.
  Commander Noble: I do not think that that is what he said.
  Mr. Davies: Whether that be right or wrong, I submit to the House and to Her Majesty's Government that it is wrong to continue with these tests when it is possible that they are doing harm to quite innocent people hundreds and even thousands of miles away—and that quite apart from all the other conditions contained in this Resolution.
  I do not know whether it is right that I should take up the time of the Committee in reading the rest of the Resolution, but perhaps I had better rapidly go through it. It goes on:

  "(b) The cessation of production of fissionable materials for weapons purposes and the complete devotion of future production of fissionable materials to non-weapons purposes under effective international control;

  (c) The reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons through a program of transfer, on an equitable and reciprocal basis and under international supervision, of stocks of fissionable materials from weapons to non-weapons uses;

  (d) Reduction of armed forces and armaments through adequate, safeguarded arrangements;

  (e) The progressive stablishment of open inspection with ground and aerial components to guard against the possibility of surprise attack;

  (f) The joint study of an inspection system designed to ensure that the sending of objects through outer space shall be exclusively for peaceful and scientific purposes;"

  We voted for that, and so did 55 other countries. Why, then, do we not press on with these matters?
  Incidentally, perhaps I might make this point. That Resolution provided only for partial disarmament, and yet it was thought that one could set up a machinery to see that the partial disarmament that had been agreed upon would be observed by all the nations. It is much more difficult, I should have thought, to set up a machinery to safeguard a partial disarmament than to set up a machinery to see that there is no armament at all. I should have thought that it would be so easy to extend the use of a factory that is thought to be manufacturing only so much, and thereby carrying out the agreement; but to abolish all these factories altogether I should think would be very much easier.
  Why do we at this present moment still continue to manufacture hydrogen
  112
  bombs? Do we in any way add to the strength of the West? Do we add in any way to the power that is already possessed in the shape of these weapons by the United States of America? I should say that the answer is quite definitely not; we are adding nothing to it. What we are doing is to encourage other countries to say, "Well, if Britain can do this, so can we."
  How long will it be, now that Germany is allowed to be rearmed and when her men will be trained in the use of nuclear weapons, before Germany will do what was done, in spite of the Treaty of Versailles, between the two wars? How long will it be? And would anybody say that the French Government, especially now under new guidance, will be content to play a sort of inferior part to us? Will there be any guarantee that France itself will not also start on the manufacture of these weapons? Where is it to end?
  What an opportunity we have. The Government having made this declaration today to the whole world of how they are prepared to give up our sovereignty in the interests of international peace, what a wonderful thing if they would also say, "We ourselves will begin now by not manufacturing another hydrogen bomb," I do implore the Government not to rest content with the mere declaration. There is great work that they can do. They can give that moral lead to the world that is so much needed by the nations today. There has been very little initiative coming from the West ever since the beginning of the war. In fact, there has been very little initiative from the West towards general peace since 1918. Let the Government follow up the very great statement they have made today.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. I. J. Pitman: A great deal has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) with which I greatly agree, and so I do not wish to refer at the very beginning of my remarks to those parts of his speech with which I disagree. I want rather to emphasise, as he has said, the very high importance that ought to be attached to what the Minister of Defence said towards the end of his speech. It is, potentially, a really epoch-making event. It is true

  113
  that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), Sir Anthony Eden, the present Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Defence, and the Foreign Secretary, as well as our present Minister of Defence, have said a great deal, in principle, in this direction, but this does seem to be the first time that an absolutely open and unequivocal statement, with all the necessary practical implications that follow it, has been made; a really definitive statement of the objective and how to get at it, and of the intention to reach it.
  After all, what is now being proposed is the total abolition of national armaments and—and this is even more important—the abolition of the possibility of rearmament. In what he has precisely said, the Minister of Defence is departing completely from the doctrine of disarmament as it has been discussed at Lancaster House, and as it has been discussed amongst the nations, certainly during my lifetime.
  I was particularly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) should have derided it and have said "Boloney". It is a practical and idealistic step forward, and it is the disarmament which we have been discussing over the last 50 years that is the boloney. Disarmament, after all, is nothing else than a deception which is boloney. I make a distinction here between disarmament which allows the ability to rearm and the total abolition of national armaments, which is what was discussed earlier this afternoon. There is a fundamental distinction between these two very dissimilar proposals.
  When I say that disarmament is boloney, it is in the sense in which we have been futilely discussing it at Lancaster House that there exists the element of boloney. Disarmament in that sense does nothing better than produce a cheaper peace. We lay off a few battleships and we lay off this and that expenditure; we have a longer period which is really a "phoney" war period in which we prepare for war after the actual declaration of war. It does not stop war. It only makes for a cheaper peace. Again, it fails entirely to deal with the question of the inherent right to rearm. Any nation which agrees to disarm inherently, by the fact that it is agreeing to do so, has the right to
  114
  rearm. We have not been facing that issue at Lancaster House.
  Finally, it is basing the issue on the supposition that law can be enforced by a small quantity of black ink on white paper. Fundamentally, the element about which we are deceiving ourselves is that talking about disarmament at Lancaster House could ever give us peace—that by a small piece of black ink on that white paper we have achieved peace.
  Let us face it. No Government whatever could possibly, without any reservation at all, sign such a disarmament document, because it is the function, and rightly so, of the Minister of Defence and the Foreign Secretary of every nation to protect their nation. If they think that rearmament is at any time essential in the interests of the protection of their nation, it is their duty to ignore that tiny little bit of ink on that paper. Moreover, historically, is not that exactly what we have seen at every period of history? How on earth at this stage can we suppose that by entering into Lancaster House and coming out again with a piece of white paper which is rather dirtier by reason of having more ink on it than when it went in, we have solved the problem of world peace?
  It is by the sort of world security authority about which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence was talking this afternoon that we alone can achieve anything in that direction. As my right hon. Friend said, it must be an undefeatable police force and it must have a monopoly of all the major weapons that there can be so that it shall be undefeatable.
  I was glad that my right hon. Friend did not say anything about world government but spoke only about security, and an authority for security. It is a function of Government to give security by arranging insecurity for others in a palpably insecure world. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was perfectly right. In the old days, a battleship could bombard from no more than 20 miles away. Now, we can be bombed at any place in the globe from any distance on the globe. We are far more insecure. It is the function of a Government at present to try to give insecurity to the other people. I maintain that, apart from the function of giving

  115
  insecurity, the function of government can still go on—there is plenty to govern—if this insecurity is removed and if the giving of insecurity to others is no longer a duty for every nation.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence was absolutely right. The setting up of the new world security authority must precede the abolition of national armaments. I hope to have my breakfast tomorrow morning and I thank God, as I have done for many years, that we have the British Navy, which ensures that our breakfast reaches us truly and safely with regularity. I am not giving up the British Navy or anything that protects my breakfast until I know—and I mean know—that I have an even better instrument for securing my daily breakfast. That goes for everybody—father, mother, son and daughter—in this and in every other country.
  My right hon. Friend has said that his suggestion is not a formal proposal or solemn declaration at this stage but that it is a new approach. I hope that in time he will make it a formal and really good weight-carrying proposal tabled in the right places as well as made here in the House of Commons. I have, however, a greater appeal to make to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who I am sorry is not in his place. The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, having trouble with his trousers. If he cannot get a Member from Scotland to lend him a kilt, I hope the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) will oblige him with one to enable him to think straight over what is an idealistic proposal that ought to appeal to him.
  It is no good the right hon. Gentleman sneering, as he did, at this proposal. It is no good his calling it boloney, because this is the practical point that will give a bit of unity particularly to his party and, I submit, also unity to the East and West. Each side is truly frightend and would, I believe, warmly welcome something which was a real solution.
  The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is out of character. I would like him to have listened to Lord Attlee in the David Davies Memorial Lecture upstairs in a Committee Room of this House of Commons when he advanced a proposal of this very kind and did not call it boloney. Lord Attlee, like the late Ernest Bevin,
  116
  has spoken earlier on this question, as the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) has recalled. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel Baker) is also, I believe, in favour. There are many people on that side of the Committee who will rally behind the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale if he treats this as a sensible suggestion instead of deriding it and calling it "boloney".
  I have listened to a series of speeches by the right hon. Gentleman for Ebbw Vale. He has been trying to build a bridge between two very different elements. One is the genuine pacifist element. I respect it. Pacifists do not want any gas, any bacteriological warfare or any high explosive or other even worse stuff. The genuine pacifist would not even take up a poker to defend his house in such a situation. It is a perfectly logical and unassailable situation. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is trying to make a gap between that element and the practical people on his own side who say, "Right. If I have to be in this wretched boxing ring, although I do not want to be there at all, I am going in equipped with everything, including the determining weapon. The one thing I will not go into the ring without is the one determining weapon the lack of which would completely sell me down the river." In speech after speech, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to use as a foundation this bridge across this unbridgeable gap, an attempt to draw a woolly distinction somewhere in the hydrogen bomb area which nobody on this side of the Committee or on his side has ever understood.
  I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give up this shilly-shallying and trying to justify a position in the middle which does not exist. He has a really good position that he can justify: namely, that his party has said that it wants to be strong in defence until there is a better set-up to take the place of it.
  We have to work for both these things in parallel. We must work for a world security authority which will thus be created as a new institution. When we hear the cry "Who goes home?" at night, we do no longer draw our swords to protect ourselves, because we have the London police. When England and Scotland meet one another friendlily, they know that they have put an end to the centuries of internecine wars because

  117
  there has been created a new institution, the British Government. We are no better people now than then; we are just luckier people because we have those two institutions. What we need in this world today is this new institution, the world security authority, and I believe than in years to come we shall be not better nations but just luckier nations that can thereby live in peace together.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Healey: All of us on both sides of the Committee know the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) has expressed his views. I only wish that I could agree with him in believing that the Minister of Defence was animated by the same spirit when he made the closing remarks to which the hon. Member referred.
  In the first place, if we look at what the Minister of Defence said, we find that he suggested that if the present line of approach to disarmament breaks down, we should say to the Russians, "First establish an absolutely comprehensive all-embracing control system, so that we know exactly what you have got and you know exactly what we have got, and only if we have this shall we start even the first step towards disarmament." In fact, this is a more extreme, unbalanced and one-sided position than any Western Government has so far taken in the disarmament talks.
  The Russian argument right through these talks is that its one great defence is the ignorance of the West of precisely what military resources it has and where precisely it has them. If we say to the Russians that we will not even start disarmament in any field until we know exactly all the strategic secrets of the Soviet Union, we are, in fact, saying that we are not serious in moving towards disarmament at all.
  I am afraid that the way in which the Minister of Defence presented the final section of his speech suggested simply that he wanted to distract attention from what is urgent and possible today by presenting the Committee with a completely unrealistic picture of what might be possible years hence. What depressed me most of all about the Minister's speech was the terrifying complacency which he displayed about the present
  118
  trend in the arms race. He talked throughout his speech as though he really believed that the form of security which we now enjoy would last for ever, and he defined the present form of security, as so many of us have done, as a balance of terror. Therefore, he seemed to suggest that it did not really matter whether or not we made much progress towards disarmament because at least the sort of security that we have enjoyed through the balance of thermo-nuclear terror on both sides would last indefinitely.
  I suggest that this complacency is totally unjustified because there is every reason to believe that the balance of terror which he described, and to which I think we have owed much of our security in the last ten years, is going to be upset. It is going to be upset not because of an accession of strength either to the Soviet side or the Western side of the balance. The balance of terror will be upset because, instead of having only two weights in the balance, before long we shall have three, four, five or six, a dozen, a score of independent thermo-nuclear Powers, and when we reach that position the possibility of constructing a stable and secure balance of power or of terror in the world will, I believe, have gone, perhaps for ever.
  It is in view of this prospect of the disintegration of the present world system, which with all its faults has protected us from major war over the last fifteen years, that I believe disarmament and immediate progress towards arms limitation and control is vitally necessary for the security of our own people and indeed for the security of all the peoples in the world.
  It is already clear that other members of the N.A.T.O. alliance are going to demand atomic weapons for themselves, and they will use exactly the same argument as the Minister of Defence used when he presented his White Paper to us two years ago, namely, that we cannot rely on the cover of the American thermonuclear deterrent once the Americans are able to mount their deterrent from bases in their own territory or at sea, and when implementation of the threat means destruction of the United States as well as Russia.
  The argument that the Minister of Defence used, perhaps rightly, to justify

  119
  his own defence policy is now being discussed and developed in France and Germany and above all in neutral countries. If countries cannot get these arms from the United States then they will in fact, as the British Government have done, cut their commitments to the alliance so that they can construct these arms for themselves. Plutonium is certain to be produced in the civil reactors, outside the present three atomic Powers, which will by 1970 be enough to produce 100 hydrogen bombs. This is the real threat to the whole world system which makes some form of agreement on arms limitation and control so urgent for all of us.
  France may explode her first atomic weapon this year. We know that she has already enough plutonium to make half a dozen H-bombs. Sweden and even Switzerland are likely to produce atomic weapons as soon as they have produced enough plutonium in their civil reactors. The balance of terror, with all its weaknesses, was a fairly stable thing so long as the countries which had the terror were widely separated and basically satisfied with their world position as, I believe, Russia and the United States are.
  I suggest that this balance cannot possibly be stable when the terrible weapons of mass destruction become available to countries which are by no means satisfied with their present position, countries such as those in Africa and Asia which are rising against their domination by the white peoples, countries nearer the dividing line between the Soviet Union and the Western bloc, and countries like Germany, which finds the division of its country intolerable.
  We saw only a few months ago how a few French airmen, without the authority of the French Government, could bomb a city in a friendly State and cause the deaths of women and children. The very men who carried out that bombing have recently changed the character of the French State in Paris, and within a year they may be in a position to commit similar acts of irresponsible folly with atomic weapons too.
  I believe, certainly after what we have seen in the last few months and indeed what we have seen in the last generation, that an irresponsible group of people in some country, if it has atomic weapons at its disposal, will not be held back by the rational considerations which, I think,
  120
  would influence this country, the United States and the Soviet Union, and might commit an act which would plunge us all into thermo-nuclear war.
  Mr. Pitman: That being so, I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman does not rejoice at what the Minister of Defence says about getting this new authority, which will have this supervision and powers of enforcement.
  Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Member and I hope to answer his question immediately. The question is: can we stop this process? What I think is clear is that we cannot possibly stop the process of the distribution of atomic weapons on one side of the Iron Curtain alone. It became clear, for example, during the attempt to operate the tripartite agreement for arms control in the Middle East that so long as there was a Power outside the system which could offer a country under control the weapons denied by the Western Powers, the whole thing must break down. I suggest that the time might well come in the not very distant future when some country or other inside the N.A.T.O. alliance, if it were denied atomic weapons by Britain and the United States, might be tempted to go to the Soviet Union and obtain them from her.
  It is only by co-operation between the two camps in the cold war that we can hope to halt this trend and establish a more suitable and secure basis for international peace. I believe that such co-operation will be possible so long as it is based on a sense of over-riding common interest, and I believe that the behaviour so far both of America and the Soviet Union and of Britain, shows that they recognise a common interest in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, which is even greater than the tremendous conflicts of political ideology and policy which divide them in the cold war.
  For do not America and Britain at the moment deny to their own allies the weapons which we know our enemies already possess? Is not this equally true of the Soviet Union which is just as unlikely to provide Poland, East Germany, Hungary and, above all, China with their own atomic weapons, if there is any alternative, as America and Britain are to provide France and Germany with their own atomic weapons under their own control?

  121
  However, I agree very much with the Minister of Defence that any first step towards disarmament must be based on mutual recognition of mistrust. It is no good expecting the Russians to trust us, and no good their expecting us to trust them. The history of the last forty years gives too many grounds for suspicion. Therefore, the first step towards co-operation can be made only in fields where the common interest is obvious to both sides, and where there is a possibility of 100 per cent. effective supervision and control, and the possibility of withdrawing concessions made if violation of the agreement is detected.
  That is why I believe that my party has fixed on the two fields in which immediate progress towards arms limitation in this sense might be possible this year. In the first place, we should go all out for agreement with the Soviet Union on a general, balanced limitation of armaments, conventional and nuclear, in Europe. What are the facts? In spite of the talk by the Minister of Defence about immense Soviet superiority in manpower, the latest American study in the New York Times two days ago shows that Soviet and United States military forces are roughly equal in number today at 2,500,000. And in Central Europe, the most dangerous area, the most encouraging thing of all is that the Soviet Union has met a unilateral withdrawal of Western troops by a unilateral withdrawal of its own troops, so that intelligence estimates published in the United States Press suggest that by the end of this year N.A.T.O. and the Soviet Union will both have roughly 350,000 armed men on each side of the Iron Curtain in Germany.
  Moreover, in Central Europe an effective system for verification and supervision already exists through the intelligence apparatus of the two sides. We know in substantial detail exactly what the Russians have in Eastern Europe and even in Western Russia, and they know, probably in greater detail, what we have in Western Europe and Britain. What is needed urgently is to ratify this secret knowledge of both sides by submitting it to authoritative investigation by some United Nations organ, and I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on this point.
  122
  I believe that agreement now in fixing the military situation roughly as it is in Central Europe would make possible a later reduction in the balance of conventional and atomic armaments on both sides of the Iron Curtain and lead to the general disengagement which we on this side of the Committee have so long supported. I cannot, however, feel that immediate progress is possible if Britain continues its stand on the question of a ban on atomic tests. Here I consider that the Minister of Defence wilfully evaded all the issues involved in this question. He said a certain amount about the dangers to health of the continuation of tests. What he did not tell us was that, according to the latest findings of the Medical Research Council, tests already carried out will lead to the deaths of between 10,000 and 100,000 people over the next thirty years—that is, of people who otherwise would not have died.
  I agree that 10,000 or even 100,000 are not many out of the total population of the world over the next thirty years. They are probably not more than the number of people who will be murdered over the same period, but does the Minister of Defence think that the murderer can justify his crime by the argument that millions more people die from natural causes? Yet this is precisely his argument today—that because people die of natural causes it does not matter if one kills people as well.
  On the relation of the ban on atomic tests to disarmament, the Minister skil-fully concealed the real issue but yet revealed it unwittingly in the earlier part of his speech. It is, of course, that it is impossible for a country which cannot test atomic weapons to build its own defence system round those weapons, and that is why Britain and France refused to ban the testing of atomic weapons last year, unless it was tied to an agreement on a large number of other things as well. If, as I believe, that is the fact, why did not the Minister admit it in his speech?
  The position today is that the Prime Minister is in Washington to discuss, among other things, whether he can persuade the Americans not to agree to a ban on atomic tests being separated from other measures of disarmament.

  123
  This is a shameful position for a British Government to have to place our people in. I agree with the Minister of Defence that if a ban on tests were introduced today, even an effective ban, it would gravely handicap our own atomic programme. But I believe that this handicap would be well worth bearing if, as a consequence, we could prevent the indefinite spread of weapons of mass destruction to all other countries of the world. I beg the Minister of Defence to remember what the Leader of the Opposition said at the time of Suez—that if one is really going in for jungle law one should remember that there are far more dangerous animals in the jungle than oneself.
  I believe that the possibility of a general control of nuclear tests is already proven. It may be that some tests can be carried out on small field weapons in secrecy, in areas where there are earthquakes and the tests get mixed up with seismic shocks, but I think that the Minister would agree that it is impossible for any country to build a defence system around atomic weapons if it is not allowed to test them or if it has to rely solely on the kind of tests that can be concealed. If the Minister of Defence so wishes, let him tie this step to the "cut-off" of production by saying that if agreement is not reached on a "cut-off" within five or ten years we shall go on testing. But for heaven's sake do not let us put ourselves in the position where the British Government is preventing an agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States which would be the first real step towards general disarmament and would be a major step towards preventing the sort of thermo-nuclear anarchy to which I referred earlier.
  I would agree with the Minister if he argued that there is no absolute security in any system of arms limitation and control and that the possibility of evasion and of a technological break-through which would make existing systems of control irrelevant would always be there, but I implore him and his colleagues to realise that if we continue the arms race on the present lines not only will it not give equal security but it will risk plunging us all in a catastrophe which could be the end of mankind.
  124
  I hope that when the Foreign Secretary replies to the debate he will contrive to be a little more realistic in dealing with this problem and will try at any rate to recognise the force of the arguments put from this side of the Committee—that an attempt today to achieve security by some sort of co-operation with the Soviet Union may well succeed. If we miss the opportunity this year, in five years' time it may be gone for ever.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: Much as our people in all parties desire disarmament, I believe we deceive them and ourselves if we promise them that we can provide it. I believe that only an agreement between Moscow and Washington can effectively give world disarmament, and that this is a fact which we must face.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) started his speech by saying that the means of defence have outrun the need for defence. Therefore, he argued, abolish the means of defence. But if we were to abolish the means of defence the need for defence would reappear. Then he went on to argue that we should set an example to the world by stopping nuclear tests in the hope that the rest of the world would follow. It seems to me that if we were to do this we would be gambling with the peace and security of our own people, and I want to explain why I think so.
  This could succeed only if both Washington and Moscow followed our lead. It seems to me that if we were to act unilaterally inside N.A.T.O., instead of Washington following our lead, this would tend to drive the Americans more into themselves or to depend more and more upon Western Germany and Japan, which in my opinion would not be to the advantage of our people and our country. How far would that example be followed by Russia? Would it have any influence on Mr. Khrushchev? I do not think it would have any influence on Moscow, for my impression of Mr. Khrushchev was that he regards us largely as a satellite of the United States. In his view, we are no longer one of the three great world Powers.
  There are now only two great world Powers, America and her followers and Russia and her followers, and therefore

  125
  what we did on our own would not influence Mr. Khrushchev. I am convinced—and this the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said clearly—that Russia really fears American capitalism as much as America fears Russian Communism.
  Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have talked to many of the Russian leaders when I was out there six months ago, and I was struck by their real fear of a strong, reunited Germany. They do not for got that Germany has overrun their country time after time. Mr. Khrushchev said to me directly that he was in the Ukraine when Hitler's armies swept across it and 6 million people were killed there. He is entitled to be frightened of them, and, as I see it, he is entitled to defend his own country and to do what he can to protect his own people. I came back convinced that Mr. Khrushchev wants peace because he thinks that in a few years' time, given peace, he will so complete the industrial revolution which is taking place inside his own country that he will give to his own people a higher standard of material comfort than we enjoy in the West. If he succeeds in doing that, he argues that he will be successful.
  I am convinced that if we set him an example of a Gandhi-like, Quaker-like, pacifist-like type of peace it would make no impression upon him because he is interested in power and strength, in who is the boss, who is to rule, who can carry out these things. That is why, when I hear hon. Members on both sides of the House pleading for a United Nations police force, I want to know who will supply the power and how there is to be sufficient power to resist either the will of America, if she should wish to exercise it as occasionally she has exercised it in, say, Latin America, or the will of Russia, as occasionally she has exercised it in, say, Hungary. I do not think that the world peace group have their feet on earth. They are living in a world of fantasy. Therefore, I think that if we gave a lead to the two great Powers it would produce no result.
  What is the alternative, for obviously we cannot live under this awful shadow of annihilation for ever? What can be done about it? I will suggest an alternative to my right hon. Friend. As things stand I do not think that the Summit Conference, on which so many of us based such high hopes a few months ago,
  126
  will produce results at the present time. The moment, the mood, has been lost. Until there is greater mutual confidence between the Russians and the Americans, this shadow will never be lifted from us, so the most important thing to do is to get the Russians and the Americans to agree that both systems can exist without interference from each other. At present, there does not seem any possibility of this being achieved.
  This is what I wonder. If, as I fear, the summit talks will not take place, would my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister consider honouring the promise made by Sir Anthony Eden to Mr. Khrushchev when he visited London two-and-a-half years ago to repay that visit? Will my right hon. Friend go to Moscow, without an agenda and without experts, to see if he cannot create an atmosphere of confidence, without selling the Anglo-American alliance upon which our safety depends? Because there must be created such an atmosphere of confidence before disarmament talks can produce any results.
  Otherwise, no matter what bit of white paper we take into a conference and bring out smeared with ink, as my hon. Friend said, it will become what Kaiser Wilhelm called a mere scrap of paper unless the will is behind it. It seems to me that it is mere wishful thinking on our part to say that we will produce peace for our people and lift the awful threat of annihilation by the H-bomb if there is not first a willingness to live and let live between Moscow and Washington. So I stress that first things must be done first. If the Americans feel they cannot move and the Russians will not go any further, I suggest that the Prime Minister should honour the promise made by Sir Anthony Eden and go to Moscow to see if he can create the atmosphere in which real disarmament talks can take place between the two Powers which really could implement such a policy.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The arms race has now reached such a pitch that it has gained its own momentum. Each side is bent on being one step ahead of the other in methods of destruction of civilian populations. If the summit talks are to succeed the "Big Three" Powers must give some earnest of their intentions by stopping nuclear tests immediately.

  127
  This pessimistic point of view is borne out by the history of the last forty years. Ever since 1922 disarmament conferences have come and gone and they have agreed on precisely nothing. More recently there have been the meetings of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee. It held 171 sessions without reaching agreement on a single point. I feel that this will be the result of future conventional disarmament conferences. Why? Because the Governments of all the great Powers, East and West, are not genuinely seeking disarmament so much as a formula which will give them some advantage in arms over their rivals, or they are seeking some excuse on which to blame their so-called enemies for the breakdown of the talks. I do not think we shall reach disarmament in that way.
  What are we to do, then? Are we to sit back and let the nuclear arms race take its course when we know that it can have only the same result as all previous arms races in history? I do not think any decent, self-respecting man or woman can do that. Even wild animals struggle to save their offspring from extinction.
  I have been driven to the conclusion that the world is waiting for one great nation to have the courage and sanity to say, "Whatever you are doing, we are contracting out of this suicidal race in H-bombs. We will test no more bombs, we will manufacture no more bombs, and we will transfer to peaceful atomic purposes the fissionable material in the bombs already made." I am convinced that this would have a dramatic psychological result in lessening the tension between the nations, cutting the vicious circle and producing the atmosphere in which agreement becomes possible.
  While I would go further than stopping the tests, I must say that I should be deeply relieved if we could stop them. The Prime Minister frequently speaks about his grandchildren, to whom he is attached. I have children and I care for them as other men and women in this country care for their children. I feel that we could all have greater hopes of our children growing up to enjoy manhood and womanhood if the threat of the tests were lifted from us.
  The hope of unilateral action proving successful has now become a reality. It
  128
  has become a much more practical proposition ever since 31st March, when the Russians announced that they were unilaterally suspending their tests. We are told, "Ah, the Russians had already had their tests.", which is perfectly true, and I wish they had not had them. But we are in no position to talk. According to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), whose book I have just read, the British and American Governments have held 143 tests and the Russians 41. Leaving that aside, suppose we resume our tests. In a few months' time, on the same argument as the Minister has raised today and as the Prime Minister has raised on previous occasions, the Russians will feel justified in saying, "Ah, but the British and the Americans have just held their tests, and, therefore, we must resume ours."; and so on ad infinitum, or, rather, until the final catastrophe.
  I believe that it is false to say that if we stopped our tests it would not have any effect at all. I think that the fact that the Russians have acted unilaterally has already had results. The fact that tonight the Prime Minister and President Eisenhower are meeting in America is very largely due to a lead having been given by another country.
  Secondly, may I draw the attention of hon. Members to a very significant and so far unexplained announcement by our Government on 3rd May of this year, that the area around Christmas Island, which had been banned to shipping, was now freed; in other words, the ban was lifted. Does that mean—I hope that we shall have a reply this evening—that Britain has now suspended her tests? I profoundly hope so. It is a most unusual announcement. We were to complete a series of tests at Christmas Island, and we held one test at the end of April, and then on 3rd May came the announcement that the ban on shipping had been lifted. Does this mean that our Government have responded to the Russian action by suspending our test? If so, people of all political parties will heave a sigh of relief and welcome the Government's action.
  I believe that it is possible by unilateral action in this way to turn the armament race into a disarmament race. A short while ago my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred to

  129
  unilateral action with regard to the reduction of conventional forces by both Russia and America, a reduction in numbers. I repeat that I think it is possible to turn the arms race into a disarmament race, a competition in disarmament, in this way.
  My second argument for stopping the tests is that there is a real danger of mankind poisoning itself even without a third world war taking place. The report prepared after two years' work by fifteen nations is to be published by the United Nations on 1st July. There has been a fairly reliable leak," according to which there are two outstanding conclusions in the report. The first is that, as a result of the tests which have already taken place, the danger point to mankind from radioactivity has already been reached. The second is that, if the tests continue, as a result of the strontium 90 released into the atmosphere there will be approximately 30,000 additional cases of leukaemia or cancer of the blood every year, plus up to 120,000 cases of major genetic defect every year. Hon. Members will remember the statement by Dr. Schweitzer recently about those who have attended at the birth of a deformed child and witnessed the anguish that it means to the individual parents. If we multiply that by 120,000 times a year, we get an indication of the threat to mankind from continuing the tests. I believe that in no circumstance whatever and for no excuse have we the right to damage our children's children in this way.
  I believe that something sensational is taking place under our noses. Recently a friend of mine was debating the hydrogen bomb, and he asked, "Would you, personally, be prepared to drop a hydrogen bomb on a city of a million men, women and children? Secondly, would you be prepared to drop a hydrogen bomb on a city of a million men, women and children if you knew that the immediate retaliation would be a similar bomb dropped on your own population?" His opponent was a senior retired R.A.F. officer who had himself been engaged on many bombing raids during the last war. At first he said that it was an unfair question, but then he said that he had thought it over and had been driven to the conclusion that he could not undertake such a raid because the H-bomb was something new, something completely different.
  130
  Another friend tells me that he recently attended a gathering of senior officers who were talking like pacifists, because they realised that it was no longer possible to defend our country in the normal way. There are millions of people who have never called themselves pacifists who have come to the view that in a world in which both sides possess nuclear weapons violence no longer works.
  I conclude by saying that the world has reached a turning point. If we can force our Government to stop the tests now, then I believe that we can improve on mankind's present fifty-fifty chance of avoiding extinction.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: If I do not follow the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), it should not be taken to mean that I agree with him. It is simply that I, too, have taken this self-denying ordinance about the length of my speech. However, there is one point which I must take up, his suggestion, which has so often been repeated on the benches opposite, that if we give an example the Soviet Union is likely to follow it from a sense of moral shame.
  There is no evidence to support that thesis. The only recent time we have had a classic example was after the Suez episode when Russian troops were in Hungary and when time and again at Question Time hon. Members opposite said that the best thing we could do to get the Russian troops out of Hungary was to get out of Suez and allow United Nations forces to go in. Now, hon. Members opposite like to forget that we allowed a United Nations force to enter Suez, but Hungary is still occupied by Russian troops, and Russia has not yet given permission for even a United Nations observer, let alone United Nations forces, to enter Hungary. Let us have no more of this theory, because there is not a scrap of evidence to support it and it is a very dangerous thesis.
  The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said one thing which I was glad to hear. It was that although he criticised and condemned the H-bomb in many of its aspects, he did not deny that it had been, and to some extent at least still was, a deterrent. That is my belief, and the purpose of my remarks tonight is to lay stress on this one chief aspect of the H-bomb.

