Sitting of 12 November 1958

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

  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-How reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.
  I will give directions accordingly.

  EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that Regulations I and 6 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.
  I will give directions accordingly.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRANSPORT

    Goods Vehicles (Survey)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, following the survey carried out from 21st to 27th April, 1958, of more than 8,000 goods vehicles operating on A, B, and C licences, to establish load factors and other relative operational data, when and in what form he proposes to publish the report upon his findings.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)We hope to issue the results of this investigation as an official publication in the early part of next year.

    Driving Instructors
    Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he is taking to ensure that driving instructors are properly qualified.
    Mr. Nugent: The driving test is the final arbiter of a driving instructor's qualification to teach.
    We are considering further is needed.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman speed up this consideration? Is he aware that any Tom, Dick or Harry can call himself a driving instructor? Has he seen reports of serious accidents in which so-called driving instructors have been involved while in the course of giving instruction to learners? Is not it time that something was done to remedy a widespread abuse?
    Mr. Nugent: This matter was very carefully considered by the Road Safety Committee in 1947 when it was decided that it was not necessary to do anything further. A sub-committee of the Departmental Road Safety Committee is now considering the matter, and I have asked it to expedite its consideration.

    Traffic Congestion (Central London)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the staggering of working hours in Central London has reduced traffic congestion during the rush hours.
    Mr. Nugent: The staggering of working hours clearly helps to reduce traffic congestion at rush hours and we strongly support it. I regret no figures are available.
    Mr. Lipton: Has the hon. Gentleman seen a reply of his right hon. Friend which indicated that about one in 20 of the 500,000 people working in Central London now had their working hours staggered? Is he aware that at this rate it will be about twenty years before the working hours of all those working in Central London are staggered. Will he

    357
    consider the advisability, if this miserably slow progress continues, of introducing legislation to deal with the matter?
    Mr. Nugent: I answered the Question in the way I did because the hon. Member had asked about traffic conditions and I had not realised that he was directing his attention to individual travellers. Certainly I am aware of my right hon. Friend's reply and we are considering all possible means of increasing the staggering of hours. However, it is not at all easy, because it affects people's personal lives and we must be patient.

    Inland Waterways (Bowes Report)
    . Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is yet in a position to announce whether it is the Government's intention to adopt the suggestion made by the Bowes Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways, to establish a new and independent body to consider ways and means of dealing with redundant waterways.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 5th November to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss).
    Mr. Williams: I do not know exactly what the terms of that Answer were. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in the Manchester area and the local authorities are very anxious that he should take speedy action to deal with these disused and derelict canals, which are such a menace to life and health and which are retarding many development schemes which are urgently required in that area? What does he propose to do in this matter?
    Mr. Watkinson: Issue my findings as soon as possible.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the Minister say when he will issue those findings and when the House will be given an opportunity to consider the Report?
    Mr. WatkinsonI hope to do it very soon.
    Mr. Williams: Was not that a very unsatisfactory, if not an impertinent, answer? This is a very serious matter and the right hon. Gentleman should be taking it much more seriously than his reply indicated.
    Mr. Watkinson: What I said, as I said last week, was that I would issue my findings as soon as I could possibly do so. No further action can be taken until that is done.

  ROADS

    Victoria Gate and Alexandra Gate, Hyde Park
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action is being taken to relieve the traffic congestion at Victoria Gate and Alexandra Gate, Hyde Park.
    Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works has agreed with us in principle on a scheme to widen the road into Hyde Park at Victoria Gate. Details are now being worked out.
    It has not yet proved possible to work out a satisfactory scheme for Alexandra Gate which would not involve taking more land from the park than my right hon. Friend could agree to.
    Captain Pilkington: Would my hon. Friend agree that the situation there at the present time is intolerable and is steadily growing worse? Would he also agree that no buildings would be involved if there were a different lay-out of the roads and that an obvious solution to the problem is the provision of a roundabout at both of these gates? Can my hon. Friend say why no pressing action has been taken about this long-standing congestion in London?
    Mr. Nugent: I am glad that we have been able to make plans for an improvement on the north side. The difficulty about these gates is that to make the improvement would involve taking some part of the park. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works has his responsibility to maintain and care for the park and he has not been able to go further than I have told my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Programme
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the new roads construction programme and road improvements generally are corresponding to the growth of vehicle population in Great Britain; and what is that rate of growth.
    Mr. Watkinson: New construction and improvements in the present road programme are designed to cater for traffic increases for many years to come. The rate of growth of vehicles in Great Britain is estimated at about 8 per cent. per annum.
    Mr. Nabarro: Having regard to the ending of the credit squeeze and the freeing of all hire-purchase restrictions, is not the rate of growth of the vehicle population likely to be considerably stimulated? Has my right hon. Friend taken account of this important factor in deciding the size of the road expansion programme during the immediate future?
    Mr. Watkinson: We could have great fun with statistics. I can tell my hon. Friend that the authorisations for new roads increased by no less than 80 per cent. in 1957–758 over 1956–77, which might seem to give us a fair margin over the 8 per cent.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Is not it a fact that there are considerable arrears to make up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— owing to the fact that the increase in the motor car population has been far greater than was anticipated, as has been shown by figures published by the Road Research Laboratory? Is the Minister really satisfied that the present rate of road construction is equal to the growth and is overtaking those arrears?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not feel myself responsible for the arrears; responsibility for those does not lie on this side of the House entirely. We try to re-assess the growth in car population, and we are re-assessing this again at the moment. I do not disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I hope there will be a great many more motor cars. I hope also that I shall be able to build enough roads for them.
    Mr. Nabarro: A jolly good answer.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now announce the nature of the roads programme, and the expenditure proposed, to follow the current roads programme.
    Mr. Watkinson: Preparatory work for the extension of the road programme is well in hand, and I propose to give
    360
    priority to getting the maximum of work under construction rather than announce detailed plans a long way ahead.
    Mr. Davies: Without asking for the detailed plans, will the Minister announce the total of the road programme so that the House is informed whether it is being increased or not? Is not it a fact that this four-year programme has been announced, that it will be running down fairly shortly, and that, unless the programme is extended, there will be a diminution in the work being done?
    Mr. Watkinson: The four-year programme is not running down at the moment. It is running up very fast.

    Immingham-Grimsby Road
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to start building the direct road from Immingham to Grimsby, which has been under consideration since 1923; what it will cost; and when it will be finished.
    Mr. Nugent: This road will not be a trunk road and therefore it will not be for us to build it. I am told that the most recent estimate of its cost is £400,000. At the moment I cannot say when we shall be able to make a grant towards it.
    Mr. Osborne: While the Minister is not going to build it directly, is not it a fact that the local authorities cannot build it without his financial help? Therefore, he cannot evade responsibility. Has the hon. Gentleman received any representations from local trade unions, who are very worried about the local railway being closed down before the big trunk road is opened?
    Mr. Nugent: I am aware of the rumours that are going round about the future of the railway there, but we had better wait to see what happens before we take a further view of the situation.

    Accidents
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he proposes to take as a result of a recent report upon an investigation by the Road Research Laboratory to the effect that accidents tend to increase in frequency following normal re-surfacing of a road.
    Mr. Nugent: Whilst the report in question shows that at some sites the frequency of accidents rose after the road had been re-surfaced, I do not think that any general conclusions are justified without further investigation. This is now being undertaken by the Road Research Laboratory and our Department.
    Mr. Page: Does my hon. Friend think that the non-skid surface for the roads is being used sufficiently? Can his Department do anything to encourage its use?
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, I think it is. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we wait to see the result of this further investigation before reaching any conclusion on the matter.
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will cause to be printed and displayed a poster showing, preferably in graph form, the results of an investigation by the Road Research Laboratory which showed accidents risk rate per mile driven for all hours of the day.
    Mr. Nugent: No, Sir, I think it is usually better that posters should be used for presenting the lessons to be learnt from the statistics.
    Mr. Page: Would my hon. Friend agree that if such a graph were drawn it would merely show the connection between driving accidents and drinking? When is Professor Drew's report to be published?
    Mr. Nugent: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Unless posters are limited to the very minimum of wording they are just not taken in by people who see them. It is best to present posters with a very simple message.

    Standing Vehicles (Exemption) Regulations, 1956
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will publish a list of areas in which the Standing Vehicles (Exemption) Regulations, 1956, providing for the parking of vehicles, in certain circumstances, without lights, has been adopted.
    Mr. Nugent: Outside the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London the parking of vehicles on streets unlit is subject to the consent of the Chief
    362
    Officer of Police. I have no information about the number of streets in respect of which such consent has been given.
    Mr. Page: Would not it be a help to the public to know whereabouts in the country vehicles could be parked without lights? If there is not a record of these, how is anyone to know where the Regulations apply?
    Mr. Nugent: Wherever such a permission has been given—and it is given subject to the approval of the Chief Inspector of Police—there is always a special traffic sign indicating that the Regulations apply there.

    Bideford-Okehampton Road
    . Mr. Bonham Carterasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has for improving A386 between Bideford and Okehampton; and when.
    Mr. Nugent: The highway authority for this road is the Devon County Council. I understand from it that during the current financial year it is carrying out four small improvement schemes, towards which we have made grants. I gather also that it has a further scheme in mind for next year and others to follow later.

    B.3220 Road
    . Mr. Bonham Carterasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has to upgrade the road from Torrington to Morchard Road Station, B.3220; and when.
    Mr. Nugent: None, Sir.
    Mr. Bonham Carter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable unemployment in the area, that to deal with it we need to attract light industry, and to attract light industry it is necessary to have better communications than we have at present? Can he be slightly more helpful in this respect by giving some indication that he hopes to do something about that matter?
    Mr. Nugent: The Question asks if we are prepared to upgrade the road from a class II to a class I road, but the volume of traffic on it and the nature of the road simply do not justify that.
    Mr. Bonham Carter: Is the hon. Member aware that until these roads are improved it will be very difficult to attract light industry to the area?

    Exeter-Okehampton Road
    . Mr. Bonham Carterasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, what plans he has for widening A.30 between Exeter and Okehampton; and when.
    Mr. Nugent: We have no plans for widening this length of road in the immediate future. The long-term proposals will, however, provide for a 33 ft. wide carriageway throughout.
    Mr. Bonham Carter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more than 4 million people use this part of the road every summer and traffic congestion in the summer is very acute? Will he do everything he can to hasten the improvement he has been so good as to announce?
    Mr. Nugent: Certainly, Sir.
    Captain Pilkington: Is my hon. Friend aware that A.30 needs not so much widening as duplicating throughout the whole of its length?
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir, I have travelled up and down this road once or twice myself.

    Bath Road, Woolhampton
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the two fatal accidents in the past four months to pedestrians crossing the Bath Road at Woolhampton, he will take immediate steps, in consultation with the Berkshire County Council and the Chief Constable of Berkshire, to have clear signs erected to warn motorists to slow down on entering the village and provide crossings with islands where pedestrians can find refuge until the road is clear for them to cross in safety.
    Mr. Nugent: In agreement with the county and police authorities of Berkshire instructions have been given for large "Slow" signs to be painted on the Bath Road at both ends of Woolhampton and for enlarged "village" signs to be provided.
    I have also asked our Divisional Road Engineer to consult with the County
    364
    Surveyor as a matter of urgency on the possibility of overcoming the difficulties of installing a central island on the carriageway.
    Mr. Hurd: Does my hon. Friend realise that the improvement works carried out by his Department have greatly speeded up motor traffic on the Bath Road, and have made some villages into real death-traps? Is he aware that an old lady was killed last week at Woolhampton? Will he see that village people are able to cross their own village streets in safety?
    Mr. Nugent: We will certainly do everything possible to improve safety there.

    Off-Street Parking Accommodation
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the contribution made to parking facilities by the Coventry City Council on the roof of their new circular retail market, and that this roof car park will eventually be linked with other car parks at the higher level; and if he will encourage such facilities elsewhere in view of the parking problem in most cities.
    Mr. Nugent: I welcome the initiative taken by the Coventry City Council in this matter. As my right hon. Friend said on 23rd October, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), it is our policy to give every help and encouragement within our powers to local authorities and private enterprise to provide additional off-street parking accommodation.
    Miss Burton: While I am very glad to hear the Minister's commendation of the forward policy of the Coventry City Council, may I ask him if there is any chance of dealing on a similar basis with the problem in London? Is he aware that in the street where I live, motor cars are parked morning, noon and night and also at the weekend, and that the position is becoming quite intolerable? Will the Minister ensure that, if people have to park cars outside houses, they should park them outside their own and not outside other people's houses?
    Mr. Nugent: I agree, and I myself suffer from the same difficulty in this matter as the hon. Lady; but we still

    365
    take the view that this is a responsibility of the local authority concerned and private enterprise. While we are willing to help where we can, we think that the responsibility should lie there.

    Street Lighting
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress he has made in his consultations with local authorities on street lighting.
    Mr. Nugent: Following a conference of lighting authorities in the London area which I held last May, a Consultative Committee for London has been formed, representing 103 authorities. I understand they have already held two meetings, and I hope for good results from their work.
    Mr. Moyle: May I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what progress has been made in the direction of the West Midlands conurbation in relation to the authorities there?
    Mr. Nugent: I have no reports of further developments in the provinces. We are just about to send out an inquiry to local authorities as the basis of a survey. When we have completed that survey, it may give the stimulus to similar action in the provinces. I certainly hope so.

    Marble Arch-Hyde Park Corner Scheme
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what preliminary work has to be done on the main part of the Marble Arch-Hyde Park Corner Scheme which prevents work starting for another twelve months.
    Mr. Nugent: I am informed by the London County Council that the preliminary work consists of the diversion of the public utilities apparatus and the preparation of the main scheme in all its details. Owing to the magnitude of the work, greatly complicated as it is by the need to keep the great volume of traffic flowing throughout, these preliminary arrangements are inevitably intricate and lengthy.

    Severn Road Bridge
    . Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when construction of the Severn road bridge will be begun.
    Mr. Watkinson: It is the Government's hope to start constructional work on the Severn Bridge some two years after work on the Forth Bridge is reasonably well advanced.
    Mr. Marquand: In view of the decision to increase investment in the public sector, and the fact that there is capacity for producing structural steel now available in Middlesbrough and the Tees-side area, will the right hon. Gentleman accelerate this date—bring it forward slightly?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not noticed what was said when the original announcement was made. This bridge is a very large engineering project which requires special treatment for the cables and it is necessary, therefore, for technical reasons, that it should be phased in with the Forth Bridge.
    Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter? Is not it a fact that there is a great deal of road development to be done on both sides of the Severn? Will he take steps to bring forward the date when that work will commence?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look into the question of roads, but I am answering on the question of a bridge.

    Middlesbrough (Survey)
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has studied the findings concerning Middlesbrough of a survey made by the British Roads Federation; and whether he has consulted the Middlesbrough Corporation with a view to improving the conditions disclosed by the survey, a copy of which has been sent to him.
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. The survey confirms what we already know of Middlesbrough's highway problems. The Corporation has followed the normal procedure of discussing with our Divisional Road Engineer, its improvement schemes, and these will be fitted into our road programme according to the priority which they qualify for in the national picture.
    Mr. Marquand: Is there to be an expansion of this programme in the light of the announcement about increasing public investment, and, if so, are not the claims of a Development Area, and

    367
    Particularly one in which a great many important industrial enterprises are now expanding, very high indeed?
    Mr. Nugent: Certainly, Middlesbrough's claim will not be overlooked, and the right hon. Gentleman has made sure of that by bringing deputations to see us. We will give very full consideration to it, but I am afraid that I cannot give him any immediate hope of advancing any of these schemes at the present time.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Aircraft Accident, Southall (Public Inquiry)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he proposes to hold an inquiry into the cause of the crash of a Viking aircraft at Southall on 2nd September last.
    Mr. Watkinson: My Chief Inspector of Accidents is continuing his investigations into the cause of the Viking aircraft accident at Southall on 2nd September last and a public inquiry will be held as soon as possible. I understand that the adjourned coroner's inquest will shortly be resumed, probably within a fortnight.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this disaster has caused a great deal of disquiet and that an unduly long period seems to have elapsed between its occurrence and the holding of the inquiry? Can he say that matters will be speeded up as much as possible.
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree that it must seem a long time, particularly to those involved, but my Chief Inspector has not finished his technical investigation, and, therefore, the public inquiry cannot be held until it is finished. I think it also wise to get any other matters out of the way, and that is why, I understand, the coroner's inquest will be shortly resumed.
    Mr. N. Nicolson: If there is any question of referring this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, would not it be better to hold the official inquiry first in order to establish whether there is a prima facie case to go before the courts? Would my right hon. Friend undertake to make available to the charter company
    368
    concerned all the evidence, including the recordings of the messages that passed between the pilot and the ground control immediately before the crash?
    Mr. Watkinson: In regard to the first point, I think that my hon. Friend rather misunderstands the purpose of a court of inquiry. It is to inquire into the technical and engineering details of the crash in order that we may learn lessons for the future. It is not primarily to establish the legal guilt or responsibility of the parties concerned. As to the second matter, I understand that information has been given to the company on the lines that my hon. Friend mentioned.

    London Airport
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now consider removing London Airport to a coastal area and transporting passengers to and from central London in aircraft such as Fairey Rotodynes or large Bristol helicopters.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): No, Sir, this would not be a practicable policy for many reasons.
    Mr. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that life is now becoming intolerable for about a million people in South-West Middlesex? Does he not consider, having regard to the present situation and future developments—for instance, the vertical take-off of aircraft—that there is no case whatever for having London Airport where it is? Would he consider developing a new airport in a coastal area which is much better fitted to take some of these new, screaming monsters which frighten the life out of our constituents?
    Mr. Neave: If my hon. Friend had been here last week he would have heard the statement which my right hon. Friend made about the future of London Airport, particularly with regard to noise, that we were going to carry out further tests and that we were doing everything possible to minimise disturbance there.
    Mr. J. Howard: Would my hon. Friend consider moving these screaming monsters to Southampton?

    Eastleigh Airport
    Mr. J. Howardasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement in reply to the representations made to him in May by the Southampton Airport Consultative Committee on the future of the airport at Eastleigh.
    Mr. Neave: We are still in consultation with the Corporation of Southampton. I hope that a statement about the future of the airport will be made shortly when the Corporation's views are known.
    Mr. Howard: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that uncertainty about Southampton Airport has existed for a long time? This is of great concern to the users of the airport and to business interests in the town. Will my hon. Friend do everything he can to expedite a final decision in this matter?
    Mr. Neave: I think my hon. Friend knows that the Consultative Committee of Southampton has been fully consulted about the problem of Eastleigh's future. It is known to the Committee that the cost of developing Eastleigh as proposed would be very high. I do not think I can say anything further until we have had the Council's answer, which we expect very shortly.
    Dr. King: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the decision of the Government to modernise the airport or not depends entirely on whether or not they can get rate aid from Southampton, or have the Government a policy of their own in the matter?
    Mr. Neave: We have put certain proposals to Southampton with regard to the cost and we are expecting a reply.