  131
  Because of the very frightfulness of this weapon, partly because of propaganda and partly because of a genuine belief of the damage that might be done to generations to come, and partly because its use is absolutely horrific to consider, we sometimes neglect to realise why we have the H-bomb at all. It is precisely because it is so frightful that it serves as a deterrent and so helps to avoid a third world war, something which surely we ought all to abhor. The H-bomb may be evil in itself, but it is a welcome addition to the armouries of the world if it can prevent a third world conflict.
  Speaker after speaker has admitted that at least in the last ten to twelve years the H-bomb and the A-bomb earlier have played their part in preventing a third world war. Incidentally, I cannot follow the idea that because in due course other nations will get the H-bomb that will lead to a lowering of its deterrent value. The more countries which realise that it is crazy suicide to go to war because to do so can lead only to their own destruction, to quote the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, the less likely is a third world conflict.
  I can remember at least two occasions since the last war when, but for the existence of the H-bomb, we might very likely to have had a third world war. The first occasion was the Berlin blockade. He would be a very bold man who would deny that but for the nuclear deterrent then, chiefly in the hands of the Americans, the Berlin blockade might have led to a third world conflict. The other example is that of Hungary. I shall not argue the moral case. Everyone knows that we all condemn what the Soviet Union did in Hungary. Nevertheless, but for the nuclear deterrent in the hands of both sides, that incident might well have led to a third world conflict, which could hardly have helped the Hungarians.
  Because we talk so much of the horrors of the H-bomb and what it can do now and possibly in the future, we seem to forget the horrors of what is cheerfully called conventional war. I remember going after the war to Cassel in Germany where 35,000 people were killed in twenty-five minutes in an air bombardment and where weeks later they were still burned and buried under the ruins. I do not suppose that it made a great deal
  132
  of difference to those people whether they were killed by a conventional bomb or by a nuclear bomb. We have had further figures of 6 million, 7 million and 8 million—we do not know how many—who were killed and who died as a result of the last war with conventional weapons.
  I cannot think very lightly of conventional weapons—flame throwers and high explosive—having, by the way, been a minor victim of one of these weapons. I do not take the view that the world would be better off if we managed to abolish H-bombs and return to those halcyon days when we could blow each other to pieces with simple T.N.T. and other conventional things.
  If there is evidence to show that the existence of the H-bomb decreases the possibilities of a dictator or other Power launching an aggressive war, then the longer we keep nuclear weapons the better. I have no hesitation in saying that of the two evils I know which I very much prefer. No one has gone on record as denying that the existence of nuclear bombs helps to deter aggression. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale admitted that the existence of the H-bomb has made everybody sit at the conference table realising that it is not worth having a war because no one can win—it is mutual suicide.
  The other issue with which I want to deal is whether the United Kingdom ought still to possess the bomb and test it. Firstly, I find it intellectually unsound to talk about possessing the bomb but not testing to find out if it works. That has always seemed to me to be a particularly nonsensical criticism. There is, however, the arguable point whether the United Kingdom should possess its own bomb or whether it should, in the terms of a recent Liberal Amendment here, rely on the Americans. I agree with the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) who said recently that it was morally unsound—nauseating, he said—to argue that it was a vile and wicked weapon and one which Britain as a Christian nation ought not to possess and that we did not need to possess it anyway because we could rely upon the Americans.
  Morals apart, there is a very good case why the United Kingdom, as a European Power within N.A.T.O., should possess its own H-bomb. World stategy and the

  133
  enemies and friends of today and tomorrow are constantly varying, and again and again we have seen in a very few years how strategic positions which have been absolutely vital in years gone by have lost their importance because of a change in world circumstances.
  I can envisage the time arising when intercontinental ballistic missiles will be so powerful that the Americans will be able to defend their continent and cities from their own land. In such a situation, America might no longer need the European alliance for its safety and security. In such a situation the liberty of Europe and Britain could become expendable compared with the destruction of American cities.
  It is horrible to contemplate such a situation in which Britain and Europe might wake up to find themselves in the same position as certain other past strategic outposts which for one reason or another we have had to abandon because they have been no longer necessary or vital. Without our possession of the ultimate deterrent, there would be nothing then to stand between us and conquest by an aggressive Soviet Union.
  Referring to disarmament generally, I wish to endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who made one of the most valid points in the whole debate when he said that it is unrealistic to think of genuine and continued disarmament unless we have first, if not a political settlement, at least some political relaxation. I have always maintained that armaments are the effect and not the cause of tension. Simply to lower the number of weapons will not reduce the danger of conflict, but is an argument of the utmost folly. Therefore, let us concentrate on the realities of the situation. Simply because the H-bomb has been turned into a "bogey man", do not let us minimise its qualities as a deterrent against war.
  Mention has been made of the possibility of 10,000 people yet unborn dying in the next decade because of the effects of H-bomb tests. Frankly, horrible though it may sound, if the continuation of H-bomb tests means that the H-bomb will continue to act as a deterrent and help to prevent a third world war in which at least 8 million or 10 million
  134
  more people might die, conventionally or otherwise, I should consider that those 10,000 who might die as a result of the tests would have died in a good cause. Let us then concentrate on realities and not be led astray by the hysteria over the H-bomb which has developed in the minds of some people.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Usborne: No one would deny the probability—no one can be certain about this—that the existence of the atomic weapons in the hands of States on either side of the Iron Curtain has prevented a catastrophe during the last decade. I am not convinced that more than two States, one on either side, needed to possess these weapons, but I do not deny the possibility that their existence has acted as a deterrent and saved mankind from catastrophe. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) fails to realise that if this spreads, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—and it is likely to do so—a position valuable to the human family becomes intensely dangerous. There is a grave risk of that happening within the next decade, and that is something which we must avoid at all costs.
  It seems possible that while America must maintain deterrent weapons so long as Russia possesses them, it might be our contribution to the salvation of the human family, not to attempt to match America or provide for our own security for the reasons advocated by the hon. Member for Torquay—because if what he said applies to us, it applies to all the other nations—but to combine with other nations which do not now possess these weapons and to form a system of enforceable collective security.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) said—I think correctly—that this debate marks an epoch. It has been an exceptionally interesting debate. In the past 20 or 30 years Parliament has discussed one kind of disarmament, but today we are beginning to discuss another. There are two completely different kinds of disarmament and I am in favour of trying to get either or both of them; but I wish to make clear that there are these two kinds. While I believe passionately in the possibility of

  135
  one, I cannot be convinced that there is any future in the other.
  The two kinds are entirely different. The old-fashioned type of disarmament supposes that substantially all the nations will make some solemn agreement collectively to decide somewhat to limit and somehow to control the armed forces which each commands. But under this system each nation will still retain its sovereign rights and in the last analysis has to retain its bounden duty to defend itself if attacked. It seems to me that if a sovereign State signs an agreement to reduce the number of weapons it possesses, and at the same time has to rely on its own strength to defend itself if attacked, it is, in effect, signing a document which it must be prepared to tear up if there is any fear of it being attacked by another nation.
  Incessantly for the past forty years statesmen have discussed this kind of reduction of the armaments which each sovereign State carries. Millions of words have been written about it and scores of lengthy conferences held, but nothing has ever been achieved. It may be that, by some strange alchemy, what has failed in the past may yet succeed. If it can be achieved, if multilateral universally controlled disarmament of this kind can be achieved, then God bless those who can "work the oracle".
  There is another kind of disarmament which is what we are beginning to talk about. To me it is very exciting, and it is entirely different. It presupposes the complete surrender to a supra-national authority of the power and the right of national self-defence irreversibly. In this kind of system there is a chasm. There is a moment in time when the sovereign States have to give up the duty and right of self-defence irreversibly and for ever.
  Were this to be achieved, the nations concerned would abrogate their sovereignty entirely and become, as it were, provinces inside a world federal State. I must admit that nothing has been achieved along these lines either, but this is a proposal which we are only just beginning to discuss. I think it merits attention by being logically sensible. Were it achieved, it would work, whereas the other kind of disarmament, even were it achieved, would not work, because
  136
  nobody could rely on it. I believe this kind of disarmament, through the creation of a world authority and a world police force under a world government, will have to come in the end, that is to say, if there are any human beings left to want it. The problem is how to get the process started. I admit that there are all kinds of difficulties. I want to make one little point about this which has struck me very forcibly in the last few weeks.
  A while ago I had the good fortune to join a number of colleagues from the House in being chosen as a Member of the inter-Parliamentary delegation to visit Yugoslavia. The authorities there treated us kindly and generously. They were very helpful and candid in the way they answered all our questions. In the course of our visit I came across a problem which I had not observed or noticed before, and it now seems to stand out very obviously.
  The Yugoslavs are very frightened of only one danger, the possibility that Russia might exert military force to crush Yugoslavia and destroy their State completely. Yugoslavs set their sleep at night only on the assumption that, if that did happen, N.A.T.O. would be activated and the third world war would take place, and because they judge the Russians know that too. I am not certain that this is a valid calculation. I have a feeling that if the Russians did decide—I do not think they will and I hope to God that they do not—to run the Red Army into Yugoslavia and crush Tito, many people in the Western world would say, "This is just one Communist State eating another Communist State and it is not an event that justifies world war III and the destruction of the human family."
  Something else ought to be done, and Yugoslavia is in the unique position to do it. We may remember that just after Suez the United Nations equipped itself with an emergency force and that the only Communist nation that supported the resolution which was passed—in fact contributed to the force—was Yugoslavia. In that respect the country was unique. We all know that what is necessary is the eventual creation of some kind of permanent United Nations force, and that it will have to start gradually.
  Suppose that Yugoslavia, which has already contributed to U.N.E.F., thought

  137
  that this was the right moment to try to make that force into a permanent United Nations police force of about 20,000 men, recruited by the United Nations and contributed to by many nations. Suppose Yugoslavia invited that force to take up permanent bases in that country. One cannot conceive of a permanent United Nations police force which has not some permanent bases. Suppose Yugoslavia offered one or two permanent sites for a United Nations police force, she would do two things at the same time. She would quite certainly activate the balance-of-power mechanism in the event of a Russian invasion. It would be more certain, as seen from Moscow, that if Russian tanks drove over the borders into Yugoslavia and a United Nations force were there, the United Nations would be activated and the balance-of-power mechanism would swing into action.
  Secondly, if the United Nations force in Yugoslavia were seen by the inhabitants as a much more sensible and economical mechanism for maintaining their independence and security than their own armed forces, the Yugoslav taxpayers might say, "Why do we need expensive national armed forces when the United Nations police are achieving security for us?"
  Many speakers in this debate have recognised that the first necessity in achieving disarmament is the creation of an instrument that will provide a feeling of security. Now is the opportunity to get that kind of solution in Yugoslavia. I can see such an instrument also being useful in the European area of disengagement, in which so many of my hon. Friends believe, and which is a practical proposition if there is an effective United Nations instrument which can take care of it. Once we had made a success of a United Nations police force in those countries many of my colleagues, and I for one, would say, "If it works in the middle-European nations and provides them with security why do not we in Britain accept it?" It could also be applied to France and West Germany.
  Here would be the beginning of the instrument the world needs. Let us make use of it. In the next few months Yugoslavia might very well begin to develop it and sow the seed which, if it germinated in due course, could grow into the desired United Nations security force.
  138
  The final stage, the creation of a democratic world authority which could control that force when it is developed into the paramount all-powerful world force, would not be a difficult final step to take.
  I have lots more to say, but I have already reached the time at which I promised to end my speech.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I think the Committee has had a wonderful treat this afternoon in the number of kites which have been flown. The hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) has flown a highly individual and most interesting kite which I am sure we shall watch with the greatest of interest and which will be noticed with great interest elsewhere.
  It is far from my intention to follow too closely the future of Yugoslavia and a world police force, but I think the hon. Member was dealing with the point in this debate which has most closely and properly engaged the attention of the Committee.
  Before developing my theme I should like to suggest to the Committee that we cannot possibly consider the question of disarmament unless we see it in the perspective of the United Nations Resolution of 14th November last year. In putting forward the point of view of Her Majesty's Government, it is essential to point out on every possible occasion, and it is essential that the public should never lose sight of the fact, that we are committed by proper, reasonable stages to total nuclear and conventional disarmament with international inspection and control. We have been supported in that proposition in the United Nations by 55 fellow member nations and were opposed only by the Soviet bloc. We have to start to consider the whole question from that point of view.
  One cannot make any comment in this debate without referring to the two speeches made from the two Front Benches and to the marked contrast between them. Whereas we had a quite exceptionally boring and pettifogging speech from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who I am sorry is not now in his place, it was most stimulating to find that by contrast he was followed by my right hon. Friend who brought to bear on the problem a vision and sense of urgency which the

  139
  Committee on both sides found most refreshing. It has been encouraging to find so many of the points made by my right hon. Friend—the main one having been hailed by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale as boloney—taken up by hon. Members opposite, and I welcome what has been said.
  I think the doctrine of my right hon. Friend of a world authority and police force is the right one and the only solution to the problem. It is no new conception. It has been put forward consecutively from 1950 when it was first put forward in Denmark by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and later by the present Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of Defence and Sir Anthony Eden when he was in this House. Now we have had it put from the Front Bench as the long-term objective of the Government. I hope the rather discouraging noises made by the noble Lord who spoke for the Government in another place will now be discreetly buried. I am sorry to introduce this note of disharmony, but I am glad that there has been a welcome change of heart on the part of my right hon. Friend.
  There is a risk in carrying out this conception, but there is also great hope. I think the risk of it going wrong is not so great as what undoubtedly will go wrong if those frightful weapons are left indefinitely in the control and single sovereignty of different powers. That is a totally unacceptable long-term conception, but in the meantime we are saddled with it.
  There are two questions which we have to ask ourselves. One is what, if any, is the danger which this country has to face, and the other is what is our reaction to the danger? The answers to these questions are matters of judgment, and each one has to make up his own mind. In my judgment, in the free world we in fact genuinely face, particularly in Western Europe, the threat of the long-term objective by the Communist Powers to overrun and dominate the Western world. I may be wrong, but I believe that is the risk, and, accepting that, as I do, I have to ask whether it really matters and whether it is really worth while doing anything about it. Some people do not think so, and I know that Commander Sir Stephen King-Hall is one of them. He says that
  140
  it is far better to sweat it out, and that everything will come out all right in the end. He may be right, but it is not a responsibility that I should like to take upon myself.
  I take my stand on the conception that there is a very real danger to something which is irreplaceable and is in our trust, and that we must do something about it. In the meantime, therefore, with very great reluctance, I am bound to accept the theory of the nuclear deterrent, that we should have the bomb, that we should test it and keep it, and that we should be be prepared in the last resort to use it in the defence of our way of life, because without the preservation of our way of life, life would not be worth living or worth preserving. If one is not prepared to go that far, it would easier to take the King-Hall line and say, "Let us have life at any price." I think that is a decision that one has to take. It is an unpleasant one to have to take, and it is still more unpleasant to have to face it in public. It is only right that we should face this decision if we do not accept surrender as the only possible ultimate answer. If we do not, then all the rest flows from it.
  I think it incumbent upon us, therefore, to justify that conception in the face of the real objections that are put forward by many sincere people in the country at large, whom one meets in one's own constituency and who also come here to lobby hon. Members. They express themselves in public with great sincerity and conviction. I have come to the conclusion, after seeing these people and talking to them about their point of view, that these are genuine pacifist objections that we have to meet. The economic, strategic and highly immoral suggestions that we might get away by letting the Americans have it are comparatively trivial objections, but one of the most difficult arguments to meet is the straightforward Christian pacifist view which says: "What hypocrisy. How can you possibly say that you are aiming to preserve Western civilisation and Christian values when you are proposing, in the last resort, to resort to force?"
  That is something which we have to meet, and it is this fundamental spiritual dilemma which faces all temporal powers. I do not think myself that there is an answer to it. I am not satisfied

  141
  that any answer I have heard given, either by the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury or by the Moderator of the Free Churches, meets that dilemma at all. I do not think it is possible to answer that objection, and the only comfort one can offer is simply to say that if Roland had blown the horn of Christian pacifism at Roncesvalles, there would be no Christian values to defend today. We should all be following the way of the sword of Islam and bowing to Mecca.
  With that rather unsatisfactory compromise, one has to make up one's mind that one will not sell the pass. If that is any comfort, it is only comfort in so far as one believes that the way of life of the Western world is unique, that it is destructible, that it is in our keeping and that, if we do not keep it, it will be gone for ever. Otherwise, why not let us say, "Communism in the long run is only one movement in the great evolution of the human race through history. Truth will out in the end. Why not let us compromise with Communism? Humanity will be no worse off in the long run, whereas if we attempt to stand up to it there is always the threat that humanity may be annihilated."
  One has therefore to decide whether what we are determined to defend to the ultimate is worth defending and one then has to face this further challenge which is put: "It is all very well for you to say that you and others who think like you are prepared to accept and to bring upon others annihilation in defence of what you think so valuable, but what about those who do not want to be annihilated in defence of what you think is so valuable but what they do not think is so valuable?" It is very difficult to answer that question, but I do not feel that we in the House are entitled to try to dodge it. I think that we have to say that if one is charged with the responsibility of leadership one has to take these decisions for people. If they do not like it, fortunately in this country they have their remedy.
  With great humility and with every sense of the horror of the responsibility, I submit that that is the position. I think that it is right occasionally in the House that one should try to face these fundamental issues, because they are things deeply thought about and canvassed in
  142
  this country today, and I do not think that it is right that we should concern ourselves solely with comparatively technical political questions. We should be prepared to tell the country why it is that in the end we are prepared to accept the ultimate threat and the ultimate challenge and what it is that we are defending.
  We believe in any case that it is a temporary measure. All bad things are hoped to be temporary. Communism cannot be an eternal and lasting system. I do not believe that a civilisation which is capable of producing the kind of thought which can put a satellite into the earth's atmosphere, which demands the discipline of truth, is capable of maintaining indefinitely a régime which cannot face the wind of truth. I therefore think that, ironically, whereas it has always been the Communist creed that capitalism has within itself the seeds of its own destruction, in fact, it is Communism which has within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
  I think that the holding operation which it is encumbent upon us to undertake is one which has a term to it, and in the long run we shall be judged by the world and the outcome will be decided on whether or not the way of life which we are prepared to defend is worth defending. That will be judged as worth defending or not by the kind of people we are and the kind of life we offer to the rest of the world. Our objective in the holding operation that we have to undertake is that in the fullness of time it should be possible to give an opportunity to the rest of the world to make that judgment upon us.
  8.49 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I should like in beginning, to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Garston (Mr. Bingham) in his absence on a very successful maiden speech. The House will hope to hear him often again. I should also like to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), and others of my hon. Friends on their speeches in what, I think, has been the most useful debate on disarmament we have had for many years. I hope that the hon.

  143
  Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I want to deal with one point which will take me all my time—what, I believe, is the widespread misunderstanding that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) brilliantly began to clear up this afternoon about how the present disarmament deadlock has arisen. I believe that clearing up the facts is really the first and vital step to breaking the deadlock.
  I ask hon. Members opposite to believe that I shall try not to give a party angle to anything I say. I know that they will think that I shall fail, but I hope that they will not think that I am hoodwinked by Russian propaganda. In fact, no one has condemned in stronger language than I have the many lamentable mistakes on disarmament which, in the past, the Russians have made. I want only to sift the propaganda from the rest and to assess the Russians' policy as revealed in the verbatim records of the United Nations, and I ask the Foreign Secretary to interrupt me if he thinks that I am getting things wrong.
  In trying to understand the origin of the present deadlock, it is necessary to start, as did my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Defence, from the events of 1954 and 1955. The Minister of Defence referred to the Anglo-French Memorandum drafted by the Foreign Secretary and M. Moch in 1954. In that Memorandum they stated the objectives which the first disarmament treaty should attain: the total abolition of all weapons of mass destruction; the conversion to peaceful uses of all existing nuclear stocks; a major reduction of all armed forces and conventional armaments, and a system of control to guarantee the effective observance of the treaty.
  The major reductions in armed forces meant the acceptance of the manpower ceilings which the Western Governments had proposed—a million or, at most, 1·5 million men for the United States, Russia and China; 750,000—reduced later to 650,000—for Britain and France; 1 per cent. of the population for the rest. The reductions of conventional armaments were to be proportionate to the manpower cuts.
  That would have meant a pretty substantial measure of conventional disarmament. At the lower figure of a million—
  144
  which we could have got had we wanted it—it would have meant, in 1955, 69 per cent. of the forces of the United States and nearly 80 per cent. of those of Russia. Coupled with the total abolition of nuclear, chemical, biological and incendiary weapons which the Memorandum proposed, it was a programme to which we on this side gave full support.
  From 1954 to the date on which my right hon. Friend dwelt, so rightly, 10th May, 1955—the dates are very important to the point—the Western Governments went on urging the Russians to accept this programme. The Russians kept on saying that we were not serious about nuclear disarmament. We gave them, constantly and repeatedly, the most categorical assurances that we were. To convince them that we would accept both the cut-off of new production of fissile material and the total abolition of existing nuclear stocks, on 19th April, 1955, we put forward the so-called 75 per cent. arrangement. The cut-off was to start when 50 per cent., the abolition of nuclear stocks when 75 per cent. of the reduction of conventional armaments had been made.
  That was on 19th April, 1955. From then on, the pressure on the Russians to accept our programme was sharply increased. The American, British and French delegates all made appeals, and all said that, unless the manpower ceilings and the 75 per cent. arrangement were accepted, there would really be no use in going on. The arguments, and the threats of rupture, continued until 10th May. And then, as my right hon. Friend described, the Russians answered. They accepted the manpower ceilings—70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of their armed forces and of their conventional weapons. They accepted the 75 per cent. arrangement for the cut-off and the abolition of nuclear stocks. They said that military budgets should be correspondingly reduced, corresponding to the conventional reduction and the nuclear abolition. They went very far—I shall return to the point later—in accepting international Inspection and control.
  The Western delegates expressed great satisfaction in the Disarmament Sub-Committee at what the Russians had done. I will not weary the House with quotations from their welcoming speeches. I cite only what the British

  145
  delegate, the then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, told the House of Commons after the Government had had four weeks of mature reflection. The Russians, he said, had adopted
  "several of the key proposals which my Western colleagues and I had for many weeks been urging the Soviet delegate to accept."
  He listed seven major points on which the Russians had agreed with what we wanted and he ended by saying that the Government regarded
  "this change of attitude on the part of the Soviet Government as an important step forward in our discussions on disarmament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1955; Vol. 542, c. 271–2]
  He had already told the Disarmament Sub-Committee that he was anxious to continue the search for a draft disarmament treaty without delay; but, alas, that was exactly what he was not allowed to do. Even before he had made his statement to the House, the Sub-Committee, as my right hon. Friend recalled, against the expostulations of the Russians, had been adjourned for a period of three months. When it met again the United States delegate declared that his Government "placed a reservation upon all the substantive positions taken in the Sub-Committee or the Disarmament Commission in relationship to levels of armament." In other words, all the Western proposals—the manpower ceilings, conventional arms reductions, the cut-off and the 75 per cent. arrangement—which had been pressed with such persistence and vigour for so many months, were incontinently withdrawn. That is what has bedevilled the situation ever since. That was when the Russians began to say, "The West goes back on its own proposals as soon as we say 'Yes'."
  The reason given for this volte-face by the West was the difficulty, to which the Russian paper had drawn attention, of detecting a clandestine nuclear stock. This was a genuine difficulty, but it had long been familiar. It was considered when the 75 per cent. arrangement was put forward. M. Moch spoke of it as late as 5th May. When it was used as the reason for the volte-face, the Russians, understandably, at first assumed that it was a mere excuse.
  Then, however, there followed what I think was a very significant episode. The West went on arguing for many months that nuclear disarmament was impossible
  146
  because of the danger that a disloyal government would keep a secret stock. But various spokesmen, including our present Prime Minister at Geneva, hinted that conventional disarmament might be attempted first. In February, 1956, our Defence White Paper set out that policy in terms. Five weeks after the White Paper the Russians laid a new proposal before the Sub-Committee suggesting that nuclear disarmament should be postponed but that a first treaty on conventional disarmament should be made. They accepted the basis which we had proposed—the 1 million manpower ceiling, the proportionate cut in conventional armaments and budgets and all the rest.
  Let hon. Members consider the real significance of this forgotten offer. For a decade, Western spokesmen had been speaking of the vast superiority of the Russians in manpower and in conventional arms, as hon. Members have done today. They had been saying that only the United States' nuclear stocks had saved the world from Communist domination. They had complained that the Kremlin always started disarmament discussions by saying "Ban the bomb," intending simply to disarm the West. Yet here was the Kremlin spontaneously proposing the reduction by 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of their conventional forces; accepting parity in conventional forces with the U.S.A.; proposing a level at which the risk of Russian aggression would have been enormously reduced; and they proposed all this without asking in return for even the smallest reduction of the nuclear armoury on which the West relied.
  Perhaps conventional disarmament by itself might be a great mistake, as some contended and as some hon. Members have said today. But I think that the facts I have cited are at least evidence that the Russians did then seek some agreement by which the burden of armaments could be reduced. Their offer was immediately turned down, and there were no further discussions of importance until 1957. Let hon. Members compare the proposals put forward by Russia and the West in that year 1957, the proposals which led to the Russian walk-out and to the total deadlock in which we find ourselves today.
  On 18th March, the Russians put forward again the full programme of the Anglo-French Memorandum of 1954.

  147
  They renewed it later in October. They made one addition which was very significant in March, 1957. They suggested, six months before they had launched their Sputniks and I.C.B.M.s, the total abolition of all kinds of missiles, inter-continental, I.R.B.M.s and short-range missiles as well, all missiles by which nuclear warheads could be delivered to an enemy target.
  On 29th August, the Western Governments put forward their so-called "package" plan of "partial" measures, which the Minister described, if I remember his words, as "bold and imaginative." Let me take the leading points in these two proposals and compare them. Manpower: the Russians proposed 1½ million, or 1 million if we wanted it; the West 2·5 million, with no further reductions until undefined political conditions had been fulfilled. Conventional armaments: the Russians proposed a reduction proportionate to the cut in manpower, for Russia 70 per cent. or 80 per cent.; the West, the storing in depôts on each nation's own territory of an undefined list of weapons. No hints of what weapons or of quantities were given.
  Military budgets: the Russians proposed a reduction proportionate to the reduction of manpower and conventional armaments and the abolition of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction; the West proposed no reduction in military expenditure at all but an exchange of undefined Budgetary information.
  Nuclear weapons: the Russians proposed the unconditional stopping of tests under control, to be followed by total nuclear disarmament, the cutoff and the abolition of stocks to be effected by the West's 75 per cent. arrangement proposed in 1955; the West proposed the stopping of tests under international control but subject to the acceptance of the cut-off, to be followed by gradual reduction of nuclear stocks by what the "package" plan called "equitable transfers, in successive increments" to peaceful use.
  The crux of the difference between the Russians and the West, the point on which the Russians walked out, relates to these provisions about the cut-off and the nuclear stocks. Let me put to the Committee what I believe to be the Russian view. The cut-off, they say, is of
  148
  significance, indeed absolutely vital, if there is an abolition of stocks as well. But by itself it is irrelevant, if stocks are not abolished, to the disarmament problem. It is five years since Admiral Strauss' predecessor, Mr. Gordon Dean, said that in several years, that is, by now, the United States would figuratively have atomic bomb material "running out of our ears." A few weeks ago Mr. Anthony Nutting, speaking from a background of official knowledge, said that the United States had reached saturation and could destroy the whole world several times over; they could not need more bomb material than they had got.
  Nor under the Western "package" plan would the cut-off prevent "fourth countries" from getting nuclear bombs. Mr. Stassen made it abundantly clear in the Sub-Committee that the United States must retain the right to store nuclear weapons on the territories of its allies, to train its allies' troops to use them, and to provide its allies with the missiles and other means of delivery which they require. And the Russians do not forget that the United States have more than 30 allies situated, in General Norstad's phrase, on a perimeter of 360 degrees around the Soviet Union.
  But the Russians' strongest objection, the one on which they broke, related to nuclear stocks. At first, everyone warmly welcomed Mr. Stassen's "equitable transfers" to peaceful use. M. Moch, for France, suggested that the transfers should be 20 per cent. per annum, so that in five years total abolition of nuclear stocks would be achieved. On the instant, Mr. Stassen repudiated what M. Moch had said. He declared that "for decades ahead" the United States must keep
  "a substantial part of its existing nuclear stocks"
  for use by itself and by its allies.
  On what basis did Mr. Stassen propose that the "equitable transfers" should be made? His final firm suggestion was that the United States would transfer 53 kilograms of bomb material for every 47 transferred by Russia; that is to say, virtual parity of transfers. But everybody knows that the United States stocks are far greater in quantity than Russia's. Mr. Gordon Dean says so. Admiral Strauss says so. Mr. Nutting, who is unlikely to be misinformed, says

  149
  that the United States' stocks are three times as great as Russia's. President Eisenhower said last November,
  "Our scientists assure me that we are well ahead of the Soviets in the nuclear field, both in quantity and quality"
  What does that mean? If the United States' stocks are only twice as large as Russia's, then with every transfer the Russians would be approaching zero while the United States would be approaching half its present stock, keeping quite enough to blow up the whole world. I am very certain that the Russians will never accept a system of transfer such as that. I go further. I believe that the abolition of nuclear stocks is a point to which the Russians attach a greater importance than all else.
  I come to the vital question of inspection and control. Hon. Members say that the Russians have been very backward and that it does not matter what they may have proposed about disarmament in 1955, 1956 or 1957 if they mean to make it all a farce by refusing effective inspection and control. I quite agree, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale read out what they actually proposed in their paper of 10th May, 1955. They proposed
  "an international control organ",
  which should have staff selected on an international basis, permanently resident in every State, having unimpeded access at all times to all objects of control. It was to have
  "unimpeded access to records, related to budgetary appropriations"—
  a very important clause—and
  "have rights and powers to exercise control, including inspection, on a continuing basis, to the extent necessary to ensure implementation of the above-mentioned Convention by all States."
  Could there be a more sweeping acceptance of the principle of international control than those words imply? On top of that the Kremlin proposed, as a separate measure, to have all the ground control posts at ports, railway junctions, aerodromes and motor highways to prevent surprise attack. My right hon. Friend emphasised its great significance in Russia. All this would have meant a major breach in the policy of the Iron Curtain. It would have meant the admission of hundreds, if not thousands, of U.N. inspectors, chosen by the United Nations, permanently, as of right, in
  150
  Russia, with these very sweeping powers. And it applied to nuclear plants—it still applies if nuclear stocks are to be abolished.
  The Foreign Secretary will remember, my right hon. Friend recalled it, going through all that with the Russians in the Sub-Committee in 1954. They agreed that U.N. experts should have their own right to make chemical analyses, to check the records, and all the rest. The Foreign Secretary found a grave defect. They proposed periodical and not continuous inspection, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said that with nuclear plans periodic inspection gives no control. But in 1955 the Russians put that right. They accepted continuous inspection for nuclear plants, and they accept it still.
  There remains, of course, the difficulty about the secret nuclear stock. The Minister quoted Mr. Khrushchev. Of course, the Russians have never blinked the fact that, if there were total nuclear disarmament, an intending aggressor might try to break the treaty by keeping 10 per cent. or even 20 per cent. of what he had as a clandestine stock. But there are lots of things than can be done to meet that risk. The Russian ground control posts are one. "Open skies" are another. Another, and by far the most important, is to abolish the means of delivery of nuclear weapons. President Eisenhower has said that a stockpile of bombs is useless without the means of delivery. This means the missiles and the bombers and the atomic guns. Last year the Russians proposed the total abolition of the missiles and the atomic guns. I wish the Government had backed them up and had proposed the abolition of bombing aircraft too. That is the way to deal with the danger of the secret nuclear stocks, and it is incomparably safer than leaving nuclear stocks in national hands.
  It is not my purpose to attack the Government or to whitewash the Russians, but only to state simply and objectively what has happened in the last few years. I have thought of little else except this problem for many months, and it has seemed to me essential to clear away the present widespread misunderstanding about these events. I think that is the first and vital step towards the ending of the deadlock. That is what I have tried to do. I venture now to draw some personal conclusions from the facts.