    Prestwick Airport (Development)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether a decision has yet been reached regarding the alterations required to the Kilmarnock-Ayr road where it cuts through Prestwick Airport; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a further statement about the reconstruction of Prestwick Airport.
    Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have had consultations with the various interests concerned on a number of aspects of the scheme. As the House knows, I have already decided to extend the main runway. There seems to be a general preference in favour of the Redbrae site for the new terminal area and I am prepared to accept this. As regards the present A.77 road, opinion is not unanimous. The simplest and, from the aviation point of view, the most satisfactory, plan would be to divert the road round the end of the extended runway. This was also the final view of the Scottish Aerodromes Board. This could be done without providing any greater obstacle to future extensions of the runway in this direction than would in any event be provided by the railway. Another alternative would be to construct a tunnel. But a tunnel on the line of the present road would mean a prolonged closure of the present runway and it is the general view that this would have a serious permanent effect on the airport's traffic. An alternative line for a tunnel some 1,500 feet north-west of the present road provides a route only slightly shorter than a road diversion. For these reasons, I have decided that the balance of advantages lies in favour of a road diversion.
    Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents and the local authorities in the area are deeply appreciative of the care and thought he has given to this very intricate problem? At the same time I do not know whom he has consulted. The consensus of local opinion and of those travelling along the Glasgow—Kilmarnock—Ayr road is that a tunnel is the only solution and that the re-routed road will not solve the traffic problem there?
    Mr. Watkinson: We have been very carefully into this matter. I think it very natural and right that I should try to take the solution which seems to offer the best chance of Prestwick going on and expanding as one of the world's major international airports. I believe that interference with the runways at this stage might be a very dangerous thing for the future of Prestwick.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in reply to me

    371
    on 2nd April he said that he then had the necessary finance and the necessary plans to go ahead with this development? Why, at the end of eight months, has nothing yet been done? Where did the obstruction lie? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the obstruction has now been removed? Secondly, can he now say how much money will be involved in the development he has outlined today?
    Mr. Watkinson: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question, I would remind him that what I said was that we had the funds to go ahead with the development of the airport, and I have today announced a very extensive development plan, including a new terminal and extension of the runways for the big jets and so on, which I think the hon. Member wants. It is a little difficult to be precise as to the cost, but I should say that it will certainly be well over £2 million, and probably more.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the fact that there are many aspects still to be explored, I hope I shall have a chance of raising this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at an early date.

    Helicopters (Rescue Service)
    . Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the assistance which has been given by helicopters around the British coast in cases of aeroplane accidents, shipwrecks and bathers in danger of drowning; and if he will consider the establishment of rescue stations on similar lines to that of the lifeboat system.
    Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend is well aware of this and he is always glad to have an opportunity of paying tribute to the outstanding work done by the crews of Royal Naval and Royal Air Force helicopters in the saving of life around our coasts.
    At present there is no need to supplement their efforts by the creation of a separate helicopter service.
    Mr. Awbery: In view of the tremendous success of the use of helicopters for saving life and the growing need for this service around the coasts to supplement the lifeboat service, will the hon. Gentle-
    372
    man give some consideration to the establishment of some helicopter depôts, especially for use during the summer?
    Mr. Neave: As the hon. Member knows, I have thought about this matter. I sent him a list of the various helicopter stations some time ago. In our view, that list is sufficient to provide an efficient search and rescue service at present.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has long been considered by the Lifeboat Institution and it has been found that the present Service help from helicopters is extremely good and is adequate. In view of the high cost of operating helicopters, which I believe to be £50 an hour at the moment, it is not practicable to extend the service, although it may be when helicopter prices and operating costs are more reasonable.
    Mr. Neave: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said and I know that he has studied the matter. At present, we should not be justified in seeking to establish separate helicopter services under civil auspices.

    Perranporth Airfield
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to preserve for the Cornish Gliding and Flying Club the facilities they at present enjoy at Perranporth Airfield which are in jeopardy through the decision to sell the airfield.
    Mr. Neave: We are in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air on this matter.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to persuade the Secretary of State for Air to postpone the final date for the submission of tenders, which is next Monday?
    Mr. Neave: As the hon. Member has said, tenders will be opened on 17th November, but it would not be proper for me to say more than that. However, I will take account of what the hon. Member has said.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the tenders which have already gone in provide for the continuance of the gliding club?

    Flying Training
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will consult with the Secretary of State for Air, with a view to devising a scheme for encouraging the training, up to private pilot's licence, in approved flying clubs, of more young men in order to provide a pool of pilots for military and civil aviation.
    Mr. Watkinson: On the whole I consider that it is better for young men to be selected and trained directly to a professional standard at a school staffed and equipped for the purpose, and I discussed such a scheme with the Chairmen of the Air Corporations last week. I hope that a decision will be reached soon.
    Mr. de Freitas: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a grave danger of there being a serious shortage of young pilots in a few years' time? Is he aware that the Government's decision to abolish the petrol tax rebate will make it very difficult and almost impossible for any young man without private means to learn to fly?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is another matter.

    London-Moscow Service
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further progress he has made in hastening a solution to the noise problem at London Airport which is delaying the development of a direct service to Moscow to the advantage of Great Britain's European competitors.
    Mr. Watkinson: The information provided by the Soviet authorities is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to add anything to what my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, said on 5th November.
    Mr. Parkin: Bearing in mind that a very high proportion of the travellers on this route would be Americans, and that it is very much to our advantage that they should stop off at London, and bearing in mind, also, that there are certain tricky matters of prestige in this which may be as intractable as the noise problem, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is giving this subject his closest, and his continuous, personal attention?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have said that I am looking into it, and I hope that, before long, we may be able to make another approach to the Russians. If they will be kind enough to come to London Airport and demonstrate their new techniques, nobody will be better pleased than I.

    United Kingdom-Ghana (Air Services Agreement)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether an air services agreement has yet been concluded with the Government of Ghana; and whether it is proposed in such an agreement to provide for more than one United Kingdom operator to share available scheduled passenger traffic between United Kingdom and Ghana with Ghana Airways.
    Mr. Neave: An Air Services Agreement with Ghana was signed in London on 24th September, and provides for two routes between London and Accra, one over the desert and one down the west coast. Her Majesty's Government propose to designate as United Kingdom operators, B.O.A.C. for the former route and Hunting Clan Air Transport and Airwork for the latter.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that this means that traffic which, at one time, was the responsibility of B.O.A.C., is now shared, not only with Ghana—which, of course, we accept—but with another British operator? Is he further aware that this sharing out of the traffic comes at a time when there is talk of the redundancy of 3,000 people at London Airport? Does his right hon. Friend appreciate that the best contribution he could make to industrial stability in the maintenance hangars at London Airport would be to stop this policy of eating into the traffic rights of B.O.A.C.?
    Mr. Neave: The first point is that this air services agreement will be published and presented to the House very shortly, when we shall have an opportunity to discuss it in more detail. But my right hon. Friend has already explained to the hon. Gentleman, in answer to his Questions, that this is a competitive world for air transport, and that he was assured that the Corporation was prepared to face a certain amount of competition.
    Mr. Beswick: Does the Minister deny that, as a result of this administrative arrangement, the Corporation will have to hand over business to a private company at a time when the Corporation itself is considering redundancy in its own ranks? Does he realise that this is bound to cause unrest among the staff there?
    Mr. Neave: This situation arises from the independence of Ghana, and not from the arrangement the hon. Gentleman mentions.
    Mr. Beswick: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister to make it quite clear that the independent operator to which he refers is a British company operating from the United Kingdom?

    Aircraft Control, London Zone
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the system of joint observation and control for both civil and military aircraft at night and in certain weather conditions in the London zone involves unified control by one officer looking at one screen at one time.
    Mr. Neave: The complexity of the control system and the volume of traffic within the London control zone are such that no one man could control all the traffic from one radar screen. But one man is in control of any one sector of the controlled air space. The task is shared by a number of controllers, some of whom are military. All controllers operate in accordance with jointly agreed procedures and use the same radar separation standards.
    Mr. Beswick: Whilst I accept that they all use the same procedures, is not it a fact that, in any one air space, there is a military controller looking after the military aircraft and a civil controller looking after the civil aircraft? Is not it a fact that, in this modern age, we can no longer afford to have two different controllers looking after aircraft in the same air space?
    Mr. Neave: There are two points there. With the Service Departments, we are building up a single air traffic control system, which is manned jointly by civil and by Service personnel. That is the first point. Secondly, and it is a matter of some importance, within the controlled
    376
    air space in certain sectors of the London control zone there is one man in control, whether he is civil or military.

    London and Gatwick Airports
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will state to the nearest convenient date the total sums which have been expended in the development of London Airport and Gatwick Airport, respectively, including the cost of acquiring the necessary land.
    Mr. Neave: Expenditure on development at London Airport and Gatwick Airport brought to account to 31st May, 1958, is £29·3 million and £6 million respectively.

  RAILWAYS

    Modernisation
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the limitations placed by Her Majesty's Government upon the capital investment programme of the railways a year ago have now been relieved in order further to accelerate the modernisation programme.
    Mr. Watkinson: The limitations were relieved when an extra £25 million was made available in May to accelerate modernisation in 1958 and 1959. Consideration is being given to the possibility of a further acceleration in 1959.
    Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has now allocated to the British Transport Commission all those capital sums for which Sir Brian Robertson has asked, that the total sum of money available for this year and next year under the modernisation programme will allow the maximum speed in that programme, that nothing is being withheld and that the Commission is not being in any way inhibited by my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is certainly true of the current year. The Commission has had everything that it asked for. As for 1959, although at the moment the Commission has certainly had all that it has asked for, as I am anxious that modernisation should be pressed forward as fast as possible we are looking at the matter again, in order to make sure that the Commission has all the money that it can possibly use.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the Minister mean by the statement that the Commission has had all it asked for that there was no cut in the capital of the modernisation programme last year, when a ceiling was put on the expenditure which the Commission was allowed to spend? In stating that there is a possibility of increasing the sum now, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that there would be increased expenditure on roads, railways and other public industries?
    Mr. Watkinson: The sequence of events covers all those facts. There was originally a cut, although it was largely a cut in the notional future programme. Then there was an increase which gave the Commission all it could use this current year, as the Chairman has said. For 1959, as I have said myself, we are reexamining the programme to see if there is any more money that can usefully be used, if the finance is made available.

    Fog (Safety Precautions)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further action, following the reports of the inquiries into the railway disasters at Lewisham and Dagenham, is being taken to improve safety of railway travel during periods of fog.
    Mr. Watkinson: The reports of my Chief Inspecting Officer on the accidents at Lewisham and Dagenham revealed no significant shortcomings in the signalling or fog working methods in use on those lines, and showed that both accidents were due to drivers passing signals at danger. As was announced last week, the Commission is making a special investigation, with the help of a panel of scientific experts, into this problem, and the trades unions have promised their co-operation. Meanwhile, the Commission is pressing on with the extension of automatic warning control to all the main lines and with the provision of many more colour light signals, as it fully accepts the view of my Chief Inspecting Officer that both measures will do much to help drivers to observe signals in bad weather.
    Automatic warning control will be installed on 300 route miles including the East Coast main line from King's
    378
    Cross to York by the end of this year, in addition to the Western Region main lines.
    Mr. Davies: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask if he would agree that, although the installation of A.T.C. is the ultimate answer to this problem, these accidents have shown the great strain to which engine drivers and firemen are put during periods of dense fog, particularly during peak traffic periods? In the meantime, until A.T.C. is installed, would not it be desirable to supplement the coloured light system by some other fog control equipment, including that of fog signals which used to be employed, whereby detonators were placed on the lines? Many locomotive engineers desire that that should be done.
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look into that.
    Mr. D. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that all the drivers who use this route cannot be wrong. They complain that the siting of the signals at these points, together with conflicting lights, when there is swirling mist on the roads, causes tremendous confusion. Why cannot something be done temporarily to make conditions safer?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have already said that I will look at any suggestions which are made, but I have no intention of reopening the matters which were discussed at an open public inquiry. As to the strain on the men, the Medical Research Council is co-operating in the inquiry which the Commission is making.
    Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain proposals have been made to the Commission by engine drivers and firemen and that, unfortunately, no action has been taken on those proposals?
    Mr. Watkinson:I do not agree because, as I said, trade unionists are co-operating in this inquiry.

    New Inventions (Testing)
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what general directions he has given to the British Transport Commission regarding the testing of new inventions, with the object of increasing operational efficiency.
    Mr. Watkinson: None, Sir. The British Transport Commission's active programme of study and development includes testing for this purpose.
    Sir J. Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an Austrian firm has offered free of charge a new invention for locomotives which is claimed not only to increase the efficiency of the locomotive, but to make it able to consume qualities of coal which are in surplus at the present time? Will he ask the British Transport Commission to have a look at this invention, because, up to now, the Commission has flatly refused to consider it?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is not my information. I have looked into this myself, and I think that considerable examination of this matter has been made. One difficulty is that it is suitable only for steam locomotives, and no more steam locomotives are being built.

    Finances
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what proposals he has to amend the Transport (Railway Finances) Act by raising the limit of £250 million on borrowing to meet deficits incurred by the British Transport Commission to enable deficits to be financed until 1962 as was the purpose of the Act.
    Mr. Watkinson: I shall be putting my proposals before the House in due course.
    Mr. Davies: How soon will that be? Will the House have an opportunity to debate this? Is it the Minister's intention to increase the amount of the debt which the Commission will draw for deficit financing? Is it a fact that this fund will be exhausted next year, although it was voted for seven years? Do not the arguments for deficit financing on the basis of loans from this House stand today equally well as they stood previously, especially as the Government are to blame for the Commission's difficulties today?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am not sure whether the hon. Member has noticed the sentence in my letter to the Commission which said that its future position will be considered when the general limits of its borrowing are considered, and this is bound to arise shortly in any case.
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a further statement on the Government's proposals to meet the prospective deficit of £85 million on British Railways.
    Mr. Watkinson: As I stated in answer to Questions last week, the Government have decided to advance the necessary funds to meet this year's deficit under the Transport (Railway Finances) Act, 1957.
    Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the loss is due to the recession in the economy, which might be taken up in an economy expanding at the normal rate, and what proportion of the loss is due to his policy of the denationalisation of road transport?
    Mr. Watkinson: The whole of the Commission's financial position is clearly set out in the Chairman's letter to me, which I have said I would publish as a White Paper and which has already been circulated in HANSARD.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this huge deficit, with a prospect of larger deficits yet to come, combined with worse service to the public, is yet another typical example of the failure of nationalisation?
    Mr. Watkinson: Looking back, it is a pity that so much time was spent on nationalisation and not enough on modernisation.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the Minister cast his mind back to pre-war days and consider what modernisation was done on certain of the railways, notably the L.N.E.R., before the war? In his letter to the Minister, did not the Chairman of the Commission state that the Commission's present position was due to the decline in traffic resulting from the decline in coal and steel production, mainly steel production? Is not the Government's economic policy therefore to blame for the increase in the deficit?
    Mr. Watkinson: I repeat that if modernisation had not been started ten years too late, the Commission would not be in difficulty now. Perhaps it has escaped the hon. Member's notice that coal, too, is nationalised.
    Mr. Ernest Davies rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question will not sustain an argument on nationalisation.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the old private companies had continued, not only would modernisation not have taken place, but the companies would have been bankrupt by now?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think we will get on faster if I do not answer hypothetical questions.
    Mr. Lipton: I am willing to wait for the Answers to my Questions which appear later on the Paper.

    Finances (White Paper)
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make available to the public and hon. Members, in the form of a White Paper, the whole contents of the British Transport Commission's Report, including Appendix B, and also a copy of his reply to the Chairman of the Commission.
    Mr. Watkinson: I regret any inconvenience that may have been caused to hon. Members by the publication in separate editions of HANSARD of the Commission's Report and my reply. I hope that it will now meet the convenience of the House if these documents are now made available as a White Paper.
    Mr. D. Jones: May I thank the Minister for that reply, since this is a matter of very great interest to at least half a million railwaymen?

    Automatic Warning Control
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on how many miles of railway line automatic train control equipment was installed during the last six months.
    Mr. Watkinson: During the six months from May to October, the wiring and cables necessary for automatic warning control have been installed on 191 route miles. The inductors are now being fitted, and 300 route miles will be fully equipped by the end of the year.
    Mr. Goodhart: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the A.T.C., and allied safety programmes, will not be
    382
    cut in any economy drive on British Railways?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, certainly. I am glad to say that it is rather ahead of schedule.

  SHIPPING

    Flags of Convenience
    . Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the nature of the official representations made by him to the Government of the United States of America with regard to the use of flags of convenience; what other Governments supported these representations; and with what result.
    Mr. Watkinson: None has yet been made; but this is one of the many shipping problems which we may wish to discuss with the United States in due course.
    Mr. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend noticed reports in the Press this morning that some of the American ship owners are establishing a committee, called the American Committee for Flags of Necessity, and that that makes this matter extremely urgent? If any representations are to be made to the United States Government, can they be made on a wider basis of flags of discrimination? If interdependence is to mean anything at all, surely it is reasonable to expect the American Government to behave in a reasonable way in this sort of matter?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am closely in touch with the Chamber of Shipping on this matter. I do not think it is very dissatisfied with what we are doing at the moment.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are not these representations to the United States on the twin subjects of flags of convenience and, in particular, flags of discrimination—which is an even greater evil— being unduly delayed? Why are we afraid to face up to the Americans when they are seeking to destroy British shipping?
    Mr. Watkinson: I hold strong views also on this subject, but I am not sure that one gets the best results by discussing in public what representations we are to make.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Recruitment
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Defence to what extent the recruiting figures of the last three months indicate that the number of volunteers required for all three Services will be forthcoming.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The recruiting figures for the last three months have further strengthened my confidence that we shall get the voluntary recruits needed to enable National Service to be ended in 1962 as planned.