  151
  The Government often say—I believe the Minister said it today—that they would prefer a comprehensive treaty to the partial measures discussed a year ago. I think the record shows that it was not the Russians who decided to abandon a comprehensive disarmament plan and to seek for partial measures instead. It was a Western decision in which the Russians had no share.
  I believe that last year's partial measures will never be accepted, and I doubt profoundly whether they would be worth while, or even workable, if they were. The Minister said they were accepted by the United Nations Assembly by a vote of 56 to nine. That vote could never have been obtained if the Canadian Prime Minister, as a sponsor of the resolution, had not said that it was only a basis of discussion, and that it could be freely changed. It would never have been accepted if an Indian amendment recalling, and thereby endorsing, the full disarmament programme of the Anglo-French Memorandum of 1954 had not been inserted. The Indian amendment was a fundamental change in the resolution. It restored all the objectives of total abolition of the nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction which Mr. Stassen and the Western Governments had thrown overboard.
  We all heard with the deepest interest, and some with real excitement, what the Minister of Defence had to say about total national disarmament, a world police force and the rest. We shall study his words with close attention. I did not myself regard them as a Government commitment. We shall wait for the Government White Paper in which the Minister will set out in writing the proposals which the Government are going to make.
  I know that the Minister has been profoundly moved in the last eighteen months by the unmitigated horror of the duties which he is called on to fulfil. We all want the full objectives which he has described, but for my part for over thirty years and more I have never believed that that immense transformation of world society could be achieved by a first treaty in a single step. I should feel far more certain that the deadlock would be broken if the Government went
  152
  back, for the first treaty, to the programme of the Anglo-French Memorandum of 1954. I wish they would take the Russians up on their acceptance of it, and, if it is bluff, call their bluff by offering to negotiate a detailed treaty with provisions that are fair and safe for all. Until we do that, we leave the field clear, as we have so lamentably left it, for Russian propaganda.
  I do not ask the Government to trust the Russians. I ask them to test the Russians by proposing concrete mutual guarantees from which trust might grow. If the Government really want the kind of disarmament of which the Minister of Defence now always speaks, then something far more drastic than last year's partial measures is required. The arms race is not standing still. Year by year, as the Minister knows so well, its dangers are growing more and more acute. Is it unrealistic to believe that the Kremlin understands these dangers as well as we do and knows that all nations have a common interest in ending competitive armaments and war? I beg the Government not to cling to what history will call the inadequate proposals of 1957. I beg them to face the big decisions which the destiny of man today requires.
  9.19 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I should like to begin, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) did, by congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) on his admirable maiden speech.
  The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who opened the debate for the Opposition, began with some words about the philosophy of disarmament, about the conundrum, if I may so put it, as to whether it is the arms which create the fears or the fears which create the desire to retain the arms.
  I think there is a genuine dilemma in this. I have never believed that disarmament by itself will dispose of all the causes of tension, and I do not believe that disarmament will proceed very far until these causes of tension are disposed of. So I think there must be a relationship between the progress of disarmament and the solution of the various outstanding problems. I have always said, and

  153
  I say again, that I believe that a beginning in the process of disarmament would of itself contribute to a reduction of tension which would make the settlement of the other problems easier.
  I do not propose to go into as deep an analysis of the situation as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). There are two premises which have been unchallenged by the majority of those who have spoken in the debate. The first is that the West should have the nuclear deterrent; that because of the conventional superiority of the Soviet Union, without a nuclear deterrent by the West, and with conventional armaments at their present levels the West would be very much worse off and very much more insecure. The second premise is that the United Kingdom should have part of the deterrent. I do not propose to go any further into those matters.
  The reason for those two premises was set out in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). I subscribe to what his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South said of that speech. It was a remarkable speech and I only wish that it had been made to a very much larger attendance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that in these things the enemy is war and not a type of weapon and that if we do not keep that objective constantly within our sights, then we are misappreciating the situation.
  The first main issue of the debate has been whether we have done all we could and whether we are now doing all we can to achieve the disarmament which everybody wants. The right hon. Member for Derby, South referred to this business of clearing up the facts. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked of his competence to discuss these matters. The right hon. Member for Derby, South said that he would simply and objectively try to put the facts before the Committee, and I will try to do the same.
  The allegation made against the Government is that on 10th May, 1955, the Soviet Union suddenly accepted the substance of the Western disarmament proposals and that Her Majesty's Government thereupon did a volte-face and withdrew the main objectives of the Anglo-French
  154
  plan of 1954. The right hon. Member for Derby, South indicated that it was the United States representative who committed this volte-face and who reserved his position three months later.
  This is becoming one of the great myths of history. It is completely incorrect and completely untrue and I will now proceed to tell the Committee why I have said that. The Russian plan of 10th May, 1955, required a ban on the use of nuclear weapons before any conventional disarmament had actually taken place, with this qualification, that nuclear weapons might be used in self-defence if the Security Council so decided. In view of the veto which the Soviet Union would have in the Security Council, that provided no additional protection to the West.
  Next, the Russian proposals involved the banning of tests from the beginning of the programme and the dismantling of foreign bases within two years. During the whole of the first stage, which included 50 per cent. reductions in conventional armaments and which included the ban on the use of nuclear weapons, the only control—I say again, the only control—was to be anti-surprise attack posts at ports, railway junctions, main motor highways and airfields, the right to ask for information and the right to have access to records. The only people of the control organ to be on the ground were those people at the so-called control posts—we have had a great deal of experience in North Korea and know exactly what that means. In addition, all that the control organ was to have access to was records and it was entitled to ask only for information.
  During the process of 50 per cent. reductions in conventional forces—there was a reference to the total being 69 per cent. of the United States forces—which would have made an end of N.A.T.O. and involved the United States forces leaving Europe, there was to be no control agent anywhere where he could supervise what disarmament was actually taking place.
  Mr. Bevan: Nonsense; it is not true.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is not true. If he will look at the plan again, he will see what stage one provides for, what stage one of the control is. He

  155
  will see that I am absolutely accurate in what I have said.
  That seems to me to be the basic factor in considering this Russian plan. The question of control is the essence of the problem. I have referred to the North Korean experience. The allegation that we suspended the proceedings of the United Nations Sub-Committee is quite untrue. I think that, in fact, the Sub-Committee was suspended on 19th May. Some hon. Members may remember that there was a General Election proceeding in this country at that time. Then there was the summit meeting in July at Geneva. It is true that the Sub-Committee did not meet again until some time after the summit meeting had taken place.
  This idea that we have withdrawn from the Anglo-French plan of 1954 is just untrue. In his book the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South, if I may say so, pays a generous tribute to the merits of the plan of 1954 which I drew up with M. Moch. Unfortunately, I did not get an advance copy of his book. I got my copy yesterday. I have been given a task of some difficulty in reading the whole of it during the intervening time, but I have read portions of it. That plan was simple and comprehensive. It must be read in conjunction with the United States study paper of 25th May of that year on control, and also our own memoranda as to the nature of the weapons to be prohibited and those to be limited in production.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) today raised the question of submarines and whether any attempt had been made to reach agreement regarding them. In these deliberations of 1954 I suggested to the Soviet representative that the thing to do was to draw up a list of the weapons to be prohibited and a list of those to be limited and regulated, and I particularly mentioned submarines. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be a good thing if we could now get down to brass tacks on certain particular weapons from time to time. I put that proposition forward again in 1957, but it did not prove to be acceptable.
  However that may be, the plan of 1954 had in it some of the ingredients of this
  156
  idea of a world security authority. In that plan, having declared the objectives which the right hon. Gentleman has read out—the total prohibition of the use and manufacture of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction of other types, the conversion of existing centres of nuclear energy to peaceful purposes, a major reduction in armed forces and conventional armaments and the establishment of a control organ—having said that, we did in the plan say that when the control organ had been set up, it should decide how we should proceed from stage to stage of the plan. It should decide when it was capable of controlling the next stage and that would mean that once the treaty had been signed, the contracting Governments had lost the power to influence this process of disarmament. I think that in itself it had there the elements of a world security authority to control this process of disarmament. I do not accept that we have withdrawn from the main objectives. The phrase of the right hon. Gentleman was that we have withdrawn from the main objectives of the plan. They remain our objectives.
  In all of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and, so far as I can see, in his book, he makes practically no reference to the Anglo-French plan of 1956. In his speech today he completely ignored it and, so far as I have been able to study his book in the time at my disposal, the only reference I can find to the Anglo-French plan of 1956 is a footnote referring to the Memorandum of 1954:
  "See pages 15 to 16. This must not be confused with the Anglo-French Memorandum of March, 1956, from which all the objectives were dropped."
  That, as far as I have been able to see, is the only reference to the plan of 1956.
  It is a most monstrous injustice that anyone purporting to give a factual account of this story should completely eliminate from his book one of the major initiatives of the West in its endeavour to get agreement upon this matter.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker Mr. P. Noel-Baker rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I might deal with the plan of 1956 before the right hon. Gentleman intervenes. That plan, put forward on behalf of the British and French Governments, was an endeavour to bring up to date the plan of 1954 and, in particular, to deal with some of the

  157
  matters which had been raised in the interval, particularly the Russian statement of 10th May, 1955, to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred. In that statement, the Soviet Union indicated that complete control of nuclear weapons was impossible. The sentence there was:
  "… recognises the possibilities of organising a clandestine manufacture of atomic and hydrogen weapons even if there were a formal agreement on international control."
  The Anglo-French plan of 1956, set out in Cmd. 9770, provided for three stages. It amplified the procedures for passing from stage to stage. The third stage in that plan concluded with the prohibition of tests, the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, the prohibition of the manufacture of nuclear weapons and the completion of the whole of conventional disarmament. To say, therefore, that we have dropped all our objectives and that the plan of 1956 was not even worthy of mention, is a complete distortion of the story.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The crucial point between the Russians and us always was, as I said tonight, the abolition of nuclear stocks, which was dropped from this plan and was never mentioned in the Paper of 1957. Nor was the abolition of the other weapons of mass destruction mentioned in the Paper of 1957. I regard the Paper of 1956 as a very great retrogression from the Paper of 1954, because the Paper of 1954 set out a procedure which was workable and which would have led from one stage to another without difficulty. The Paper of 1956 was so complicated with so many checks and vetoes that it would have been utterly impossible to put it into operation.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am interested to hear the "Hear, hears" coming from a certain number of hon. Members who have probably not read the Paper at all and do not know what was in it. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh."] I am quite content to be judged by the document. The right hon. Member has just said that these objectives were dropped from the plan of 1956. I have said that in the third stage the prohibition of tests and of the use and manufacture of nuclear tests as well as the whole of conventional disarmament would take place. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right
  158
  hon. and learned Gentleman has said that once."] I have said it a second time, and I will say it a third time because it is proof positive of my case.
  The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that that Paper left over the elimination of the stocks of nuclear weapons but that was because of the statement in the Russian proposal of 10th May, 1955, a view which was then shared by our own scientists about the difficulty of ascertaining that all the stocks had finally been eliminated. We then said that when we reached the end of the third stage the question of the possibility of eliminating the other stocks should be referred for scientific investigation.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the complications of the plan. It covers in fact two-and-a-half pages of this Command Paper, so it cannot be as complicated as all that. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Annexe he will see all the procedures for trying to get the plan into operation and that they do not greatly differ from those of 1954. It is quite true that there was an ultimate sanction given to the Security Council in the case of no progress being made.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I must ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two questions. If the nuclear stocks problem was to be studied after all this had been done, why was the committee not immediately set up in 1956 to get on with the study then? Secondly, why was there inserted the creation of an executive committee which had unanimously to decide if any move could be made from one stage to the next, so that there was a veto for every member on that large body?
  Mr. Lloyd: That was put in in an endeavour to get great Power agreement on the matter. Certain procedures were laid down in case the committee did not agree. For the world control organ's procedure there would have to be an agreement as to the steps to be taken. The right hon. Member is being less than fair by completely obliterating any reference to the scheme in his speech, or indeed in his book.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I accord to the Foreign Secretary all the credit he desires to take for that scheme.
  Mr. Lloyd: From one who has given me such a generous measure of praise

  159
  for my 1954 scheme, I thank him very much indeed. It is quite untrue to say that we have abandoned any of the objectives set out in the 1954 scheme. I think that on reflection the right hon. Member will see that he has been less than fair. The idea that the Russians have ever accepted a comprehensive plan put forward by us is wholly inaccurate. That is why in 1957 it was agreed to discuss partial disarmament. I have heard of people choosing quotations to suit themselves, but in this case I think the right hon. Member has chosen the plans which suit his thesis. The Soviet Union in 1956 turned down our 1956 plan just as firmly as they had turned down our 1954 plan.
  Now we come to the question of a partial disarmament agreement. The right hon. Member does not consider that the proposals put forward would have taken us very far. I must again point out to him what I think is a substantial unfairness in the book he has written because on page 25 he has carefully compared our partial disarmament proposals with the Soviet proposals for total disarmament. If he looks at that page he will see that he is not comparing like with like.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am comparing the proposals which the Russians were ready to accept in 1957 with the proposals which the Western Governments were prepared to accept in 1957. If that is not fair I should like to know what is.
  Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Member omits the very important point that we said at the beginning of these 1957 discussions that we were still prepared to accept our plan of 1956. Therefore, that is the fair comparison. I am surprised at the mirth of the right hon. Member about the idea of a plan which ended in a ban on nuclear weapons and provided for the suspension of tests and complete conventional disarmament. When it became obvious in the early months of 1957 that a comprehensive agreement was not possible because the Soviet Union would not accept ours and because we thought the control elements in the Soviet plan were not adequate, we considered what steps we should put forward by way of a partial disarmament agreement. That was not done by abandoning any of the objectives of the
  160
  total disarmament scheme. If one cannot get a complete scheme one should try to get a partial scheme. I thought that was the contention of hon. Members opposite about the tests—if we cannot get a whole scheme we should accept a part of it. I will come to the question of tests in a minute.
  A good deal of scorn was poured by the right hon. Gentleman on the partial agreement. May I remind the House what would have happened had our partial proposals been accepted? Tests would have been suspended, agreement would have been reached on the cut-off of the manufacture of fissile material for weapon purposes, the first stage reductions would have been made with regard to conventional forces and with regard to some limitation of conventional armaments, anti-surprise measures would have been inaugurated, with control posts at certain places and a certain amount of aerial inspection, and a study would have been begun of the problem of the control of outer space.
  The argument is used against us that if we had accepted the Russian offer about the suspension of tests, the latest series of tests would not have taken place. I think we for our part are entitled to say that, had our proposal been accepted, not only would the latest Russian tests not have taken place, but we should have been on the way to other measures of real disarmament. I cannot understand why the Opposition have throughout failed to give any support at all to the proposal for partial disarmament. They seem to me to be much more interested in trying to pick holes in the Government's policy, although 56 countries against 9 voted for partial disarmament proposals in the United Nations.
  We have never had anything from the Front Bench opposite more than tepid commendation. Suppose it had been the other way round. Supposing that we, as the Government, had refused to do that which 56 nations against 9 had voted. Suppose that had happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "Suez."] Exactly, but let hon. and right hon. Members opposite remember the kind of transports into which they delivered themselves at that time over the majority figures in the United Nations. I should have thought that they would have seen the advantage of that and would have accepted

  161
  it, though I must add, and I hope I do him no harm in saying this, that the right and hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton was a notable exception to this tepid commendation of our proposals.
  The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked about procedural victories. I should have thought that there was a substantial case for pushing on with this proposal and seeking to have it accepted. The right hon. Gentleman a moment ago asked me about tests. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence dealt this afternoon with the reasons for tests and with the medical consequences. I want to add that the reason for our refusal to limit nuclear tests was this. Our position is that it will be much better to link the suspension of tests with the cut-off and the relationship between conventional and nuclear disarmament. That is what we shall try to do at the summit talks.
  I cannot understand why the importance of the cut-off is not realised, because that really is a limitation of armaments. Once we have secured—and we are advised that it is possible to secure it—that no more fissile material is being manufactured for weapon purposes, we are beginning to limit armaments, and that is a very relevant consideration. It may easily be said that certain countries have got so much that it does not make a real contribution, but if this goes through, they cannot come along and manufacture more. So long as there is an arrangement, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, which is called the "key to the cupboard" arrangement that removes certain dangers about other countries manufacturing.
  Mr. Bevan Mr. Bevan rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I can anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's question. No doubt he was about to ask me what would be our position if we could not get an agreement on the suspension of tests linked to the cut-off and maintaining the relationship between conventional and nuclear disarmament. I think it would be very foolish for anyone embarking upon negotiations to announce beforehand what he will do if he cannot get what he wants. Not even Mr. Cousins has told as that. It would be quite unreasonable to expect—
  Mr. Bevan: We understand that what is anticipated is not negotiations. We understand that President Eisenhower's invitation is for the experts to meet for the purpose of finding out whether or not it is possible to have a system of inspection so that tests can be suspended without reference to a general disarmament agreement. If such technical decisions come out of the discussions at Geneva or Moscow, or wherever they are held, will the Government agree to suspend tests independent of a general disarmament agreement?
  Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to get me to declare a position which I have just said that I will not declare in advance of negotiations. I was not referring to the technical discussions in Geneva about an inspection system. I am dealing with negotiations. I do not believe that a summit meeting or a Foreign Ministers' meeting is any good unless it leads to negotiations. I think that that is the purpose. At those negotiations, I repeat, what we shall try to get is an agreement on the suspension of tests linked with the cut-off.
  Mr. Bevan: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I have not often interrupted him and this is a very important matter. Why is it that President Eisenhower has invited the Russians, the British and the French to have discussions about the policing of hydrogen bomb tests? Is it not that they might be stopped if they can be policed" If they can be policed, will the British Government still insist that they go on until we have a Summit Conference?
  Mr. Lloyd: Replying to the question about the invitation, this meeting of experts, which I hope will take place in Geneva, arose out of a proposition which I put forward on 2nd July last year. We suggested that there should be this meeting as soon as the Russians said that they would accept an inspection system. Obviously if we are to have a suspension of tests which is supervised by an inspection system, the sooner that we agree about the system, the better. I repeat that we shall go to the meeting to which I referred endeavouring to get what we believe to be the best bargain.
  Mr. Bevan: Bargain about what?
  Mr. Lloyd: We shall try to get suspension of tests coupled with the cut-off. We shall try to get the best bargain about nuclear and conventional disarmament that we can get and we shall try to get a bargain in which the suspension of tests is linked with the cut-off and in which nuclear disarmament bears a relationship to conventional disarmament. I do not think any hon. Member dare say that he would not like an agreement of this sort. We shall try to get the best agreement that we can.
  One of the suggestions which has been put forward from time to time in the debate is that the United Kingdom is in some way the odd man out. That is quite untrue. It has been suggested that we are trying to prevent the Soviet Union and the United States from making an agreement upon this matter. In fact no control system has yet been agreed upon, nor have the United States Government said that they are willing to separate tests from the other matters. It is quite false to suggest that we are in some way trying to stop the other two from making an agreement which they want to make.
  One other argument which is sometimes used is that we ought to delay further tests and delay other defence measures until the summit talks. I think that would be the worst of every world. There have been two occasions in the past when it has been suggested. One classic occasion when that argument was used was by Mr. Attlee, as he then was, as Leader of the Opposition early in 1935, when he suggested that because Sir John Simon was going to Berlin to discuss a pact on the subject of air arms it was a great mistake for the Government to present the White Paper of that year which dealt with modest proposals for rearmament, some of which were of supreme importance some years later. Fortunately, that advice was not heeded.
  A more recent occasion was when the right hon. Gentleman himself, in 1954, suggested that it was a mistake to agree to German rearmament pending the same sort of conference. He prophesied, I think, that if we did so, the Russians would not go to the Summit Conference and would not negotiate on any matter. In fact, they went to the Summit Conference, and within six months they also made the Austrian Treaty.
  164
  There is, I know, in the controversies between the right hon. Gentleman and myself a certain element, one might almost say, of the party knock-about. I must say that I think, in spite of many of the tributes that are paid to this book, for its intelligence and so on—"back to the book"; that is what was suggested; it was to be the book for the future—that there is really a certain element of the party in it. But I think that, leaving on one side these matters of party disputation, it is of importance that we should try to give, as a result of this debate—which I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South described as one of the best disarmament debates there has been—a message to the people outside the House who are more interested in the future.
  My position, and the position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the future is this. We want to come to some agreement with the Soviet Union. We believe that, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, there has never been a time when the common interest of both sides lies so much in making some agreement. I do not believe that it is good tactics in negotiating with the Russians to give way without extracting the equivalent concession.
  One of the difficulties is that we have different methods of negotiating. We ourselves prefer the method of informal talks. They much prefer the method of the 20-page memorandum. That does involve certain difficulties, but I do believe—and this has not always been said by representatives of the Western Powers—that the Soviet Union will keep agreements if the agreements are sufficiently precise. For that reason, I want agreements, but I want precise agreements; not ones that are capable of being interpreted in several different ways.
  I think that this meeting of experts about the inspection and suspension of tests is a most hopeful sign. The United States' answer has been given today. I think that the whole House will commend it, and I hope for a useful meeting in the very near future. If there is agreement there, I think that it will be a most promising sign. I agree also with what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton about other working parties. He referred to one to deal with the question

  165
  of anti-surprise measures. I proposed just that in July of last year, and again on 20th February of this year. I entirely agree with him on that topic. I think that this is the way to get down to brass tacks and see the possibilities of practical agreement.
  That is the first hopeful factor. The second one, I think, is the discussions in Moscow. I know that we are criticised because it is said we have excluded Poland and Czechoslovakia from those discussions. The Times newspaper criticised us, I see, for having done that. That is a very odd criticism, because what we did was to accept the Soviet Union's first preference, which was to conduct these discussions in this way. So I hope that that is not another myth that will grow. The discussions in Moscow are, of necessity, going somewhat ponderously because of the procedure, but I do not think that they are without promise, and I think that a worthwhile attempt is being made to demarcate areas of likely agreement.
  The next steps are for the Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government meetings to be arranged. We want them as soon as we can get them, on conditions that seem to give a chance of success. We are anxious for those talks, and want them to produce results.
  Sir Charles, I understand that the Opposition are to vote tonight against the Government. Of course, for
  domestic reasons, they are perfectly entitled to criticise the Government, no matter how unfair or incomplete are the versions of their written authorities, but, from a national point of view, Her Majesty's Government have to conduct these negotiations, and we have to make the best deal we can for the country. I think that a decisive phase is opening up—I certainly hope so—with the talks in Geneva between the experts. I should have thought that the Opposition would have hesitated to prejudice the position just now. Nevertheless, the Opposition apparently intend to divide. Well, we will face that challenge in the confident knowledge that our policy is one that any responsible Government would follow.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the record of the Government over recent years—[Interruption.]—and in the hope that the Government will face the challenge in the country, I beg to move—[Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. An Amendment is being moved but I cannot hear it.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In the hope that the Government will face the challenge in the country, I beg to move, That Item Class II, Vote 1 (Foreign Service) be reduced by £5.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 249, Noes 308.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES

  [9.55 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Albu, A. H.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Carmichael, J.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Champion, A. J.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Clunie, J.

  Finch, H. J.

  Baird, J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Balfour, A.

  Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Forman, J. C.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

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

  Cove, W. G.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

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

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Benson, Sir George

  Cronin, J. D.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Beswick, Frank

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Greenwood, Anthony

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

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Blackburn, F.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Grey, C. F.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coine Valley)

  Boardman, H.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Deer, G.

  Hannan, W.

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

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hastings, S.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Diamond, John

  Hayman, F. H.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Dodds, N. N.

  Healey, Denis

  Brockway, A. F.

  Donnelly, D. L.

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

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Dye, S.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Burke, W. A.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Holman, P.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Edelman, M.

  Holmes, Horace

  Houghton, Douglas

  Mellish, R. J.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Messer, Sir F.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Hoy, J. H.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Monslow, W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Moody, A. S.

  Snow, J. W.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hunter, A. E.

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

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Mort, D. L.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Moss, R.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Moyle, A.

  Stonehouse, John

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. D.

  Janner, B.

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

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

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

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

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

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Summerskill, Rt, Hon. E.

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

  Oram, A. E.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Orbach, M.

  Sylvester, G. D.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Oswald, T.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Johnston, Dcuglas (Paisley)

  Owen, W. J.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Padley, W. E.

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

  Paget, R. T.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Thornton, E.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Parker, J.

  Tomney, F.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Kenyon, C.

  Paton, John

  Usborne, H. C.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Peart, T. F.

  Viant, S. P.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Pentland, N.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Watkins, T. E.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Weitzman, D.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  West, D. G.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Probert, A. R.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Proctor, W. T.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Wigg, George

  Lipton, Marcus

  Randall, H. E.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Logan, D. G.

  Rankin, John

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Redhead, E. C.

  Willey, Frederick

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Reeves, J.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  McCann, J.

  Reid, William

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Reynolds, G.

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

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rhodes, H.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  McGovern, J.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  McInnes, J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Winter bottom, Richard

  McLeavy, Frank

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Woof, R. E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Ross, William

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Royle, C.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. D.

  Zilliacus, K.

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

  Short, E. W.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mason, Roy

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Black, C. W.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

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

  Body, R. F.

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Boothby, Sir Robert

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Arbuthnot, John

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

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Ashton, H.

  Braine, B. R.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Atkins, H. E.

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

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Balfour, A.

  Bryan, P.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Balniel, Lord

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Barber, Anthony

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. McA.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Barter, John

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Campbell, Sir David

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Carr, Robert

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

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Duncan, Sir James

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Duthie, W. S.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Cole, Norman

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Erroll, F. J.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Cooke, Robert

  Farey Jones, F. W.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fell, A.

  168

  169

  Finlay, Graeme

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pitman, I. J.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Forrest, G.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Pott, H. P.

  Fort, R.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Gammans, Lady

  Leavey, J. A.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  George, J. G. (Pollok)

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

  Redmayne, M.

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Glover, D.

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

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Godber, J. B.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Gower, H. R.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)

  Robertson, Sir David

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

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

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Green, A.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Russell, R. S.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Gurden, Harold

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Shepherd, William

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  McKibbin, Alan

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Speir, R. M.

  Harrison, Col J. H. (Eye)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Hay, John

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

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

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

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Maddan, Martin

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hesketh, R. F.

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

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Teeling, W.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Temple, John M.

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

  Marshall, Douglas

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Mathew, R.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Hope, Lord John

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Mawby, R. L.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, s.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Howard, John (Test)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

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

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Hurd, A. R.

  Neave, Airey

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

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

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Hyde, Montgomery

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

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Wall, Patrick.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

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

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

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

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Osborne, C.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Page, R. G.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Jones, Rt Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Partridge, E.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Peel, W. J.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Kaberry, D.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Keegan, D.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.

  Orginal Question again proposed.

  It being after Ten O'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  BRICK AND TILE INDUSTRY, WREXHAM AREA
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I wish to draw attention to the position of the brick and tile industry in the Wrexham area and the need for Government action lest conditions should deteriorate much further. It might be appropriate if I said a few words about the background of the industry and about its setting in the Wrexham industrial area. There the brick and tile industry is an old, well-established industry. Its products vary from fire-bricks made from fire-clay and fire-bricks manufactured from silica, to bricks made from shale and surface clay or marl.
  The Ruabon terra-cotta bricks and tiles once had a world reputation because their rich red colour appealed to the tastes obtaining half a century or so ago and complied with the fashion of that period. In consequence, it had a very wide market at home and abroad. Indeed, some new towns built at the turn of the century, such, for example, as Llandrindod Wells, in Wales, were built almost entirely with Ruabon brick and tiles. The industry is, therefore, one of the major industries in the area.
  It will be agreed, I believe, that a wide variety of industries is desirable in an industrial area. The greater the variety, the less will be the danger of having to endure the economic hardships which sometimes follow from having too many eggs in one basket. Diversification in industry is the key, I believe, to economic stability in an industrial area. In the Wrexham industrial area, the four heavy industries are coal mining, brick and tile manufacture, chemicals and steel. The fact that the area had four industries helped the district considerably during the inter-war period from becoming a derelict area, as was unfortunately the case in other parts of the Principality
  The introduction of light industries in the Wrexham Trading Estate through the Distribution of Industries Act, 1945, helped the area substantially by
  172
  increasing this diversification of industries to balance the traditional heavy industries to which I have already referred, but although we are anxious to get more light industries into the Wrexham Trading Estate, even so very little would be gained if in the meantime we were to allow an integral part of the industrial structure to collapse through lack of attention at this critical time. That is what we are afraid is happening at the present time in the case of the brick and tile industry.
  The industry is in danger. It should not be in danger, because all the necessary resources are on the spot. If it were to pass out it would not only be a regrettable misfortune but an unpardonable episode in the industrial history of the Wrexham area. There is a wealth of raw materials—the famous Ruabon marl, which is incomparable. There is an abundance of traditional skill, that valuable asset to an industrial area, handed down from father to son. And there are excellent transport facilities, for nearly all these works are situated near railway sidings.
  Thus the materials are there, the skill is there, the transport facilities are there. Yet, since last November, two brick works have closed down, one permanently and the other for an indefinite period, whilst the third has announced its intention to close. I am not referring now to the brickworks at Caernarvon and Llandudno and Buckley, which are already closed down. In addition to the actual closing down of the works, there is a general lack of confidence through the industry. Even where works are not closing down they are stacking their output or working on short time. This stacking of output cannot continue indefinitely. Sooner or later, if the demand for the output is not quickened, other works will have to close at least temporarily and maybe permanently.
  The following figures which refer to North Wales are both revealing and eloquent. In 1956, the number of bricks produced totalled 104 million, but by 1957 this had fallen to 88½ million, a fall of 15 per cent. That fall is continual and, I believe, worsening. This agrees generally with the sales position. In 1956, 101 million bricks were sold compared with 87 million in 1957, a fall of 14 per cent.

  173
  Now it is because the Government cannot escape their responsibility for this state of affairs that I have sought this debate this evening. Why is the position deteriorating? The causes cannot be traced back to the industry, nor are the workers engaged in the industry responsible, because it is a fall in the demand for bricks and tiles. Why has there been a fall in demand? Local authorities have cut down their house building programmes. Some have stopped building altogether, at least temporarily. There has been a general slowing down of building, not because there is no need for building, not because we do not need houses, certainly not because we do not need factories, but mainly because of the general economic policy of the Government, especially in its monetary aspect. The credit squeeze and the continued high Bank Rate have dealt a blow to the building industry, and this is having its effect in the Wrexham area and in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  I believe that it is my duty as the Member of Parliament for Wrexham to draw to the attention of the House the effect of Government policy upon the industrial activity of that constituency. Indeed, if it were peculiar to Wrexham we might have to seek a local cause for the situation, but it is not so. In the northern area 29 works have closed down in the past two years. In the north-east one of the most up-to-date works, built in 1946–47, has had to close down. The same is true of North Staffordshire and Devon. In Scotland a firm responsible for about 9 per cent. of the total production recently closed one of its works and another is half closed.
  That the phenomenon is general suggests that there is a general rather than a particular reason for it, but I hope that the Minister will not expect me to be satisfied with the position in Wrexham because the trends are not dissimilar to those elsewhere. It is no comfort to a boy with toothache to be told that there are other boys suffering from toothache elsewhere. What the boy needs is a dentist and not a useless comparison with other boys. Nor is it much consolation to brickmakers in the Wrexham area to be told that brickmakers in Staffordshire or Scotland are in a similar position. What is required in Wrexham and elsewhere is the solution to the problem,
  174
  and that is why I am raising the problem tonight.
  The Minister may argue that the policy of the Government is to try to prevent inflation and yet not bring about any large-scale deflation. I will not argue that point tonight, for we are not discussing the economic situation as such, but I will merely say that where there is a measure of deflation building is the first casualty. A recession in the building industry is one of the first symptoms of a deflationary tendency. That, I think, is a fact accepted by all.
  The Minister may seek to justify the use of the Bank Rate in support of the Government's disinflationary policy because a change in the Bank Rate can be made quickly in either direction according to circumstances. That is the theory, of course, and I do not wish to argue that point either, except in so far as it is relevant to my point tonight, and it is relevant.
  The manipulation of the Bank Rate is indiscriminate. It is, as it were, a blind force operation and hits those firms which are not too handsomely placed with regard to capital reserves. Large firms are able to weather the storm, whereas smaller firms, though reputable ones, are bowled over. That is happening in Wrexham today. So we today see London bricks offered in North-East Wales and brickworks with generations of traditional skill and plenty of raw material closing down in that very area.
  The skilled labour is being dissipated and there is a tendency for the industry to be concentrated on a small number of works, largely round London, and so conditions approaching a monopoly may result. In this way a large section of the Wrexham and Ruabon brick and tile industry may be knocked out. I do not want this to happen. I do not want to see repeated in this industry what has already happened in the slate industry of Caernarvon and Merioneth. It should be easier to prevent the collapse of an industry than to resuscitate it when a serious decline has set in.
  Nor is it an answer that those workers rendered redundant have to some extent been placed in other employment. While we welcome the fact that that has been possible to some extent, we cannot stand idle and watch an industry declining and in some instances dying. Even

  175
  assuming the correctness of the general Government policy—an assumption which will not be expected of me—is it beyond the wit of the Ministry to devise ways and means, even within the ambit of that policy, to help the industry to tide over this period of stringency?
  After the war, there was an unprecedented demand for building materials. The demand was far greater than the industry could hope to cope with, yet the industry responded and sought to meet the new situation by increasing both production and productivity. Now there has been a sudden fall in demand. Now is the time for the Government to reciprocate. Just as the industry in the past responded to the Government, the Government should now respond to the industry.
  In any case, the effects of Government policy are showing themselves in the Wrexham-Ruabon area, and I am in duty bound to call the attention of the House to the effects of that policy and to ask the Minister to do what he can to arrest this marked and dangerous tendency in the brick and tile industry in the Wrexham area.
  10.24 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): I know that I can congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) on the painstaking and tenacious way in which he has presented his point of view on this industry to the House, not only tonight but at Question Time over the past weeks. I also congratulate him on the skill he has shown in using this debate as a base for launching a criticism of the Government's general economic policy. He knows that the general economic policy and matters to do with employment or schemes to minimise unemployment come within the scope of other Departments whose Ministers would have been answering this Adjournment debate if it had been matters of that sort which the hon. Member wanted to pursue in any sort of detail.
  While I cannot do that in the Ministry of Works, I can say with confidence that the hon. Member's criticism of the Government's actions involving the Bank Rate and such matters are contradicted by the national results attained, for the facts
  176
  show—and the hon. Member is aware of it—that the general policies which he has criticised have resulted in a strengthening of the general economic base upon which all industries, including the brick and tile industry, have to work. We have the new level of gold reserves, maintenance of export markets and stability of prices which have been reflected very satisfactorily in recent months.
  All those improvements justify and confirm the rightness of the policies which have been pursued by the Government and which were so astutely criticised by the hon. Member. I can only hope that the prolongation of strikes and industrial difficulties will not interfere with this very satisfactory trend. Having said that in a general way on the hon. Member's general criticisms, I know that his real keenness, as has been shown tonight and at Question Time, is for the good health of the brick and tile industry generally and particularly as it affects the Wrexham area which he represents in the House.
  Frankly, at this moment the super-dismal picture painted by the hon. Member is not fully justified. It is true that the consumption of bricks in 1957 as compared with the years 1954, 1955 and 1956 has shown some falling off, but the 1957 figures—and I quote those because 1957 is the last full year for which we have records—show a reduction of 3 per cent., but a reduction over the three years which were bumper years and the best for production since the war.
  In those years we were making up for lost time. We saw house building increased from 200,000 to 350,000 houses. School building and factory extensions, hospital buildings and all those projects which consume bricks had been going on and an accumulation of these things built up a backlog. That was what caused the terrific figures in those years. I do not think that anybody—I am certain the hon. Gentleman did not—expected this boom to last indefinitely. While production may have gone down by 3 per cent., if we are to have a reasonably fair comparison, it must be compared with the fact that while it was 3 per cent. lower than 1956, it was 12 per cent. higher when compared with 1951.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how the monthly averages this year are comparing with last year?
  Mr. Nicholls: I could have done, had I been given notice, but I wish to answer the general case advanced by the hon. Member for Wrexham. Perhaps I can give those averages at some later date.
  The general picture is not quite as dismal as the hon. Member for Wrexham has presented it to the House. Although a reduction is something we do not like, particularly when it affects one's own constituency, this 3 per cent, reduction, when compared with the bumper years does not deserve the extreme strictures voiced by the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to say that the delivery figures of recent weeks suggst that the 1958 figure will not be far short of 1957. For the month of April of this year, which is only the beginning of the building season, brick deliveries have amounted to 544½ million. In 1957 the monthly average was 576 million, but if one goes back again to the 1951 figure, one finds that it was down to 507 million.
  This overall figure covers all types of bricks in all areas. In some places the demand for locally-produced bricks has been affected by the sales of cheaper, mass-produced bricks imported from other areas, to which the hon. Gentleman referred with sadness. But that is happening all the time and I do not think that even by inference any Government may be accounted responsible for it. It is normal progress and does not relate to any aspect of Government policy. One can see that sort of thing happening in the building industry generally. Alternative materials are being used, often to the detriment of conventional materials.
  That is part of the normal process of development in the industry. Concrete blocks or reinforced concrete walling systems are taking a bigger share of the building programme, and that is bound to affect the consumption of bricks to some extent. Nor is the problem of the closing of two brickworks in the Wrexham area attributable to the Government or to Governmental policy. One closed because its supply of clay was exhausted and another because it had reached a stage where, in order to compete at all, it is having to modernise and re-equip and it was found better to do this after suspending production for, I hope, only a short time.
  I was glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the reservoir of skills in this
  178
  great industry. Brick making is an old and traditional industry. Although we cannot see a continuance of the unprecedented boom of 1954, 1955 and 1956, I am certain that there will be a continuing healthy demand for clay products for many years to come. At present in the Wrexham area, despite outside competition of which I have spoken and new materials and ideas, and in spite of the closing of two factories for the reasons I have explained, the figure of employment in the brick and fire clay industry is maintaining itself reasonably well. I agree that toothache among young men does not give much satisfaction, but in order to give a clear picture of the problem, it is worth while reminding the House that in 1956, which was a peak year, employment in this industry was 1,370. In 1957 it had fallen to 1,260, a fall of 110. That is the extent of the problem which has been described by the hon. Gentleman.
  Looking at the national situation, it will be seen that, despite all the charges which have been levelled at the effects of the credit squeeze and so on, in April, 1958, there were 1,022,000 men still engaged in the building and civil engineering industries. This is 30,000 men more than in 1951, although it is 50,000 less than in the peak year of 1956 to which I have referred.
  The position as to tiles is not quite so simple. There are three types—roof tiles, wall tiles and floor tiles—but I will refer only to the floor tiles, because that is the type that is manufactured in the Wrexham area. I must say that the hon. Gentleman was very interesting in his account of the development of the Ruabon tile. He gave us the history and the background of that development in a useful and helpful way. As he said, these tiles stand out prominently in the new towns which were built at the turn of the century.
  It is a fact that in 1957 production of the high-quality Ruabon floor tile was 10 per cent. higher than in the peak year of 1956 to which I have referred, and I think that the first four months of this year show that that rate is likely to be maintained. It has gone down slightly, not because of the demand or the general efficiency of the industry but because of the closure of one of the factories at Ruabon for modernisation. I suppose,

  179
  therefore, that when that factory comes back into production it will be in a better position to meet the demands which will be made upon it.
  Here again, I do not think it is right to give the impression that because there has been this slight falling off in the last month or two, for the reason which I have stated, the death knell has sounded for this great industry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable to have a variety of industries in any area. It helps to get over the quirks and difficulties which are bound to come to any industrial area.
  On the general position, once we have won the battle against inflation—and I must say that the prospects of this seem brighter now than seemed possible a few months ago; all the evidence seems to point in that way—a measure of expansion which will assist all industrial areas can once again be put into train. But I do not think it would be fair to give the impression that the peak years of 1954, 1955 and 1956 should be considered to be the norm. With the changes that have taken place and the alternatives which
  180
  are revealed, we must face the fact that the industry must be prepared to set itself on a lower level, but at a level which will not justify the dismal prophecies in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  I can promise the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is watching the industry very carefully. He is in contact with all the trade associations and those responsible for the industry as well as for all sections of the building and civil engineering industry. He will certainly take into account all that has been said tonight. I know that he will advise his colleagues. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs, who is very assiduous in his attendance when anything touching the Principality is discussed, is here, as is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. They will take into account all the points which have been made tonight, and it will not be for want of keen attention and fair stewardship if this industry does not have a better future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock

HOUSING
  Rent Act, 1957
  Rent Act, 1957
  House Ownership
  House Ownership
  Building Scheme, Wheathampstead (Public Inquiry)
  Building Scheme, Wheathampstead (Public Inquiry)
  Planning Schemes and Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Planning Schemes and Compulsory Purchase Orders
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  National Rateable Values
  National Rateable Values
  Domestic Property (Valuation)
  Domestic Property (Valuation)
  River Dee (Water Samples)
  River Dee (Water Samples)
SOUTHERN CAMEROONS
  Constitution
  Constitution
HONG KONG
  Dockyards (Redundant Workers)
  Dockyards (Redundant Workers)
  Cotton Textiles
  Cotton Textiles
ADEN
  Situation
  Situation
BRITISH CAMEROONS
  Future
  Future
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Tudor Buildings, Gorhambury (Preservation Work)
  Tudor Buildings, Gorhambury (Preservation Work)
  Bushy Park (Dead Trees)
  Bushy Park (Dead Trees)
  London Wall
  London Wall
  National Gallery (Adjoining Site)
  National Gallery (Adjoining Site)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
SCOTLAND
  Gin Traps
  Gin Traps
  Murders
  Murders
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Imports and Exports (Prices)
  Imports and Exports (Prices)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Universities (Buildings and Scientific and Technical Teaching Staff)
  Universities (Buildings and Scientific and Technical Teaching Staff)
  House Ownership
  House Ownership
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Unidentified Flying Objects (Reports)
  Unidentified Flying Objects (Reports)
HOSPITALS
  Medical Staffing (Working Party)
  Medical Staffing (Working Party)
  Mental Hospitals (Physician Superintendent's Fees)
  Mental Hospitals (Physician Superintendent's Fees)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Private Nursery Groups
  Private Nursery Groups
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (SUPPORT COSTS)
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (SUPPORT COSTS)
  LOCAL DEFENCE COSTS OF BRITISH FORCES IN GERMANY
  LOCAL DEFENCE COSTS OF BRITISH FORCES IN GERMANY
  CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT, 1907
  CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT, 1907
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Murders
  Murders
EMPLOYMENT
  Retail Food Trades (Wages Order)
  Retail Food Trades (Wages Order)
Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, STALY- BRIDGE AND DUKINFIELD (DIS- TRICT) WATERWORKS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PAKISTANI IMMIGRANTS
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD HAILEY: 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 if it has been found possible to control the influx into this country of Pakistanis of the non-labouring class, of whom considerable numbers are now stated to be dependent on public assistance for their support and that of their families.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the recent sharp rise in immigration from Pakistan, as well as from India, has become a matter of concern to Her Majesty's Government. The Governments of India and Pakistan share this concern. I have recently been in close touch with them, and am glad to say that they are now taking a variety of further measures designed to reduce the flow of migrants coming to this country. In the past few months the great majority of these immigrants have been unskilled labourers, most of whom speak
  618
  little or no English and who cannot therefore easily find employment.
  As regards genuine students coming to recognised places of learning with the support of their Government, they are always welcome here. The Pakistan authorities have informed me that no "students" other than genuine ones should have travelled to this country since the end of April. At that time fresh instructions were issued to passport authorities in Pakistan under which all prospective student migrants have to produce a letter of admission to an appropriate educational institution in this country. I am aware of a few isolated instances in which persons describing themselves as students from Pakistan have in the past, shortly after their arrival, gone on to National Assistance. I have drawn the attention of the Pakistan Government to these cases. I have no evidence, however, to suggest that this is a widespread development. I feel confident that the measures which the Pakistan Government have now adopted will go a long way towards ensuring that only genuine students are in future provided with passports valid for travel to this country for educational purposes.
  LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will allow me to ask him just one supplementary question. Would he allow me to send to him for his perusal the information I have on this particular point? I think he will find it of interest.
  THE EARL OF HOME: Of course, my Lords, I will willingly receive any information.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether in those cases where Pakistanis have been employed and are now out of work, it is understood that there should be insistence on priority of their dismissal because they are newcomers, as against old residents of equal efficiency?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I follow the noble Lord's question. But I would say that so far as immigration is concerned the approximate figures in the last three months are very much down—from 1,934 in February to 433 in April—and so I hope that this problem will work itself out in the very near future. So far as

  619
  I know—I am certain, indeed—there is no discrimination either for or against Pakistanis in this country.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reassuring statement.

  TRADE WITH COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
  2.39 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY: 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 if, in view of official statements of policy favouring approved trade with Communist countries (including China), they will state on what basis are quotas of imports fixed for primary products coming from such countries when payments for the same might be expected to assist exports from the United Kingdom to those countries.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the great majority of our imports of primary products from Communist countries, including China, are not subject to quantitative restrictions, so that no quotas need to be fixed for them. Her Majesty's Government consider that the interests of the United Kingdom are best served by allowing importers to procure their supplies of these products from whichever parts of the world can best meet their commercial requirements. For the remaining primary products, and for other products from these countries which require individual import licences, the Board of Trade are prepared, generally speaking, to grant import quotas in exchange for reciprocal facilities in their markets for corresponding British exports.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reassuring reply, but arising out of it may I ask him whether he will review the question of Poland, which at present is able to take substantial quantities of British merchandise and is being subjected to severe restrictions, if not discriminatory restrictions, on her exports of primary products to this country? Also, is it to be under-
  620
  stood that among the ships from which labour is being held back in the Port of London there are included ships from Iron Curtain countries?
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, further to that supplementary question, may I ask the noble Lord whether any progress has been made in removing the embargo on trade with China, which has a bearing on the point which the noble Lord has already raised?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, knows, we are not prepared to establish quotas for Soviet bloc countries' consumer goods, except against reciprocal facilities for consumer goods which we wish to sell to them. It is, of course, a very wide range of United Kingdom consumer goods for which reciprocal facilities are acceptable. If the noble Lord will let me have particulars regarding Polish goods I will look into the question. With regard to his second question, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to say that a greater degree of poetic justice is involved than of strict relevance to his original Question. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked a question which is really concerned with "Cocom", which again is a different matter. I am happy to tell him that when we have some progress to report we shall report it.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, why does the noble Lord say that it is concerned with "Cocom"? Surely the question of abolishing the embargo against trade with China is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. And have we not asked time and time again whether Her Majesty's Government will initiate steps to abolish this embargo?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is a matter for Her Majesty's Government, and the noble Viscount has asked, time and time again; but it has nothing whatever to do with the Question of my noble friend Lord Barnby.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, but still there is no reason why the question put should not be answered. It is a very interesting question, and it has been asked once or twice of another distinguished member of the Government. Have the Government or anybody else at "Cocom" put forward the simple proposition that this embargo should go?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my affection for the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is such that I must rise, but only to tell him that his question is even more irrelevant than those he has previously asked on this subject.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I return to the original Question, for the purpose of the accuracy of the record? In his reply the noble Lord referred, if I correctly understood him, to consumer goods to Poland, as against primary products from Poland. I should like to make sure that he understood that my reference was to the import of primary goods from countries like Poland against the export of manufactured goods, or Empire raw materials, to the country concerned.
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords, I understood.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps I may be more mundane and give your Lordships some information which I think will be suitable. My noble friend Lord Mills will be making a statement at 3.30 p.m. There is such a formidable list of speakers on the Local Government Bill that it has been arranged through the usual channels that, should we go on too long, we shall break at 7 o'clock for dinner and resume at 8.15.

  FUTURE BUSINESS
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That leave be given to advance the Second Reading of the Defence Contracts Bill, the Committee stage of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill, and the Consideration on Report of the Land Powers (Defence) Bill (which stand appointed for Thursday, the 19th instant) to Tuesday, the 17th instant.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  2.45 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I rise to move that the Bill be now read a second time. It will be generally agreed, I believe, that the time is ripe for a comprehensive reorganisation of local government in England and Wales. I think it is true to say that there has been no thoroughgoing reform of the main structure of local government since the 1890's.
  There have, of course, been changes in detail, such as the reviews of county districts carried out in the 1930's, and there have been changes in the financial basis of local government of a somewhat limited and piecemeal character; but no effective general reconsideration of the whole organisation of local government has been carried through.
  I feel sure, too, that there will be broad agreement that what is required is an overhaul and improvement of the present system of local government, rather than its replacement by something entirely different. The two Local Government Commissions to be established by the Bill are enjoined to secure "effective and convenient local government", and this requirement epitomises the objects of the Bill. In the financial field, the Government's aim has been to strengthen the local character of local government by giving the authorities greater responsibility over the spending of money on the services which they provide in their areas.
  Let me outline at once the main provisions of the Bill by which we have sought to achieve these objects. Even this, I fear, will take a considerable time. The financial proposals are contained in Part I, which provides for changes in the rating system and for a recasting of the system of Exchequer grants, the most important change being the introduction of a new general grant to county and county borough councils in place of a number of specific grants in aid of particular services. I hope to be able to show your Lordships that all of these changes are designed to further the object of increasing the responsibility of the local authorities to manage their own affairs.

  623
  The financing of local government services now rests overwhelmingly on Exchequer grants and rates—in that order. In the last year for which detailed figures are available, 1955–56, the total income of local authorities in England and Wales on revenue account was £1,147 million, of which £500 million took the form of grants from the Exchequer, while rates produced £421 million. The remaining £226 million represented income from rents, trading services and other miscellaneous items. The Government have reached the conclusion, after a most careful study of other possibilities, including the suggestions of the group of the Royal Institute of Public Administrators, that the path we should pursue is that of strengthening the present bases of local government revenues, rather than seek to devise some new sources of revenue.
  As I have said, we have concentrated our attention on improving the existing sources of revenue—rates and grants. In the matter of rates the main adjustment proposed by this Bill is the re-rating of industry and freight-transport from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of net annual value. Industry's share of the total rate payments rose by half as much again following the revaluation of 1956, and re-rating to 50 per cent. on top of that, as we now propose in this Bill, will have the result that industry's share will have increased three-fold since the year 1955–56. In the present economic situation, and having particularly in mind the effect on the costs of exported goods, this seems to the Government to be as heavy an addition to overheads as industry can safely be required to bear.
  We are also proposing in this Bill some changes in the basis of rate contributions of the electricity and gas industries. These changes will not materially affect the total contributions made by these industries, which are, in the Government's view, soundly based, but they will result, we think, in a rather more equitable distribution of these contributions among the local authorities. I would also draw your Lordships' attention to the proposal in Clause 10 of the Bill which provides for the separate assessment of electricity and gas show-rooms so as to bring them fully into line with the rating of other shop premises.
  624
  I turn now to the changes in the grant system. The present methods of determining Exchequer contributions towards local services have grown up over the years, and no one can claim that they follow any discernible general pattern. The great majority of the grants are percentage grants—that is to say, the Government pay a fixed proportion of the expenditure incurred by each local authority on the service concerned; but the rates of grant vary on no logical principle from one service to another, and the methods of calculating the Exchequer share vary in detail between one grant and another. In the Government's view, this method of contributing to local expenditure is not conducive to that independent and responsible local administration which it is the Government's prime aim by this Bill to foster.
  Percentage grants have the result that the more an authority spends, the more the contribution received from the Exchequer. I would ask your Lordships to consider whether such a system is compatible with objectivity in local financial administration. I would also ask you to consider whether it does equity between authorities well endowed with rate resources, who can well afford to earn the higher grant which accompanies higher expenditure and those less well financially endowed, to whom the residual burden falling on the rates, even with the grant, may well be a powerful deterrent against undertaking worthwhile but costly developments.
  The Government seek by this Bill to give a large proportion of Exchequer assistance towards local authority services in the form of a general grant. The principle here is that the amount paid to each individual recipient authority should depend not on the amount the authority spends, but on needs, and that the money provided by the Exchequer should be available in the hands of the authorities to apply as they think best in providing the services. The Exchequer money will thus be made available in a form which will encourage authorities to consider the financial aspects of their transactions without the bias that is apt to be associated with percentage grants—a bias created not by the intrinsic merits of particular proposals but by the incidence of grant. Moreover, authorities will be stimulated to administer their services so as to obtain

  625
  the best possible value for their expenditure, since the benefit of any savings resulting from efficient administration will accrue to the authority itself and will not be shared, through a percentage grant, with the Exchequer.
  My Lords, you may ask me what assurances there are that the total amounts made available by the Exchequer under a system such as I have described will represent a proper contribution towards the local services. And you are entitled also to be assured that the basis of distributing Exchequer aid among the authorities is soundly conceived. I hope to be able to show your Lordships that the Bill contains satisfactory provisions on both these important matters. The total of the general grant is to be fixed for periods of two or more years, in advance, and Clause 2 of the Bill contains directions to the Minister as to the manner in which he is to address himself to the fixing of the annual totals. The Minister is required to take into consideration the latest available information of the rate of expenditure on the services covered by the grant and also the current level of prices, costs and remuneration; he is to have regard to any probable fluctuations in the demand for the services. Then he is to consider the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop them.
  The basis of distribution of the grant to individual local authorities is set out in Clause 1, subsection (2), and in Part III of the First Schedule to the Bill. I will not weary your Lordships with a detailed exposition of the distribution formula, which we shall no doubt be examining more closely in Committee. But we have sought to identify the factors which have a necessary effect on the cost of providing services—such factors, for example, as the size of population, the proportion of schoolchildren to population, sparsity of population, high population density and so on. The Bill does not, however, determine the relative values to be attached to any of these factors. These weightings will be settled afresh for each grant period, and the formula is flexible enough to enable the changing conditions to be taken into account in fixing the distribution for any year.
  626
  I would invite your Lordships' attention to the procedure which the Bill lays down for settling such important matters as the total grant for any year and the detailed basis of its distribution. There is to be consultation with the local authority associations, and the Minister's conclusions are to be embodied in a general grant order which will not have effect until it has been approved by a Resolution of the House of Commons. The order will be accompanied by a report setting out the considerations which led to the particular provisions contained in the order. Your Lordships will see that all this is in Clause 1 of the Bill.
  I do ask your Lordships to consider objectively for a moment whether this completely open and orderly method of determining the needs of important local government services and the proper measure of Exchequer aid towards them has not much to commend it, compared with the present method. A valuable feature of the method now proposed is that it will afford regular opportunities for a survey of progress and proposals for development of such important services as education, health, welfare, child care and fire services.
  Your Lordships may wish to have some explanation of the method by which the services to be covered by the general grant have been selected. These services are described in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to the Bill. The Government's approach has been to include all those grants where the service is provided over the whole country on a reasonably uniform basis—obviously, we could not include in a system of general grants distributed to all county and county borough councils a service which operated only in certain parts of the country. The second condition is that the need for expenditure on the service must be capable of being reflected reasonably as between one area and another in the sort of objective factors which go to make up the formula for distributing the grant. Thirdly, we have looked for services in which there is real room for local discretion and initiative in local administration.
  I am, of course, aware that fears have been expressed, particularly by teachers and others concerned with the education service, but not, I am happy to say, by the County Councils Association or the

  627
  Association of Municipal Corporations (which are the associations representing the local education authorities), that this system of general grant will operate to the disadvantage of the services. In part, these fears are founded upon a complete misinterpretation of the Government's motives in introducing this new system. Fear has been expressed that proper provision will not be made from central funds towards the carrying out of these services.
  I hope that I have shown your Lordships that the Bill does contain appropriate and proper provision to ensure that the total aid made available under the general grant will take full account of needs, including the need for developing the services. My right honourable friends, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Education, have also given categorical assurances of the Government's intention to make a proper contribution towards the development of the education and the other services concerned.
  For the rest, these fears that I have mentioned seem to depend on an assumption that local authorities will not, unless they are able to share every penny of their expenditure with the Exchequer, devote adequate funds to maintaining proper standards in the provision and development of the services. My Lords, I say at once that the Government's proposals are based on a different concept of the sense of responsibility of local authorities towards the important duties that have been entrusted to them. We think that these authorities, stimulated and encouraged by the lively public interest which services such as education and health always attract, can be relied on to apply themselves responsibly to these matters—and all the more so, now that we are proposing by this Bill to take them out of leading strings.
  Of course, there must be safeguards to protect national standards, and these are the power to make regulations laying down standards and powers to withhold the grant under Clause 3, in addition to other powers such as exist under the Education Act, 1944. I should like to emphasise that these powers of central supervision will be limited to what are sometimes called the "key points" in the services—that is to say, those matters which are properly of national concern.
  628
  One of the difficulties about a percentage grant system is that it necessarily involves the Government Departments in reviewing in great detail, first, the need for, and, secondly, the amount of, expenditure to which they are contributing. One of the useful by-products of the new system of general grant will be that the attention of Ministers and their Departments will be concentrated on the matters which are of true national concern. The Government are confident that this will strengthen and not weaken the partnership between central and local government.
  Before I leave the subject of the financial provisions of the Bill, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the useful improvement in the distribution of the important exchequer equalisation grants—which are now to be renamed rate-deficiency grants—provided for in Clause 5 and the following clauses of the Bill. These are now to be available directly to county districts. These changes in rating and in the grants system will, of course, affect the finances of individual authorities to varying degrees. Overall there will be a gain to local authorities of an amount which, on the basis of the illustration contained in the White Paper on Local Government Finance in which the Government's proposals were first published, will be equivalent to a rate of 4d. in the pound over the whole country. It is undeniable that some authorities will be somewhat less well off under the new arrangements, but some—a much greater number, I am glad to think—will be better off.
  Important changes in the basis of local government finance cannot be made without gains and losses of this sort arising. The Government are, however, satisfied that the Bill will generally create a more equitable distribution of resources than exists at present. Nevertheless, they have thought it right to include in the Bill provision for a transitional scheme under which the financial effects of the Bill will be graduated over a number of years. This scheme provides for contributions to be made by gaining authorities to those which are estimated to lose under the Bill, the contribution being such as to meet the whole of the estimated losses for the year 1959–60 and 90 per cent. of the losses in 1960–61. The duration of the transitional scheme for years after 1960–61 is not provided for in the Bill, but will, under Clause 15,