    Field Marshal Montgomery (Lecture)
    Mr. Wiggasked the Minister of Defence whether he has now considered Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery's recent lecture to the Royal United Service Institution; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sandys: I read Field Marshal Montgomery's lecture with great interest. As I expected, I found it both stimulating and controversial.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the Minister do the House the courtesy of treating seriously what Lord Montgomery has had to say, and will he make a statement to the House as to whether he agrees or disagrees with Lord Montgomery? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Will he be good enough to say whether he agrees or disagrees with Field Marshal Montgomery's view that we require efficient conventional forces, properly equipped; and whether we are not a long way short of that objective at the present time?
    Mr. Sandys: Naturally, I have great respect and affection for Field Marshal Montgomery, but I do not propose to comment upon his views. That is a danger area into which I do not propose to be lured.
    Mr. de Freitas: Surely, the Government can say something about the Field Marshal's criticisms of the organisation and staffing at N.A.T.O.—
    Hon. Members: Why?
    Mr. Sandys: The Field Marshal made it quite clear that he was expressing his
    384
    own personal views, and the Goverment are not called upon to comment upon them. On the other hand, the hon. Member may be quite sure that any remarks, or criticisms, or advice that may be expressed by some one so distinguished and with such great experience will, obviously, receive the most careful attention.
    Mr. G. Brown: Will the Minister say whether Field Marshal Montgomery's criticisms of N.A.T.O., about which he must know, are confirmed by the reports that the Minister has been receiving from his own military mission at S.H.A.P.E.?
    Mr. Sandys: Any reports that I receive from military—not military missions, but members of the staff at S.H.A.P.E., are, of course, wholly confidential. But I am glad of this opportunity to say, once again, in the light of these criticisms, that Her Majesty's Government have the very fullest confidence in the civil and military authorities of N.A.T.O. At the same time, of course, we shall continue, with our allies, within the limits of what is possible with a grand alliance of this kind —which has very serious limitations—to do what we can to make the Organisation as simple and as efficient for its task as possible.
    Mr. G. Brown: With respect, that was not the question I asked—[Interruption.] —I think that I am entitled to get an answer to what I did ask. The Minister may have misunderstood me. Apart from the members of the staff at S.H.A.P.E., there is a British liaison mission. Has that been reporting over the years that the Organisation is as cumbersome, as bureaucratic, and as impossible to operate as Field Marshal Montgomery has said it is?
    Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

    Grigg Committee (Report)
    Mr. Wiggasked the Minister of Defence the date on which he received the Report of the Committee presided over by Sir James Grigg, the date on which he authorised the principal recommendation to be revealed to selected newspapers, and the reason for the long delay in making the remainder of the Report available to the whole of the Press and to Members of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Sandys: The Committee sent to me its Report on July 31st, and I presented it to Parliament on November 4th. I did not authorise any prior disclosure to the Press.
    Mr. Wigg: In view of the detailed reports that appeared in the Press, has the Minister made inquiries in his own Department, or amongst his colleagues, to find out how this unauthorised leak occurred?
    Mr. Sandys: I must agree that it certainly looks as though there had been some loose talk somewhere, supplemented, no doubt, by some intelligent guesswork by the Press—not altogether accurate in all respects.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kenneth Robinson.
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, and the clear indication that he has not made inquiries—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and in view of the clear indication—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."].
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is giving notice of his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment, I will take it in that form.
    Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. Is it not a clear abrogation of the rights of a back bencher if what he wants to say is shouted down by the howling nincompoops on the other side of the House? In such circumstances, am I not entitled to your protection, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I have often said in this House that it is better for Members who wish to give notice of their intention to pursue a matter further to stick to the traditional form. I find that these variations of it often lead to more points of order and waste of time than they are worth.
    Mr. Wigg: With respect, may I finish what I wanted to say? I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory reply, and the clear indication—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. Speaker: I accept the hon. Member's notice. Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

    Chief of the Air Staff (Speech)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Defence whether the speech of the Chief of Air Staff at Sheffield on 8th September dealing with defence matters was made with his knowledge and approval.
    Mr. Sandys: The Chief of the Air Staff showed me the text of his speech in advance. It contained nothing inconsistent with Government policy.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister, therefore, saying that it is part of Government policy to take the view that
    "we are confident we could destroy Russia tomorrow. At the moment they cannot retaliate"?
    Is he really saying that that is the view of Her Majesty's Government and of the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Sandys: I understand that that was an impromptu remark—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— I am sorry; I am trying to answer the question— in reply to a question after the Air Marshal's speech. As I think we all know, we do not, in reply to supplementary questions in this House, always put our answers in the most felicitous and diplomatic language. None the less, the fact that he stated is true, and it has been said many times before.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. George Brown.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give me your guidance on this matter? Do you detect any conspiracy this afternoon to prevent me putting my Question No. 48?
    Mr. Speaker: No. I think that we have wasted some time, but I do not think that this was directed against the right hon. Gentleman. I hope now that this will be short, because we are after time. Mr. Brown.
    Mr. G. Brown: When the Minister said that the fact is true, that we can hit Russia where we like and she cannot retaliate, did he understand that "we" meant Great Britain or the Western allies?
    Mr. Sandys: I assume that he meant the Western allies.

CYPRUS
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on Cyprus.
On 30th October, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary explained to the House the position with regard to the discussions on Cyprus in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and, on 31st October, Her Majesty's Government issued a White Paper publishing the relevant documents. This makes abundantly clear the sincere and continuous efforts which we made to make possible a conference on the basis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation discussions. The Greek Government have subsequently issued a statement commenting on the White Paper.
Although Her Majesty's Government cannot altogether accept this Greek version of events, I do not think it would be helpful for me now to engage in further controversy over these past exchanges. It is important to note that there has been general agreement that, whatever might be the appropriate final settlement, such a solution was unlikely to be reached immediately, and it was, therefore, necessary to find an interim arrangement. It would, however, he necessary to ensure that such an interim arrangement did not prejudice any final solution. It was made clear that, as well as a general discussion on a possible final long-term solution, particular attention should be given by the conference to this point.
We still hope that the Greek Government will, in due course, find it possible to come to the conference table on the basis which was virtually agreed in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation discussions. We ourselves are still willing to attend on that basis.
As the House knows, the Greek Government have tabled on the agenda of the General Assembly of the United Nations an item entitled, "The Question of Cyprus". Before long, we may expect a debate on this item. We are quite ready to make clear our position to other members of the United Nations. We would explain, in particular, our own policy, which we believe to be the fairest
388
compromise attainable in present circumstances. We would also make clear that we have tried, and still desire, to arrange a conference which would discuss not only our policy and amendments to it, but also any ideas for a long-term solution. Nevertheless, it would be our endeavour that the debate in the United Nations should not make agreement more difficult and should, in fact, facilitate the convening of the conference which once seemed so near.
I now turn to the position in the island. Terrorism continues and has recently taken new forms. In addition to attacks on the security services, on patrols and on military installations, there has been an increase in murderous violence against civilians. I regret to say that nine have been murdered in the last five weeks. In countering these measures, the Governor is acting throughout with the full support of his military advisers; and I would like to make it clear from the start that we have complete confidence in the Governor and his advisers, both civil and military. I must add with equal force that there is the fullest co-operation and confidence between the civil and military sides.
Various new precautions are being taken and new measures introduced. In certain respects, these have been successful. The number of ambushes is steadily falling. It is, indeed, because of these successes that the terrorists are turning towards attack upon unarmed civilians. In this situation, the Governor is being given, and will be given, every help and support that he requires in the administrative and legislative field. At the same time, every requirement of personnel or material that the Director of Operations needs will be made available to him.
We are convinced that by far the greatest proportion of Cypriots are tired of the whole terrorist situation, but the House will appreciate that they live in an atmosphere of fear. Until we can make further progress in attacking the evil at its root, we shall not command their co-operation.
Many suggestions—some very helpful —have been put to me and to my right hon. and learned Friend, and have been passed on to the Governor. We must, however, bear in mind that, while we are obliged to take security measures such as the dismissal of Cypriots employed

389
in military installations and camps, we have no desire to resort to punitive retaliatory measures against the population as a whole, although such measures may be justified in special cases.
I must now say a word about the British civilians. I would like to pay tribute to their courage. It is what we have learned to expect, and it is reinforced by the enthusiastic readiness of people in this country to volunteer for work in Cyprus. This must have impressed the House.
Some criticism has been made as to the recent decision of the Governor to arm civilians. Here, I am content to rest upon, and support, the Governor's judgment. The legal position has, of course, been fully safeguarded.
To sum up, I think that the House arid the country can have full confidence in the men on the spot, and that we can best help them by giving them our full moral and practical support.
There are thus two aspects of our Cyprus policy today. We are going forward, on the one hand, with a constructive policy for political progress in Cyprus, and we shall proceed quietly and unprovocatively with the arrangements contemplated under that policy. We shall also continue the search for a policy agreed by all parties concerned, inside and outside the island. But, on the other hand, we shall not be deterred by violence or the threat of violence, and we shall impose whatever measures are necessary to maintain security and good order and to prevent further loss of life. There is no contradiction between these two aspects of our policy.
Peace and security are the only sure foundations for political progress. We shall combat terrorism with all possible vigour; at the same time, we shall continue our efforts to reach a political agreement. It would be a great help to us in this double task if the Greek Government and the Greek Cypriot leaders would dissociate themselves from the campaign of horror and violence in the island.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, that however much from time to time we may have differed from the Government in their
390
handling of this situation, and in the proposals that they put forward, all of us deeply deplore the cowardly and brutal murders committed recently, particularly against civilians, in Cyprus by the terrorists. Let there be no misunderstanding in Cyprus that Her Majesty's Opposition also give full support to the British security forces in the difficult, dangerous and distasteful task which they have to carry out.
May I add, however, that we do not believe that a solution to this problem can ever be found simply on the basis of repression. I therefore prefer to address my questions—and they will not be many —to the Prime Minister on the possibilities of further progress towards an agreed solution.
The Prime Minister said that he did not wish to go over the grounds of disagreement with the Greek Government which led to their withdrawal from the proposed N.A.T.O. conference. Nevertheless, since we are all anxious that there should be such a conference, I think that it is relevant to follow up one or two points which are still not clear. I should like to ask the Prime Minister three questions.
First, did M. Spaak propose, during the negotiations, that for the time being the implementing of the British plan in Cyprus should be suspended? If so, did Her Majesty's Government oppose this suggestion and, if so, why? Was it so essential that we should proceed at once with this plan, which is obviously extremely difficult to implement in the present situation in Cyprus?
Secondly, was not one of the reasons why the Greek Government withdrew from the proposed conference their desire that not only the United States and one other N.A.T.O. country—I believe Norway—should be present at the conference, but also Italy and France? If so, what was the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to that particular proposal? Was there any objection to the other two Mediterranean Powers being represented there?
Thirdly, did the Greek Government propose that both Enosis and partition should be discarded, should be put on one side? Did Her Majesty's Government accept this proposal and, if they refused it, why?
The Prime Minister: I will try to answer those three questions. The first was raised yesterday.
In the first place, the history of recent years has shown that there are moments when, after all the process of negotiation, and so forth, action of some kind becomes necessary. I therefore felt that the time had arrived when, after the various negotiations had already taken place and we had introduced amendments to the plan as a result of those negotiations, there was no alternative but to proceed.
But I must add—and this is the point of importance to the future as well as to the past—that the decision to do so had no effect upon the possibility of a conference, for there was, in fact, agreement on the substance of what was to be discussed at the conference and, to all intents and purposes, upon the membership and procedure.
It is clear, therefore, that it was not the refusal to postpone the plan which broke down the conference; otherwise, we would not have got so far towards it. It was not until three weeks later that the final breakdown, or, I hope, only temporary breakdown, took place. I think, therefore, that that is of importance in considering the story in its proper relation.
With regard to composition, all sorts of points were raised by all kinds of people, by different countries, at N.A.T.O. Some thought that nobody else ought to attend. Some thought that there should be three and some thought that there should be five. We thought that we had reached a compromise on the United States and Norway being asked to come as observers. The question of composition was not—and I think that the Greek Government would say so, too—the real reason why it broke down. That question could easily have been settled.
We had also made another step which, I think, was not without some generosity. I think that it was right. We proposed that we should convene the conference as the sovereign Power. We were prepared to have the conference at any place that might have been thought most convenient. We had already got down to practical discussions with all concerned about the place, and we also proposed that after the preliminary
392
session the British representative should ask Mr. Spaak to take the chair and carry on the work of the conference. From the point of view of procedure and the Power primarily concerned, that was not an ungenerous act.
I come now to the last question was it proposed by the Greek Government that questions of Enosis and partition should be washed out? Of course, they are out of that part of the agenda of the conference altogether which has to do with the present British policy and with possible amendment to it, but the Greek Government were equally anxious, as were the Turkish Government, and, perhaps, ourselves, that no kind of final solution should be ruled out of order for discussion.
Indeed, it was agreed that one of the items of the agenda should be a discussion of the final solution, and that was for two purposes. First, one must always hope for a miracle, that it might be possible that a final solution against all our expectations would emerge, but, much more important, as I have explained, that there should be full discussion of all possible solutions to ensure that what was proposed for the interim period should not be altogether contrary to, or make impossible, any final solution.
Mr. Bevan: Why did not the Prime Minister state in the White Paper which was issued the other day that Mr. Spaak had suggested the postponement of the application of the British plan? Why has the right hon. Gentleman omitted that? The White Paper says that M. Spaak also proposed that an early conference should be held between the three Governments, with the participation of representatives of the two major Cypriot communities. Why has a reference been made to one sugggestion of M. Spaak and the other omitted?
The Prime Minister rose—
Mr. Bevan: I have not yet finished.
The Prime Minister: The answer is very simple. This suggestion of M. Spaak was never formally placed before the conference. The White Paper contains the formal document finally put forward by M. Spaak.
Mr. Bevan: Is it not obvious that in the psychology then existing one of the

393
chief obstacles to Greek participation was, in fact, the intention of the British Government to proceed with implementation of the plan, which had aroused such opposition in Greece?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I could well imagine that that was very much in their minds, but I do not think that it can have been an important factor, because if that had been the case they would not have continued for another three weeks discussing the conference and practically reaching agreement upon the substance of the discussion rather than still be discussing the question of composition.
Mr. Bevan: I have not quite finished asking my questions. We wish to be clear on this matter, because some confusion still exists. In demanding that a final solution should not be excluded from the conference, do we understand the Prime Minister to mean that the Greeks still wish Enosis to be one of the solutions considered and the Turks partition?
The Prime Minister: Our original idea of the conference was to discuss the interim plan and that is what I hoped it would first be. We did what we could, through our representatives in N.A.T.O., to get that. It was the Greek Government who, I think properly, said that they could not come to a conference so limited; there must be general discussion of a final solution so that they could put forward their view. We then accepted that and the Turkish Government accepted it.
If one accepts as an item for the agenda a discussion of a final solution, I do not think that it is possible to get all the members of the conference to rule out all except the particular final solution which they happen for the moment to have chosen.
Mr. Clement Davies: May I, first, associate myself and my colleagues with all that has been said today about the horror with which we all view the murders and atrocities that are taking place in Cyprus, and, secondly, the fact that we all have complete confidence in Her Majesty's forces.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. As it is the desire of everyone to arrive at a peaceful settlement, and
394
the Government's proposals have now been before all parties for over three months and no progress has been made towards arriving at a final solution, would not the Prime Minister consider withdrawing his proposals altogether and attending a conference with a completely clean sheet, either with all the bodies that matter or with the assistance of N.A.T.O., so that they come there without anything whatsoever having been decided upon and with nothing in the minds of anybody but the desire to get even a provisional solution?
The Prime Minister: First, I should like to express my appreciation of the words with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman prefaced his question. I hope he will allow me to add that we have complete confidence not only in the troops, but in the Governor and the civil departments, in whom, I feel, we have equal confidence.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion is that we should call a conference without an agenda; that is what it comes to. That, of course, we did in the summer of 1956. What we have obtained—after all, it is not something to be lightly given up—is an agreement that the conference will discuss a certain number of documents which have been circulated and agreed. That is a great advance. It means that we have agreed item I of the agenda—that is, various documents regarding the interim plan. We and the Turkish Government have agreed that amendments can be proposed and made, so we are getting very near to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants. We can agree to put forward different interim plans and all that can be discussed on item I.
We have agreed that a final solution is also to be discussed, for two purposes: either with the hope—as I have said, perhaps a rather extravagant hope—that it might suddenly emerge or, more particularly, to ensure that any temporary solution should not conflict with any possible final solution. Having obtained all that advance, I would be very much averse to sweeping all that away and starting again, because we would lose the really great benefit—do not let us underestimate it—of the work of M. Spaak, to whom I pay tribute.

395
We have got a great deal of progress and I am not without hope that after the United Nations discussion and at a later date, as things move, we shall be able to revive the idea of a conference without abandoning all the tremendous effort that M. Spaak and his colleagues have put in and the substantial progress which they have made.
Mr. Speir: So that there should not be any misunderstanding, and while agreeing with the Leader of the Opposition that it is unlikely that a final solution will he found by methods of suppression and repression, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would be a fair summary of the Government's policy to say that while seeking a long-term political solution they will from now on do their utmost to restore law and order? May I ask for an assurance that where an attitude of "business as usual" conflicts with the restoration of law and order, priority will be given to law and order?
The Prime Minister: If there were a conflict—which I do not agree there is—that, of course, is the first task of government. I would, however, like to insist, what, I believe, the Governor, the people there and the troops themselves feel, that there must be a double purpose. We must be seeking all the time a political solution and we must, at the same time, do our duty to restore law and order. It is the sense of purpose, the sense of having something to work for, which helps those who are under this great strain to carry on their task.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask a question about the position of British civilians in the island, first, about those civilians who have agreed to be provided with arms and, I understand, have been formed into a special constabulary? In the event of casualties being suffered by any of those persons, does any question of compensation arise?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as in the military interest to retain wives and families in Cyprus? Would it not be better to relieve the anxieties, at least to some extent, of the forces by permitting those wives, with their children, to return home if they so desire?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Both are
396
important points and I am glad of the opportunity to clear them up. The legal position of the armed civilians is a matter of Cyprus law and will have to be regulated by ordinances made by the Governor. The authorities will take the necessary precautions and make the necessary arrangements. I do not think that the question of compensation would differ from the present situation, but I would be grateful of an opportunity to look further into that.
With regard to the Service families, we have again made it known that any family that wishes to go home can do so at public expense. At present, I am informed, only one family has expressed a wish to do so. There is also the question whether further families should be allowed to go out. The right hon. Gentleman knows the normal rules about the period of service entitling families to go, and those rules are applied.
For the present, we have decided temporarily not to send out any more families. I am, however, bound to say that I do not believe that we shall long be able to resist the absolute, almost universal, view in the island of the troops themselves of wanting to have their families out there and the wish of their families to go, and of the view that that would increase rather than diminish the morale of the troops.
Mr. Shinwell: It is extremely important to have these points elucidated. Would the Prime Minister say that it is safe to retain the families in Cyprus taking into account the military interest? Does he regard it as safe?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir, nothing is absolutely safe; and they know the risk. I was asked whether I would allow them to come home. I say once again that we have repeatedly made it well known to all that those who wish to come home can do so at the public expense. I am not really surprised, because British people are very family-minded, that the response has been that only one family, and that for a rather special reason, has so far wished to do so. That offer, however, is before them. We have checked further families going out for the time being, but I do not believe that we shall be able to resist the pressure for very long.
Major Legge-Bourke: In warmly welcoming the statement made today by my right hon Friend and, in particular, his linking of the restoration of law and order with the long-term political solution, may I ask whether he would not agree that if we are to restore law and order it is essential that Her Majesty's forces who are carrying out the work must know that policy is not to be changed again?
Would he not agree that one of the most disconcerting things of all for troops conducting that kind of action, especially in the sort of circumstances in which our troops are at the moment, is uncertainty as to whether or not they will be allowed to go through with the job which they have to do? Will he give an assurance that our troops will be allowed to finish the job properly?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, although, as I said before, when the Governor discussed these plans with us, when we launched them, I am sure that he and his military advisers felt that if we could have a policy which we ourselves thought to be fair, being willing to discuss every possible way of amending it and contriving it so that it would be fair, and if we could stick to that and work for that, with any change being subject to a general agreement such as we might get out of a conference, we would then get what is the basis of all morale, that the troops would not only be allowed to do their duty but would know what it was they were being asked to work for.
Mrs. L. Jeger: Is not the heart of the matter the urgent need to come to terms with the people of Cyprus themselves, and is not the difficulty that the majority of them believe that the Government's interim plan is a direct step towards partition? Would the right hon. Gentleman not help by making a statement on this point? Would he consider using the good offices of the United Nations, on the occasion of the United Nations debate, to make a fresh start in allaying those fears?
The Prime Minister: Of course, we shall use the United Nations debate to do all we can to explain this and get general understanding of it. In regard to the views of the people of the island, I feel, for reasons which it is not necessary now to go into, that they have not yet begun to realise—they have not been allowed
398
to realise—the really substantial advantages which the plan offers in the way of self-government for the Greek Cypriot people. We offer them full government of their own purely Greek affairs and a permanent majority—for that is what it comes to—on the Governor's Council responsible for all-island affairs.
Mr. M. Lindsay: Last week a young officer was killed in an ambush in Cyprus, and there was no reference whatever to this in the British Press, which was particularly surprising since he happened to be the son of a British general. Would my right hon. Friend have this incident inquired into, and ensure that there is no mistaken policy on the part of the military authorities in Cyprus to conceal such incidents, tragic though they are?
The Prime Minister: I will, of course, look into the incident, but there is really no censorship of that kind, as my hon. Friend suggests. I think that we have only to read the newspapers to realise how freely the news comes out.
Mr. Wigg: The Prime Minister told the House that the Governor would have all the forces that he required. Would he be good enough to square that statement with the fact that on 19th June the Minister of Defence announced that the 1st Guards Brigade was being sent to Cyprus for the purpose of carrying out town security duties, and that it was specifically stated in The Times that it had been sent there for an internal security role. Why is it that it has now been withdrawn, plus the fact that the 19th Brigade has also been withdrawn?
The Prime Minister: This is a matter on which the Governor from time to time takes advice from his own military authorities and the present Director of Operations was, of course, consulted before the Guards Brigade was sent home. He is at the moment satisfied with the number of troops under his command.
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister.
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. I have already written to you, Mr. Speaker, making a formal request that, in the possible event of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) not proceeding with his subject for the Adjournment debate tonight, I might have your permission to do so.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is to pursue another topic tonight, so, as he was successful in the Ballot, I shall give him the preference.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