  629
  be determined by regulations which will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. It will be necessary to gauge the effect of the revaluation for rating due to take effect in 1961 before these matters can be completely settled. For your Lordships' convenience, I would draw your attention to the hypothetical illustration of the financial provisions of the Bill which my right honourable friend had prepared for the use of Members of Parliament.
  My Lords, the financial provisions that have described in Part I of the Bill, important and useful though they are in themselves, are, of course, only one part of the Government's comprehensive scheme. It is not solely a question of seeing that local government obtains and safeguards its monetary resources in what we believe will be a better way than at present. We must also ensure that it is organised, so far as its structure is concerned, so as to enable resources to be used to the best advantage. Responsibility in local government must be matched by effectiveness and convenience—as regards both the provision of local services and participation and access by those served. And so we have provided, in Part II of the Bill, for a comprehensive system of review, and reorganisation to whatever extent may be found necessary, of the structure of local government throughout England and Wales.
  My Lords, as I have already said, the need for a review of this kind has long been accepted. It stems from the simple fact that during a half-century of rapid, complex and far-reaching changes generally, the pattern of our local government organisation has changed but little—and then only piecemeal. Many boundaries are now plainly unrealistic; many areas are divided into too many units of separate administration; and there is a growing number of communities who feel that they have outgrown the limitations that at present exist on their powers of self-government. There is also wide agreement as to what the review should aim at: to bring the system of local government up to date, preserving its essential features, rather than replace it entirely by sonic new and alien scheme of things.
  This being so, the Government have felt it right—and I make no apology for this—to base the provisions of this part of
  630
  the Bill very largely on the "Proposals Agreed Between Representatives of Local Authority Associations", as set out in the Appendix to the White Paper on Local Authority Areas and Status, published in July, 1956. The problems and the policy outlined in that White Paper have been discussed widely since that time, and the Government believe they can fairly claim that the provisions now being considered by your Lordships are, broadly speaking, acceptable to the great mass of public and local authority opinion in the country, and not merely to those who specialise in the study of local government from the outside.
  Of course these provisions in Part II are, essentially, machinery provisions. We could not hope, here in Parliament, to find out by ourselves just what is needed for the local government of each area in the infinitely varied circumstances of our counties, our cities and towns, and our rural communities, throughout the country. What the Bill does is to provide for a series of reviews; then for orders to be made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government following those reviews; and thirdly (I stress the importance of this) for Parliament to have an opportunity of approving or rejecting each such order, in the light of the report of the review on which it is based.
  The first reviews will deal with the pattern of the major units—the counties and county boroughs—and also with the whole complex of local government in the great conurbations, which in the Bill are referred to as "special review areas". Your Lordships will see the machinery and powers for this purpose set out in Clauses 17 to 26 of the Bill. Two Local Government Commissions are to be set up, one for England and one for Wales, and constituted as provided for in the Fourth Schedule. My Lords, may I break off for one moment on a personal point? My noble friend Lord Brecon is, unfortunately, ill, and he has asked me to say to your Lordships how disappointed he is that he cannot be present during this debate. He promises his earnest study of what is said in your Lordships' House, especially from the Welsh point of view.
  These Commissions will be empowered to propose, within the range prescribed, whatever changes in those fields may be found desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government; and

  631
  then it will be open to the Minister, subject in each case to Parliamentary agreement, to give effect to the proposals by order, with or without modification. My Lords, let us consider what may happen. It can be expected that these reviews by the Commissions will lead, in some cases, to alterations of county boundaries, and possibly even to amalgamation of certain counties or creation of new ones. But whatever the outcome, as soon as the future pattern of county boundaries outside the conurbations in any part of England or Wales has been settled one way or another, then each of the county councils concerned will have to carry out a review, and propose any necessary alteration, of the pattern of its county districts—non-county boroughs, urban and rural districts, and the rural parishes as well. Your Lordships will see that the provision for these reviews by county councils, and for ministerial orders to implement their findings, is made in Clauses 28 to 33, and that subsequent reviews of the same kind will be possible at intervals of not less than ten years, on the direction of the Minister.
  I come to consider a suggestion that has been made in some quarters, namely, that the county councils should not be left with the task of reviewing their districts, but that it should be given, instead, to the Local Government Commissions to carry out at the same time as they are dealing with the boundaries of the counties and county boroughs. The Government cannot accept this view. We believe that, outside the conurbations, which I will deal with later, the best people to look at the district organisation in a county are the county council themselves, who know the area, the people, and their local government problems.
  I now come to the conurbations, the special review areas, which are, of course, a very different matter. In each such area you have a number of county boroughs with a larger number of county districts, big and small, usually belonging to more than one county, lying between and around the boroughs. All these communities form part of one great urban agglomeration having prima facie interacting needs and problems; yet they at present possess a local government organisation which, to put it mildly, seems not very obviously adapted to their special situation. In such a case, the
  632
  Local Government Commission must, clearly, examine together all the different types of local authority, and also the degree of co-ordination existing or needed in their services, as part of one comprehensive review. Your Lordships will find the special review provisions for this purpose set out in Clauses 19, 20 and 26.
  I must draw your Lordships' particular attention to Clause 20, which is designed to meet the possibility—I put it no higher—that the Commission examining a special review area might believe there was a need for smoothing out the existing mixture there of one-tier and two-tier government, and moulding it into a special conurbation county within which there are no completely autonomous units. We must see that, for the complex problems of these conurbations, bold solutions are available if needed—even though it may be found on review that, after all, something less bold will suffice.
  There are only five areas which have seemed to the Government, on present evidence, to need special review as conurbations, and these are defined in the Third Schedule. But your Lordships will see that there is power in Clause 17 to add to their number if the Commission for England find a need for this, and power in Clause 25 to vary the extent of an area that is thus subject to special review, if in the course of the review itself this is found to be desirable. These powers are, of course—I emphasise again—subject to Parliamentary control by Resolution.
  I would also invite your Lordships' attention to the safeguards which the Bill provides to ensure that these reviews, whether by Commissions or by county councils, cannot result in hasty or arbitrary charges smuggled through without Parliamentary discussion or proper scrutiny. I have tried to epitomise this because it is a point of importance. There are, first of all, the question of the independence and stature of the Commission, subject only to guidance as to the general considerations which the Commissioners must take into account. This guidance will be given in regulations approved by Parliament under Clause 36; secondly, their consultation with local authorities; and thirdly, the requirement to put out provisional conclusions and hear comment before making their final proposals.

  633
  Then there is the further requirement that the Minister, in turn, must make the final conclusions and reports known, and must hear objections, probably by way of public inquiry. Finally there is the Parliamentary control of any action which the Minister may take.
  Clause 29 sets out the safeguards, of a broadly similar kind, that will apply to the conduct and implementation of the reviews of the districts by the county councils. In Clause 30 there is also a special safeguard for use in the remote contingency of a county council's falling down on this job altogether. In such a case, the appropriate Local Government Commission can be put in to do the review of the districts over again, in the county council's stead.
  The rest of Part II consists primarily of provisions filling in the details of this scheme for reviews by Commissions and county councils, and at this stage of our consideration of the Bill your Lordships will not desire me to go into all these matters, or into the minor connected matters in Part IV of the Bill and the Eighth Schedule. I shall therefore mention only two points of special interest: Clause 34, which deals with the creation of new county boroughs, and Clause 35, which concerns the limitation of alteration of local areas or status by Private Bill procedure for fifteen years.
  It is only right that I should invite your attention to the way in which this Part of the Bill can affect boroughs. The Bill is so framed throughout that there can be no disappearance of a borough except where its area becomes part of a larger borough. This principle will operate even in the difficult case, in a rural area, of a small borough which is felt to be not strong enough in these modern days to continue as a separate county district but yet has no urban neighbour close by with which it could be amalgamated so as to form an enlarged municipal corporation. In such a case, the Bill will allow of the inclusion of the borough in a rural district, although I would point out that no arbitrary figure is fixed and everything relevant will be considered before this can happen. I also want to make it clear that the borough and council, as such, will remain—with a charter, mayor, regalia, corporate property, and so forth, but it will lose its county district functions.
  634
  The provisions to secure this are in Clause 28 (3) (b) and the Seventh Schedule. May I just mention, to get it out of the way for our present discussion, the position of Greater London? The Bill excludes the metropolitan area now being examined by the Royal Commission under Sir Edwin Herbert from the provisions of the Bill until the Royal Commission has reported. Provision is made for certain possible actions after the Report is received.
  My Lords, I explained earlier that Part II of this Bill was complementary to Part I, in that both sets of provisions aim at modernising and revitalising our local government system. I ask your Lordships now to bear with me for a short time further while I touch on the main provisions of Part III—because these provisions, also, are part of the same grand design. They illustrate the Government's recognition of the importance of the word "local" in our concept of local government. They provide, in Clauses 45 to 50, for devolution of the health and welfare functions of county councils to the councils of the larger county districts—but, here again, not in Greater London, unless so applied by Order in Council. Similarly they provide, in Clause 51, for some increase in the number of "excepted districts" enjoying devolution of county education functions under the Education Acts. Boroughs and urban districts with at least 60,000 population, and other districts where there are special circumstances to justify it, will be able to take over responsibility, by means of delegation schemes, for the management of these county services in their own areas.
  Your Lordships will readily understand why it is only the larger districts that can be provided for in this way: the size and complexity of the services concerned speak for themselves. It was against that background, also, that the Government concluded that the devolution desired would have to be by way of delegation, and not by a complete transfer of all responsibility. Education, health and welfare services need to be planned and paid for on a county rather than a county district basis and scale. Nevertheless, it is intended, by means of the delegation schemes to be approved by the Ministers concerned, to ensure

  635
  that—subject to the county council's control of broad policy and finance only—each county district council exercising delegated powers in these fields should have the widest possible measure of autonomy in local policy and management.
  My Lords, a measure of this kind, which contemplates important changes in the detailed organisation of local government, necessarily contains a whole lot of detailed provisions which it would not be possible or desirable to mention in the course of a Second Reading speech. But I have, I think, given an explanation of the main features of the Bill, and I hope that I have been able to show your Lordships that the scheme fits together into a satisfactory comprehensive plan for creating a vigorous and efficient local government system. The Bill is a first step forward to that objective, and the work over the next few years of filling out the details of the design will demand the critical attention of all who have the interests of local government at heart. I commend this Bill to your Lordships as a measure which creates the opportunity for a real step forward in local government. I am sure that it deserves the support of all who wish to see effective and responsible local administration of local affairs. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  DECONTROL OF HOUSE COAL SUPPLIES
  3.31 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have now decided that the statutory control of house coal supplies and prices, which has been in existence ever since the beginning of the war, should be brought to an end at an early date. The restoration of free competition and freedom for the householder to buy from any merchant should encourage producers and distributors to offer the public the qualities of coal they need at the most competitive prices. With the ending of control, administrative expenditure of nearly £1 million per annum will be brought to an end.
  636
  In reviewing the question of decontrol, Her Majesty's Government have been materially helped by the Report of the Robson Committee on Coal Distribution Costs which has been published to-day, and is now available in the Printed Paper Office. I should like to take the opportunity of thanking Sir Thomas Robson and his colleagues for a Report which provides detailed and authoritative information about the organisation and economics of coal distribution. The Committee have made a number of recommendations which Her Majesty's Government will consider in consultation with those concerned.
  I propose to have immediate consultations with the National Coal Board, the merchants, the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, and the local authorities to ensure that the transfer from control to free competition is effected smoothly. Her Majesty's Government have it in mind to end the control about the middle of July. Control of the prices of coke and manufactured fuels would end at the same time.
  3.32 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for making this announcement at the same time as it is being made elsewhere. It is an important announcement, for the ending of a control after so many years must be of importance. What we should like to be assured of, first of all, is, as we hope. not merely that this does not mean that there will be no increase in the price to the consumer in bulk but also that it does not mean a set of differentiated increases and reductions on various classes and types of coal.
  No doubt it is a good thing that the Minister, as he has announced, will have immediate consultations with all the interests concerned. To anyone who, like myself, has had some experience of the central administration of coal distribution, other trade questions arise immediately in one's mind. The other which we are anxious to know, in view of the decision of the Minister, is how this is going to affect trade in relation to the differentiated prices now operating between summer orders and orders at other times in the year. I am already a little uneasy over the fact that the latest date for the placing of summer orders is June 14. I should have thought it would be

  637
  much more desirable, in view of the state of coal stocks and the general desire for clearing some of them, for the date for summer price orders to be extended beyond June 14. Many people, owing to their cash position, do not get the chance of placing orders within that short period of time, and I should have thought that the summer prices might well have been continued to a later date. If, however, the Minister will be good enough to inform Parliament as soon as he has had consultations with the trade, I am sure we shall all join with him in happiness that there is less restriction and more freedom.
  3.35 p.m.
  LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for his encouraging statement. I can appreciate his anxiety that the removal of control should not result in increased prices. That is one of the objects of the removal of control—to let competition exercise its influence. Besides that, I intend in the series of discussions which I propose to have, to see that clue emphasis is placed on that aspect of the matter. In regard to the question of summer prices, I can assure the noble Viscount that that matter has been carefully and thoroughly studied by the National Coal Board. Their anxiety is to sell coal and to keep coal moving evenly throughout the year, because it is produced fairly evenly throughout the year and it is desirable that it should move easily. The particular dates chosen for certain variations in price are those selected by the National Coal Board after most careful consideration. I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied with that explanation.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, there is one question I should like to put to the noble Lord, the Minister, regarding the variation in price. I take it that there will he no variation in the early stages without consultation with the Ministry.
  LORD MILLS: My Lords, I may explain to the noble Lord that the general price fixing—that is, the fixing of pithead prices and the fixing, therefore, of the zone prices (the price at which the National Coal Board deliver to the merchants)—is arranged after full consultation with the Minister. The only part which is in question is the difference be-
  638
  tween the zone delivered prices to the merchant and the price at which the consumer is supplied. I intend to watch that very carefully.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I, with the permission of the House, put just one more question with regard to what the Minister has said about the aim of the removal of control being rather the reverse of raising prices—in fact, to reduce them? I hope that when the noble Lord comes to discussions with the trade he will not forget the experience in some agricultural commodities, where Her Majesty's Government are mulcted in charges for subsidies to the farmers and where the removal of control at the market end has left freedom of buying to the retailer but rising prices, in face of a lower income, to the farmer. I believe that that is the kind of thing one should try to avoid, at any rate, in the case of coal.
  LORD MILLS: My Lords. I can assure the noble Viscount that I will keep that matter and every other matter which is germane to this subject very closely in mind.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  3.40 p.m
  Debate on Second Reading resumed.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we have heard from the noble and learned Viscount, as we always do, an efficient, comprehensive and lucid account of the provisions of the Local Government Bill. I believe it would be right to say that this Bill and the Rent Act are the two masterpieces of the present Government during this Parliament. We have seen the effects of the Rent Act, and we now await with interest what is going to come out of the Local Government Bill.
  The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, began by telling us that the time was ripe for a thoroughgoing overhaul of local government, and I am sure every one of us will agree. I hope that the House will bear with me if I enlarge on that matter to some extent, so as to indicate how ripe the time really is for a thorough-going reconsideration of the whole structure of local government. In the last few hundred years there have been vast changes in the social life and

  639
  structure of this country. I want to outline some of them. There has been immense general progress of commerce and industry. We have had the Industrial Revolution, which has completely changed the face of these Islands: this country, from having been a predominantly rural country, has become predominantly industrial. There was previously little intercourse between one part of the country and another; to-day we have very easy intercourse between all parts of the country.
  In the last fifty years an increasing number of people have been living in towns. About 80 per cent. of the whole population now live in towns and only about 20 per cent. live in the country. As a result, we have created vast problems of housing and overcrowding. We have produced a new educational system involving compulsory education for every child up to the age of fifteen; we have invented the internal combustion engine, which has completely altered the tempo and conditions of movement of people and goods and which has created a demand for a wholly new road system, which we have not yet achieved. We have the Welfare State, with all the additional public services associated with it, including the complex Health and Infant Welfare services, most of which are being provided and maintained by local authorities. We have building regulation, and, a vast subject in itself, town and country planning; housing projects; slum clearance; a Police Force; a Fire Service and Civil Defence. Practically all these are services which have had to be created in the past fifty to one hundred years.
  Local Government has obviously increased vastly in importance, as has its impact upon the general public in all sorts of ways. Yet, in the face of all these changes that I have enumerated, and many more, the structure of local government has remained virtually unchanged over the last few hundred years. Of course, there have been some changes, and I will mention one or two of them, but they have been of a minor character. We have always had the counties, the county boroughs, the non-county boroughs, the county districts and the parishes; and we have them to-day virtually unaltered. What was acceptable as a suitable structure of local govern-
  640
  went in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I is to-day accepted as suitable for the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.
  There has been very little inquiry into local government. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, referred to the Royal Commission on Local Government of, I believe, 1923—the Onslow Commission. But, apart from that, I can find no trace of any real inquiry into the structure of local government in the last fifty years, in spite of the changes that I have enumerated. One of the results of the Royal Commission of 1923 and of the Local Government Act, 1929, which followed it, was that there was a reduction in urban districts from 827 to 572; and a reduction in the rural districts from 779 to 476. That is the sum total of the changes which have taken place in the last one hundred years in the structure of local government.
  In 1945 a Local Government Boundary Commission was appointed. It worked for some four years, and then, for reasons which I do not think it necessary to go into, partly because I do not know them, that Commission came to an end. And so to-day we have the present system, which grew up and developed in the days when there was virtually no local government at all, being used for the most elaborate and complex form of local government. The units, the areas, the populations and the resources of the local authorities bear no relationship at all to the efficiency of the services administered; they are far too numerous. We have to-day something like 12,000 different units of local government administering our affairs. It is true that about 11,000 of them are parish councils and parish meetings, but we still have 1,530 units of local government in this country, not counting the parishes at all. In addition, we have a considerable number of joint boards or joint committees or joint advisory committees, all playing some part in the work of local government.
  I have intimated that some of these units are much too small to administer our affairs efficiently. I should like to give one or two examples, which are of course well known to your Lordships. Rutland covers 85 square miles; it has a county council, and a population of 60,000. Devon, on the other hand, has an area of 2,500 square miles and a population approaching half a million. Then there are a number of counties—

  641
  Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Yorkshire and London—all of which have populations running into millions. Then there are county boroughs, possessing exactly the same kind of conditions—they are self-contained—such as Canterbury, with a population of 22,000, and others like Birmingham and Manchester with populations of one and a half million or thereabouts. There is a corresponding diversity of area, population and financial resources running right through all the other various types of local government authorities. One of the effects of that is that, while most of us would agree that it is right that children of equal aptitude, wherever they may live in this country, should have an equal chance in life, the facts are very different. A child living, say, in Somerset—I take Somerset just as an example; I am not necessarily casting any reflection on Somerset—
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear !
  LORD SILKIN: I knew that my noble Leader was behind me. A child living in Somerset, with its relatively depleted resources, may well have only one chance in four of going to a grammar school, as against a child of equal aptitude living, say, in Middlesex. And a child living in a rural area in many parts of the country—I hope we shall hear more about this on some further occasion in a debate on education—would have virtually no chance of going to a grammar school as against a child of equal aptitude going to a primary school in a town. That is wrong. And it should be one of the functions of local government to put, such a thing right.
  Then there is confusion about powers between different authorities. I wonder how many of your Lordships could pass an examination on the powers and functions of different kinds of authorities throughout the country. If we could do so, I am certain that the ordinary citizen could not. They must find it difficult to decide whether a particular function is that of the county council, of the county borough council or of the county district council—or even possibly of the parish council. Some services are administered concurrently by more than one authority; some again are delegated by one authority to another; and it is
  642
  difficult to ascertain in whom the ultimate responsibility lies.
  Some authorities are much too small for the kind of functions they are required to carry out. For instance, to be effective, town and country planning requires large areas. We cannot plan this country in small units—say, under district councils; we have to take the broad view of the most effective way of planning and developing these Islands. There is no single local government unit which is big enough for that purpose. This is a problem we have to face. The same applies to many education authorities. If we are really desirous of making the educational authorities self-contained, so that within their areas children will have the opportunity of going to the types of school for which they have the greatest aptitude. that involves having a substantial number of different types of schools in every educational area, and a great many local education authorities are quite incapable of providing the necessary education within their areas. Larger units are essential for that purpose.
  I should like to refer to the bitter rivalries and antagonisms which have grown up between the different types of local authorities. There is an inherent antagonism between the county council and the county borough council, and naturally so, because the county borough draws population, rateable value and so on from the county, and very often it is a rival in importance and status. For instance, Birmingham is inside the geographical area of the county of Warwick, and Manchester is inside the geographical area of the county of Lancashire, but in both cases I think it would be fair to say that the county borough has overshadowed the county itself, which one would normally regard as being the major authority. The conflicting interests between the two are bound to lead to rivalry, unpleasantness and difficulties.
  We have conflicts also between county council and district council. The district councils desire to get more and more power in their own hands rather than to have what is becoming fashionable—delegated powers. They want to have the power of running the different services which are entrusted to them. That again is a fruitful source of conflict. Finally,

  643
  in this catalogue, I should like to mention the considerable vested interests which have grown up in local government units, which make changes more difficult. We have the county boroughs, which have a vested interest in remaining is a fruitful source of conflict. Finally, have the vested interests of the non-county boroughs, with their mayors, aldermen and officials and the constant pressure to maintain and increase their existing powers. Then, with this vast number of separate authorities, we have the great difficulty of getting and paying for suitable men and women both to serve as officials and, even more, to serve on the councils and co-opted bodies. This is becoming a real problem in our democratic system of local government.
  As a result of everything that I have said, it is not surprising that to-day little interest is taken in local government elections, and it is rare that more than one-third of the electorate goes to the poll. If there is even a 40 per cent. poll it is regarded as something startling which requires an investigation into why there have been so many voters. What is needed is a complete and courageous examination and overhaul of our local government system. And my first criticism of this Bill is that it does not do that at all. It sets up these two Commissions without any real examination.
  In his opening speech, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor assumed that what was needed was an overhaul and improvement of the existing structure. He may be right. It is possible that the existing structure is so ingrained in our lives, that the tradition of county and county borough is so great, that to-day it is unthinkable and impossible to make any change whatever, in spite of the fact that, as I have tried to explain, these organisations were devised under totally different conditions and for totally different purposes. It may be so; but I think it is wrong to assume that it is so. I would strongly object to taking the view, without any further examination, that it is quite impossible and impracticable to build up a fresh system of local government which, as the noble and learned Viscount said a number of times, would be effective and convenient and would meet modern conditions. At any rate, I think that the order has been reversed—that no inquiry has taken place
  644
  and that the Government are introducing this legislation without really being clear about where they are going, what they desire to do and how they are going to do it. The last thing this Bill will do will be to achieve what the Minister, in his speech on Second Reading, said he wanted to achieve—and I believe that he does; that is to say, to give fresh strength and inspiration to local government, and to reorganise it so as to make it valuable and the services in it worthwhile.
  The Bill, in its machinery (with which I do not propose to deal in any detail to-day, because I think that will be more appropriate in Committee), contemplates the retention of the existing structure and an examination of the structure virtually county by county. Whilst I would agree in all fairness that it is conceivable that two counties, or more, might be joined together as a result of the recommendations of the Review Commissions, nevertheless it is almost unthinkable that, if you decide to build on the existing structure, any such recommendations will, in practice, be made; or that, if they are made, they will, in practice, be carried out. The howl that will arise if it is sought to join little Rutland with the adjoining county, or to get rid of the Soke of Peterborough, will be such that even the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will not be prepared to face up to it.
  I venture to prophesy that in five years' time, after the review has taken place, the County of Rutland will remain the County of Rutland and the Soke of Peterborough will remain the Soke of Peterborough. I do not believe you will get any change unless you are prepared to contemplate reviewing the whole structure of local government ab initio and to make up your mind whether to carry out modern functions as I have described them. And it is practicable and possible completely to review the kind of local government areas that we have to-day. It is for that reason that I find myself unable to believe that what is sought to be done in this Bill by way of improvement of local government will have any greater effect than the recommendations of the Onslow Commission, which after many years, succeeded in reducing the number of district councils by about one-third.
  Now I want to say a few words about the financial provisions in Part I of the Bill. I do not wish to elaborate on them, because my noble friend Lord Latham, who

  645
  will he winding up from this side and who is much more competent to deal with the detail than I am, will do so. However, I should like to make a few general observations. The first is that when we talk about a new grant system and the changes that are taking place we are virtually talking about the education grant, which will comprise 75, 80 or 85 per cent., or at any rate a large proportion, of the total grant. The change that is being criticised relates particularly to that proportion of the block grant which is at present being paid by way of percentage grant for education.
  I thought that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack brushed aside rather cavalierly, if I may say so, the fears and apprehensions that exist in so many quarters about the effect of the change from the percentage grant to the block grant. He must bear in mind that this proposal has an unfortunate history. On every occasion when it has been put forward—and it has been put forward on a number of occasions before—it has been associated with the desire of the Government to save money. On previous occasions there was no nonsense about its being an improvement in the machinery of local government, or about its making it much easier for local authorities to do their business; it was put forward as a straightforward economy measure. To-day it is wrapped up with the desire to give local authorities more freedom. But do any of your Lordships doubt that the real purpose of this measure is linked up with all the other economy measures whack the Government are taking at the present time; that it is to save money and not intended primarily to bring about any improvement in the machinery of local government?
  The noble and learned Viscount told us—and I accept the fact—that there will be no reduction in the amount of money available to the local authorities, and that there might be more. But, of course, the local government services are expanding, and particularly education, which I feel ought to expand far more. For one thing, we have not yet fully seen the effect of the bulge in the population which occurred at the end of the war and soon after. The number of children who are receiving education at public expense is still growing. While it changes its place from the primary schools to the secondary schools, and in due course to the technical schools and the universities, the number of children is still growing.
  646
  The schools that have been built since the war are most charming and delightful, but by and large the quality of the schools in the towns has not changed. A school that I went to as a boy is still being used as a school—and it was a pretty bad school in those clays. The village school seventy or eighty years of age is still there; and in a large number of cases children whose ages range from five to eleven are being taught in different parts of one room. Those conditions still exist. And in many parts of the country there are still classes of forty, fifty and more. Generally, if all the improvements contemplated under the Education Act, 1944, are to be carried out, an enormous amount of expenditure will need to be undertaken. Therefore it is natural that the education service must be for many years to come a growing service. When the Lord Chancellor tells us that there will be more money available under the block grant, he is not necessarily saying very much. The present system—though it is not completely satisfactory, and I do not suggest that it is—does at any rate ensure that the expenditure incurred by the Government and the grant are related to the educational needs of the locality, so far as the local authorities can see them. It is a direct inducement to the local authority to spend as much as it can afford in the field of education.
  Great play has been made in another place—and to some extent the noble and learned Viscount did it here—about the competition that will arise between different services for the amount of money available. I think the general view of the Government is that that is a good thing; it is regarded as giving the local authorities freedom. Freedom for what? Freedom to fight over the money that will be made available to them by the Government. I do not regard that as a desirable thing. I do not believe it is a good thing that the battle should be fought out between the different chairmen of committees for the amount of money available, and that the chairman with the strongest personality or the biggest pull, or who is able, for other reasons quite unconnected with the merits of the case, to get his way, should prevail. Yet that is what is going to happen. The noble and learned Viscount may regard that as giving the local

  647
  authorities freedom, but it is not a desirable freedom and it is not in the best interests of the community. You are not going to get the best possible use of the money that will be available by encouraging this "scrap" between different chairman of committees. I have seen it myself. I have had some experience of this kind of battle, and I know that it is not always the best man who wins—certainly not the best service that wins. So I feel that this so-called freedom which local authorities are going to enjoy may turn out to be a very undesirable thing.
  As I said, I do not want to elaborate on the question of the block grant: we shall no doubt hear a good deal about it in further stages of the Bill, and in further stages of this debate. The only other matter upon which I wish to comment—and it rather lends colour to the view that I and most of my noble friends hold; that the real purpose of this measure is to save money, not by economy but by reducing the amount of grant that would otherwise be given to local authorities—is the way in which the re-rating proposals have been dealt with. Local authorities have been pressing that industrial undertakings should make a greater contribution towards the rates in their area. The Government have agreed, and they take two-thirds of the benefit. I do not know whether they can justify that or not. Perhaps they can, but I feel that it is rather a mean thing to do. I think that the local authorities, who are bearing the heat and burden of the day, should at least have been given the benefit of any increased rating which they enjoyed as a result of the partial re-rating of industrial premises. They have had to provide the services for many years without getting a proper contribution. Although the amount involved is relatively small—only £10 million a year—it is indicative of the approach of the Government to the question of the block grant, and in my view throws some light upon it.
  I regard this as a thoroughly bad and ineffective Bill. It might have been a good Bill soon after the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government was published in 1923, but it is wholly inappropriate to the needs of the present time and to the needs of present conditions. I feel that the Minister has missed
  648
  a great opportunity. He might have gone down in history, in spite of the unfortunate Rent Act, as one of the great local government reformers (let me give credit where credit is due), in the line of the late noble Chairman, who was a great local government reformer. I am sorry that the Minister, who is an old friend and colleague of mine, has missed his chance of following in that great tradition. He has frittered away the chance that he had, and he has built in this Bill a house of cards which, in my opinion and in the opinion of most people who have any expert views on this matter, will fall and disappear.
  4.16 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has given such a clear explanation of this Bill, with a large amount of which I agree, that the remarks I propose to make will be extremely short. There is, I think no one can deny, a great advantage in giving local authorities as much responsibility as possible to spend money themselves, and not telling them what to do from any central authority.
  There is one matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred and about which I and friends of mine feel rather worried. I refer to the provisions made for education. This is a matter about which we shall hear a great deal more on Committee stage, but I thought it worth while to refer to it on Second Reading. Up to the present time, as your Lordships know, the education grant from the central authority has been a percentage grant, and it is now to become part of the general block grant, or grant given to the local authority. I think that that will be an unfortunate thing to happen, for two definite reasons. One is that if anything should be national policy at the present time, it is education. It needs a large amount of guidance from the centre, because I am sure that upon education alone depends the way we are going to escape from the troubles of the world.
  If the block grant system is adopted, it will mean that there will be 146 educational authorities in the country, and one cannot be sure that they will all give the same attention to education as they would if they could be more centrally guided. Personally, I think education is one sphere in which there should be central

  649
  guidance. The grant system was introduced a long time ago, immediately after the First World War, and, so far as I know, has worked very well. There is no doubt that when attempts were made during that time to introduce the block grant, they were made on the ground of economy. Nobody would deny that economy is a proper consideration now; but whether this is meant to be a matter of economy I do not know. The noble and learned Viscount assured us that it is not, and I hope he is right, for I think that education is the one thing upon which we cannot afford to economise to any great extent.
  Looking at the Bill, I find there are certain other curious things. Some of the school services, such as school meals and school milk, are not going to come under the general block grant system. It seems rather curious to differentiate between the spiritual and the temporal needs of the child. I do not know whether there is anything sinister in that or not. There again it makes one wonder what the reason is for changing the educational grant from the percentage to the block grant system. That is the one point I wanted to bring up at this stage, and in view of the large number of speakers I can only say that, apart from that point, the Bill seems to me to be a satisfactory Bill which will do a great deal of good to local government.
  4.21 p.m.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, and I am sure that the Government will be grateful to hear of the support from the Liberal Benches opposite. Listening to the speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, one would suppose that this Bill has, as it were, fallen from Heaven, without any preliminary discussion with any of the local authorities or with any of their associations. But it is well known to your Lordships—it must be well known to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—that this Bill is the result of negotiations that have been going on for four or five years. It is nothing new. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that the Minister probably has the support of all the local government associations on the main proposals in this Bill. The weight of paper produced over the last two or three years must weigh hundredweights, and oceans of ink have been spent in producing memoranda,
  650
  papers, appendices and annnexes; so much so that anybody who is a member of a local government authority has been quite unable to read or digest the enormous volume of paper that has been produced on this subject. Therefore, I think it is incorrect to say that this Bill is a sort of makeshift, unthought-out and unpremeditated Bill. It has been, to the best of my knowledge, the result of an immense quantity of most detailed examination.
  I regret at the same time that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, should take such a very gloomy view about the future of local government in this country. If I am right in my reading of his remarks, he would prefer local government authorities in this country to be the agents of Government Departments. He does not wish to see them have any freedom, or any more freedom, and I very much doubt whether he wishes to see them have any more responsibility. That conception I believe to be fundamentally different from the conception of local government held on this side of the House and different from the conception of local government held by the Government to-day. We have been told something of the history of local government. That history goes back many centuries, and in my opinion it deserves great credit. Many people have devoted a large part of their lives to local government, and the efforts of this Government to increase the responsibility and the freedom of local government should, I feel, be commended very highly.
  Local government to-day is suffering from anæmia; and the anæmia arises from the fact that for so many years powers of Government Departments have increased and the responsibility and powers of local government have decreased. The result is that to-day we are not getting the same interest in local government, and we are not getting the same quality of persons offering themselves for election. But what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggests, will simply make this problem worse. He is suggesting that local government should become the pure agent of Government Departments. Yet local government would die under that system. Local government must be given more freedom and responsibility. That is what has been pressed for by the associations of local government for the last ten years.
  LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene, just in the interests of accuracy? He is imputing to me something I am supposed to have suggested. I did not. What I said was that I thought there ought to be a full inquiry, having regard to the modern conditions of local government, with a view to arriving at some conclusions as to what is the most suitable form. I did not pretend to anticipate the result of such an inquiry. I was complaining that this Bill had been made without that sort of inquiry.
  LORD HYLTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for explaining what he meant, but the impression he gave was very much the opposite. At any rate, the background of this Bill is one of constant pressure by the associations of local government, and by local government bodies themselves to be given more freedom; and it is largely for that reason that this Bill has been framed in these terms.
  The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, explained the financial provisions of Part I so clearly that at this stage not a great deal need be said about them. There is, however, one important point, and that is that we shall not get greater independence and freedom for local government unless the Government Departments are willing to relinquish the very strong control that they hold to-day. Although there are promises that Government Departments will diminish what amounts almost to their stranglehold on local government authorities, it is not clear in any part of the Bill how that will in fact be done. Later on, I hope that the Government spokesman will explain.
  The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, spoke about key points, but he did not tell us which the key points were or how control was going to be exercised from them. I think it would be helpful to your Lordships if, at a later stage, we could be given a clearer indication of how much of this control will really go, because if it is not to go, then these financial proposals have little fact or meaning behind them. If Government control is to continue at its present standard, then it is hardly worth making these alterations in the grant system—for this reason: that no grant system ever can be perfect. I think that is perfectly clear to anybody who has had a part in the negotiations up to the present time. What suits one authority will not suit another.
  652
  It is humanly impossible to get a grant system that is ideally suited to all types of local authorities. But I believe it is important that the Government proposals should be accepted by the local authorities in good faith. Unless that is so, very little progress can be made. But that, of course, carries with it the corollary that the Government must act in good faith towards the local authorities in relinquishing their financial control of the key points; it must be a two-way system.
  There are one or two small points to which I should now like to refer. First, I believe that there is great difference of opinion as to whether the estimates for the first year should be for a period of two years or whether, for the first one or two years, they should be annual. I believe, and I am advised, that it would greatly simplify matters if for the first two years—that is to say, after April, 1959, the estimates of local authorities were for one year only and not for the envisaged two years. But that, no doubt, is a matter that we can go into at a later stage.
  Dealing with the Boundary Commission, as the noble and learned Viscount and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, there are far too many small authorities—small measured by financial power, and small measured geographically. If the Boundary Commission (Sir Trustram Eve's Commission), which was bard at work some ten years ago, had not been abolished by the Government then in power, I think great progress would have been made. Now, of course, the work has to be started again. But I believe that many counties contain too many district councils, both urban and rural, and that there is an enormous field to be investigated. Dealing with the special review areas, the conurbations, I think there is a point to be made in that if a new county borough should be created within a special review area the fact of its creation is submitted to Parliament only in an Order which cannot be amended and which can be only passed or rejected. I believe that it would be an improvement if the creation of such a county borough were made subject to the usual procedure in the matter instead of being merely included in the Order for the special review area.
  Dealing with Part III, which provides for delegation, I believe that there is a case for not delegating responsibility

  653
  for mental health in quite the way suggested. I am advised that mental health is a subject that is at present dealt with by county councils; that it is a most delicate and difficult service to administer, and that if an attempt is made to delegate it into smaller units it will be to the disadvantage of the service itself. I am sure there are many noble Lords far better qualified than myself to speak on this subject, and I hope that it will be ventilated at a later stage. In conclusion, I think many of your Lordships on these Benches would wish to congratulate the Government on having had the courage to bring forward this Bill. This is one of the two matters in home affairs that were dropped by the Government of the Party now in Opposition: the other, of course, was concerned with housing. But this Government have had the courage to deal not only with housing but also with local government. I believe that political courage will in course of time have its reward.
  4.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, on his last point. This is a subject which has been hanging about in the air for years and years. It has always been held, or one has always been told, that one Government or another would not dare tackle it for fear of upsetting either the county councils on the one hand or the county boroughs on the other. At last something has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he would rather have seen an inquiry. But, as Lord Hylton has said, there has been endless discussion and correspondence between the various associations and local government authorities, the Minister and everybody else, and I do not believe that more could have been done to get agreement than has been done. In fact, I am rather inclined to think that on some points the Bill goes a bit too far to get agreement, and it would perhaps have been better if it were a little stronger in one direction or another.
  As to the financial provisions, I think it is common knowledge to anybody who has been a member of a local authority that the percentage grant system is a thoroughly evil one. I have often heard people say at county councils and district council meetings, "It does not matter; the Government pay 70 per cent.
  654
  It does not matter whether we spend this or not." It is a great incentive to lack of care and economy. Of course, it has a worse effect, to which other noble Lords have already referred—namely, that on any matter where the Government pay a certain grant, if it is a percentage grant the council has to get the approval of the Government to the scheme, whatever it may be; and in approving the 60 or the 50 or the 70 per cent. grant from the taxpayer, naturally the Government Department has to lay down particular points and say, "We will approve it only if you do it this way, that way or the other way, instead of in such-and-such a way." That is really the worst part of the percentage grant system. The detail of the decision is not made by the local people, and often not the policy of it, and they tend eventually to lose the sense of responsibility and the feeling that they are looking after their own affairs which it is vital that the local councils should have.
  A lot has been said about the effect of this Bill on education. I do not know whether many people who talk on that subject have ever been on an education committee. For some years I had the honour to be chairman of a county education committee. My experience there would lead me to think that this method is going to make it much easier for a committee to do what it wants to do. There are certain key points at which the Minister of Education or his colleagues in the Government can easily control the system and can see how it is working. I think I am right in saying that there is a provision in the Education Act, 1944, that the Minister has the duty to see that the education committee carries out its duties in a satisfactory way. But the points at which it seems to me simple for the Minister to control the activities of the education committee, if it tends to lag, are very few.
  One of them is in the reorganisation of rural education and the provision of new schools, pot only in rural but in all parts of the county. That is a matter which is easily checked. Long after the war, each education committee made its development plan. The whole thing is set down and it is then approved by the Ministry, subject, of course, to later review. It seems to me perfectly simple and easy for the Minister to see how it is going, compared with the plan made

  655
  for that education committee, and he has means of his own of stimulating committees which may lag behind. I do not know whether there are in this country any education committees which lag behind. All those of which I have heard are wishing to go faster than the resources of both the ratepayer and the taxpayer will permit them to go; and, quite rightly, they are keen to carry out their duties as well as they possibly can.
  The other point of control seems to me to be in regard to the starting of schools. Once schools have been built in certain places, fulfilling certain functions, and a certain number of teachers have been obtained, it is easy to see from records whether any education committee has, for example, as many teachers as it should have. Those are points on which one can see the whole thing through; and I can see no difficulty there. I do not believe that any Government, knowing their responsibilities under the Education Act, responsibilities which they share with education committees, would wish to cut down on expenditure; and I do not believe any education authority would wish to do so either. I feel certain that without the percentage grant control there should be considerable economies in manpower in both council and Government offices. So much of the work is immaterial, as is proved by the procedure on one of the council's committees, details being checked there, sent to London, checked and altered and sent back again. The amount of work saved there would be quite noticeable; and that is not at all a bad object to have in mind. I am looking forward to seeing how this system is going to work.
  I was interested to see the services chosen to be covered by the new grant, and rather hoped that more of them might have been included. One point which might be worth mentioning is that the responsibilities of different kinds of local authority can vary as the years go by. For example, since the war, fire brigade work is new. Civil Defence work since 1938 is new to all authorities who do it, and the new provisions for children's committees have added to the responsibilities of local authorities. It seems to me inevitable, and also very right, that as conditions change more jobs will have to be taken on and others perhaps dropped off. I should hope that there might be
  656
  more provision in the Bill to ensure some flexibility from time to time by changes approved by Parliament or the Minister, so that some services can be brought into the new system of the overall general grant and others perhaps transferred as the need arises. I do not think that that contradicts the principle; in practice it might improve it.
  The real difficulty about this Bill is the reorganisation question. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in congratulating Her Majesty's Government on having the courage to tackle it, and I believe that this scheme, so far as it goes, is good. It is worth while trying to think out in one's own mind the real need for any revision and reorganisation—I will not say "reform", because that word might seem to suggest that the whole system was bad, which nobody would suggest. From my experience of county government I should say that the real difficulty arises when a large county borough wants to expand at the expense of the county, its neighbour, or other county boroughs, or when a large non-county borough or group of urban district councils wants to become a county borough, and their interests therefore clash with the remainder of the county from which their areas would be taken. That seems to me the main difficulty in the sphere of the two Commissions. I believe, therefore, that there should have been in this Bill rather more direction to the Commission on what they are to do in situations of that kind.
  For one thing, there has been a great deal of experience over the years of county boroughs promoting Bills to increase their territory, taking in certain areas of a county; and there has always been a feeling on the part of the county that the interests of the remainder of the inhabitants of the county have not been considered enough. I should have liked to see somewhere a direction to this Commission. It is implied that they will have to do this; but as this is a change of attitude I believe it should be included.
  There is only one reference to numbers, and this is where I believe Her Majesty's Government have been rather "up against it" in trying to get agreement with the different associations. The only mention of numbers of population in this Part of the Bill is the 100,000, deemed to be the population that a borough should have before it becomes a county borough. For many years a large body of opinion

  657
  has felt that the figure should be very much larger, and one can argue that point on another basis, and not only on the number of people required to support efficient services of one kind and another, the number of schoolchildren necessary for a whole series of streams to be built up, the number of people required to justify a police force, and so on. I should have liked to see the number more carefully analysed, and I believe that the figure then would have been much larger. I should like to see guidance to the Commission on what they should do in the situations to which I have referred.
  There is a small point, hardly worth Second Reading mention. There is a clause which says, quite rightly, that after fifteen years Private Bills may not be brought into the House to alter the status as between county and county borough. It seems natural, after a major upheaval of this kind, that they must be left alone. In practice, the constant expectation of changes of boundaries every few years is most upsetting and tiresome in local government work. I have had a good deal of experience of it. I regret, therefore, that in the Eighth Schedule, paragraph 7, there is a provision whereby the Minister may, by an order, alter the boundaries of a county borough so as to include part of or the whole of a county district. I do not think that that provision should be there. I believe that the job should be done properly; and when this Commission has reviewed the whole of the country and has finally arrived at a view it seems wrong that there should be the possibility that that may be done. It is quite a small point but it is important. It refers to the Local Government Act, 1923, Section 2, and I am advised that that is what is meant, although, not being a lawyer, I cannot enter into the point myself.
  May I say a few words about special review areas. I hope Her Majesty's Government will forgive me if I speak only of one which I know very well. I fully admit that what I now venture to say may be quite inappropriate for other special areas with which I am not familiar, but possibly my experience, which has been of the Tyneside review area, may be of relevance and of some importance and help in relation to considering other special review areas.
  658
  The Tyneside area includes the two big cities on each side of the river with a number of county districts north and south of the Tyne. I believe I am right in saying (though I am not sure) that the first time there was any suggestion of rearranging local government in that area was round about 1935–36, at the time of the depression, when there was unemployment and a great deal of difficulty, and things were very bad. A commissioner on special areas was appointed and he suggested that some alteration of local government boundaries would be an improvement. His reasons were nothing whatever to do with local government but were concerned with the social and economic life of the area, and I could never see the connection between the two. I hope that there was a review of the scheme. There was a report on it and various proposals were made which were locally much disliked, and argument went on and on until the war.
  I was much involved in all the argument, both during and since the war; and we in that part of the country concocted a theory which rather went like this. So far as could be seen, each of the local authorities was in fact carrying out its functions very well. I have never heard anyone say that the various county districts on the north bank of the Tyne are inefficient or incompetent, and the same applies to those on the south. If it is felt they should be amalgamated, altered, changed, improved, added to or taken away from, it should first be-necessary to show what is wrong with them. In these county districts and districts in Northumberland, where I am a member of the County Council, I do not see any difference between the competence, as we judge it from the county, of those authorities—I will not use the word "conurbation," which was referred to. It should be demonstrated that some change should be made, and the reason should be given.
  Next I would come back to the principle which was suggested in reference to the ordinary case of a county borough wishing to expand its territorial area into its neighbouring county. That must not be done entirely without regard to the viability of the county as an administrative unit. It is not a question of rateable value; it is a question of organisation and whether the thing can be made to work. It appears, in this particular

  659
  case, that if all these districts are taken from the county, more than one third of the county's population disappears. To my mind, there is only one solution, and that is, not to take away, but to combine together all these county boroughs with their constituent county districts. That may not be a solution anywhere else. It may, in the end, not be reasonable even in that part of the world. But I believe it is; and I have a fairly good idea that it is also the solution for the southern part of that special review area, which presents a different problem but a very similar one.
  So far as I can understand the wording of the Bill, such a solution would not be possible; and I should like to see that it is open to be done if, in fact, the Commission have any idea, after their review, that it should be done. It would have the result, inevitably—or it should have the result—of a two-tier system throughout the area. But I do not see why the county borough should not, as it were, become a county district, in the same way as it is now proposed to merge a municipal borough, where necessary, with a rural district. In both cases they keep their rights and privileges and it would seem to be an entirely workable scheme.
  I want to say one further thing in that connection—and I do not want friends or members of county boroughs to think that I am, or anybody else is, wishing to demote them, as it were. If it is thought necessary to incorporate some important parts of counties with county boroughs and to make these new kinds of unit, which I think is the only way to do the job, then the only answer to it is to combine the whole lot together. This was, of course, debated endlessly locally, before the war and since, and by the County Councils Association. However, the trouble is that not many counties are in the situation of counties which are next to these special review areas, so not many people are familiar with problems of this sort.
  I want to see more guidance given to these Commissions. The late-lamented Local Government Boundary Commission, who were appointed by the Act after the war, lasted for only a few years. They were given no guidance at all. They produced a solution which was unpopular. They devised a new kind of authority called a "new county borough", which
  660
  was between a municipal borough and a county borough; and they faded out. I am afraid that if the Commissions to be established under this Bill are not given more definite instructions and more guidance, they may fail in their object, because they will not be strong enough to go one way or the other. I fear the situation may end up as being too much of a compromise. That is not criticism of the general trend of the Bill; but I rather hope that in Committee the Government may make suggestions that will give strength in that way.
  I wish to make one further small point. I am horrified to see the special clause about joint boards which may be proposed by the Commissions for a special review area, part of a neighbouring county district, and so on. Everyone who is experienced in local government wishes to avoid the creation of a joint hoard, if possible. I think it is the worst kind of administration, apart from the consideration of its election. Such boards are difficult things to work. If there are members from different local authorities concerned there is always a feeling that they are watching each other to see which is going to get some advantage out of it, and watching to see that they themselves are not left behind. These joint boards are very difficult and awkward things and in many cases remove the decision as to finance and raising money, which comes to these boards without any real responsibility. I would suggest, in the case where the Commissions make reviews of the major local government units, that if they do their job well there should be no need for any joint boards at all. One would hope that in the carrying out of their work in general, over all the country, they may be able to bring about a reduction of the number of joint boards that already exist. I think this Bill is a good start, and I hope that, as it goes through the House, we shall learn a lot more about it and that we shall effect improvements.
  4.58 p.m.
  LORD DARWEN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down painted a picture, which he told us was drawn from his own experience, of irresponsible spending on the part of local authorities, induced by a 70 per cent. Government grant. Actually, I am not aware of any 70 per cent. Government grant.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: In some cases it is loan expenditure.
  LORD DARWEN: That suggests to me, and I think that it will suggest to some of your Lordships, that there is a gross wastage of public money on the part of local authorities. I find that experience rather difficult to understand, and I cannot but think that the noble Lord has been rather unfortunate in his experience.
  Another suggestion which has been made, both by the noble Viscount and by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, is that the County Councils Association or the county councils in general, are in favour of this Bill. I am not going to dispute that, but I would suggest that there are a large number of county councils who are not in favour of it. The Association of Education Committees has provided me with some figures which they obtained as the result of an investigation. They invited 146 county councils and county borough councils in England and Wales to say whether or not they approved of the proposed legislation. The figures they have given me do not add up correctly; nevertheless, there is a picture here which I hope your Lordships will accept. They received 110 answers, of which 60 were against the proposed Bill and 2 in favour; 26 were not opposed to the Bill in principle but would have liked to see substantial changes, and 24 did not express a view.
  In speaking in the Second Reading debate, I do so as an educationalist, or perhaps I should say, as an ex-educationalist, a humble one, I have been a teacher. I have taught in very ordinary schools, in a village school, in a secondary modern school and in a grammar school. I do not suggest that this experience gives me any specialised knowledge which would enable me to bring a particularly critical mind to the Bill, nor am I suggesting the contrary. The Government might feel that the views of a teacher can be lightly set aside—in fact, one gets this impression from the Government statements which have been made, despite the unanimity of teachers in their opposition to the Bill. However, it is a fact that the experience which I have had is such that I have a keen appreciation of the immense value of the national plan for education and of the fact that it is administered in a special way—that is, through local
  662
  government. I certainly should not like to see any change in that.
  The child who now comes under the Education Act, whatever his disabilities and lack of aptitude, has a fair deal. Though he may have no likelihood of becoming a Prime Minister or a scientist of value to the country, he gets an education which is appropriate to his aptitude. The 1944 Act, at any rate, implicitly recognises that the level of civilisation achieved by the Greeks was not of the highest kind, because it was based on privilege; and we now realise that if we are going to have a great civilisation, that civilisation will be measured largely in terms of the standard of education. A backward step, as I believe this Bill to be, is a step towards barbarism.
  If we reduce to their simplest terms the differences between the proponents and the opponents of this Bill, the question can be put in this way: are these new methods of financing education appropriate to the present needs of the country? Do they, on the one hand, recognise an inflationary trend which must be stopped or blocked, and, on the other, meet the inescapable fact that the educational services are expanding, as my noble friend Lord Silkin emphasised, and that that expansion is essential if the 1944 Act is to be implemented? History will record—in fact, I think it has recorded—that the 1944 Act, which is sometimes called the Butler Act, and rightly so, is one of the most enlightened pieces of legislation on the Statute Book. But its implementation is not yet complete. There are still too many schools with very large classes. There are still too few grammar school places. There are still a large number of old and antiquated schools. And teachers, although of recent times they have received a considerable improvement in their pay, are still not particularly well paid, having consideration for the kind of work they are doing and its importance.
  Four Ministers of Education in succession have never doubted the importance of securing education of the highest quality for our children, and have stoutly defended the provisions of the 1944 Act. They have given assurances that there will be no interference with the provisions that are intended there. The trouble is that we do not know very much from this Bill about the amount of money that local authorities will receive under it. It appears as a kind of planners' dream, a

  663
  streamlining of Government grants; and it is a little difficult to gauge how far local authorities are going to be embarrassed by it, whether it will be possible for them to meet the expansion due to the so-called "bulge" and whether the Bill will permit local authorities to meet the cost of improving standards. If we could be assured of these things, there would be none of this sense of disquiet that exists at present among teachers and education authorities.
  One can understand the motive which prompted the Government to introduce the financial aspect of the Bill. They did so as an anti-inflationary measure, and I think it only fair to say that in my view it is an anti-inflationary measure. I do not think it is any use blinking that fact. Percentage grants do maintain the buying power in an inflationary economy, whereas block grants, on the other hand, have the opposite effect. But to say that the percentage grant acts as an indiscriminate incentive to further expenditure, which is the way the White Paper on local government finance describes it, seems to suggest that local authorities are singularly lacking in a sense of responsibility.
  If one concedes that a block grant will have a stabilising influence on the central Government's contribution to local government expenditure—and that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—it is fairly obvious that the instability and uncertainty which the Treasury have borne is, in fact, being transferred to the local authorities. The local authorities are faced with a situation in which the block grant is to be given for two years, during which period there are to be opportunities for review, but only, as I understand it, in a downward and not in an upward direction. The question then is: is it reasonable to resort to block grants in an inflationary situation? I think the answer your Lordships will expect me to give is, "Definitely no"; and that is my answer. If certain duties are laid upon the local authorities—and duties are indeed laid upon them by the 1944 Act—then surely it is the duty of the Government to see that they have the means, or at least the opportunity of obtaining the means, to carry out those obligations. The central Government, after all, control the real
  664
  value of local expenditure on grant-aided services, and it is therefore only equitable that they should maintain the real value of the grants as well.
  I agree that percentage grants have certain dangers, but I do not think a responsible local authority, as has been suggested, wastes public money on education. A percentage grant certainly encourages local authorities to raise the standards, whereas the block grant has the opposite effect and will unquestionably discourage them from doing so. We shall have a curious situation in which the central Government are responsible for seeing that certain standards are maintained, yet the local authorities may be unable to raise the money in order to do so. Moreover, the new policy means that if a local authority has a standard of service which is rather better than average, or if it wants to achieve such a standard, then the whole of the cost must come from the rates. Another point that does not seem to have been allowed for in the Bill is that of local differences in necessary expenditure. For example, the cost of fuel varies from one part of the country to another. I am told that in Leeds and Bradford fuel is 60 per cent. cheaper than it is in the South-West of England.
  Since I have been concerned for part of my life with adult education, I would make a special plea for this marginal service, this "poor sister" of the education services. I believe that under the proposed legislation it will necessarily go to the wall. In my view, the basic defect of this legislation is that it gives the local authority no incentive to raise standards. The local authority which is comparatively backward in its provisions will be in a much better position under the Bill than an authority which has been progressive and wishes to continue to be so. As I see it, the local authorities are going to become a kind of battleground in which the progressive elements will fight it out with the reactionary elements; and the price of victory for progress in education is likely to be dismissal by the ratepayers, who cannot understand why the Government should, to all appearances, have withdrawn moral support from progress in education by saying to the local authorities in effect: "Good luck to you! Educational progress is a good thing, provided that you can pay

  665
  the bill and still keep the electors on your side."
  5.19 p.m.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I suppose the effect of all Bills is a little difficult to foresee, but I must confess that I find this Bill a good deal more problematical than most. I understand that the scheme on the financial side is to replace the percentage grant by a general grant calculated in advance. I can see great advantages in this idea, not because it is necessarily an anti-inflationary step but because at the present moment I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the greatest difficulty in knowing where he stands. I think there is a backlog of expenditure amounting to millions of pounds, which is not ascertainable until quite late in the financial year.
  I can also see some advantages for the local authorities, provided that the sums which local authorities receive through the general grant do not compare too unfavourably with what they get under the percentage grant, and provided that they know in advance what they are going to get. At the moment, we do not know what effect this Bill will have on our rates, and that is one of the things we all want to know. We do not know what the total sum will be, and we do not know how it will be divided up. In addition, I do not think we have a clear idea of how the various Ministries and Ministers will seek to guide and control our activity. I should like to come back to that point in a moment, but what I am saying now is that there are a number of things we do not know at present. Whilst I recognise that nobody can expect a Government at this stage to have cut-and-dried answers to every point in an operation of this magnitude, the trouble with legislation of this sort is that it leads to every kind of assumption which may be totally disproved in practice.
  For example, hardly had the Bill appeared before educationalists were attacking it—not, as the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, suggested, expressing disquiet, which I could have understood, but having made up their minds in no uncertain fashion that this was going to be the most appalling threat to education this century. Such critics included a number of responsible people, and I, as chairman of a county council at that time, felt that I should try to find out what
  666
  their difficulties were. But quite frankly, although I have tried, I have quite failed to see—it may be due to my stupidity—why the control of a local government finance committee should be more onerous, or indeed less onerous, under the general grant system than under the percentage grant system. People have been talking as though, before estimates for education are passed, they are never submitted to a finance committee. I cannot speak for other authorities, of course, but certainly in the case of my own authority estimates are considered carefully by the finance committee; and I do not think our educational standards compare badly with those in other areas.
  Quite frankly, I cannot understand why all this pessimism is necessary or what the excitement is about. There are passages in the Bill—possibly rather obscure passages—which give the Minister power to make provision for expanding services. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, that if the Bill had the effect of cutting down the reasonable expansion of services it would be a bad thing. But I have no reason to think that that is what will happen. I really despair of trying to understand this excitement. In some cases I feel that I am up against a religious sentiment on this point, not based on reason at all. I believe that we all have our phobias and fears: I have my own, but it is of rather a different character. Supplementary grants, rate-deficiency grants and so forth are all distributed on the basis of formulæ. I am sure that these formulæ have been scientifically thought out, but none of them is completely fool-proof. They are not, of course, as we have heard to-day, fixed for all time—there is a certain flexibility. The Minister, with Parliament, can alter them. I do not at all complain of that. It seems that some flexibility is necessary, if for no other reason than to safeguard against miscalculation. But I am afraid that this flexibility may be used, or that pressure may be exercised that it should be used, in such a way as to produce a seemingly greater degree of equality in the rate burden borne by different authorities, and particularly at the expense of the so-called rich authorities.
  This sounds fair, and it might be fair except for two considerations. First of all, the comparison of rate poundages alone as a measure of the real burden

  667
  on the community is crude and misleading, and I regard the whole term "rich authority" as a very loose expression, because poor ratepayers in a rich area are just as poor as the poor anywhere else. Indeed, the truth of this is borne out by this reform which the Government have introduced—and I am extremely glad that they have done so—by which the rate-deficiency grants are now granted to districts. That, I feel, is an admirable thing to relieve the pockets of poverty in a county council area. But administratively it is impossible to carry this principle further, though the problem itself does go further.
  I should like to quote one example. I live in a rich area, and one of the boroughs in the rich area is the Borough of Hove, which I mention because many of your Lordships have been down to Brighton and gone on to Hove. Hove has all the appearance of a rich borough, as indeed, on the formula, it is. But I happen to know that in the Borough of Hove there are about 1,000 houses of which the rents and rates are paid out of National Assistance. So if, for any reason, however seemingly good, there is a violent increase in the rates as a result of passing this Bill, the effect will be to put more and more people on to National Assistance. In modern thinking maybe that does not matter, but it always rather horrifies me, as I am sure the poor are horrified at having to seek National Assistance. However, this may not happen. I certainly could not advise an Amendment to prevent its happening, but I feel that that sort of pressure will develop.
  I should now like to turn to this question of the liberty we have been promised, and to ask whether we can be given a little more specific information about it. I realise that it is not at all an easy request to answer, because so many of the present controls arise from causes outside the scope of this Bill. For example, the present limitation on capital investment has produced a good deal of detailed control. In my own county, under the limitation on capital expenditure, we were instructed to defer the carrying out of some sanitary improvements that we wanted to carry out to primary schools in rural areas. If we want to make an issue of stock, that matter comes under a different sort of
  668
  control analogous to the capital issues control. If we want to put up buildings, we have to submit plans—and I presume that that situation will continue, because there must be a measure of uniformity throughout the county. On top of all this it seems to me that some uncertainty must arise from the fact that Ministers must be given some liberty to interpret in their own way their responsibility to Parliament.
  For all these reasons I cannot expect a detailed reply from my noble friend Lord Hailsham. However, I believe that some conversations on these very points have been proceeding between the associations and the Ministries, and my noble friend may be able to say something to illumine us. I think it would be a good thing if he could, because we on local authorities, too, have our problems. When we are asked, as we have been, to submit by this coming August estimates of our expenditure to cover the next two and a half years, it is rather difficult, without any knowledge of what we shall be allowed to do. I think the figure that we submit must be something of a token figure.
  I should make it clear that I am not necessarily attacking controls. I hope, however, that my noble friend will be able to give us some assurance that the whole question of controls is being reviewed at present, for different Departments seem to have different ideas, some being much more stringent than others. I do not know why that should be so, but no doubt tradition has been developed in the course of time. Clearly it would be wrong to have different standards of school buildings, say, prevailing in different parts of the country. But excessive centralisation and control breeds its own brand of inefficiency; and projects are allowed or disallowed, not because of their relative importance to a particular locality, or even because of their relative expense, but simply because they do not happen to fit in with some perfectly artificial category for priority established for departmental convenience. I am not sure that that is not already happening in regard to the Ministry of Transport.
  About the other aspects of this Bill I have very little to say, because they have been dealt with at considerable length by previous speakers. I think the machinery for review of boundaries is sound, but here again, of course, we shall not know

  669
  for a number of years what they recommend. The delegation proposals have, we know, been the subject of lengthy negotiations between the different associations—I think they have been going on for something like eight years now. I do not suppose that anybody is in wholehearted support of every detail. It is a compromise, but I do not think we can hope to get a better compromise at this stage. I hope that delegation will not involve us in a lot more administrative expense, though I am afraid that may be the case. My Lords, I am aware that what I have said cannot be described as an enthusiastic welcome to the Government Bill, but that is due not to any feeling of hostility but really to ignorance. I personally cannot quite see how anybody, with so many imponderables, can pronounce himself absolutely in favour or not in favour. But I can say this: if things work out as the Government say. I believe that the Bill will be a considerable improvement to local government structure; and I have no particular reason for thinking that the Government are going to be proved wrong.
  5.30 p.m.
  Loin ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I intervene briefly in this debate, and also with some hesitation, since, unlike so many of your Lordships who have already spoken this afternoon, I cannot claim to be a member of any local authority. I have, however, for some years been connected with a national association known as the National Union of Ratepayers, of which, rather to my surprise, I have had the honour of being President and through which I have during the past few years met a great many people closely connected with the problems of local authorities. This association, incidentally, which is a non-Party one, has branches, some large and some small, up and down the country, and it does its best to protect the interests of ratepayers, to combat waste and inefficiency on the part of local authorities and generally to stimulate interest in the various problems and affairs of local government amongst what is to-day unfortunately an all too apathetic electorate. If, as I understand it, this Bill has as its main theme and purpose the promotion of a stronger and more independent local government, then I personally welcome it. I am sure it deserves support from all who are
  670
  genuinely interested in the welfare of local government, and I can tell the Government that it has the general support of the association to which I have referred.
  As has been pointed out this afternoon, this Bill is the first really major reform of local government since the last century, and since that time, of course, the complexities of local administration have grown enormously. Yet the Bill is being introduced at a time when interest in local government is at an appallingly, even dangerously, low level. We cannot complain to-day that nothing much is heard of local government. On the contrary, only last year we had the Rating and Valuation Act and now we have this comprehensive Bill before us with all its widespread implications to us all. Yet at local elections fewer than ever turn out to vote. Even at the last London County Council elections barely 30 per cent. voted, and for a Council to which I myself would hardly give first prize for its record of economy in recent years. Now we have reached the dismal stage that, at any rate in some of the larger council elections, to vote for an independent candidate is almost a rarity, and almost alone the only people who turn out to vote are the Party faithfuls on each side, who all too often vote for candidates quite irrespective of past record or merits.
  I think this low interest is displayed partly perhaps because ratepayers are inevitably a meek-and-mild and somewhat long-suffering lot, and that is perhaps because so many of them pay rates only indirectly and there are some who perhaps do not realise that they pay rates at all. Some of us who get those nasty envelopes twice a year may be fully aware that we do pay rates, but I am sure many people are not fully aware of the contribution they make. If a council indulges in unduly lavish expenditure they think how splendid and generous it is of them, and they do not realise that it is they themselves who are contributing with their own money. If this Bill, which as I say I welcome, can bring about a new vitality in local government and can really awaken greater interest and enthusiasm, I think it will have accomplished a very great thing. Certainly a greater interest in local government should do nothing to strengthen the hold on councils by Party cliques; and that, also, I think would be very good.