  Rented Homes Campaign Pamphlet (Distribution)
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on an allegation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) in the debate on 5th November.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that facilities of Government Departments had been made available to assist the circulation of a pamphlet entitled, "A Nation of Council Tenantry", which was recently issued by a private organisation called the Rented Homes Campaign. I immediately asked Sir Norman Brook, as Head of the Civil Service, to hold an inquiry into the matter. I received his report yesterday. For the convenience of the House, I have arranged for it to be presented as a White Paper. Copies will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.
  The facts established by the report can be briefly summarised. Some time in the summer Mr. Harold Symon, a former civil servant who served as an Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, asked an officer in the Press section of his old Department whether he could be supplied with the mailing list used by that section for sending out official material to journals, institutions and individuals interested in housing questions. He told this official that he was revising his own mailing list which he kept for the general purposes of the Association of Land and Property Owners, of which he was the chief executive. On that basis the information was supplied to him.
  For technical reasons explained in the report the material was partly in the form of a duplicated list and partly in the form of a set of pre-addressed economy labels. Subsequently, Mr. Symon allowed this material to be made available to the organisers of the Rented Homes Campaign, of whose council he was a member, for the purpose of compiling a list
  400
  of addresses to which copies of this pamphlet could be sent in connection with a Press conference held on 18th September.
  When the time came for the pamphlets to be issued one of the employees of the Rented Homes Campaign, in order to save time, thought that there would be no harm in addressing some of the envelopes containing the pamphlet by sticking on labels taken from this set after first cutting off the top portion containing the words "On Her Majesty's Service". The total number of envelopes addressed in this way did not exceed 100, and this number certainly included the two to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention in the debate on 5th November.
  Perhaps I should add, in view of statements in the Press, that the total number of copies of this pamphlet bought by Government Departments was seven, and none of these has been sent outside. I should also add that the present Ministry of Health is not concerned in any way in this affair.
  The facts set out in the report show that no one in the public service made any official facilities available with the conscious purpose of assisting the distribution of this pamphlet. The officer in the Press section of the Ministry of Housing acted unwisely in acceding to Mr. Symon's request without reference to higher authority; and he has been formally reprimanded. Mr. Symon's conduct is also open to criticism, for he was less than frank in failing to disclose the special addition to the purpose for which he wished to obtain this information. Moreover, as a former civil servant, he might have been expected to be more scrupulous about the use to which these labels were put after they came into his possession.
  This inquiry has brought to light the fact that no general guidance has ever been issued to Departments on the extent to which information contained in mailing lists compiled for official purposes can properly be made available to outside bodies and that no uniform practice existed. I hope to arrange for a circular to be sent out to all Departments on this matter both as to the principles and as to the procedure to be followed.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister's statement shows that my right hon. Friend

  401
  the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) was abundantly justified in bringing this matter to the attention of the House and the Government. Indeed, the Government should be most grateful to him for disclosing what is evidently a weakness hitherto not discovered in the arrangements in the Civil Service, because although it may be true that no civil servant consciously assisted this organisation it is evident from the Prime Minister's statement that the officer concerned did supply a mailing list to Mr. Symon for the benefit of the Association of Land and Property Owners. It seems to me doubtful whether that was at all proper.
  I am glad that we have had this inquiry. We shall study the White Paper with care and attention. I will put only two questions to the Prime Minister at this stage. Will he please be extremely careful, in the circular it is proposed to send out to Departments on this matter, to ensure that only in exceptional circumstances should official mailing lists be available to outside bodies? Secondly, is it not desirable that a clearer understanding should be reached about ex-civil servants and the facilities that may be made available to them in their old Department?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that it will be a little time before these instructions are sent, because the matter is not quite as simple as might appear at first sight. Departments, and I think that it is generally quite a good thing, do give a great deal of help to a large number of organisations in this and in other ways and I do not want, simply because of this incident, to destroy all these facilities. For instance, the Ministry of Labour supplies the T.U.C. with very detailed information about wages councils.
  In the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which I know very well, we used to do this. A lot of help is given to an organisation called the Town Planning Institute, and I think that in the Home Office and other Departments there is a general agreement to give help, including mailing lists, to a variety of organisations. Therefore, I do not want to make a sweeping decision that it is never to be done. What we have to do is to define categories which are ruled out altogether, and procedure by which an
  402
  officer in any doubt should seek the head of his Department or the Minister for a ruling. We might do quite a lot of unnecessary harm if we make too sweeping a decision.
  It is, of course, a fact that what civil servants may or may not do after retirement is a present laid down in an Order of, I think, 1937, which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) probably knows, is chiefly designed to control the acceptance of employment with an outside undertaking which has contractual relationship with the Government. That was the main purpose of that Order which arose at that time. I will certainly ask the authorities to advise me whether amendment of these rules, regulating acceptance of outside appointment after retirement, is required.
  Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask, first, that the Prime Minister will see that this 1937 circular is looked at with a view to revision and being brought up to date? As to the mailing list, I think that the proposed circular should be made available to hon. Members either through the OFFICIAL REPORT Or by being placed in the Library, so that we may know exactly what the position is.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I will try to put new instructions when they have been worked out, but I must ask for a little time because I have been told that this is quite a tricky thing. They will either be published in HANSARD or be placed in the Library. I would also point out the rather special position of the Stationery Office, which supplies a great deal of this information to trade bodies and others on payment and which, again, ought probably to be protected.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that there is not to be any resignation over this affair? Do we understand that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has Ministerial responsibility which cannot be pinned on the Civil Service or even on a former civil servant, is to stay? Besides, would it not be a popular proceeding on the other side of the House if some Ministers were dismissed, in view of the number of candidates available?
  The Prime Minister: I should like, if I may, to pay a tribute to this junior officer, whom I recall very well as an

  403
  efficient and hard-working Press officer. He has received a formal reprimand because the administrative head of the Department thought it right, but it was an indiscretion and I very much hope, and I think that the House will hope, that it will not stand in his way in the future. It was a mistake that was made and the House will realise the circumstances in which a junior officer might well make one.
  As to the Minister, although he is responsible for his Department, there is no question of his having to resign because a small thing goes wrong in it. His responsibility is to put it right, and it will be put right. Had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick or the Daily Herald raised the matter with the Minister in the first place, then inquiry would have been immediately held internally and the matter could have been put right. I do not know why they refused to send it to the Department when they were asked to do so. I can hazard a guess, but perhaps I had better keep it to myself.
  Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman compare this case with the case of Crichel Down, where another civil servant was accused of having done something not nearly as improper as this and the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) had the courage to resign?
  The Prime Minister: There is really no analogy between the two cases. This is a case of a very junior officer, rung up by a man whom he had known and respected as his superior in the past, committing an indiscretion. The other was a case of very high officers on a matter of large public policy.
  Mr. Mitchison: In view of these admitted improprieties, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions? First, does not the junior Press officer seem to have been a person who had in his possession or control a document or information which he had obtained owing to his position as a person who held office under Her Majesty, and did he not communicate that document or information to someone to whom he was not authorised to communicate it and
  404
  to someone to whom it was not in the interest of the State his duty to communicate it?
  Secondly, did not Mr. Symon receive that document or information knowing that it was communicated to him in contravention of the Official Secrets Act and being unable to prove that the communication was contrary to his desire—because he asked for the document or information in question? In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of one or two prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act and let the House know the result of his consideration?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, I take note of the questions which have been asked me, but I must point out that the hon. and learned Member talks as if this information was like the design of a weapon, or a great secret. It is only a list of newspapers, journals and of other people such as are compiled in publishing offices and newspaper offices throughout the country. What he did, though it was quite wrong, he did to save himself the trouble of making it up himself.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: May we please have the envelopes back?
  The Prime Minister: I will consider that, but in view of the very serious attitude taken by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), perhaps they will have to be exhibited.
  Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the Government's view that the law should be administered as it is, in the terms of it, and not according to some other considerations which are dealt with in quite separate parts of that particular Act?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making rather heavy weather of this. I, for my part, regret the indiscretion of this officer, but I would be very sorry if this were a permanent bar to his work and life in the Civil Service.
  Mr. Pitman: I hope that the Prime Minister will bear in mind, in this difficult question of Mr. Symon turning gamekeeper into poacher, that there are two aspects of this matter. There is not only the question of the compatibility of the appointment, but there is also the ability

  405
  of the person concerned to take an objective, public-spirited attitude, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will know in his change after the war from the control of the film industry in one direction to the other side, that of the industry. No one would suggest that there was anything wrong, because in his case the spirit of public service was operating.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Prime Minister tell us the terms of the stern official reprimand, whether it was administered by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and whether there was a special vote of confidence in Lord Poole over it?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman should know, it is not the duty of a Minister in charge of a Department to issue a reprimand to a civil servant. That is the duty of the official head of the Department.
  Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of order. Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to ask whether you will receive envelopes that have been sent out with Conservative Party propaganda in them, and with a Ministry of Education stamp on them, which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) possesses at this moment and which are concrete evidence that the Ministry of Education also is involved? Could we have these envelopes exhibited in the House?
  Mr. Speaker: That is an entirely new matter.
  Mr. Peart rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order, order. This seems to me to be raising an entirely new matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order.
  Mr. Peart rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no Question before the House. I allowed the statement to be made by the Prime Minister, and supplementary questions relevant to it. Now the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has raised an entirely different question. That must take its course at the proper time. This is not the time for it. There is other business before the House.
  Mr. Peart: On a point of order, Sir. I was prepared to ask a question relevant
  406
  to the Prime Minister's statement, in view of the fact that it was reported to Sir Norman Brook that I have in my possession such a document as was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), a Tory Central Office Press release notice being sent out in an official Ministry of Education envelope. I would have thought that would be something which would make the Prime Minister treat this matter seriously.
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, since this matter has, through the machinery of a point of order, been given this additional publicity, perhaps I might be allowed to be in order in dealing with it. This allegation is made—
  Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you are now allowing the Prime Minister to give a reply following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), do I assume that we shall have another round of questions on this matter? Some of us have been rising in our places. Naturally, we bow to your decision, but are we starting all over again and, if so, shall we have an opportunity of saying a word on this point?
  Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I must deal with the first point of order. This new matter was introduced by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) under the guise of a point of order—
  Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to allow me to deal with one point of order at a time.
  The hon. Member for Leek rose to a point of order and, of course, I had to listen to what he had to say because I thought that it might have been a point of order. Another allegation was made under the guise of that point of order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) confirmed that allegation, also on a point of order. Whatever may be the exact order of the matter, justice demands, if there is information on the other side. that it should be given.
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of procedure, Sir. In view of the fact that apparently the Prime Minister is now to be allowed to make a statement at leisure on an allegation made, ought not the allegation itself to be made at similar leisure?
  The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to do what the House as a whole thinks best. I thought it hard that an allegation should be made in this way and no reply made to it. If, however, it would meet your views, and allow the House to get on with its business, if the hon. Gentleman likes to put a Private Notice Question to me tomorrow I shall be happy to do my best to answer it.
  Mr. Peart: I shall be pleased to do That, Mr. Speaker. I was only hoping that I could have caught your eye earlier to ask my question.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to be fair to both sides in this matter.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS
  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Bill to amend the law with respect to the determination of questions requiring decision for the purposes of the Family Allowances Act, 1945, or the National Insurance Acts, 1946, and in connection therewith to modify the provision made by the said Act of 1945 as to the commencement and termination of allowances thereunder; and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Denzil Freeth; supported by Mrs. Hill, Sir Keith Joseph, Miss Herbison, Mr. Finch, Mr. Mawby, Mr. Kershaw, Mr. Janner, Mr. Harold Gurden, Mr. Roy Mason, Mr. Marcus Lipton, and Mr. Body; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th November, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]
  LANDLORD AND TENANT (FURNITURE AND FITTINGS)
  Bill further to regulate the requiring of payments for furniture, fittings or other articles as a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of tenancies of dwellings, presented by Mr. Mawby; supported by Mr. Page, Mr. Harold Gurden, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Mr. Farey-Jones, Mr. Denzil Freeth, and 'Mr. Henry Price; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th December, and to be printed. '[Bill 14.]
  LEGITIMACY
  Bill to amend the Legitimacy Act, 1926, and to improve the law relating to children born out of wedlock in other respects, presented by Mr. Parker; supported by Sir Robert Cary, Mr. Isaacs, Miss Joan Vickers, Dr. Barnett Stross, Mr. William Shepherd, Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas, and Mr. Royle; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th January, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]
  BAKING INDUSTRY (SMALL ESTABLISHMENTS AND SEASONAL RESORTS)
  Bill to provide greater facilities for night baking in small establishments and seasonal resorts; and for that purpose to amend the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, 1954, presented by Mr. Goodhart; supported by Mr. Hornby, Mr. Nigel Nicolson, Mr. Mathew, Mr. Henry Price, Mr. Ridsdale, Mr. John Barter, Mr. Denzil Freeth, Mr. John Arbuthnot, and Mr. Holt; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th February, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend sections twenty-four and twenty-nine of the National Assistance Act, 1948, presented by Sir Gerald Wills; supported by Mr. Batsford, Colonel Glyn. Mr. Peyton, Sir Henry Studholme, and Mr. Geoffrey Wilson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 27th February and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
  BETTING REFORM
  Bill to extend the powers of the Racecourse Betting Control Board; to amend the law relating to totalisator and pool betting and betting at totalisator odds on horse races; and for related purposes, presented by Sir Eric Errington; supported by Mr. Ede, Mr. J. J. Astor, Mr. Shinwell, Captain Richard Stanley, Mr. George Wigg, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Mulley, Mr. Eric Johnson, Mr. Ernest Davies, Major Sir Roger Conant, and Mr. Aitken; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 13th March and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
  WILLS, &C. (PUBLICATION)
  Bill to restrict the publication of particulars as to the estate and as to the contents of the will or of any codicil or any testamentary disposition of any deceased person where such publication is contrary to the wishes of such person as expressed in such will, codicil or testamentary disposition; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Kimball; supported by Mr. Russell, Mr. Speir, Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Mellish, Mr. George Jeger, Mr. Pargiter, Mrs. Evelyn Emmet, Mr. Gough, Mr. Peyton, Mr. Nabarro, and Mr. Body; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th November and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (SUPPLEMENTATION)
  Bill to provide for the payment of allowances out of the Industrial Injuries Fund with a view to supplementing workmen's compensation and benefit, to amend the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Act, 1956, to increase benefits under the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act, 1951, and the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Act, 1)54, to amend the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Albert Roberts; supported by Mr. Probert, Mr. Harold Neal, Mr. Sylvester, Mr. David Griffiths, Mr. Roy Mason, Mr. Pentland. Mr. Bernard Taylor, Mr. Finch, Mr. Deer, Mr. Prentice, and Mr. Woof; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th December and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
  INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to increase the sum to which a surviving husband or wife is entitled by virtue of the Intestate Husband's Estate (Scotland) Acts, 1911 and 1919, and section five of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1940, presented by Mr. John Rankin; supported by Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Thomas Fraser, Miss Herbison. Mr. Douglas Johnston, Mr. M. K. MacMillan, Mr. Emrys Hughes, Mr. Willis, Mr. Leburn, Mr. Patrick Maitland, Mrs. Cullen, and Mr. Timmons; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th November, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend the law relating to the formation of additional courts of quarter sessions in boroughs, presented by Mr. Harold Gurden; supported by Mr. Body, Mr. Page, Mr. Lagden, Mr. Denzil Freeth, and Mr. Norman Pannell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th February, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  RACE DISCRIMINATION
  Bill to make illegal discrimination to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race and religion in the United Kingdom, presented by Mr. Brockway; supported by Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Baird, Mr. Leslie Hale, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Orbach, Miss Jennie Lee, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Janner, Sir Leslie Plummer, and Mr. Frank Allaun; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th February, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
  NATIONAL PARKS (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to make further provision concerning National Parks, to amend the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, to improve the administration of National Parks, to provide funds for this purpose from the National Land Fund; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Blenkinsop; supported by Mr. Ede, Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Wade. Willey, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Chetwynd, and Mr. Holt; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th January, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
  WAGES
  Bill to amend the law relating to the payment of wages, presented by Mr. Patrick Maitland; supported by Mr. Page, Mr. Gresham Cooke, Mr. Mawby, Mr. Eric Johnson, Mr. Ronald Bell, and Mr.Rees Davies: read the First time; to he read a Second time upon Friday, 27th February and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

  TELEVISION (COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENTS)
  Bill to amend the Television Act, 1954, by prohibiting the interruption of programmes by commercial advertisements, presented by Mr. Mayhew; supported by Mr. Ness Edwards, Mr. Ernest Davies,

  411
  Mr. George Darling, and Mr. Wedgwood Benn; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th March and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

  FURNISHED HOUSES (RENT CONTROL)
  Bill to make further provision with espect to the rent of houses or parts thereof let at a rent which includes payment for the use of furniture or for services; to provide for the registration of contracts to which the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, applies and for the inspection of premises to which such contracts relate; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th February and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT)
  Bill to provide for the amendment of the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1957, for the purpose of extending the payment of unemployment benefit out of the National Insurance Fund, presented by Mr. Finch; supported by Mr. Bernard Taylor, Miss Herbison, Mr. Prentice, Mr. Probert, Mr. McCann, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Deer, Mr. Albert Roberts, Mrs. Harriet Slater, Mr. Roy Mason. and Mr. J. Idwal Jones; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th December and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

  FATAL ACCIDENTS
  Bill to amend the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, by enlarging the class of persons for whose benefit an action may be brought thereunder, and to amend the Fatal Accidents (Damages) Act, 1908, presented by Mr. Robert Cooke; supported by Sir Lionel Heald, Mr. Deedes,
  412
  Mr. Holt, Mrs. Evelyn Emmet, Mr. John Hobson, Mr. MacDermot, Mr. Bingham, Mr. Martin Maddan, Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison, Mr. Body, and Mr. Elwyn Jones; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th December and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

  OFFICES REGULATION
  Bill to provide for securing the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in offices; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Redhead; supported by Mr. Victor Yates, Mr. Mulley, Mr. Harold Davies, Mr. Ferny-hough, Mr. Mellish, and Mr. Moyle; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th February and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
  EXCHANGE OF DWELLINGS
  Bill to amend the Rent Act, 1957, to provide that the landlord shall not unreasonably withhold his consent to an exchange of controlled dwellings, presented by Mr. A. J. Irvine; supported by Mr. Janner, Mr. Arthur Skeffington, Mr. J. B. Hynd, Mr. Weitzman, Mr. Mahon, Mr. Julius Silverman, and Mr. William Griffiths; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th January and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to make further provision as to compensation for any loss or damage occasioned to fishing nets or gear detained by sea fishery officers in Scotland, presented by Sir James Duncan; supported by Mr. Duthie, Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray, Mr. John McLeod, Mr. Hoy, Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley, and Mr. Michael Noble; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th November and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EMERGENCY LAWS (REPEAL) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.32 p.m.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  A few days before the outbreak of the Second World War—to be exact, on 24th August, 1939—the House of Commons passed the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act through all its stages in one day, and waited only 50 minutes to hear that it had passed all stages in the Lords and received Royal Assent. I am sure that none of the hon. Members present on that occasion could have thought that more than nineteen years later we should be considering a Bill whose subject matter stems directly from what was started on that day.
  The history of emergency legislation is a fascinating but complicated subject, but I do not propose to dwell on the past today. However, it is necessary for me to refer to what has come down to us if hon. Members are to follow more easily the construction of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Bill and what is contained in it.
  Under the original Act and Orders in Council a number of Defence Regulations were made which gave extremely wide powers to the Government. These regulations, in turn, enabled the Government to issue a very large number of Statutory Instruments, or Statutory Rules and Orders, as they were called in those days, covering almost every aspect of the life of the country.
  After the war the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act was replaced by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act of 1946. Subsequently, year by year numbers of Defence Regulations and Statutory Instruments have been revoked, but certain Defence Regulations still remain.
  Perhaps the most important of these are three Defence Regulations: No. 55 which gives general power to control industry for wide purposes; No. 55AA, which empowers the Government to
  414
  secure the necessary information for these purposes; and No. 55AB which gives power to impose price control of goods and services. The scope of these was limited in 1954, but wide powers to vary that scope still remain.
  Although some important powers are still exercised under these regulations, they represent a very small fraction of the sweeping powers which are still potentially available under the regulations. Perhaps the House would like a snapshot of the position as it exists today. Here, I should like to refer hon. Members to the White Paper, Cmnd. 563, which was issued at the same time as the Bill, as I shall be mentioning certain paragraph numbers to avoid making my speech too long.
  There are three main branches of emergency legislation, if I, as a layman, might so describe them. The first of these stems from the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, with amending Acts passed in 1947 and 1951. This branch now consists of the 11 Defence Regulations listed in paragraph 11 of the White Paper. and of Section 6 of the 1945 Act. Section 6 extended the powers of the Minister of Supply and is referred to in paragraph 14 of the White Paper. The second branch stems from the Emergency Laws Act, 1946—amended in 1947 —and now consists of the two Defence Regulations described in paragraph 12 of the White Paper. The third branch consists of three emergency laws passed at the beginning of the war, and listed in paragraph 16.
  These three emergency laws vary considerably in scope and importance. The Import, Export, and Customs Powers (Defence) Act provides the whole of the powers under which we exercise control over imports and exports for all purposes. The Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act makes it unlawful to transfer or mortgage any ship or to change its port of registry without the consent of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. The Government and other Stocks (Emergency Provisions) Act makes it permissible for certain stocks to be transferred by instrument in writing and extends the time limit for the payment of coupons.
  The Government has been reviewing these powers and has reached the following conclusions: first, most of the specific

  415
  powers must remain; secondly, the wide general powers which have not been required for many years can now be swept away; and, thirdly, those powers which are still required should be specifically re-enacted now, and given a strictly temporary life of five years. During this period the powers can be reviewed, and separate legislation submitted to Parliament, in respect of those which should have a permanent place on our Statute Book.
  Before I describe how the Bill achieves these objectives, I should like to remind the House how objectionable it would be for all of us to see emergency legislation, originally passed for wartime purposes, continuing indefinitely in peacetime. Not only does such legislation confer wide and unspecified powers on the Government, but Parliament itself cannot control at all adequately the specific powers which are actually taken under the general powers.
  The Bill is therefore an exercise in constitutional propriety. It helps to restore to hon. Members their proper degree of control over the Executive, which ought to be their right in peacetime. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that this is the correct course for us to pursue. No hon. Members will want the House to reconcile itself to the indefinite continuance of wide powers which are kept in reserve by the Government, even though they are not actually used.
  Of course, little use has been made of these wide powers for a long time, and this has taken the urgency out of the need to put the powers on a proper basis. Successive Conservative Governments have devoted their energies to reducing controls rather than to revising the powers under which they have been exercised. I said a few minutes ago that the Government had been reviewing the present powers. They are a mixed collection, and although some of them are extremely wide, the powers actually exercised at present are very limited.
  Here I should remind the House that all the existing powers, with one exception, will remain in force, by virtue of the Motions which were passed by the House last week, for a further twelve months, or until the present Bill becomes law. The powers which we propose to
  416
  retain permanently are listed in paragraphs 21 (b) and 22 of the White Paper. That list is a convenient summary of the various powers. I shall describe them in rather more detail when I discuss the Bill itself. In paragraphs 24 to 27 are described the proposed revisions to Section 6 of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, which dealt with the activities of the Minister of Supply. Our proposals for the three emergency laws are set out in paragraph 23 of the White Paper.
  Briefly, we intend to retain the Import, Export and Customs Powers Act unchanged. That is a very important Act. It provides power to control the import of goods into the United Kingdom and the export of goods from the United Kingdom, for whatever reason may be necessary. The replacement of such wide powers by permanent legislation would be a major undertaking.
  Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: I do not mean to be tiresome, and I interrupt only to save time in later debate. In this connection, a great many words are necessarily used in a technical sense with which my hon. Friend and some hon. Members opposite have become familiar in the course of their duties but which are not so familiar to the rest of us. It is the business of the House to make sure that it is possible to understand what is happening. For instance, can my hon. Friend tell us exactly what "control" means in the terms of paragraph 23 (a) of the White Paper?
  Mr. Erroll: I shall be referring to this matter a little later, but I should make it plain that we do not intend to change that Act and so there will be no reference to it in the Bill. Discussion on the control of import and exports would come within a debate on that Act.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: There is some ambiguity about this. I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 16 of the White Paper, which says:
  "… there are three Acts of Parliament which will be terminated individually when an Order in Council is made declaring at an end the state of emergency which led to the passing of that particular Act."
  Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that no Order in Council will be made declaring at an end the state of emergency which called these Acts into being?
  Mr. Erroll: No. All I am saying at the moment is that we intend to retain this Act unchanged. Therefore, at present it could be brought to an end only by the procedure mentioned in paragraph 16 of the White Paper, namely, by an Order in Council. I am speaking of the Import, Export and Customs Powers Act, because although we propose to retain it unchanged, it is one of the important parts of our emergency legislation, and no discussion of emergency legislation would be complete without some reference to it.
  As I was saying, the replacement of these powers by permanent legislation would be a major undertaking. For instance, it would involve definition of the various purposes for which import and export controls were at present exercised and which might be economic, strategic, or humanitarian. It would also involve a review of all the commodities at present subject to control. It might make it possible for me to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) if I point out that we are not proposing to make any change here, so it would not be appropriate for me at greater length to discuss the exact meaning of the word "control" in relation to this Act.
  I emphasise that in any case we shall have to review the present legislation when negotiations for a Free Trade Area have been completed in order to take account of the new situation which would then arise. It would obviously be premature to undertake new legislation on this subject until we know the outcome of those negotiations.
  We propose to retain permanently the provision in the Government and other Stocks (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, which enables transfers to be made by written instrument. This is a help to those dealing with certain stocks rather than a Government power. The other provision of that Act, which relates to the time limit on coupons, will be repealed. The third Act, the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1939, will be severely pruned, the powers being limited to purposes of defence. I will return to that Act when I am dealing with the Bill in detail.
  I expect that so far this has been heavy going for hon. Members. It certainly has been so for me, but I hope that what I have said so far will make an explanation of the Bill itself somewhat easier. The
  418
  Bill gives no new powers and restores no emergency Acts or Defence Regulations which have already been done away with, apart from two small and relatively trivial exceptions. The House need therefore have no fear that Amendments can be tacked on to the Bill in any way to restore the powers which Parliament has already done away with. Thus, for example, controls on building have been done away with and can be restored only by new legislation specifically for the purpose.
  Mr. Niall Macnermot: That was so before this Bill. It should be made clear that it was quite unnecessary to pass this Bill in order to make it necessary to come back to the House to bring in new legislation on building control.
  Mr. Erroll: I accept the hon. Member's point. Controls on building were maintained by Defence Regulation 56A, which was revoked in 1954, and there is no power to make a new Defence Regulation. I mention this only as one example of the type of thing which could not be written back into the Bill during a later stage of its passage through the House.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Presumably that will be a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Erroll: It would be a matter for the rules of order and certain other processes.
  Although I have given an example of a control which could not be restored, I would remind the House that, on the other hand, capital issues control, import control and foreign exchange control are maintained by other powers and are not affected by the Bill.
  I hope the House will agree that the simplest way of referring to the powers that we propose to retain will be to mention them in the order in which they appear in the Bill, because I can then describe the construction of the Bill and the powers that we retain in a logical sequence. The powers that we propose to retain are listed for convenience in paragraphs 21 to 23 and paragraph 27 of the White Paper.
  I now turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 repeals the substance of the Supplies and Services Acts, and the Emergency Laws Acts, together with the Orders in

  419
  Council made under them. That done, the Bill proceeds in Clause 2 (1) to specify the five substantive Defence Regulations which nevertheless must remain in force, together with the ancillary regulations referred to in Appendix A of the White Paper. But in subsection (2) the Bill imposes limitations on the powers which may be exercised under these regulations. These changes are all set out in the First Schedule.
  Subsection (3) specifies that the regulations shall accordingly have force in the amended form set out in the Second Schedule. This Schedule is really for convenience. In it are all the regulations in the form they will have if the Amendments in the First Schedule are approved by the House. Once the Bill is law, there will thus be no need for anyone to refer back to previous regulations or earlier legislation. The Second Schedule will be the new and limited body of regulations specifically passed by Parliament. It will be possible to make new Orders under the legislation so enshrined in the Second Schedule. Subsection (6) therefore specifies that such orders would be subject to negative Resolution. There is one exception to this, to which I will refer later.
  I might best describe Clause 3 as being the Ministry of Supply Clause. It continues temporarily in modified form, the powers of the Minister of Supply conferred on him by Section 6 of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945. The subsections of this important Clause enable the Minister to supply defence material to overseas Governments—the reference being subsection (2) paragraphs (a) and (b)—and allows him to dispose of the surpluses of any Government Department—paragraphs (c) and (d).
  Paragraph (e) permits the Minister to undertake civil work in the Royal Ordnance Factories. The Minister of Supply already has powers under the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, to seek and undertake such civil work as he may need to keep together labour and management that must be retained for defence purposes. In addition, the wide powers under Section 6 of the 1945 Act have enabled the Minister to make Royal Ordnance Factory capacity available to supplement a shortage of capacity in industry. The Bill continues this power, but subject to certain safeguards. These are, that the Minister must be asked to
  420
  undertake the work by a producer of the goods concerned; the work must be within the existing capacity of the factories, and the Minister must be satisfied that it is in the public interest for the work to be undertaken.
  Mr. Austen Albu: The hon. Gentleman says that the Minister must be asked by a producer, but is it not the case that a customer can ask?
  Mr. Erroll: The word I used was "producer".
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Could the Minister explain why it should be "producer" and not "customers"?
  Mr. Erroll: Because that is one of the conditions laid down.
  Mr. Jay: Why?
  Mr. Erroll: In order to supplement a shortage of capacity in industry. The people who are in the best position to know that there is a shortage of capacity are those engaged in a certain industry.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The customer knows that.
  Mr. Albu: Subparagraph (i) says:
  "or, as the case may be, a person…requiring such work …"
  Does that also mean a producer?
  Mr. Erroll: It means what the words say.
  Perhaps I may continue with the important part of paragraph (e). It also gives the Minister of Supply additional powers to undertake civil research. The research and experimental facilities that the Minister has to maintain for defence purposes may not always be fully employed on defence work. Some of these facilities are not matched elsewhere in this country, and it is obviously in the public interest that any temporary surplus of capacity should be used, wherever and whenever it is needed, for civil work that will benefit industry. The proposed new powers will enable this to be done.
  Although I said that this was a Ministry of Supply Clause, it also affects the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: Paragraph (e) defines what civil work the Minister of Supply may carry out. Is there any- thing there which would apply to price

  421
  control? Can he carry out work in competition with civilian producers, irrespective of the price that he charges and irrespective of the fact that the buyer may be able to buy much cheaper elsewhere?
  Mr. Erroll: The safeguard in this matter is that the Minister must be asked by the producer to undertake this work.
  The interest of the Board of Trade in Clause 3 arises because the operations of the Jute Control are also authorised under Section 6 of the 1945 Act, the power having been transferred from the Supply Ministry to the Board of Trade under the terms of the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946. The Bill leaves unchanged for a further five years the present statutory authority for this control. This is the only power which the Government propose to retain under emergency legislation to trade in commodities.
  In Clause 4 we turn to ships and aircraft, or rather only to ships, since the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restrictions) Act now applies only to ships. The reason for this is that the licensing of aircraft is now carried out by the Board of Trade and the power in this Act has been repealed. The Act is now to continue only until the end of 1964, and not as at present until such time as an Order in Council is made bringing it to an end. The effect of this Clause is to permit freely the transfer of ships to and from the British flag, unless there are overriding reasons of defence. This is an important change which, we believe, should be welcome to all shipowners.
  I should now like to interest the House in the First Schedule. Paragraph 1 limits Defence Regulation 55, that is, the regulation which gives general powers to control industry, to four specified topics. I will mention them in order and then refer to them in more detail one by one. They are strategic controls of overseas merchanting transactions and of the construction of ships; hire purchase; welfare food services including the school milk scheme; and the control of any commodity in the event of the interruption of supplies from overseas.
  The strategic controls supplement those which are exercised over exports from this country under the Import, Export and
  422
  Customs Powers (Defence) Act. They enable the Government to control sales by merchants resident in the United Kingdom of goods which do not touch this country at all. They also enable a shipbuilder to make sure, by obtaining a licence, that he will be able to export any ship which he builds to foreign order.
  As the House knows, the previous restrictions on hire purchase agreements were removed a fortnight ago because in the present climate of easier credit they had become unnecessary. The power to reintroduce them must, however, be retained in view of their importance as part of the machinery for the control of credit. The control over welfare foods is necessary so that they may be distributed to particular classes of beneficiary, either at subsidised prices or without charge. These foods comprise liquid milk, National Dried Milk, concentrated orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets.
  The fourth power is a precautionary one which the Government feel they must have. The House will realise how dependent we are in this country in respect of vital commodities of more than one kind on supplies from areas which have been afflicted by the international political instability which has prevailed since the war—[ Laughter.]—I took a lot of trouble over that one.
  Supplies might be interrupted without warning and some form of restriction might have to be exercised quickly. Nevertheless, because we have insisted on affirmative Resolution in this case, Parliamentary control in such a situation is ensured by the provision contained in Clause 2 (6, a) of the Bill that any order made in the exercise of this power must be approved by Resolution of each House.
  Mr. Donald Wade: It is not amendable?
  Mr. Erroll: No, it is not amendable.
  Paragraph 6 of the First Schedule deals with Defence Regulation 55AA, which empowers the Government to secure information. It specifies in paragraph (b) that information may be obtained only for those powers which will be exercisable under Defence Regulation 55 and Defence Regulation 55AB as limited by the Bill. Additionally, information will be obtainable from those

  423
  supplying medical supplies and services under the National Health Service Acts in order to enable fair prices and reasonable remuneration to be determined. These powers have not been used. Our aim has always been, and will remain, to proceed by negotiation. But the information is necessary to the administration of the service and the power to secure it must therefore be retained.
  Mr. Jay: May I ask what this means in plain English, because the hon. Gentleman has not really explained it. So far as concerns price control under Regulation 55AB, does this mean that the power of price control is now abolished in all cases other than that of milk and welfare foods specified in the previous order?
  Mr. Erroll: I am coming to Defence Regulation 55AB and I hope I shall be able to deal with that point.
  Defence Regulation 55AB, gives the Government power to control prices. I invite hon. Members to look at paragraph 9, because that paragraph of the Schedule restricts this power to welfare foods, medical supplies, liquid milk and any commodity which may have to be rationed because of an interruption of supplies from overseas. These will be the only powers of price control still remaining.
  Price control of welfare foods and of any rationed commodity is, of course, linked with the control and distribution exercised under Defence Regulation 55, and I have nothing to add to what I have said about that regulation. The two, naturally, must march together. It is necessary to keep in reserve the power to control the price of medical supplies although, as I have said, our aim is to proceed by negotiation.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: Will my hon. Friend say what the Government would do if some supplies were too expensive? What happens in that case?
  Mr. Erroll: As I have said, the control of the price of the items I have mentioned will be the only power of Government price control which will remain.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: But what would the Government do?
  Mr. Erroll: It is necessary, as I say, to keep in reserve the power to control
  424
  the price of medical supplies, although our aim is to proceed by negotiation.
  The need to control the price of liquid milk arises from the existing price guarantees. The Milk Marketing Boards are guaranteed a fixed return on a standard quantity of milk. Effective control is necessary to ensure that prices are fixed at levels which are fair both to the Exchequer and to the consumer.
  I have not yet referred to the remaining two of the five substantive Defence Regulations which we propose should remain in force. Defence (Finance) Regulation 2A enables the Treasury to control transactions between residents of the sterling area, and also transactions in gold and Treasury bills held in the United Kingdom for residents outside the United Kingdom. These powers are supplementary to those given by the Exchange Control Act, 1947. The Regulation is kept in force by Clause 2 (1,b) of the Bill.
  Lastly, there is Defence (Armed Forces) Regulation 6, which gives power to employ troops, if necessary, on agricultural or other urgent work of national importance. This regulation is kept in force by Clause 2 (1,d) of the Bill.
  I am sure that the House will not expect me in a Second Reading speech of a Bill covering so many diverse topics to argue the case in greater detail for each of the particular controls and powers retained. I have tried to outline the purpose behind the Bill, to explain its structure, and only to refer briefly to the individual powers which are being retained. When my right hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General has seen the course the debate takes, he will, in his winding up speech, explain the need for such powers as have been most referred to by hon. Members during the debate.
  Before I sit down, perhaps I may be allowed to quote from a speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in this House on 3rd September, 1939. His words are very apposite today.
  Mr. MacDermot: Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about the Import-Export Customs Powers Defence Act, 1939? A point on this was raised by his hon. Friend earlier.
  Mr. Erroll: I thought that I had gone straight on to deal with that point. I