  671
  Of course, one must appreciate that the central Government cannot do more, and indeed should not necessarily be expected to do more, than create conditions in which a healthy and efficient local government can flourish. After that, the rest is up to the elected representatives and the local government electorate to show a continuous and lively interest in their affairs. I therefore welcome the proposed reviews of the organisation of local government which I trust in due course will ensure that we have areas of reasonable size with sufficient resources to administer the necessary services entrusted to them and at the same time not being so large as to lose their local character or identity.
  That this is long overdue we are all well aware. Since the last century geographical distributions of population and industry and the complexities and costs of local authorities have altered right out of all proportion. I believe that this has deeply affected the basis on which local government rests, and indeed has for too long been the excuse for taking powers away, at any rate from some of the smaller authorities, on the ground that they cannot afford adequate services. What is needed, I am sure, is a comprehensive reorganisation, and it is to be much hoped that this review the Government propose will help to stimulate public interest in local government matters generally.
  Of course, a prime condition for good local government is that its finances should be on an up-to-date, sound and realistic basis. It is quite pointless to reorganise the boundaries and status of local authorities unless there is to be a greater financial independence. I therefore support the principle of the block grant, which, as I see it, will give a greater measure of local autonomy and a greater measure of responsibility of local authorities to their ratepayers. It will be for the local authorities to decide how to spend their grant. weighing up the importance of different services. I think that this will be a very important step towards independence.
  Much concern has been expressed, if not this afternoon at any rate in another place, about how the educational services will fare under this block grant system. From what has been said one really might suppose that the Government were trying to
  672
  use the Bill as some underhand weapon to slash the educational services. I would say that any study of the Government's record during the past seven years in which continuous progress and improvement in education has been made, would go to prove the opposite. At any rate, even if, in some way, through this Bill there occurred the very unlikely event of a council's being so utterly stupid as to skimp educational services in a particular area, then it is surely pretty certain that the next local election would see the end of those who would be responsible. After all, the parents are the ratepayers, and it would be up to them to do something about it.
  Therefore, on the whole I have great hopes of this Bill. I feel that it will place services more firmly in the hands of local authorities and it will get away from the long-range scrutiny of Whitehall. With a greater independence, I believe we shall see a higher calibre type generally of men and women offering themselves for local government services and offices. It will give the electorate a greater responsibility, and also a greater incentive to go out and choose their representatives. If powers and functions are really local, then the greater the power the local ratepayer will have to exercise his views.
  5.42 p.m.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to support the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to make a few comments on the principles of the Bill and perhaps add to them one or two minor complaints. If, in passing, I may have the temerity to refer to one or two of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to whose extremely interesting sketch of the history of local government I listened with great appreciation (although I was not able to follow him in his denunciation of the Bill, quite largely, as I gathered, based on the fact that there had not been a commission of inquiry into the whole history and requirements of local government), I would say that it seemed to me that his remarks were based perhaps on a latent dislike, or a fear or distrust, of the results of freedom. I had an irreverent picture in my mind as he spoke, of him quoting Omar Khayyám to the Lord Chancellor and saying:
  "Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
  To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
  Would not we shatter it to bits—and then
  Re-mould it nearer to our Heart's Desire!"

  673
  If I may say so, with great respect, there is nothing easier than to devise a perfect scheme on paper, whether for local government: or for anything else. But the simple fact remains that it probably will not work in practice. To do the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, justice, I fully appreciate that he did envisage the fact that all that such an inquiry might reveal might be that our system of local government, inefficient as it may appear by some standards, was so deeply engrained in the life and traditions of the people as to be an essential and integral part of that life; and that the best thing that we could do would be to endeavour to give it the freedom to work and fit itself for modern conditions. If I may trouble the House with my own view of stable democracy, it is that of a country in which the exercise of responsible authority is pushed ever lower and lower, as low as it can effectively and efficiently be fulfilled. I suggest that in order to preserve a democracy in any country there must prevail the process, which is partly embodied in this Bill, of pushing responsible authority lower still in order that people may be trained in its exercise and may accept it in the higher realm to which they themselves may possibly never aspire.
  One of the most important things about the present reorganisation is. as has been said many times this afternoon, the emphasis which is given to placing the responsibility on local authorities and consequently the need to treat them as responsible bodies, removing, so far as possible, the fetters which have hitherto bound them, owing largely to the prevailing financial arrangements. The other facet of this conception of local authorities as responsible bodies is that of consultation in matters concerning them. One must admit that for years this has been accorded by most of the Government Departments with which the local authorities have to deal. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Health, the Home Office and, more recently, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are, generally speaking, most punctilious in consulting with local authorities and local associations on any matters which they have in mind and which are the concern of the members of the association. The one exception to this welcome state of affairs arises from the repeated failure of the
  674
  Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to discuss matters with the associations concerned.
  It is true that the present Local Government Bill may be regarded as a milestone on the road of progress—though not, we should all hope, the final stage. Few, indeed, would claim that for it, because it would be a had day for local government if it were so, since it is surely important that local government and local authorities should continue to be a living organic body, as it were, and should be constantly in quest of better ways of looking after the welfare of their people. The workmanlike provisions of this Bill are, I suggest, in no small measure due to the fact that consultations took place throughout the period of gestation of the Bill. It is based, as we know, on three White Papers which were issued by the Government in 1956 and 1957, after full and detailed discussions with the associations of local authorities concerned. Even in the White Paper on local government finance, in which the proposals made no pretence of being the result of consultations with local associations, but were meant to be, and were, a statement of the policy decided upon by the Government itself, the proposals were made known to the local authority associations who had an opportunity of commenting on them privately or confidentially before the Government finally made up their mind. Of course, there have been a number of matters on which the Government have not found it possible to please all the local authorities. That is due to a variety of reasons, sometimes, of course, because the local authorities themselves were not in agreement with each other. Naturally, the Government then exercised their proper prerogative of coming to a decision.
  The keynote of this local government reorganisation, as it has been presented to the country, is, as we have been told again and again, the establishment of more efficient and convenient units of local government and the removal, as far as possible, of the fetters which previously had bound them. In conceding this new freedom, the Government are pursuing a course which was given a good start by the Local Government Manpower Committee which reported in 1950 and 1951. The general approach laid down by that body, which is, I

  675
  presume, embodied in the Bill, was, if I may quote from what the Committee said,
  "to recognise that the local authorities are responsible bodies competent to discharge their own functions and that, though they may be the statutory bodies through which Government policy is given effect, and operate to a large extent with Government money, they exercise their responsibilities in their own right, not ordinarily as agents of Government Departments."
  The latter part of that passage, my Lords, was what moved me to take the liberty of quoting from the Report.
  The recognition of local authorities as responsible bodies carries with it not merely the relaxation of unnecessary controls on the exercise of their functions but also the obligation to consult with them on any matters of common interest so that the Government Departments may have their views before they reach a final decision. The principle of consultation and the welcome fruits of it are exemplified in the provisions of the Bill. As I have said, generally speaking, the Government Departments have punctiliously consulted the local associations, and there are no complaints on that account.
  The present Bill, however, contains an example of a failure in this principle of prior consultation. When the Bill was being considered in another place, after the Committee stage it was re-committed and, during the Re-committal stage, a new subsection (6) was added to Clause 38 of the Bill. The indirect effect of this was to impose certain additional requirements upon local transport authorities whose areas were extended by an order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the Bill. This provision is unique among the substantial Government proposals and Amendments made in the Bill, in that it did not form the subject of prior consultation between the Government Department and the local associations concerned. It came, as it were, as a bolt from the blue. It was done, I know, at a late stage in the consideration of the Bill, and, in the ordinary way, no one would complain of emergency measures in an emergency. I suppose that it took place because somebody had noticed a point which had been over-looked. The reason I mention it now is that the lack of consultation came from the Department concerned, the Transport Department, and it is to be hoped, may I
  676
  say, that the spirit which pervades the Bill will, when it has been passed, reach the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and bring about a change in its practice in relation to consultation with local authority associations.
  I could quote various instances to emphasise the point and what it may mean. There have been four recent examples, but I will not go into them in any detail. There was an occasion in December, 1957, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation announced in another place that he proposed to hold meetings to discuss methods of ensuring uniformity and continuity of street lighting on major traffic roads. The first meeting took place in London on May 1, without any notice to the associations concerned. Another case was in January, 1958, when the Ministry informed the local authority associations that it was examining the double white line system and would be writing later to ask officially for their views on these proposals. In March, 1958, the proposals were sent to the local authority associations, together with the decision of the Minister, who had already decided, in principle, to introduce the double white line system. Any comments on the part of the local authorities could really be confined to matters of detail only.
  The third case I was proposing to trouble your Lordships with was in August, 1957, when the Minister stated that he had received the Report of the Working Party on Child Cyclists. In February, 1958, the associations whose members were concerned were invited to attend a meeting about this Report, which had not yet been made available to them. The Report was not, in fact, published until March 14, and the suggested date of the meeting was March 24. After a protest from the associations, the date was advanced a week. Although there had been no time for the Report to be considered by a committee of the associations, the representatives were invited, at that meeting, to approve the Report.
  The last instance I should like to quote was in March, 1958, when the Minister announced that he had reached agreement with the organisations representing the motor trade on the fees for which private garages would undertake vehicle

  677
  testing. The associations were subsequently invited to a meeting to discuss the conditions in which local authorities might undertake compulsory testing, but the earlier agreement between the Ministry and the motor trade on the question of fees was binding on the local authorities, and the Minister was not prepared to consider any alteration.
  My Lords, in many aspects of local government, it is customary to speak of the relationship between the Government and the local authorities as one of partnership. Partnership can produce satisfactory results, surely, only if there is mutual confidence. Although, fortunately, this confidence is displayed by the majority of Government Departments, it is to be hoped that, as the Bill goes on to make the responsible authorities of local government stronger and more self-sufficient, the sense of partnership will grow and extend to all parts of Government with which the municipalities and councils of this country have to do. My Lords, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  6.0 p.m.
  LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I want to speak for just a few minutes upon this Bill. First, I want to say that if this Government find fault with those who criticise the financial clauses, they have just got themselves to blame, for if there is a "squeeze" associated in time with a Bill of this kind, those who make the inference that the Bill is intended to pursue the purpose of the "squeeze" cannot be blamed for the conclusion at which they arrive. But I really rose to speak upon one particular aspect of the Bill. I am surprised that Her Majesty's Government should so underestimate the question of what are called "conurbations" that they include it in a Bill of this kind whose characteristics in size and depth have little to do with conurbations, unless one describes those as coming generally under local government.
  I believe that Her Majesty's Government would have been wise to have a separate Bill altogether to deal with the question of conurbations. I believe that if those concerned travelled the country and saw some of these communities they would hardly have thought it worth while to tack this on to another Bill merely because that Bill involves a question of local government. I have watched these communities growing and
  678
  it really frightens me. Once upon a time there was the village, whether it was in Wales, England, Scotland or Ireland, of which one could say, "That is Welsh", or "That is English", and so on, and even the industrial areas that grew out of those villages had upon them all the characteristics of their nation. But when one comes to conurbations there is only one term that fits them—that used by rough and ready fellows: "They are neither nowt nor summat".
  The people cannot help it. They live in communities that have, been overgrown, and in a desperate effort someone, trying to be truly scientific, has given the community the name "conurbation". I support we might call the people inside them "conurbators". It is characteristic of them that they have no social life at all—not even the Cockney in the conurbations around London. Those of us who belong to the Northern parts, who are called "Geordies", were almost as proud of the Cockneys as we were of the Geordies but the conurbators round about London are a different matter altogether. They have no characteristics. They can hardly be said to have a community life.
  Her Majesty's Government must realise, of course, that with this question is associated the question of the growth and spread of industry. I know that in the far distant past the Government tried this question of conurbations on Tyneside. I do not think either the individuals on Tyneside or the average local councillors knew what they were talking about when speaking of a conurbation. I believe that that attempt failed because neither the Government nor the nation generally understood what was happening. But it can be said for that kind of community that they did grow roughly out of the industries around about—the mines, shipyards, steel and all that matters to heavy industry. They did keep, to some extent, the imprint of that. Although the general sprawl tends in those areas to undermine and wipe out the particular characteristics of the community, it is vitally associated with industry.
  Is it not a fact—and here I am speaking of a matter with which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has been associated and in connection with which he has done some very good work—that

  679
  before the war there was endless misery in some parts of the country because employers just would not go there? They were warned at the same time by the very people the Government appointed to lead in the areas concerned that the overgrowth in this great city would lead to destruction if war should happen. It is as plain as A.B.C. that heavy bombing was attracted to a great extent by some of the industries in this area that ought never to have been put there. Every thoughtful man and woman in this nation who has given consideration to this question knows that that is true. I should not have believed it possible myself that any Government would allow that to continue after the experience we have had; but is it not a fact that it is continuing?
  I had an example of that only the other day when I went out of the city, going south. Is not the same thing happening now? Is it not a fact that employers can go where they like and, in the cause and the name of English liberty—for them—nobody seems to interfere with them? Is there any liberty for the workpeople concerned? They have to go. We can use this spread of industry and retain the characteristics of the community. It is not really a question of being kind to the people. If anyone wants to see how it can be done, let him look at the west and south-west of Durham. Those were places which were hopeless, but employers knew that there were plenty of good workers, good women labour and so on. One has only to go to those places now to see how wise have been the employers who went there. They are satisfied and happy. They know that the quality of the labour they get is all right. But in every part of the country this feeling is growing again. Her Majesty's Government have introduced an Industry Bill for the spreading of industry, as though it had nothing to do with this question that affects the life of the nation.
  I do not want to speak at any length. All I want to do is to draw attention to this fact. The biggest point that emerges is that there are clauses for the appointment of two Commissions. What is happening now is better understood than it was long years ago when the Tyneside Commission was decided upon; but I should have said that, instead of tacking
  680
  that matter on to this Bill, it is big enough to have the attention of the Government by itself, in order that in the main those characteristics which we call British shall be preserved. I cannot see how they can be preserved in those things which we call "conurbations".
  6.11 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down is, as we well know, deeply concerned with the matter of conurbations, and especially, I think, the conurbation on Tyneside which is mentioned in the Bill. But, with great respect to him, I should have thought that that Part of the Bill which deals with conurbations is not directed to what should be the right policy for the location of industry for the future, but is much more directed to the question of what is the proper form of local government for those areas which are fully industrialised yet are covered by a large number—too large a number—of local authorities. That problem is one which I think ought to be pursued and solved independently of the very important problem raised about the unsound distribution of industry in the future. The conurbations have their industries now. Whether they stay or go somewhere else might possibly be thought to be another matter.
  Many of us who are concerned in any way with local government will have been glad to see the arrival of this Bill in your Lordships' House. For my own part I think it is high time for it. At the same time I am bound to say that I do not think it is very surprising that a few years ago a similar Bill got off to a false start, because the Bill arouses two major conflicts from which many timid people might easily recoil. Indeed, many people might recoil, and many Governments might recoil who are not sufficiently sure of themselves and of their policy, from tackling this problem, which has been baffling people for nearly twenty years. These, I think, are the two conflicts which come out into the open as a result of the discussion of this Bill. The
  first is the conflict in Part I, which I would put as being a conflict between the theory and the practice of political democracy; and perhaps I can explain in a moment what I mean. Then, in Part II, we come to another conflict, and

  681
  possibly a rather simpler one: the conflict between efficiency and tradition.
  If we take the first conflict and come to the general grant, I think everybody agrees that, whether it is right or wrong, the general grant will have the effect of giving the councils of counties and of county boroughs very much more authority over their own spending than they have had for many years past. After all, those of us who have been members of county councils, and, no doubt, of borough councils as well, will know perfectly well how very small in practice is the percentage of the county budget over which the county council have any real control. The rest of it, you find, when you come to deal with it in finance committee, or wherever it may be, is all pegged, either by the impact of national wages or by the influence of the grants system, which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack described when he introduced this Bill. And so, whatever may be the appearance of liberty, liberty has not, in practice, been present to any great degree during the last few years. That, I think, was the point made by my noble friend Lord Milverton. And, after all, if local authorities are to be realistic, and if membership of local authorities is going to be attractive to the sort of people we want in them, then there must be real control.
  I would say quite certainly that the principle of the general grant is right, in that it will give much more real control to the local authorities themselves. I would entirely agree with something said, I think, by my noble friend Lord Gage: that the workings of the general grant are still very much a matter for the future, and it would be unwise, from the point of view of a county council, to say that they think that, because a principle is right, all the details are bound to turn out as expected. I doubt very much whether they will. Most of the arguments I have seen so far against the general grant seem to me to be based on the idea that in certain matters local authorities, if they were given more rope, would fail to "deliver the goods", or that the administration of the country as a whole would not go so well and so smoothly as some people may think it has done, in recent years. Whatever may have been the appearance of independence of local authorities, Government
  682
  Departments were in many ways in virtual control. While I think that most attention has been drawn publicly to the matter of education, that is the underlying idea—to put it crudely, local authorities could not be trusted, if they were given more freedom and more rope, to do the right thing for the people they represented. That is not a view which I would share for a moment.
  I am quite sure that there are always a certain number of people who are not sufficiently sure of themselves to want to stand in the open and to stand on their own feet in support of their own decisions. From certain points of view it may be more convenient locally to shelter behind Whitehall, especially if, as a member of a council, you find you have to be responsible for a decision which you think is right but which other people may think is locally unpopular. There comes to my mind the sad story of a butcher in my own neighbourhood who, on the day that meat rationing was officially ended, decided to commit suicide because he could not face the task of running his own business in competition with other butchers after having had it "so good" under control for a long time. Possibly there is something of that feeling about it in those quarters where the opinion is held that the principle of the block grant is wrong. It has all been so easy tip to now.
  But, my Lords, there is another side to this picture, and even when supporting the principle behind the general grant I think it right to draw attention to the dangers which lie on the other side. Parliament is here, I imagine, to decide on national policies, and it is part of the business of Parliament to see that national policies are not stultified locally. In other words, it is no part of the business of Parliament to abandon its functions to local authorities or to anybody else. Therefore (and here we come to the conflict on democracy in theory and democracy in practice), one has to make sure that liberty does not turn out to be licence, and that policies which are decided on by Parliament, whatever they may be, are not stultified by local authorities, and that this Bill does not give a local authority power to stultify a national policy.
  May I give an example, one about which a certain amount of fear has been

  683
  expressed? I would quote the support given to voluntary organisations like the National Council of Social Service and those voluntary bodies which are included under the term of the Youth Service. These Youth Service bodies have their charter in the 1944 Education Act, Sections 41 and 53. The actual money reaches them not from the Ministry of Education in Whitehall, but via the local authorities. Therefore there is always the danger that a local authority, in the exercise of their discretion, may withhold a grant, which will have the effect that in the area controlled by that authority the policy of Parliament to help voluntary organisations is not implemented. That is a danger which is bound to be present if we decide on a plan of a type contained in this Bill. Therefore I suppose that it is part of the business of Parliament to safeguard itself against that state of affairs. However, I think that there are sufficient powers in Clause 3 of the Bill to cover this point, at any rate for the present.
  But if we want local government to be a reality, and members of local councils to be people who participate in making decisions, instead of merely being "shop window" people—members of advisory councils and things of that sort—it is right to take this plunge, remembering at the same time the danger and, as my noble friend Lord Gage said, seeing how things work and keeping an open mind on the need for making adjustments later. And I am sure that, in greater or lesser degree, adjustments will be needed. That is the issue, I think, of the first conflict of ideas.
  In Part II we come to this other issue—tradition versus efficiency. Here I am talking as a member of the county council of a medium-sized rural county, fortunately (as I said just now) not a conurbation and not a special review area, and with no county boroughs. I do not think that one can possible defend for a single moment the present boundaries in our part of the country or the breakdown of any rural county into its present set-up of county borough, urban districts and rural districts, because more often than not—let us face the fact—they are too small for modern efficient administration and bear little or no relation to the current economic conditions and conditions of transport. That is not surprising,
  684
  because the origins of most of these districts, particularly the municipal boroughs, at any rate on the Welsh border, are not economic but strategic. There is no ground whatever for thinking that any of the considerations which decided the formation of these small units in past times are likely to have any application to-day. In many cases the headquarters of the rural districts and the boroughs are in the same town, and we have two bodies trying to deal with the same larger problems, such as, for example, the local water supply. In many of these cases there are manifest arguments why in future the borough and the rural district should be one unit.
  That is one side of the picture, a side which I think is already clear in outline, and which will become clearer when the two main Commissions have done their work and the county reviews start. On the other side, we have the force of tradition, which can be used for good or for ill. Tradition is an asset which I think we ought to take the greatest care not to destroy or damage more than we can help in the course of reorganisation. After all, whatever the people at Westminster or in Whitehall may think, the traditions of a small borough matter immensely to the people who live there, and especially to those who have been elected to office to take care of those traditions. From the point of view of administration, it ought not to matter very much, certainly not in Whitehall, how those traditions are carried on, provided that in the result they can be put to proper modern use and made to serve the purpose of progressive local government, instead of becoming strongholds of reaction and obstruction, as they will do if they are mishandled.
  A great deal depends, therefore, on the handling of these problems at local level. That is why I was so glad to hear the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack say that the Government felt that the counties should stand on their own feet and take the responsibility of producing their own schemes, instead of having people come in from outside, who will not know the conditions nearly so well, to impose schemes on them. I do not think that any county which knows its business would care to shirk that job and see it put on to a commission sent from Whitehall; nor do I think that a commission is likely to be nearly so successful as the county in making the review.

  685
  Therefore, I think that it is a good thing that Clause 29, which gives the Minister the right to supervise the reviews and to have the last word, is in the Bill.
  I hope that the clause is elastic enough to meet all the different solutions which are likely to be put forward, because if we are to preserve tradition and local good will, and at the same time have proper administration—big enough districts and properly paid local government officers—a great many of these solutions, if they are to be the best possible, will have to be tailor-made, and will not necessarily be like the solutions adopted in the next county. It is not going to be a quick or an easy matter. We must remember that reaction has its attractions in many ways. Reaction and obstruction are a good deal easier mentally than the task of thinking out something new, and often obstruction is much easier in a democracy than under a more total form of government. The "hard lines" story, and the small man's fight for freedom are always better news in the papers than agreement among people to some new scheme.
  Two things will have to be faced and ought not to be shirked, because whatever we may say, a reorganisation of this sort is certainly overdue, and we shall all feel much better when we have come through it. But do not let us underestimate the task. We have five or six years' jungle fighting on these matters before we get through and have the pattern of the new layout in this country—it will not take less time—and a great many points, as the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said, which are unknown or unsuspected now, will emerge in the process. If the thing is to go right, then it is vital that the Government and the people in Whitehall, whoever they may be, who have the responsibility for seeing the job through should keep an open mind and take a wide view of the smaller details, which people in Whitehall would very much like to see tidied up and put into a neat box, whereas the local answer, if we are to have good will all round, may need to be something quite different.
  In a rural county like mine the Seventh Schedule and the position of the smaller municipal boroughs is the key to the problem every time. What we have to produce is not the dying borough with its traditions and its functions fading away,
  686
  but that same borough as the centre of a progressive district, providing the services, the leadership arid the financial control which is all so necessary. If we get to work on those lines within the framework of this Bill, then by the time our minor struggles are over local government will be a great deal more efficient than it is now.
  I feel that I must say a word or two more, because, although in my view the Government have been courageous and right in nearly the whole of this Bill, as one who comes from the Welsh Border I cannot say that of Clause 43, which says that the Bill shall not apply to the Border between England and Wales. I am sorry my noble friend Lord Brecon has had to be away to-day, but I hope that someone may let him know what I have to say. This is complete nonsense. Anybody who knows the Border knows quite well that the present county boundaries bear no relation to the racial, geographical or commercial border, in any case. There are any number of places where pieces of England should, by any common-sense standard, go to Wales, and no doubt pieces of Wales which should, by any common-sense standard, come to England. Some of them, which I know, are not inhabited at all. Here are the Government going in for appeasement and trying to pacify a certain number of Welsh extremists, no doubt in the Welsh universities—and much good that will do! The appeasement will probably be far less successful than any Mr. Neville Chamberlain attempted, and we shall go on having the public house—which is riot entirely apocryphal—with two doors, one in England which can statutorily be opened on Sundays, and the other in Wales which must statutorily be closed. This surrender to nonsense of that sort is a blemish on the Bill. I only wish that I could have commended the Bill in its entirety, but alas! I cannot.
  6.35 p.m.
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we are moving to the end of a fairly lengthy consideration of this Bill which purports to be a measure for the reform of local government. As my noble friend Lord Silkin said, in what I thought an impressive speech, the reform of local government in this country is long overdue. Nothing has been done since 1888,

  687
  except, of course, by the Local Government Act, 1929, which had some outstanding merits, one of which was the transfer of Poor Law from the guardians to the counties and county boroughs. The Act also had some grave demerits, one of which was that it introduced for the first time the block grant, although I should say here that the block grant did not then comprehend and include educational expenditure.
  I think it would be unfortunate if the idea got around that local government has broken down. Such is not the case; it is still doing a very fine job of work. But it is the case that its structure and its functions need a thorough-paced adaptation, not now, as we used to say, to the conditions of the motor age, but to the conditions of the atomic age and the electronic age. One hoped that this Bill would have been infused with a sense of the needs of to-day and to-morrow, and that it would have provided for a reform of local government which would be adequate to the need. In submitting the Bill for Second Reading in another place, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said, with perhaps an unwonted bravura [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 579, col. 901]:
  "One thing to which almost everybody has assented ever since the war has been the need for Parliament to tackle a comprehensive measure reorganising local government. This is it."
  I submit that it is not it; that it is not a comprehensive measure. It is in fact a Bill manqué; it is a "might have been", and, indeed, it is an "ought to have been". As my noble friend Lord Silkin said in his speech, here is an opportunity which the Government have missed. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack used the words "a grand design". I confess that I cannot see any design whatsoever in this Bill, let alone a grand design.
  This matter has been under consideration by the Governments of the day and local government for many years. Endless were the conferences which earlier on I attended dealing with the question of the reorganisation of local government, and very little progress was made because, let us be candid about it, there were, as there still are, deep differences of opinion between the various types of local authorities and their associations. It is the case
  688
  that the predecessor of the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Sandys, said that unless the associations representing the various categories of local authorities could get together and agree, then the Government would impose their own solution. Those were very brave words. Agreement was not reached, but, nevertheless, the Government have not imposed their own solution. The successor to Mr. Sandys has in fact run away from this disagreement between the local government associations. I think it is fair to say that the Government have abdicated their responsibilities and passed them on to two Commissions and one Royal Commission for the Metropolitan Area, and as regards the reorganisation of county districts, passed the problem on to the county councils.
  There is, in addition, provision in the Bill for the delegation of a few health service functions to the county district units. But even there the functions proposed to be delegated are much less in number, character and extent than those which were envisaged in the White Paper published by the Government in 1957. The county councils have had power to reorganise their county districts since 1929 and, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said, little or nothing has been done since 1930. There are still over 1,000 urban and rural councils. There are still 7,300 parish councils; and I venture to think that the county councils will be no more successful and, indeed, perhaps no more active in the future in this respect than they have been in the past. There are internal jealousies which often defeat the powers of the county council to do what ought to be done. We must remember that a county council has to live with the county districts from day to day in many activities which are of mutual concern and interest. My own anticipation is that there will emerge a kind of jig-saw puzzle of conflicting reports and proposals. There will be endless discussions, disagreements and jealousies, and little will be done.
  If this Bill was intended to reform local government, I predict that it will be a failure. If it was not intended to do so, then it is a pretence. The real purpose of the Bill is not to reform local government; its real purpose is to change the financial basis of Treasury assistance—namely, to change the percentage grant for many services, including education, on

  689
  to the basis of a general block grant. The purpose of that, as was the case with the introduction of the block grant in 1929, is to reduce the Exchequer contribution lo the cost of local government and to throw more of the expenditure on the rates; and, however much this Bill, if it becomes an Act, may fail as regards the reform of local government, as regards throwing more of the cost on to the rates it will certainly succeed. It is a fundamental change which is to operate as from next year—there is to be no delay in that element of the Bill. The cutting is to start almost straight away. I shall confine myself mainly to dealing with this proposal and the proposals in the Bill with regard to de-rating.
  I can think of no more unfortunate time to introduce a block grant than the present, when social services are expanding with, I think, the consent of most people of good will, and especially when education is expanding. Indeed, if we are to maintain our position in the world of industry and commerce, our expenditure upon education must expand. Perhaps it would be helpful if I rested this part of my case upon a statement made in July, 1943, by the present Minister for Housing and Local Government. He was discussing the Education White Paper which was issued prior to the introduction of the Bill which became the Education Act, 1944. I quote from a publication called Education, which is the official organ of the Association of Education Committees. He said on finance:
  "I wish I could think that local authorities were not going to be deterred by finance. … I ask honourable Members to go into their constituencies and judge for themselves whether local authorities generally will willingly and keenly embark upon a great progressive policy which alone will send up the rates by 16 per cent. … My fear is that not only these big reforms which the White Paper envisages, but all the kind of things we have long known, for instance, over-large classes, will fail to be dealt with unless my right honourable friend the President is able to reach a more favourable agreement with the Treasury. It will be a bad thing if the Treasury gained for itself the unenviable reputation of having stood in the way of what might have been the greatest advance ever in the quality of the British people."
  My submission is that the Treasury is now proceeding to stand in the way; that there can be no doubt that the purpose of this change from the block grant is to cut expenditure on social services administered by local authorities. I
  690
  submit in support of that a statement contained in paragraph 26 of the White Paper entitled Local Government Finance, Cmnd. 209, in which it says
  "The proportion of grants to rates is now as 6 is to 5, and it is still increasing. It is most important to reduce this dependence of local government on Exchequer grants if it can possibly be done."
  I know that since that White Paper was published it has been stated that those remarks do not apply to the percentage grants generally but have a particular reference to de-rating. It is strange that that should be urged as being the case, but if one looks at the Scottish White Paper one will be in no doubt whatsover that the intention is to reduce the Government proportion of expenditure on social services—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of another place on July 30, 1957, Column 1009. This is what the Scottish White Paper says:
  "The Government's view is that this opportunity should be taken to make some reduction in the level of Exchequer grants."
  There can be little doubt, I think, having regard to those statements, that the real purpose of this change is not to discourage alleged extravagance on the part of local authorities, nor to give them greater freedom, more responsibility and less interference from Whitehall; the real purpose of this change is to reduce the contribution from the State towards local government expenditure.
  As to the charge that percentage grants lead to extravagance, I should like to quote a statement which appears at page 3 in the White Paper to which I have previously referred. It says:
  "The present system of percentage grants acts as an indiscriminating incentive to further expenditure."
  That is not a very worthy reflection, I think, on local authorities; moreover, it is not true. According to a report by a Committee presided over by a Mr. Edwards, who I believe is a high official of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, no such charge can be supported. I now quote from the proceedings of another place of July 29, 1957, Column 948, which says:
  "It has been suggested that the payment of Exchequer grants on a higher percentage and without central control over the expenditure on which the grant is calculated offers a powerful incentive to extravagance."