  425
  turned round and indicated that what I had further said would, I hoped, be of assistance to him.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford said then:
  "In these last few days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of Bills which hand over to the executive our most dearly valued traditional liberties … we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day when our liberties and rights will be restored to us …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd September, 1939; Vol. 351, c. 296.]
  It is in this spirit that I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading today.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that this is the maiden speech of the Economic Secretary in his new capacity, or am I wrong?
  Mr. Erroll: I made a speech during an Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: His maiden major speech then, if that is not a mixture of metaphor which is rather dangerous and I should like to congratulate him, very much on the fact that he has achieved the almost impossible feat of making a non-controversial speech on a very controversial Bill. He achieved this by doggedly telling us what was in the Bill without venturing on any explanation of why it is in the Bill, or, indeed, of defending or explaining anything. By this means one can contrive to be non-controversial, and we are very grateful for the trouble he took to put the legalistic aspects of the Bill before us. I hope that his right hon. and learned Friend will not confine himself to telling us what the legal language in the Bill means but will tell us why some of the things are being done, because there are points which we shall raise. There are sharp differences between the two sides of the House on this Measure. Perhaps, to clarify these differences, I had better start by saying what I think is the element of common ground between us.
  We are in favour of all emergency powers being put into a statutory form, and we are also in favour of the exercise of any emergency power being brought in appropriate form before Parliament for discussion and consent. On these general principles we are in agreement.
  426
  It is not on that that we object to the Bill. We object to its motive, purpose, method and the results which will flow from it.
  Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman does not like it.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: No, we do not like it.
  As to the motives, the most advertised motive was, of course, that given by the Lord Privy Seal at the annual meeting of the Central Council of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations, when he said that it was the intention to prevent:
  "a Socialist state being brought in. as it were, by the flick of a switch".
  This is the most advertised motive. The right hon. Gentleman's metaphor irresistibly calls up a picture to me of a mischievous little boy sneaking off to the cupboard under the stairs to pull a fuse in order to throw the grown-ups in the front room into darkness. That is the picture he has painted of himself, forgetting, of course, that it is very easy to replace a fuse.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: Or to leave a couple alone in a room for a love affair.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I do not suppose that that was the right hon. Gentleman's motive, but it may have been.
  This argument of the right hon. Gentleman about a flick of the switch, of course, presupposes a Labour victory. There would be no point in doing this if he were not sure that the successor Government would be a different Government, and we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for revealing, in this way, the true state of mind of the leaders of the party opposite. This argument that it is right to try to tie and hamper a successor Government is typical of the arrogant Tory assumption that they have a divine right to rule, however the people of the country vote. They used to rely on the Lords to do this for them, so that they could go on with a great deal of control of things when in opposition. Their Lordships' wings have been somewhat clipped and now the Government are attempting to do this by using this method.
  Mr. Osborne: Who said, "We are the masters now"?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: When hon. Members opposite are in office they are the masters, but what the Conservatives are trying to do are to be the masters when they are defeated. Of course, the Government of the day are the masters. That is our proposition, but the Government, when they have been defeated, are no longer the masters.
  The Economic Secretary used one extraordinary phrase about the Bill. He said that it was an exercise in constitutional propriety. One thing which is fairly well agreed in all quarters who have been commenting on the Bill is its constitutional impropriety.
  The Times, in a leading article on the 29th October—and its criticism here is of some significance, because it favours the main purpose of the Bill—went on to say:
  "But to declare that they are doing this to prevent a Socialist Government, should they have been voted in, from carrying out their purpose is to give a bad reason. If a Socialist Government were returned to office, it would have been by the will of the people. And however wholeheartedly the British voter fights the party battle at Election time, he is experienced enough to know that the country has to be governed. He is not inclined to like Government moves designed purely for the purpose of making things more difficult for a possible successor. We have heard far too much about the ' flick of the switch ' which the Conservatives are going to make possible."
  This attempt to tie the hands of a successor Government is not only unconstitutional, but it will be ineffective. Parliamentary democracy is far too tough and flexible to be tied up and shackled in this way, and frustrated by these mean little demands of the Lord Privy Seal.
  The basic principle of our parliamentary democracy which distinguishes it from other types is that the will of the people is very quickly and smoothly translated into effect. This Bill as the Manchester Guardian pointed out is only a matchstick of a lance, but it will not work from the point of view of trying to stop us doing the things when we come in which the people have returned us to do.
  The main motive for the timing of the Bill, and largely the motive for the Bill at all, is, of course, due to the General Election. It is very hard to find anything these days which the Government do that is not due to short-run election calculations. If they had a really genuine desire to deal with all this emergency
  428
  legislation and to put it into constitutional form, it should have been done much earlier.
  There is no reason why what they are doing today should not have been done two, three or four years ago if they had had a genuine desire to do it. They have suddenly discovered that it is urgent to do it, because they think that it will help them in preparing their propaganda for the General Election. There is a good deal of window-dressing in this Bill and the White Paper and about the guidance which the Government are clearly giving to the Press. They have deliberately tried to give the impression that very much more radical changes have been made than are, in fact, in the Bill. The White Paper is peppered with phrases like
  "sweep away emergency legislation."
  The effort has been to paint the Conservative Party as a liberty-loving party which will take great risks for liberty and all the rest of it.
  First, as the hon. Gentleman said, exchange control is maintained intact, import-export control is maintained intact and hire purchase is maintained intact. Of the 13 substantive Defence Regulations with which the White Paper deals, 10 are to be either retained or replaced by other legislation. Only three are lapsing under the Bill, and the only really important one of those three is the Order which will get rid of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, which is a very bad decision on the part of the Government and about which I want to say something later. That is what the liberty about which the Government are talking amounts to.
  The Government are sweeping away the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. That is the purpose of the whole structure of this Bill and out of that they are trying to create the impression that they are a great liberty-loving Government. Some of the powers which they have retained are most extraordinary. Why do we have to retain by Defence Regulation the power to allow the presumed 1 lb. loaf to contain only 14 oz. thirteen years after the end of the war? To have this legislation in order to allow such a fraud to be put over is a most extraordinary thing. I do not know how it squares—
  Mr. Charles Doughty: It is the result of the bread rationing introduced in the days of the Labour Government. Seven goes into 14 or 28, and it is necessary to have these divisions because the machinery for doing it was devised to conform with the bread rationing of that time.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Since that time we have had a long period of Conservative rule. I should have thought it proper to allow the 14 oz. loaf to be called a 14 oz. loaf. The effect of the Order is to pass it off as a 1 lb. loaf. That is why the Government are retaining the power thirteen years after the war. It is something which, had we been in power, we should have swept away long ago.
  The purpose of over-painting the liberalising effect of the Tory Party is to try to paint the Labour Party as one which wants restrictions and controls, which wants to push people about and wants to impose restrictions on personal liberty. This aspect of the Bill, as the Manchester Guardian pointed out, is reminiscent of the Gestapo speeches of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—this is not my comparison; it comes from the Manchester Guardian—which helped us so much in 1945. Of course, the attempt of the present Bill to do the same thing will have the same boomerang effect.
  Although we must dismiss the attempt to pass the Bill off as a great charter of liberty, it is, none the less, for doctrinaire party reasons, a Measure that will do a great deal of damage to the interests of the nation. One can illustrate this by a great many provisions of the Bill, and I do not doubt that my hon. Friends will take up a good many of these. Indeed, we shall have to take them up very much more closely during the Committee stage.
  I want only to deal with two of the provisions before I come to the main cleavage betwen us on principle. The first is the apparent removal of the power of the Government to conclude any bulk purchase or long-term agreement with a Commonwealth country. As I understand, this power will cease to exist when the Bill becomes law. Any Government of the future will be denied the power to conclude such agreements. The fact that the Government are deliberately
  430
  taking away this power from themselves and from their successors illustrates the great gap that exists between the words and the deeds of hon. Members opposite about Commonwealth development.
  The other point is the ending of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. That can be attacked from many points, and I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends who know much more about it than I do will attack it from many points. As I understand, there will be a later occasion on which we can debate the matter, because an Order will be necessary.
  The Minister of Labour has flouted the long-established principle of his office in this connection. The right hon. Gentleman has a duty to both sides to show impartiality and to bring both sides together in any disagreement. All this he has violated. The Trades Union Congress has publicly complained that there was not full consultation of the sort which it expected and which it was used to. For eight months there was not a word from the Minister about this, and then, suddenly, there is an announcement that he has decided the matter on the side of the employers.
  As regards the merits of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, it seems to be beyond doubt that it has been an extremely valuable supplement to the normal methods of collective bargaining. It has done a great deal to enhance respect for constitutional methods and procedures. There have been very few references to the Tribunal. [Interruption.] Most of these problems, as no doubt the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) knows, are settled by free collective bargaining. This is a supplement, though a very important supplement. It has not led to wild demands, as shown by the actual decisions and awards given by the Tribunal. The compulsory arbitration is specially valuable to various kinds of trade unions. The National Union—
  Mr. C. Pannell: In reply to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), is it not worth while stating, too, that no decisions of this Tribunal have given rise to actual industrial disputes, or have been ignored or turned down by the trade unions concerned?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is very important. They have helped to avoid the danger of disputes on a number of occasions.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, because I do not think that my remarks were heard upstairs? What I sought to say was that the existence of a compulsory arbitration tribunal award is a direct invitation to the organisers of a wage claim to put in a more or less irresponsible claim knowing that about half of it will be granted under the compulsory arbitration award.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It would have been better, I think, if the noble Lord's words had not been heard upstairs. To attack a responsible Tribunal in this way without any evidence is really a highly irresponsible thing to do. The noble Lord reflected gravely on the Tribunal, and on the people who take issues before it. None the less, there is no doubt that for some unions this method is of particular value and that its withdrawal, if it is withdrawn, will affect them very gravely.
  There is the National Union of Public Employees and there is also the National Association of Local Government Officers, which has made very powerful cases for its retention. The benefits of the Tribunal have also been recognised by the local authorities who have made it clear to the Minister of Labour that they would like to see compulsory arbitration continued in the field of local government.
  This Order has given some help to unions like the National Union of Bank Employees, who very often still have to meet behaviour and attitudes on the part of their employers that disappeared over the greater part of industry years ago. The Order has enabled the union, in some cases and to some degree, to get recognition when it has organised a substantial number of employees.
  The most important aspect of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal's work has, of course, been the issues procedure by which recalcitrant minority employers can be brought into line with national agreements arrived at. The Trades Union Congress attaches immense importance to the maintenance of the issues procedure.
  432
  The Minister has indicated his intention apparently to go on talking, but he has not given any hint of a change of mind. It is clear that there will not be time to introduce a new Bill on the Industrial Disputes Tribunal during this Session. Therefore, when this Order runs out, the Tribunal is bound to lapse and there will not be time to replace it with a Bill that could take its place. This makes it look as if the Minister is just trying to talk out time.
  The Times, on 10th November, gave a very significant report in its own words, when it said:
  "The Trades Union Congress are suspicious of the Minister's motives in keeping the issues question open. They feel that to go on talking will enable the Government to avoid the odium of having abandoned the principle but can lead to no results."
  That such an attitude as that has been allowed to grow up is a very grave reflection on the way that the present Minister of Labour is conducting his duties. This is a grave example in an important field of how a Minister of Labour ought not to behave.
  The major issue is not, as Conservatives will try to make out, whether there should be controls or not. Great powers of control remain, such as exchange control, import and export control, and hire-purchase control. They are all physical controls. It is no good the Government saying that they do not believe in physical controls. They have kept power for physical controls and have, until recently, been using one of the most powerful physical controls, that on hire purchase. This fact destroys the main doctrinaire argument of the Government. If they keep these physical controls in hand, why should there not be others? They cannot maintain that it is wrong to have physical controls at their disposal. They are themselves keeping these physical controls in reserve.
  The true argument is not whether these powers should be in reserve, but whether it is right, as in this Bill, to abrogate the power to vary the Defence Regulations that remain. The Bill retains these five important Defence Regulations, but takes away the existing power to vary them by issuing a new Order under them. That is the real purpose and the whole paraphernalia of the Bill. It freezes the powers under these regulations in their present form.

  433
  This, in general principle, is very dangerous. It is impossible to foresee situations that may arise. The present Government introduced Suez petrol rationing and hire-purchase control under Defence Regulation 55. Those were classical examples of Government by a flick of the switch. At the flick of a switch there was hire-purchase control, and petrol rationing after Suez. If the Government had introduced this Bill two or three years ago, before Suez, and before there was need for hire-purchase control, they would not have included those powers, because the powers would have been frozen at their then existing level. The Government would have said, "These are the powers we are using and the only powers we shall need to use". Then, if they had produced their Suez petrol rationing and the need for hire-purchase control, they would not have been able to put them into force.
  The same situation can arise again. No Government can be so sure about what sort of power of this kind they may need if there is a sudden emergency, not only for external but for internal reasons. The need for hire-purchase control did not arise from external reasons, but from things that were happening primarily in this country. All Governments must have powers for dealing reasonably quickly with such situations, as the Government did with petrol rationing after Suez. They should be based on legislative and statutory foundations and there should be proper means of obtaining the consent of Parliament. To take those powers away altogether is dangerous in principle.
  We object to the Bill not because we want unlimited powers; we certainly do not want them. We think that these emergency powers should be embodied in legislation and limited to the purposes laid down in the legislation. On the other hand, the Bill is a deliberate attempt by the Government to hamper, as far as possible, the next Labour Government. We do not want powers to govern by decree—that does not worry us; those powers do not exist, in any case—or to impose restrictions on personal freedom or the private lives of people. What we want is a few key controls which are necessary to expand the economy with
  434
  stable prices and to develop the economy of the Commonwealth. We want that power, which is being taken away by the Bill.
  We want any powers that we might use to be subject to parliamentary discussion and consent, but we want powers that can be used quickly if they have to be used quickly. There certainly should be a reserve power to control certain prices, perhaps temporarily, to preserve price stability. There might be some temporary factors which affected price stability, and price control over a short period might well be able to preserve that price stability. That cannot be done under the terms of the Bill. We should have to go all the way up and down again, and it might need weeks or months. Every Government should have power, properly defined, for price control in those conditions.
  I see that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South is writing. He has probably written down, "If you have price control you have rationing."
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke indicated assent.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: That is absolute nonsense. If the noble Lord intends to use that argument let me give him two reasons why it is nonsense. Bread was long price controlled without being rationed. Milk is price controlled today without being rationed. It is not in the least necessary that there should be rationing because there is price control. It is one of the Conservative myths.
  Mr. Osborne: Is this not due to the fact that the demand for bread and milk is inelastic?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: There may be other cases,
  Mr. Osborne: This is a rather important matter. The two examples given by the right hon. Gentleman are commodities the demand for which is not dependent on price. It would be idiotic to ration them.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Of course it would be idiotic to do so. One would use price control on commodities where it would be sensible to do so, but not where there was a wholly elastic demand. One would be sensible. No one would use price controls over a whole lot of

  435
  fields. I am saying that it is possible to use them and not to be involved in rationing. I can assure the hon. Member for Louth that we would be very sensible if we had to use price control just as the present Government are when they use it on milk.
  The chief reason why we want these new powers is to get away from the only two alternatives that face the present Government because of their refusal to use the controls which they have retained the power to use. Those alternatives are either the uncontrolled boom of the Lord Privy Seal, or the damping down of everything and the economic stagnation of the last three years. We do not want one alternative or the other. We want to get away from them, but we know that there is no way to do it except by a number of key, selective controls which will enable us to distinguish between different sorts of economic activity and therefore to expand, without the whole economy getting out of hand and out of control.
  Some of these powers already exist, of course, and are not to be affected by the Bill. We will probably need power to license industrial building. This is necessary for a balanced economy, and necessary, also, if we want to direct labour into the pockets of unemployment. There is not a more efficient lever to do this thing. If the Government wanted to do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "To direct labour?"] I beg hon. Members' pardon. I meant to say "direct industry". I am sorry that I said "labour". I meant the factories where labour is out of work. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing that out.
  We are certainly opposed to the Bill and we will fight every detail of it very strongly on Committee. We think that it restricts powers which are needed to maintain full employment, with stable prices, and which will be needed if we want to develop the Commonwealth economy. We think that the Bill attempts to deny to the Labour Government that will follow this Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that is the purpose of the Bill—powers that will enable us to restore full employment and that will increase and not hamper individual freedom and liberty.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: I can follow the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for a short time, but it would be a waste of the time of the House to debate here who will follow the present Government. We on this side of the House are certain we know. We think it will be many years before hon. Members opposite come across to this side.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Then why worry about the Bill?
  Mr. Doughty: In part of his speech, the right hon. Member for Smethwick gave away what I think is really in the back of the minds of the Opposition in this matter. He started his speech in a moderate way and said that substantially the Opposition would not require a Government to have a lot of Emergency Regulations. Then we heard the old words trotted out which we have not heard for many years, price control, control of industrial building and bulk purchase. It is perfectly obvious that once a Government starts on a course of price control they have to have controls and rationing. In order to make that work, they have to have subsidies as well throughout the length and breadth of the economy.
  Once that is combined with the Government going into business and buying and selling commodities under a longterm contract—which after all, is what bulk purchase means—we get State trading and the Government of the day having to come to the House to obtain the necessary finance to pay for the losses they invariably make upon such misguided efforts. We always knew what Socialists meant and we have been reminded by the right hon. Member today of the fallacies which lie, and continue to lie, in that philosophy.
  It is really rather extraordinary that thirteen years after the war we should be discussing measures of this kind. The powers which were originally given to make these Regulations were given under an Act of 1939, which was many years ago. It was no doubt very necessary that during wartime the Executive should have powers to make sweeping regulations controlling all aspects of life in this country. It was very necessary,

  437
  also, that they should be able to do so without having to come to this House every time to get a Bill through Parliament; but that does not apply in peacetime.
  Is the Opposition going to oppose this Bill in the Division Lobby and have it said, as it will be said, that it likes government by regulation? It will be said that it likes making regulations without having them discussed in the House—regulations of the most sweeping kind. That is the obvious corollary if the Opposition votes against the Bill. We much prefer, where necessary regulations and restrictions are required, that they should be fully debated in this House and only passed if the House approves.
  At the end of the war, in 1945, there were hundreds of these regulations, and no doubt they were very necessary. Often it was difficult to follow them because they covered every aspect of national life and national trade. In October, 1951—a very important date in the history of this country—there were still no fewer than 215 Defence Regulations in force. It has always been the policy of this Government to reduce that number progressively as fast, as reasonably and as properly as that could be done. In December, 1957—less than a year ago—there were only 42 in force and now there are only 13 in force. Although the White Paper points out that there are 25 ancillary Defence Regulations, which are of no importance, substantially there are only 13 in force.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Does the hon. and learned Member overlook the fact that his Government introduced two new Defence Regulations in 1955–56?
  Mr. Doughty: They were very necessary at the time. If the hon. Member does a little elementary arithmetic, he will see that the reduction from 215 to 13 represents a very rapid and considerable diminution. Of the 13 now in force, five will be replaced by proper legislation which will cover the questions involved. Three of them are to lapse, and this Bill is concerned only with the remaining five.
  I say at once that although I have read the Bill, like all hon. Members I suppose, it is only with the assistance of the White Paper and the very clear explanation given by my hon. Friend that one is able
  438
  to follow this matter closely because so many regulations are referred to. Therefore, to help us to get the full meaning of the matter, we are very grateful for the White Paper. Of the five remaining regulations the three which really affect us very much in this country are Regulations 55, 55AA and 55AB. If one looks at the substance of those regulations one can see what powers any Government would have to take if those regulations were taken away. Regulation 55 provides among other things:
  "… for regulating or prohibiting the production, treatment, keeping, storage, movement, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of articles of any description' and ' for any incidental and supplementary matters for which the competent authority thinks it expedient for the purposes of the order to provide '."
  Does anyone seriously suggest that those all-embracing comprehensive powers are necessary for any Government today, or that they will be in the foreseeable future? Regulation 55AB Provides:
  "… for controlling the prices to be charged for goods of any description or the charges to be made for services of any description and for any incidental or supplementary matters for which the competent authority thinks it necessary to provide."
  I am sure that no Government would seek to do so, but under those two regulations a Government could go into business on its own account and at, the same time, control the prices of competitors in the same line of business. That does not make sense, at least not to hon. Members on this side of,the House. The White Paper says:
  "Regulation 55AA empowers a competent authority to require the keeping of such books, accounts and records and to furnish such estimates, returns or information as it may prescribe. Until the passing in November, 1954 of the Defence Regulations (No. 9) Order these powers were, broadly speaking, unrestricted: though Regulation 55 and 55AA had to be used for the purposes specified in the Supplies and Services Acts of 1945, 1947 and 1951, those purposes are themselves extremely wide, Para 1 (1) (c) of the Act of 1947 sums up the economic purposes by specifying that the Regulations may be used
  'generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community.'"
  That is, of course, according to the views of the Government of the day and that would cover any single matter.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: On anyone's view.
  Mr. Doughty: On anyone's view, and it may be one view to close down any section of work. This appeals to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but I am sure that it appeals to no one else.
  It is necessary to retain a very limited number of those controls. I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the only ones now retained are strategic controls. We know that, unfortunately, that is necessary today. I hope, as every hon. Member hopes, that the "cold war" will come to an end and that we can then remove strategic controls, but, so long as it continues, any Government will require to keep controls upon the export of strategic materials.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Why?
  Mr. Doughty: Because we do not want people who at the moment are not particularly friendly to us to have the means by which they can demonstrate their unfriendliness.
  Mr. S. Silverman: So the hon. and learned Member concedes that where the interests of the community are concerned in wartime the powers are necessary and advisable for a Government to have, but where the interests of the community are concerned in peacetime he wants to abandon the lot.
  Mr. Doughty: I hoped I was going into some detail on those I want abandoned and some I do not want abandoned. So far I have covered some we want abandoned and perhaps the hon. Member will listen to what I have to say. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I began by saying that in wartime the very widest powers are necessary.
  Mr. S. Silverman: What for?
  Mr. Doughty: They are necessary in order to win the war.
  The control of hire purchase is one of the financial controls which, so long as we have the financial difficulties that we have had in the past, it will be necessary to retain, though I hope that in the course of a few years we can remove that
  440
  one as well. Again, the controls on welfare foods and on essential goods from overseas, when the supply is interrupted, as in the case of oil supplies from abroad, is necessary. Similarly, in the case of the sale of school milk in one-third pint bottles, and another one in regard to the special weight of bread which, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite, is a relic of bread rationing under the Labour Government. With allocations of two oz. or four oz. a day, since seven goes into 14 and 28, the appropriate machinery was installed for that purpose in the bakeries, and, short of the bakers obtaining new machinery, it is necessary to retain this power.
  Mr. Austen Albu: Could not this be decided by private enterprise?
  Mr. Doughty: Private enterprise can install new machinery, but the present machinery is working extremely well, and it does not seem necessary to incur the additional capital expenditure.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not realise that this has nothing to do with machinery. It has to do with whether we can call a 14 oz. loaf a 16 oz. loaf, and what the Government are taking powers to do is just that. Why not sell a 14 oz loaf as a 14 oz. loaf?
  Mr. Doughty: I am sure that if anybody asks they would be told what the weight of the loaf was.
  The limitations of Regulation 55AB are limitations on price control only on articles that are enumerated in Regulation 55, including liquid milk and medical supplies. I have nothing to say about medical supplies, but I would remind hon. Members opposite, who seemed surprised when my hon. Friend said that these were to be retained, that he said that he intended to do it only by negotiation. If we are to negotiate, it is always clearly to the national advantage to be able to say, "If you do not agree, we have the power to make an Order regulating these prices." On matters of that kind, where the Government are directly concerned, it is important, because we are paying some of the cost.
  By the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, any Government or Ministry can buy, sell or manufacture a very wide, and indeed almost

  441
  unlimited range of goods for anything they wish to do, and that power is, in fact, going. While I have no doubt that there is no danger of this being done by any Government, these powers should be cut down as far as possible.
  There is one further small point that I should like to make. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend, when he winds up the debate, will tell us why It is that in Clause 3 (2,f) of the Bill it is necessary to maintain control on—
  "jute, jute bags, jute cloth and jute yarn."
  I am sure that there is a good reason, but, as I do not know it myself, I should like to know what it is.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I should like to dispose of that at once, because I doubt whether the House desires to discuss that separate topic. It is, quite frankly, for the protection of the jute trade, and has been given, pending some other way of protecting it. As far as I recall, the House accepted that proposition quite a long time ago.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Why not do it for cotton?
  The Solicitor-General: I should not like to answer more than one hon. Member at the moment, but, if necessary, I will do so at a later stage.
  Mr. Doughty: I am very much obliged for that prompt reply of my right hon. and learned Friend to the query which I raised.
  I welcome the Bill and I hope that the House will support it on Second Reading. I welcome the abrogation of every Defence Regulation which is possible, because I think that if any Government want to impose restrictive controls of any kind upon the people of this country, this is the place where we should have the opportunity of deciding whether or not it should be done, and that it should only be done after discussion, certainly not in peacetime behind the scenes, when we have no power to criticise, on any particular matter, a Government which lays clown such restrictions. For these reasons, I welcome the Bill and will certainly support its Second Reading.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: I feel sure that we are going to find a great difference in the presenta-
  442
  tion of this Bill and its contents to the country in the propaganda of the party opposite from that which we have had from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury today. The hon. Gentleman, by sticking very closely indeed to his brief, by his brief sticking very closely to the Bill and by introducing a minimum of comments, was able, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, to be non controversial.
  I think it right that we should address our minds to what is the real object for which the Bill has been introduced, and my submission to the House is that the presentation of the Bill and its objects, certainly to the public at large, is—I do not like to use the word "hypocritical" —certainly highly misleading, that it is quite unnecessary in its timing, and is, to a serious extent, irresponsible in its contents.
  First, let me deal with the matter of the presentation of the Bill. We are told, and it is stated in the White Paper, that the object of this Bill is to sweep away war-time legislation and absolute emergency powers. Of course, the Bill does nothing of the sort. To start with, the most absolute powers are those which are left intact. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) interrupted the Economic Secretary, who opened the debate, asking precisely what were the powers under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. These powers are quite unrestricted. The actual wording of the effective part of the Section is:
  "The Board of Trade may by order make such provisions as the Board may think expedient for prohibiting or regulating … the importation into or the exportation from the United Kingdom …of all goods or goods of any specified description."
  One could not have wider words than those, and here is a power which the Government wish to retain. When they want to retain a power, there is no nonsense about cutting down its purpose or confining themselves to specific powers for specific purposes. They retain it in an absolutely unrestricted form.
  When we turn to the Defence Regulations, or to the thirteen effective regulations of which the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) spoke, we see it stated in the White Paper that eight of them have been allowed to lapse. Four of them have already been

  443
  replaced by legislation which was passed last Session—the Land Powers (Defence) Act and the Opencast Coal Act. I have some knowledge of the second one, and it certainly gives very wide powers for further delegated legislation. Another is to be replaced this Session by the Factories Bill. Three others are being allowed to lapse—one on the carriage of goods, one that will have the result of abolishing the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, and the third on the control of cultivation and the termination of agricultural tenancies.
  What is not stated anywhere in the White Paper, and, I am sure, will not be stated anywhere in the Conservative Party's propaganda, is that this Bill was entirely unnecesary to achieve any of those purposes. The Government have power at any time not merely to allow a Defence Regulation to lapse, but to revoke it by Order in Council, and as soon as they do that the regulation is dead for all time. It cannot be revived at any stage. The point was made by the Economic Secretary in relation to building controls; when we are returned to power we shall have to introduce fresh legislation if we wish to reintroduce building controls. Exactly the same applies to all these eight Defence Regulations which have been allowed to lapse. Nothing which the Bill does sweeps away controls in that way.
  The real point of the Bill is to cut down and restrict the purposes for which those Defence Regulations which the Government are using at the moment may be used in the future. It is not in the true sense a repeal Bill at all. There is nothing in it which is being repealed in the way of emergency powers. What is happening is that certain powers are being allowed to lapse while others are being continued; and unless provision is made from time to time for their continuation, they lapse and expire automatically. This is another Emergency Powers (Transition) Bill and not a repeal Bill. The claim that it is a repeal Bill is just propaganda.
  It is also claimed that the Bill and its contents are an affirmation of the principle that Parliament should be asked to grant only specific powers for specific purposes. If this were seriously intended, it would be an extremely serious matter raising important constitutional issues on
  444
  the proper sphere of delegated legislation. Much water has flowed under the bridge since the days of the Donoughmore Report and it might well be time to review the matter. There are important constitutional issues involved, and if it were the Government's serious wish to review the matter I presume that there would have been discussions in the first place with the Opposition and with outside bodies.
  If the Bill had been presented in that form, then the suggestion that this was an exercise in constitutional propriety is a claim which might have been justified, but to put forward that claim in relation to the present Bill is mere propaganda.
  It is interesting to see from the Bill what are the powers which the Government feel they will want to use, and now they retain plenty of elbow room in the use of those powers.
  I have already mentioned the position under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. If we look at the powers in relation to exchange controls under Defence (Finance) Regulation 2A we find that the powers are as wide as can be in defining the purposes for which they are to be used. The regulation reads
  "where the Treasury are satisfied that action to the detriment of the economic position of the United Kingdom is being taken or is likely to be taken by the Government of or persons resident in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom."
  One can hardly have words wider than that. They cannot be claimed to be specific powers for specific purposes.
  Consider, too, the credit controls and hire-purchase restrictions. The only limitation on the purpose for which they are to be used is tautology. It is said that they are to be used for "restricting excessive credit." One could not use hire-purchase controls for anything but restricting excessive credit. This is a control which the Government feel that they may want to reintroduce and they therefore leave it intact in its widest possible terms. When they want powers they forget their high-sounding principles about having specific powers for specific purposes.
  When we see what the Bill does to the admittedly more important regulations, its irresponsibility is clear. What has

  445
  happened is that the effective powers for the control of industry, for obtaining information and for price control are limited to a miscellaneous hatch patch of purposes. No principle lies behind this at all. It is a matter of pure expediency, a mere enumeration of the purposes for which at the moment such powers are being used or for which in the recent past the Government have found it necessary to use them.
  As was demonstrated in the "flick of the switch" speech of the Lord Privy Seal, the object behind the Bill is to try to deprive the next Labour Government of powers to fight inflation in the way in which we have stated that we should fight it, and, as we believe, the only way by which it can be effectively fought while maintaining full employment at the same time.
  This is probably the main issue dividing the two parties and it is perhaps the main issue on which the next Election will be fought. When, as we believe, the Labour Party is returned to power, it will be with a clear authority and mandate to tackle this problem in the way in which we believe it can effectively be tackled. In these circumstances, for the Government in power, at the end of their period of office, to introduce a Measure the sole purpose of which is to try to make it more difficult for the Opposition, if and when they are returned to power, to do that which they intend and want to do, is, in my submission, irresponsible in the extreme, and can hardly be called an exercise in constitutional propriety.
  Mr. C. Pannell: And it is ineffective.
  Mr. MacDermot: As my hon. Friend says, in any event it is ineffective. A moment's thought will reveal that. As was said a moment ago in relation to building controls, we shall have to introduce a Bill giving ourselves the necessary powers in any event as soon as we return to office. The sole purpose of the present Bill is propaganda outside the House. That is the main point which I am seeking to make.
  The second way in which this action by the Government is highly irresponsible is that they are depriving themselves of powers which they may need to use in the future. Our economy and the whole situation of this country is still desperately precarious. If the experience of the
  446
  last few years shows anything at all, it shows that at any moment we may suddenly be confronted with an emergency and with a threat to the whole security of our economy which was wholly unanticipated by anyone and that steps may have to be taken very quickly by the Government to deal with that emergency. It is because it was recognised that that situation not only existed during the war but continued after the war that these emergency powers were continued in force. For a Government to sweep them away for propaganda purposes outside the House is, I suggest, irresponsible in the extreme.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the hon. Member deal with this simple point? The Labour Party had in full all the powers which they are asking to be retained from 1945 to 1951, during which time they plunged from crisis to crisis. unable to make use of the powers effectively.
  Mr. MacDermot: That is an example of the propaganda purpose of the introduction of the Bill and of this debate. I am sure that we shall hear many more speeches today in the tenor of the noble Lord's intervention. After the war and in the emergency situation we had to deal with many crises, as have the Government during the period when they have been in office.
  Mr. C. Pannell: And they have plunged about.
  Mr. MacDermot: The point has been made that if it were not for the disastrous consequences of the Government's Suez venture we should never have had in the Bill wording to be found in paragraph (1) (d) of Regulation 55, as it is to be re-enacted.
  It is only as a result of that experience that we have it in this form. The Government cannot foresee, nor can anyone, what developments may result, either from the further follies of the Government or from actions for which they are not responsible. Whichever way it be, these powers, in our present condition, should still be retained, and it is an irresponsible act for the Government to sweep them away in this way, purely for party political purposes.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: I should like, first, to congratulate the Economic Secretary on the way in which—in, I think, his maiden major speech so far—he introduced this Bill. Although some of his explanation was a little difficult for the layman to follow, nevertheless he went to great trouble to tell us what the Bill was all about. In the main, this Measure, as such Bills so often are, provides an opportunity for a real field day for the lawyers. However, I support it as an ordinary person because it gets rid of yet more controls.
  As this debate has developed, it will be obvious to the country, if the people do not already realise it, that a real fundamental difference between the two parties is that the Labour Party wishes to retain controls and will, if that unfortunate day comes that they return to power, bring back more controls, while, on the other hand, Conservatives, believing in the freedom of the individual, desire to rid our people of as many controls as possible.
  We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), and this was repeated by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), that price controls in various ways would be brought back under a Labour Government. We were also told that this would not mean the return of rationing, but can any hon. Member opposite say that the bringing back of certain price controls would not bring back rationing? If so, it is just wishful thinking—
  Sir Charles Taylor: My hon. Friend must be aware that in 1951 —which is only a few years ago—Mr. Attlee, now Lord Attlee, said that if rationing was good in war time it was equally good in peace time.
  Mr. Harris: Yes, certainly I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
  The right hon. Member for Smethwick instanced today's price-controlled milk as an obvious case in which rationing has not followed price control. Surely we all remember, for instance, what happened with sweets. When price control is brought in, rationing is almost bound to follow, especially with commodities and materials that quickly get into short supply, and commodities which the
  448
  public may believe will soon be difficult to obtain.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Labour Party would bring back certain economic controls, and further made reference to the restoration of industrial building control. If this debate has done nothing else, it will have brought home to the country once again what the Labour Party would do in regard to controls if it won the next General Election. In the same line of thought, today must be quite a sad one for the Opposition, because in the Second Reading of this Bill tonight—and I do not doubt that it will be given a Second Reading—they see something happening with which they themselves are far from pleased, namely, the abolition of more controls.
  One of the controls that is being retained, however, is that of the price and distribution of food under the welfare services. The Economic Secretary has given details of the commodities affected, and I will not repeat them, but one seriously wonders whether it is necessary to retain a control of this kind. Surely, such purchases could be made on a competitive basis and supplies so safeguarded as to remove also the necessity for this control. A control should be retained only if there is some real purpose behind it and some real need to use it.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick referred to the control on the sale and weight of bread. I should have thought that very soon there would have been no difficulty whatsoever in sweeping away this control too. There seems to be no absolute necessity for it.
  I was particularly concerned over the retention of the control of medical supplies and prices. Now that we have private enterprise competing, one manufacturing firm with another, the Ministry should be in a position to obtain all its supplies on a competitive price basis without controls. I should also like to know how the Ministry will continue to exercise this control. What happens if a supplier is not in a position to comply with the price control regulations? Will the Ministry say, "Very well, we will not take his goods?"
  Here, again, we should not retain a control unless it is absolutely essential so to do, and I cannot really see the need for

  449
  this one. Surely the medical supplier or manufacturer will say to the Government, "My price has to be so and so. These are my costs, and if you want my supplies you must buy at my price." If need be the business should then be thrown open to competition, and the Ministry will get its supplies on the usual competitive basis—
  Mr. C.. Pannell: Has not the hon. Gentleman heard of the recent litigation in the Restrictive Practices Court and of the price-fixing arrangements of interested people, who in the main, I suppose, support the party opposite? Even the Government are forced to maintain control here, and the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to show that he has not read the newspapers.
  Mr. Harris: I certainly have, but I still believe that the Ministry should be able to obtain their supplies competitively at proper prices without the Government having to exercise job price control in this way.
  I must make it plain that I am only expresing my own personal view on this. I do not myself see why it should be thought that these medical manufacturers as any other manufacturers would not be fair in their costings and prices. After all, the eventual purchaser in the main is the Ministry of Health, and that Ministry can surely decide whether or not a price is fair without exercising this control.
  I am also interested in and concerned about the retention of the control over certain exports, particularly those to the sterling area and to the Commonwealth and Colonial countries. To continue this control seems a little unnecessary. I suppose the difficulty is that it cannot easily be prised away from controls in respect of exports to other overseas territories. At the same time, it seems quite unnecessary to regulate our manufacturers' exports to the sterling area and to the Commonwealth countries—such business should be absolutely free of control.
  I am naturally in full support of the Government in bringing forward this Bill. Since the end of the war, the total of some 251 Regulations is now down to a basic 13. I still feel that those regulations which are left, a few of which I have referred to, should be looked at again very closely to see whether it is still absolutely essential for them to be retained.
  450
  In my view, controls of this kind should never be retained unless they are to be fully utilised; if not, it is not necessary to retain them at all. I certainly hope that the day is drawing nearer when even more of these regulations can be eliminated in accordance with the views I have expressed.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: The Economic Secretary to the Treasury certainly never mentioned the lapsing of the regulations with regard to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, and whatever arguments may have been put by hon. Gentlemen opposite who followed him none of the reasons adduced for this Bill applies to the question of the ending of compulsory arbitration. They had nothing whatever to do with it. I can fully understand why hon. Gentlemen of the party opposite, who have made much propaganda about controls, have not properly got down to consider the position of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal.
  I said just now, in an intervention, which nobody challenged, that the Industrial Disputes Tribunal has been respected. There has not been a major strike against its findings and it has carried peculiar authority in the industrial world. We are dealing here with the termination of a piece of useful machinery which has commended itself to both sides of local government.
  I usually speak in this place as one with very close affiliations with one of the great industrial trade unions, but, in my time, by virtue of being in local government, I have been the leader of the employers' side on one of the regional councils which used to meet in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) in dealing with the administrative, professional and technical grades of local government. I imagine that no body of people is more affected by this decision of the Government than the National Association of Local Government Officers. I speak today, therefore, as one who has had to oppose its point of view many times in the past.
  What was the position in local government prior to the war? Hundreds of authorities in the country appointed their servants often according to caprice and sometimes by nepotism. One of the most

  451
  remarkable things about local government during the last twenty years has been the way in which there has been built up a series of salary scales, and professional qualifications which have gone with salary scales, without which advances would not have been possible. Perhaps, taking the example of the Civil Service, the local government service has attempted to make itself into a profession. I do not think that any student of industrial affairs would deny that the prime responsibility and credit for that must go to the National Association of Local Government Officers.
  The Association, a trade union of over 250,000 members, represents, curiously, everyone from the town clerk down to those on the lowest rungs, if one may put it in that way. It represents, from the reverse point of view, everyone from the office boy upwards, and, indeed, it has been an embarrassment to local authorities from time to time to find their chief officials, who should be representing their point of view, on the other side of the table.
  Because the service is analogous to the Civil Service, the National Association of Local Government Officers has never had a strike clause in its constitution. It has never affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. Hon. Members will understand, of course, that I consider that it would be to its advantage if it did affiliate to the Trades Union Congress, as many other professional organisations have done; but it has decided to remain outside the ambit of politics and not to encourage strikes. One can almost say that a strike in the local government service is unthinkable.
  If one bears in mind the jungle of varied interests in local government before the war, the fact that there was no relation between what was paid by one authority and another, and the fact that many local authorities were situated in places where there was, so to speak, no trade union climate at all, one can understand what the Industrial Disputes Tribunal has done for local government. During the war, under Order No. 1305, I think, it was generally held that, where there was an agreement between two bodies representing employer and employee which could be judged by refer-
  452
  ence to a tribunal, that, in effect, had the force of law. That was the position during the war.
  Mr. Philip Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we still ought to have compulsion? That is the point.
  Mr. Pannell: I can only ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to listen to what I have to say. This is a matter about which he probably knows nothing.
  Sir Peter Roberts: No.
  Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member for Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) has not been sitting there all the time. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) and I have. The hon. Member for Heeley comes here with a closed mind on the subject.
  Sir P. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me. He made a remark about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East, and said that he did not know anything about the issue. All I said was that I know perfectly well that he does. I have been here long enough to know that.
  Mr. Pannell: All I can say is that the hon. Member for Heeley knows everything and understands nothing.
  What I am saying is that conditions in local government are completely different from conditions in industry generally.
  Mr. Philip Bell: Why does the hon. Gentleman want compulsion?
  Mr. Pannell: Of course, my trade union, the engineers, does not need this machinery; it has, over the years, faced its traditional enemies with the final showdown of a strike, and this is written into its constitution. But the newer forms of trade unionism which we find, for instance, in local government and the Civil Service, have never contemplated that sort of action, and, in the main, of course, we do not want them to.
  I say, therefore, that we must give them appropriate machinery in which they can function. They have become used to this kind of machinery since about 1940, and anybody who has read their opinions will know that they feel very strongly about it. The National Association of Local Government