  691
  The Committee said:
  "We have received no direct evidence to support the suggestion that equalisation grants have so far led to extravagance … The evidence presented to the Committee gives no support to the suggestion that Exchequer grants"—
  not only equalisation grants, but Exchequer grants—
  "have resulted in extravagance."
  The second ground was, as I have said, that contributions based upon a percentage of expenditure involve vexatious examination and, indeed, control and interference in the proceedings of local authorities. A Committee was set up by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers, presided over by Dr. Lees, and reported that there were no grounds for the allegation that percentage grants led to this vexatious interference—here I quote from the proceedings of another place of July 29, 1957, Column 950.
  "We find that there is not. The evidence is that complaints of excessive detailed control cannot be substantiated."
  The Report goes on later to say:
  "It is to be hoped that future assertions of this kind will be supported by evidence. In the past, this has not been thought necessary."
  It is a little amusing to note that this excuse is not even original, because it was used by the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain in 1928, in justification of the introduction at that time of the block grant, in the Bill which became the Act of 1929. All those who were engaged in local government at that time and who opposed the introduction of the block grant know that the block grant failed in operation. It proved to be inequitable; it proved to be unfair. Local authorities which were assumed to be gaining local authorities proved to be losing local authorities and the whole thing was unsatisfactory. So unsatisfatcory was it in London that it was found necessary to arrange a kind of equalisation fund within the County of London in order to adjust the inequities which arose from the operation of the block grant as between the poorer boroughs and the richer boroughs. And I should like here to pay tribute to the fine spirit and co-operation, and indeed the generosity, which the richer boroughs of London displayed in that connection. But the block grant was, as I have said, a failure.
  692
  Moreover, the block grant then did not include education expenditure. As we understood at the time, the Board of Education opposed the idea of bringing education within the block grant, and the Board, happily for education, succeeded. Apparently it had more courage than the Ministry of Education have at the present time. As regards other services the same excuse was used, and there is no doubt that additional expenditure did fall upon local authorities. Moreover, there was at that time no noticeable diminution of control by Whitehall. I do not think any of us, or anyone who was engaged in municipal work at that time, could have noticed any change in the control which was exercised from Whitehall.
  Now, of course, education expenditure is to be brought within the block grant. As my noble friend Lord Silkin said, it represents about 85 per cent. of the total grants to be merged. Education is a national service. It is true that it is administered locally, but it is a national service, and it must expand—everyone concerned with education realises that; and with expansion there must be an increase of costs. At the present time there is a shortage of teachers and of school places. Classes are too large. Slum schools (I use the word "slum" advisedly) abound, and they are not all confined to the rural areas. The bulge is moving from the primary schools into the secondary schools, with the additional difficulty and the additional element of cost that the expected fall in the number of children entering the primary schools, which it was thought would to some extent offset the movement into the secondary schools, is not manifesting itself—in fact the number of entrants, as I understand, into the primary schools is being maintained, if it is not growing. That will involve additional expenditure.
  We are all seized with the importance of technical and technological education. We have realised, with something amounting almost to a shock, how far behind the needs of the times we are in that respect, and how far we fall short of what has been done in other comparable countries. Let me admit quite freely that the Government have taken and are taking appropriate and imaginative steps to cure that defect. But the money spent on seeking to do that will be largely wasted if our technical and technological education is to rest upon a poor primary

  693
  education. We are often apt to overlook that the basis of all education is the primary education. The secondary education depends upon the quality of the primary, and so does the technical and technological; and unless we maintain an improving standard of primary education, and, of course, of secondary education as well, much of the money that we propose to spend on technical and technological education will be lost. That, I fear, will be one of the results of this proposal to change the percentage grant to a block grant. According to the formula—if I may use the word in that connection—as set out in the Bill, it can happen that the share of the block grant will be based not so much upon what any particular local authority does but upon what others do not do.
  The situation as regards the progressive local authority I can indicate in the following way—and noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I am taking London as an example, because it is a f tidy typical county. The effect of the formula of distribution of the block grant will, it is considered, be as follows. By the operation of the formula a progressive authority which has been prepared to incur expenditure to improve standards will have the expenditure taken into account in calculating the grant for the general distribution. The authority will not itself benefit in direct proportion to the expenditure it has been prepared to incur: its share of the general total will be adversely affected by the expenditure of a less progressive authority, which will benefit financially by the higher expenditure of the more progressive authority and its own lower standards. Thus, the London ratepayer will bear the full cost of the development by the council of new ideas in advance of the general rate of progress, regardless of the fact that the council's foresight may well redound to the national benefit. If I may say so with proper modesty, I think that has been the case in the past.
  The conclusion appears to be accepted it the following statement of the Parliamentary Secretary which I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place for July 29, 1957, cols. 1022 and 1023. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "So far as individual authorities may have to deal with circumstances beyond their control, for example, an increase in population, this should be covered by the formula,"—
  694
  and here is the rub—
  "but if a local authority embarks on a deliberate expansion of the education service as an act of local policy it is the deliberate intention of the Government, and it is inherent in their proposals, that this should in future be the local authority's own affair, in the matter of finance."
  There we have, stark and brutal, as I suggest, the effect and the intention of this proposal. I submit that the block grant will put a premium on parsimony and inertia and a penalty on experiments, enterprise and progress, especially in the field of education. I do not know whether this is one of the curious ways in which the Government propose to open the gates to the Opportunity State—to use one of the slogans of the Prime Minister. And as regards removing the alleged meticulous control of education expenditure by instituting the procedure of a block grant, this claim is, if I may say so, just nonsense.
  As I have said, education is a national service and must be nationally controlled, whether the payment is made on a percentage basis or as part of a block grant. I was glad to see that the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council, when he was Minister of Education, made it perfectly clear that he was not prepared to relax any of the existing controls over education expenditure or over education itself; and that view was confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place on July 29 last year. Whatever the Minister of Education may seek to do to maintain an even level of standard in educational provision, under the block grant there will be differences of standard which will arise inescapably, in my submission, from the differences in financial resources of the various local authorities.
  The County Councils' Association, as I understand it, agreed to these proposals with considerable reluctance. As regards there being no vexatious interference in the responsibility of local authorities under a block grant system, it will help your Lordships, I think, if I read from a report of a committee of the County Councils' Association dated July 24, 1957. This is what it says:
  "In spite of the Minister of Housing and Local Government's promise of increased responsibility for local authorities, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education, when asked in Parliament on March 14 ' what legislative changes he proposed in the apportionment of statutory responsibility be-between the Minister and the local authorities,

  695
  particularly as regards the present ministerial responsibility for adequate school buildings, size of classes, provision of separate primary and secondary education and other duties under the 1944 Act ', replied that "—
  and here is the quotation—
  "it is not proposed to make any changes which would affect the apportionment of statutory responsibilities to such matters ' ".
  The committee go on to say:
  "Such information as is so far available suggests that the Ministry of Education envisage alterations of forms of control rather than reduction of control, and, if this be so, the Committee challenge the observation of the Minister of Housing and Local Government that the effect of the new grant system will be to strengthen local government and give greater freedom."
  It seems to me that these statements blow sky high the suggestion of less control under the block grant. There is a good deal of additional evidence which I could submit to your Lordships in support of the proposition that there will not be any greater freedom.
  I will pass now to another important aspect of the Bill: that is to say, the provisions dealing with the de-rating and re-rating of industry. If I may say so, with respect to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, I thought that he slid rather lightly over this part of the Bill, which is, of course, very important from the point of view of local government finance. At the present time, industry pays, and has paid since 1930, only a quarter of the rates otherwise due from it. From April 1 next it will pay a half. According to the figures in the White Paper, this amounts at the present time to a relief of £90 million, a relief which means that the local authorities go short of that sum. As from April 1 next, it will get a relief of £60 million. According to the White Paper, of the £30 million additional rate income of the local authorities, the Exchequer will take £20 million.
  The White Paper talks of the £30 million being a gain to local authorities. It is not a gain. They have been standing out of this sum ever since the revaluation, and before that they were standing out of a considerable sum. The restoration of something which should never have been taken from them is no gain at all. If industry is to be subsidized, we submit that that is the business of the Government. It is not the
  696
  function or liability or responsibility of local government to subsidise industry. Moreover, the position is very different from what it was when de-rating was introduced by the Local Government Act, 1929. De-rating, which I and my friends then very strenuously opposed, is unsound; it is indiscriminate; it is capricious in its incidence.
  Industry paid £15 million a year in rates before the revaluation. It had been paying, as its contribution towards local government services, rates based upon a valuation which is over twenty years old, dating from 1934. Right through the war boom and right through the boom since the war, industry has been favoured at the expense of local government, notwithstanding (which we all admit) a tremendous expansion and large profits. Why should local authorities be asked to subsidise industry, as they will do from April next year, to the tune of £60 million? Why should we, as it were, keep industry on the rates? If industry needs this assistance, as I submit it does not, the assistance should be provided by the Government and not by local authorities.
  Industry benefits directly, and the Government benefit indirectly. The whole story of de-rating is worth exposing. I can understand the Exchequer's interest in de-rating. It makes a handsome profit out of it. The Exchequer collects 50 per cent. of it in additional taxes. It is a concealed subsidy. According to the White Paper, the full rate product of de-rated properties is £120 million. The local authorities will have half, namely, £60 million, minus the £20 million to be taken out of the other £30 million under the Bill; and so the local authorities get £40 million and industry gets £60 million, of which the Inland Revenue gets half. That is pretty good business, getting £30 million, plus the £20 million reduction in the grant—£50 million.
  But that is not the whole story, because last year Her Majesty's Government introduced and passed a Bill which became the Rating and Valuation Act, 1957. Under that Act offices, shops and miscellaneous buildings were de-rated by 20 per cent. The estimated rateable value of the properties so de-rated was £44 million, and at an average rate poundage of 16s. in the pound (the

  697
  average over the country is 18s. 10d. but I have adjusted the figure to take account of the loss of rates from the reduced poundage) the loss in rates to local authorities on that account alone is £35·2 million a year; and of that the Exchequer gets £13·2 million, not on the basis of 10s. in the pound on which other figures are based but on the basis of, say, an income tax liability of 7s. 6d. in the £. That is what the Inland Revenue pockets.
  Thus the local authorities through de-rating generally for industry and commerce, will be subsidising the Exchequer to the tune of £63 million a year, and the local authorities themselves will lose in rates £115 million. I stress that last figure, because it ought to be taken into account when one is being influenced by the statement that the proportion of grants to rates at the present time is now as 6 is to 5. It would be quite different if account were taken of this £115 million which the local authorities lose because of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in imposing these subsidies to industry and commerce.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him. Was not the reason that under the 1939 Act, when industry was de-rated, a large adjustment was made in what was then known as the block grant paid by the Central Government to the local authorities in replacement of money lost by the de-rating of industry? I am speaking from memory, and if I am wrong perhaps the noble Lord can put me right there.
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I well remember that it was the case that, as regards the loss to local authorities on the properties de-rated at that time, an adjustment was made to the block grant, but the addition paid was gradually reduced and came to an end. But there was no provision at all, either at the start or at any time during the operation of that block grant, for allowing anything to local authorities in reimbursement of the loss of rates on new properties which came into assessment.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I believe that that comes out of the rate equalisation grant which is at present being paid.
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the equalisation grant was not intended to deal with that. I am now charging my memory, but I was not unacquainted of the details of these arrangements, and I believe it is fair to say that the element in the equalisation grant did not compensate in any sufficient way for the loss suffered in respect of new properties. I know that it was one of the major points of opposition to the then Minister of Health when the block grant was introduced. I submit that there are no grounds now why local authorities should make this subsidy to industry and indirectly to the Inland Revenue and the Exchequer.
  According to the census of production of 1948, the gross output of industry which falls within the de-rating proposals was £10,500 million per annum. How can it be said that industry is unable to bear an additional £30 million and that export prices will be detrimentally affected? So, to conclude, I will sum up by saying that in my submission this Bill does not make any substantial contribution to the reform of local government. It is a Bill which tinkers with the problem. It is a Bill of whose sponsors at least it can be said that they let "I dare not" wait upon "I would." The heart of this Bill is not the reform of local government. Its heart is to change the percentage grant to a block grant, the purpose being to save money at the expense of the rates. The effect will be that social services administered by local authorities will be cramped and, as I have said, the proposal will put a premium on stagnation and a penalty on progress; and it is not a Bill to which we who sit on this side feel we can give our consent.
  7.27 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the defence or attack on Second Reading of a measure of this complexity or importance is something which I should think requires a clarity of grasp of principle rather than a minute examination of detail; and I personally felt that the immense industry expended upon his attack by the noble Lord who has just sat down tended to obscure rather than elucidate the central features of this measure.
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has explained to me that for personal reasons

  699
  he is unfortunately prevented from being present at this stage of the debate, began his speech with a comparison of this Bill with the Rent Act. I confess that at first I thought that this was a trifle farfetched, but I then began to see that there was in truth a fair comparison; and the comparison is this: that there are two subjects of great importance which the Labour Government funked. One was the gradual falling into disrepair of rented houses, which they dared not deal with, although they knew perfectly well they required to be dealt with. The other was the whole question of local government organisation. The Labour Government funked them both. After six years in office they had failed to deal with either, and now they come here, in the presence of the courageous and extensive proposals of my right honourable friend, to cry "stinking fish". It is an ignoble attitude for them to adopt.
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said—and we heard him say it—that he was unaware why the Local Government Boundary Commission had come to an end. Let me remind the House why the Local Government Boundary Commission, set up by the Labour Government, came to an end, because it is not insignificant, having regard to the criticism that has been levelled at this Bill. The Local Government Boundary Commission, appointed by the Labour Government, came to an end because its terms of reference were too narrow and their recommendations went outside them. The Labour Government thereupon decided to wind it up and to introduce reorganisation proposals of their own at an unspecified date, a commitment which they never performed. And now they come to complain that this is tinkering with the problem!
  The main reason, I suppose, why I was asked to reply to this debate was that I am particularly interested in the problems of education; and I propose to spend most of my time in replying under that head. But I think it is right that I should reinforce what was said by my noble friends Lord Milverton, Lord Ridley and Lord Gage, when they reminded us that the measure which is now before the House corresponds exactly to the specification demanded by Lord Silkin. It has its origin in extensive consultations
  700
  between Government and local authorities; it is based upon the result of those consultations, and it deals with inquiries by three Commissions: two to be set up under the Bill, and the third a Royal Commission set up for the Metropolitan Area.
  It seems to me to be absolutely inconceivable that a local government structure of such immense detail, and with such immense variations all over the country, could be formulated by a proposed Act of Parliament except in terms which required a commission to issue reports. To claim that the commissions to be set up under the Bill will really be only tinkering with the problem, when in fact they are designed to overhaul the whole system, in the light of the five special review areas and the wide terms of reference of the Royal Commission on London, seems to me to be an absolute travesty of the subject we are seeking to discuss. At all events, that part of the case has almost gone by default and in so far as it required an answer, the answer has already been given by the series of Back-Bench speeches which we have received during the course of the debate.
  I therefore turn to make one or two reflections about the educational proposals, the criticisms of which can be summed up under two heads: the first being the allegation, wholly contrary to the facts, that the purpose of these reforms was (I quote now from the noble Lord who spoke last, but there were other noble Lords who made the same charge, in different language) to cut expenditure on education; and the second, the more reasonable, but equally inaccurate, charge that its effect would be the same if that were not its purpose. I am bound to say that I find the charge that the object or purpose or intention behind the Government's action is to cut expenditure a trifle offensive, because it is clean contrary to the repeated assurances of every Minister who has handled this subject, inside Parliament or outside, and clean contrary to the terms of the Bill itself, which provides, in Clause 2 (1) (c) that the formula for general grant is to provide for the development of services.
  But the allegation is, in fact, as absurd as it is offensive. The noble Lord's Party, when they were in power,

  701
  were spending in the last complete year of their reign approximately £277 million on education under local government and national expenditure; or, taking their last year of office, which they did not live out, they were spending about £300 million. When I was Minister of Education last year, after six and a half years of the present Administration, the comparable Estimates were £569 million, and this year the comparable Estimates are £613 million—a doubling of educational expenditure in the course of a single Administration. Such a forward movement has never been seen in the history of public education before. And this is the Party, with that contrast to have to face, that comes here and accuses the Government of an attempt to cut expenditure on education! What sort of a cut is it which doubles expenditure and provides in the terms of this Bill for a developing service? This kind of charge only recoils on the heads of those who make it.
  And let me tell this to the noble Lord who has just sat down. I was eight months in this House as Minister of Education, and not one single debate on this vital subject was initiated by noble Lords opposite, with the exception of a debate on university education, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to which I had to reply as spokesman for the Treasury. That is the interest the Party opposite takes in this vital subject in this House. Then the noble Lord comes here, shedding imaginary crocodile tears over an allegation of an attempt to cut expenditure on this growing service, which we have doubled in our term of office, in the hope that somebody will take him seriously.
  Since this Bill has been before Parliament the Government have increased the allocation to universities far beyond the dreams of the Party opposite when it was in power. Only last February the present Government increased the maintenance grant available to parents; they have increased, since the general grant was announced, the family allowance in respect of those children occupied full-time in education after the statutory school age. And only the other day my right honourable friend the Minister of Education announced further increases in the allowances payable to those attending universities and colleges of further education.
  702
  It is really fantastic to make a charge of this kind; and if it were not fantastic it would be cruel, because it is a deliberate attempt to undermine the confidence of parents of young people in this country, who care intensely about the future of their children, in the fundamental integrity of the educational system. I confess that one thing which, when I was Minister, at any rate, I thought absolutely beneath contempt was an attempt to make Party politics out of this vital educational service. That is what the Labour Party have done from the beginning to end throughout their opposition to the Local Government Bill, when for the first time, at any rate in this House, showing the slightest interest in or betraying the smallest knowledge of the subject.
  I turn to the more sensible charge that this would have the effect of reducing expenditure on education. Here I think I am voicing the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, to whose speech I listened with a great deal of interest, as I did to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who expressed the same point on somewhat different grounds. I would say to them, respectfully, that their fears are without foundation and, to my mind, are unsupported by any kind of rationale or evidence.
  I share the difficulties of my noble friend Lord Gage. I recognise that there are people in this country to whom the percentage grant has a kind of religious significance which is supposed to encourage educational expenditure of a kind which is desirable. I am bound to say that I do not find in the history of the percentage grant the smallest evidence to justify their view. The percentage grant system for education obtained throughout the inter-war years, but there was nothing in the inter-war years which gave the smallest possible ground for saying that the percentage grant encouraged expansion in education. Between 1930 and the outbreak of the war, while the rate fund expenditure on local government services increased by nearly 22 per cent., expenditure on education went up by 16 per cent. In the same period, expenditure on public health services, which were aided only by the despised block grant under the 1929 Act, increased by some 40 per cent. What is the ground here for supposing that the percentage grant

  703
  system is the secret of expansion in education?
  I would tell noble Lords opposite what the secret of the recent expansion in education has been and why it will continue under the so-called general grant. The secret has been a radical change in public opinion, which ultimately governs this country. I would remind noble Lords opposite that the truth of this matter is that Parliament is dependent upon the electorate for its educational policy and so is local government. The days have gone by—though one would not think so, having heard some of the speeches from noble Lords opposite—when the ratepayers were the electorate although the rate fund services were for the benefit of the community at large. The local government electorate is identically the same electorate (except that for some reason Members of your Lordships' House are given the right to vote in local government elections) that elects Members of another place; and that electorate will demand and secure from its local authorities the educational service which it requires and to which it is entitled. There is not one whit more reason to suppose that the electorate, when it realises that the responsibility rests with the local authorities in the matter, will not secure from the local authorities the same consideration of education that it has secured from Parliament.
  I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that when we are starting with a consideration of this problem. it is as well to remember the remarkable but none the less well-adapted structure of the educational system that we are seeking to administer. I suggest, because it is convenient to do so, the terms of the first Section of the Education Act, 1944. The business of the Minister, or the central Government, is
  "… to promote the education of the people in England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local auhorities, under his control and direction. of a national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
  Therefore, what is sought is, first, a national policy, and, secondly, its execution by the local authorities. What is in question is not the extent of that educational service, because in the last resort
  704
  that will be determined not by the method of ascertaining the grant but by the total amount of money available under the formula and under the rates. What we are discussing is the best method of administering the finance so as to be consistent with the national policy and the local administration.
  Of course, we all know, although we have not said so very often, that amongst those who are interested in education there are people who would like to see the local authorities eliminated altogether. I knew it very well when I was Minister. There are people who would like to see a purely national policy nationally administered. They have not emerged at all so far in these debates, but that is what is actuating a good many of their fears. Others would like to detach education committees from the local authorities who are in fact responsible and make them ad hoc boards responsible for the local administration of education. Of course, there is no doubt that the general grant, so long as it is effective, spells death to their hopes. But nobody has ventured in either House of Parliament to say that that was the real motive underlying his conduct and his criticism of the general grant, because, when we come to face it, the truth is that the development of education in this country does not depend upon the choice between general grant and percentage grant; it depends upon the total amount of money which is available.
  I utterly fail to understand why those who profess to be anxious for the future of education cannot have the same confidence in a local authority popularly elected as they have in a Minister dependent on a House of Commons popularly elected. It seems to me that they worry themselves with a totally imaginary fear. We know that the Government have given the most explicit assurance that the total amount of money available under the general grant, and under the new rating proposals, will be greater than the amount of money which is currently available. We know that the Government have built into this Bill the proposal that in formulating the general grant consideration will have to be given to the need for developing the services and for providing also for recouping local authorities in the event of an unexpected rise in expenditure, such as an increase in teachers' salaries. Therefore, there is no

  705
  logical reason at all to suppose that local authorities popularly elected will not be competent to provide for the country the execution of a national policy formulated by the Minister responsible to Parliament.
  It is a pure mirage to believe that we can, by an elaborate fiscal device of this sort, hold up education if the people want it, or that, if the people do not want it and vote against it, we can promote education by an elaborate fiscal device of the other kind. It really is pure illusion to suppose that the realities of policy are administered by simple devices of this sort. To my mind, that disposes entirely of the case against the general grant. The so-called block grant has been brought into the argument. It ought never to be called a "block grant". It is not a block grant and those words are nowhere to be found in the Bill. Those who use these words do so for one reason only: because they know that the block grant under the 1929 Act, something quite different, was unpopular, and they hope that the general grant of 1957–58 wilt be made unpopular by the use of this ugly name, which does not properly belong to it. This is the whole of the case which has been led against this Bill.
  Of course, it is true that if the local authorities are not to be trusted, education will fail under their hands. That must follow. But if it were true, a great deal would follow besides. It would mean that there was no future for government by the local authorities of this country. That is the conclusion which would inevitably follow if the noble Lord's case were true. I must tell him that I am absolutely astonished that a noble Lord who has given most of his life to local government should seriously advance a case which in its ultimate analysis means that no faith is to be placed in the body which he has served so faithfully and so long. I cannot follow him in his belief that London would be the loser. London, it is true, is fairly entitled, as he said, to claim to be a progressive authority. It is also, let me say, a very rich authority, and so rich that it does not now qualify for the equalisation grant. But under the Act, so much despised by the noble Lord, he might have thought it just and perhaps a little more generous to remind us that six of the metropolitan boroughs will gain the grant which is to be substituted for the equalisation grant. What is more,
  706
  in paragraph 8 of the third part of the First Schedule he will find that special additional grant is allowable to metropolitan authorities.
  I would say this to the noble Lord. He claimed that education is a national service—and so it is—under a national policy. But, quite inconsistently, he thereupon went on to lament that if a local authority on its own authority, and on its own authority alone, chose to make an uncovenanted expansion, it should not have to pay for it out of its own rates. You cannot have it both ways. If it is a national service and a national policy, you must accept the corollary, which is that uncovenanted expansions must be taken on the authority of the local electorate who are responsible. The Minister of Education retains the key points of control which he is given by the Education Act. The truth is that he never had anything else. His authority under the percentage grant never extended to the initiation of projects; it extended only in substance to the imposition and the enforcement of standards. And his authority to impose the enforcement of standards derives from the terms of the Education Act, 1944, which are not to be taken away from him but are to be adapted under this Bill. He has, of course, the percentage grant taken away. But that is apparently no loss, because the detailed administration which one would think would ordinarily follow from a percentage grant is, according to the noble Lord, a figment of the Government's imagination.
  The truth is that the Government are (I say this in answer to my noble friend Lord Gage) contemplating the relaxing of irritating and unnecessary controls. I cannot at this stage add to what my right honourable friend said on the Second Reading in the other place on December 9 about the conversations which have been initiated for that purpose. Our object is to relax on points which can legitimately be described as points of detail; but our policy is also to retain the essential element of control which a Minister of Education requires, at any rate in order to enforce a national policy.
  I end by saying this. We are engaged upon the reorganisation of the local government service. No one has denied the premise upon which the argument in favour of that reorganisation is based.

  707
  The premise is that local government is losing its vitality and not recruiting personnel of adequate quality. We, having inherited from the Labour Party a legacy with which they were afraid to deal, have now tried to deal with it. The Party opposite attack us for doing so on the grounds that, of all things, they wish education, which is the most vigorous, expanding and important of the local services, in effect to be kept away from the responsible local authorities and to be in the hands of the Minister under a detailed control.
  LORD LATHAM: If I may say so, there is no foundation for that statement.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: But this is exactly what the noble Lord is saying. This is the foundation of his case: that they are afraid to hand over to the local authorities. Does not the noble Lord remember the argument which both he and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, presented to the House? I can see the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, now, as it were, complaining that there was going to be a battle in the education authorities; that the chairman of the finance committee was going to quarrel with the chairman of the education committee, and what an unhealthy thing that was. Is it an unhealthy thing? We on this side of the House do not think it is. What is democracy about if it is not the debate in public and in private between legitimate interests and arguments?
  LORD LATHAM: I am sorry, but in the absence of my noble friend Lord Silk in I must correct that statement. My noble friend did not say that there was going to be an argument between the chairman of the finance committee of the local authority and the spending committee. He said that there would be quarrels between the chairmen of spending committees upon which the chairman of the finance committee would have to adjudicate.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think he said both; but let it be as the noble Lord states. But what does he think goes on in the central Government? The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has experience of
  708
  both. What do Lord Silkin or Lord Latham think goes on in the central Government here? Parliament is vigorous precisely because on the Floor of both Houses and in the consultations of the Government you do get, not quarrels, but open debate about the priorities of roads, schools, hospitals, defence and so on. This is what gives us freedom and independence. But it is precisely this freedom and independence which the noble Lord and his friends would deny to local government, although they are only too ready to admit that local government lacks that vigour and that attraction of eager and enterprising minds which characterises our Parliamentary institutions. The truth is that the noble Lord has never really thought out his position. He has used the Local Government Bill in order to try to work up the kind of factious agitation, based on imaginary fears against the Government, which he believes his Party were so successful in working up against the Rent Act; and that is why the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, began by comparing the two measures.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders made on the 6th February and the 15th May last discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

  SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
  House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.