  453
  Officers is not as weak as it was in the old days, and it now feels that, unless some tribunal such as this can be given to it, it will have to reconsider its whole attitude to industrial action.
  There is no doubt that this piece of machinery has saved us from a considerable amount of industrial trouble. It has been used not only by the National Association of Local Government Officers, which is a very powerful body, but it has been used by all sorts of trade unions, particularly by those who find it very difficult to hit back. Incipient trade unions, such as those representing bank employees, where there are old-fashioned attitudes towards the recognition of people's rights to collective bargaining, are the sort of organisations which have used the Industrial Disputes Tribunal.
  Mr. Richard Body: None more so than the hon. Gentleman's own A.E.U., in the way it has exploited the Industrial Disputes Tribunal.
  Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman did not hear the beginning of my speech, otherwise he would have heard me refer to the terrific authority that this body has carried. There has been no major strike against the decision of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal.
  Mr. Body rose—
  Mr. Pannell: Before the hon. Member jumps in, he should make sure that he is not confusing it with the Industrial Court.
  Mr. Body: No.
  Mr. Pannell: At any rate, the hon. Gentleman perhaps will give me an example of a strike against a decision of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. He cannot give me one.
  Mr. Body: If the hon. Member wants examples, one can give the example of how his own union has exploited the Industrial Disputes Tribunal when it should have gone to the Industrial Court.
  Mr. Pannell: Nobody will suggest that the engineers have ever relied upon this body at all. I have made it perfectly clear that in the main this is a body to which other organisations without strike clauses have had most recourse. If one takes the number of cases which have been referred to the Industrial Disputes
  454
  Tribunal one will find that in the main they are of that class. It is no use the hon. Member trotting out observations without giving proof. I have challenged the House three times to find the cases where there have been strikes against the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. They have not been forthcoming.
  The Trades Union Congress feels that the Minister has been partial in his attitude and that he has not held a balance between employers and the Trades Union Congress. There were dilatory negotiations spreading over eight months. If there has not been bad faith, there has been that degree of procrastination that does not give any confidence to the Trades Union Congress.
  I do not want to go into the realm of these other matters, because, as I say. I have yet to hear any hon. Member opposite get up and give a justification why a useful piece of machinery should be wrecked. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) still speaks in the same way as the Prime Minister speaks from time to time, as if, somehow or other, the Tory Party had come to power only in the last two years. The fact that they have been in since 1951 should at least colour the opinions of back benchers.
  I should have thought that anyone who has been a member of this House since 1945, such as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), would know the conditions that this country was in immediately after the war. The suspension of Lend-Lease. the American loan, rationing, the Berlin airlift, and devaluation were the sort of things that one could not have legitimately levelled at one party. These were moments of crisis, and the Labour Government carried on until 1951. I should have thought that anybody would agree that the economic climate of this country has been very much more relaxed since 1951, not by anything that we did here, but by the march of world events, particularly since the end of the war in Korea. Therefore, for hon. Members opposite to bring in the question of bread rationing and the 14 oz. loaf is showing an ignorance of the facts.
  I believe that the majority of the people appreciate that we have to have different devices for different times. Nobody believes that 1945 can return again. All

  455
  I am saying is that the Labour Government, in pursuing the path that they did, and having the courage to take the steps that they took, brought our country through a very severe economic crisis.
  Sir P. Roberts: To the verge of bankruptcy.
  Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman can still talk about that, but our reserves are not anywhere near back to where they were when we left office in 1951.
  Nobody would doubt that as we go on we not only want an increasing standard of life but a greater degree of personal freedom. When we speak about personal freedom, I remember the words of Philip Snowden, who once said that Socialism is individualism' properly clothed, which means that the State, on occasion, has to protect the individual from the rapacity of the people who, in the main, are the paymasters of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), not that I suppose I dare hope to escape rebuke any more than anybody else. Still less do I dare pose as an expert on trade union questions and matters of arbitration, but even before the hon. Member spoke I had meant to deal a little bit with that subject. I will begin now by so doing, after one or two preliminary sentences.
  I know that we are on Second Reading and not Third Reading, and that we can talk about what ought to be in the Bill and is not. But I think that I will omit most of the stuff about which side made the worst hash, they in their first seven years or us in our first seven years, or whether I would have made ever so much more a hash of it if I had charge of things myself. I have never thought that men were fit to govern each other, and that is the reason why, if the hon. Member will listen to me for one moment—
  Mr. C. Pannell: I am listening.
  Mr. Pickthorn: That is the reason why would wish to see my countrymen governed as little as possible by men and as much as possible by general rules, arrived at by very public and rather lengthy discussion. Those are the reasons for opposing delegated legislation, and temporary legislation of one sort and another.
  456
  We have heard a good deal from the other side about people on this side being hypocritical. Except perhaps in August, 1939, I have never ceased to do my best to oppose Governments taking powers which they could not demonstrate they absolutely needed at that moment, and I have never ceased to press Governments to give up any powers which they had and for which they did not see any immediate need. Both in public and in private I have never ceased to do so. The effect perhaps has been nil—[Laughter.] Nobody who has sat in this House for many months would dare to deride anyone else for being ineffective. Let us be governed by law and not be decree. That is the real reason for, on the whole, welcoming this Bill. I quite agree—and I will come back to this—that there may be things in the Bill which we do not altogether like.
  I was rather nervous about speaking today because I used to think at one time that I had a certain small expertness in this matter. However, I long ago lost it. I have sense enough to know when I have forgotten a thing completely and even to realise that when I thought I understood it all I probably did not. I was rather dubious about speaking today, but I am bound to say, if I may, without being excessively contentious, that most of the speeches to which I have listened have, on the whole, encouraged me in that respect. I do not propose to limit myself to explaining simply the exact legal effects of the words in the Bill, and I hope at the end—although perhaps I may have been quiet earlier on—I shall not deserve the rebuke which the Minister and some others on this side have received from the other side for not being contentious enough.
  To come back to Regulation 58AA and the statutory authority for the Industrial Disputes Order. I beg hon. Members to believe—and this is in no sense false modesty—I quite understand that this is not the sort of thing on which anybody would listen to me as an expert. I was troubled yesterday by the question whether I did not know so little about it that I ought to leave it out altogether. On the whole, however, I thought that that would not be right, and I endeavoured to find out as much as I could quickly,

  457
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West, who always debates fairly and whom I do not for one moment accuse of consciously leaving out anything, did, however, leave out some factors which are important in this matter. We all do it. We cannot include all the factors, even if we speak for an hour and a half. I am told that in the original wartime Order, which, I think, was fairly early in 1940, the provision for compulsory arbitration was then the obverse of a coin, the reverse of which was the prohibition of strikes and lock-outs.
  Therefore, quite apart from the general argument under the Bill that that which is done for war purposes is done on a strong presumption against being kept on in the same form and on the same authority for non-war purposes, which believe to be a sound principle—on top of that there is also in this case the remembrance that when it was originally done it was as part of an arrangement part of which was that there should be no strikes or lock-outs. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Leeds, West and his friends would not wish to see that part returned now.
  It was made clear at that time that the Government upon inquiries from either what I hate calling sides, but from either wing in industry, that the Order should be discontinued, that then the Government would review the matter immediately. That was in 1940. It is true that things have changed in various ways since. The most important way in which things have changed has been that the prohibition against strikes and lock-outs has now gone.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Pickthorn: Yes, but I do not promise that I will pay any attention to the hon. Member's question. I generally try to do so, but I am not confident that if I allow myself to be pushed off the line which I have only half prepared at the best I shall not be completely lost. But the hon. Member can have a go.
  Mr. Pannell: I am not trying to push the hon. Member off his line, because I know that he is so close to the brief that he has built up that he will not be pushed off anyway for anything I may say. I would only say in fairness for the record
  458
  that the hon. Member is right in the general assumption he has made. He will, however, know that a general assumption cannot be made without qualifications. What I tried to point out in my speech was that this machinery, which was devised for one thing, has been found particularly useful for a great sector of the public services and that that which started as a war-time prohibition has become a useful piece of machinery and I have heard no good reason why it should be destroyed.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I now at least half understand the hon. Member's mind, and he would be more near to understanding mine if he would listen a little longer. I had got as far as that and I was upon that point.
  If the hon. Member will accept the principle—it is not merely a doctrinairism, but is a principle in itself and defensible—I do not say that everybody is always to be governed by it. It is a respectable principle that with what is done, and at the time is said to be done, in order to make it a little more likely that we win a war which we appear very likely to lose, if that is why the thing is done, it should, within a generation, be undone, even if it ought then to be redone. [Laughter.] Certainly. If the hon. Member for Leeds, West was ever a soldier or a sailor—I have forgotten whether he was—and ever got lost in his navigation, as I have done, at sea, on land and in the air, more than once, he will know that the luckiest thing to happen to him is if he can get back to some spot where he went off the line; then, he gets a chance again.
  Whatever there is to be said about this general principle, all I am saying for the moment is that it seems to me to be particularly strong in a case where there was a very big quid pro quo in the wartime and the quid is not there any longer. We all know that quids are not worth much now, but that kind of quid is still worth something. That is the main point, and it is a real point.
  I agree with the hon. Member in being worried about the grievance that may be left for some people, N.A.L.G.O. particularly, and I agree with what one of his hon. Friends said earlier about what are called, rather absurdly, "issues"; but I have inquired about those and I am told that the Minister is engaged in dealing

  459
  with the issue question and that he is engaged—or, at least, his higher officials are engaged—in discussions with N.A.L.G.O. and similar institutions. I am not saying that there ought not to be some arrangement like the arrangement which there is now. All I am saying is that it ought not to subsist and persist now any longer, even with the amount of new legislation which there has been since, upon the basis of the war regulation made in 1940.
  I should like to go to rather more general and, perhaps, not more controversial, but more contentious, matters. I could not altogether approve of some of the things that were said by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. There is an awful tendency, when something has been in existence for thirty or forty years, or even for only fourteen or fifteen years, to think that it is there for good and ought to be there for good. It will not do to say, as was said by the Minister this afternoon, that the fact that Governments for the last ten years, and particularly this Government for the last three or four years, have been very moderate and have hardly at all used these decretal powers that has been said more than once—has taken the urgency out of the task of erasing the unnecessary powers. Whatever Socialists may think or feel, Tory Ministers should always remain convinced that they are always under an urgent duty to erase whatever powers may have been taken and may not be demonstrably necessary in the immediate future.
  It will not do to argue, as did the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), that all that the Bill is trying to do is to hamper the successors of the present Government. We must face the fact that our constitutional development, if that not be too kind a phrase for it, has landed us now in a situation in which the ordinary process of legislation can wholly alter both the political constitution and the social arrangements of our country. That being so, there is not necessarily any feeling of partisanship in the mind of a man or of a Government who thinks that, where-ever there are powers in a Government's hands which were put into Government's hands and cannot now be shown to be immediately needed, there should
  460
  be the full procedure of statute before that power should be continued. I feel no doubt whatever that that is a perfectly proper and, indeed, an indispensable constitutional principle, because without it we are left with no constitution at all except simply an immediate majority.
  I do not wholly dissent from the arguments we have heard—and we have had many—from the other side of the House against the 14-oz. loaf being called 1 lb. I do not promise that I will bring the Government down in support of hon. Members opposite; but I am quite willing to press for a good deal more explanation than we have had of why anybody should be allowed to go on calling the 14 oz. a pound. The Government should put up a much stronger and more complete case than they have done. The one thing. however, which I will assert about a 14-oz. loaf, which seems to have escaped the attention of the right hon. Member for Smetwick, is that even with a 14-oz. loaf, half a loaf is not only better than, but more than, no bread.
  It really is not an argument against us on this side to tell us that this Bill is a bit of hypocrisy because it is not wiping out all the delegated legislation which is left and doing it immediately. Nor is it very clever, if I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman who knows best—I for get where he comes from: Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I think —of him to say that we have no right to be doing this now and that doing it now is a piece of gross hypocrisy. I am sorry. I rather think I am putting some of the sins of his friends on his shoulders, and I will say, nor would it be very clever of him to say that because we ought to have done it two years ago, therefore we ought not to do it now. That one will not do either.
  The complaint by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West was that there had not been sufficient consultation between the T.U.C. and the Ministry of Labour. What sort of person ought to be Minister of Labour and what sort ought not, if, indeed, there ought to be a Minister of Labour, which is extremely dubious, and what his relations ought to be with the trade unions, are not easy questions to settle, nor can they really very profitably be merely laughed off. What I should like one of his hon.

  461
  Friends to point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West, is this. He wants there to be more discussion between the T.U.C. and the Minister of Labour. There has been a good deal of that, I think. However, I want there to be more discussion between Ministers and this House and the people in general than there has been before Ministers either get or keep abnormal powers. I think that upon the principles upon which he attacks us he really ought to reflect and make sure whether he ought not to come in on our side.
  Hon. and right hon. Members opposite ought not to use the word "doctrinaire" in this connection as a term of abuse. One of the arguments from Smethwick, which was really a Brummagem one, I think, if I may say so without starting a provincial civil war—one of the Brummagem arguments was that we were only being hypocrites in doing this, getting rid of some bits of delegated legislation or some controls, because we were not getting rid of all of them. That is the essence of doctrinairism to the nth, that argument that one must never do anything of any one sort unless one is prepared immediately to do everything of the same sort. And that argument was used.
  I nearly missed the last one I always like refuting. But fortunately the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) blew in for a few minutes' entertainment, and, I suppose, guessed I might be getting up very soon, and very wisely blew out again. He produced this argument, that what was wrong with people on our side was, he said, that we were prepared to see everything, all principles, sacrificed to the public interest in time of war but we were prepared to see all public interests sacrificed to our doctrinairisms in time of peace.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite find it very difficult to grasp the simple distinction. War is the simplest of all operations. Any fool, if he can stay there long enough, can be a success in war. It always comes right in the end [An. HON. MEMBER: "Montgomery?"] Certainly. There is no limit to the resources we can call upon, and the end is either success for the person in charge, or ruin for everybody. It is the simplest of all operations, war; the most dangerous and uncomfortable, quite agree, and it frightens me out
  462
  of my life even now to stop to think of it. But it is the simplest.
  In time of war almost everybody wants to see our side win: almost everybody; and almost everybody thinks that is more important than anything else. And that is the public interest. In time of peace no two people agree about what the public interest is, and the only person I have ever known who is always conscious that he knows is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison)—not the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) who spoke today, but the other.
  In fact the public interest in time of peace cannot be known, and the only chance there is—and this is the justification for democracy —the only chance there is that we shall not get that which is most hostile to the public interest is that we should have the fullest and the most widely noticed discussion of any change before it happens. That is why we do not like decretal government, and that is why we welcome this Bill.
  Incidentally, I believe the learned Member from Lewisham, the hon. Member for Lewisham, North—not the infallible Member from Lewisham but the learned one was mistaken in saying that all the decretal powers which the Government are now dropping by this Bill could have been dropped by mere lapse. I believe he is mistaken in that. I believe it does not cover Clauses 4 and 6. But even if he were right about that, it would not really affect the point. It would not really be a justification for denying us the longest, the most solemn, most publicly noticed way of doing these things, and either adding decretal powers or diminishing powers should so far as possible be done by statute, and that is a very good reason for welcoming this Bill.
  I have been conscious of being a little disjointed, but I hope I have made plain which side I am on, and I hope I have made it reasonably plain why I am on that side, and I hope I have argued fairly. I am quite certain that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, really deceive themselves when they think it is in their interests to say, whether they say what is half of their argument, that these matters are still very important, or

  463
  whether they say, as they do in the other half of their argument, that these matters are very fiddling matters; in either case, I believe, they deceive themselves if they think they do themselves any good by saying that these matters which many of us did, I did, many of us did, with the utmost regret, not trusting hon. Gentlemen opposite in the least if they should have office either wholly or in a coalition, nor very much trusting hon. Gentlemen of this party—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—not very much, for I do not think anyone should be trusted very far. We most unwillingly created decretal powers which, when they got into office by the accident of politics partly, they used, and boastingly used, not for the purpose of winning the war, not for the purpose even of making peace out of the war—for this was a unique situation: the greatest victory there ever was and no peace made, and no peace made yet—not for the purpose even of looking after the people who really suffered during the war—some hon Gentlemen always spend their whole time in peace saying war—
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Finish the sentence.
  Mr. Pickthorn: No, I shall not finish the sentence. It is a great mistake to suppose that speaking is the same as writing. Now I have forgotten what the sentence was about.
  Mr. Osborne: What they say in peace time about war.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Yes. In time of peace many continually tell us that war should never be an instrument of policy. The moment war comes some have to be bought, it is thought, by being told that the war shall give them, at the end of it, all the objects of their policy. [Horn. MEMBER: "Shocking."] Oh, yes. Over and over again I have seen it. Thereby to fact it is made dead certain that the post-war world will be bitter, because war is wasteful and not creative, and there is less to distribute after war then before. But they used decretal power among other things to make a social revolution.
  Mr. Albu: Nonsense.
  Mr. Pickthorn: They used it in that way. I have always been against decretal
  464
  powers if used for any purpose except absolutely plain national emergency, and that to me means war, and therefore I am in favour of any diminution of decretal powers by statute.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: Before he reached the end of his speech I was going to congratulate the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) on making one of the most attractive speeches that I have ever heard him make.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I would much rather that the hon. Member did not.
  Mr. Albu: The hon. Member's arrogance is, of course, well known. Equally is his passionate attachment, which many of us would share, to freedom, though in his case an anarchistic freedom which would include abolishing his own Ministers. The hon. Member's suggestion that Labour used decretal powers for social revolution is absolute nonsense. They were used for one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to ensure that the people of this country received an adequacy of the goods which at that time were in short supply because of conditions which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who was Prime Minister during the war said would make the country bankrupt by the end of it.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I do not say that the words which the hon. Member has just used do amount to a revolution, but does he not think so?
  Mr. Albu: No, of course not.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Of course hon. and right hon. Members opposite boasted that it was a revolution that the people should receive an adequacy of goods.
  Mr. Albu: Nothing of the sort. Very substantial social changes were made but they were made, of course, by legislation. The National Health Act, the social services, the nationalisation of industry were introduced by ordinary constitutional procedure by the passing of Bills through Parliament. As far as I know, absolutely none of the decretal powers were used except for the important and urgent purpose of controlling the economy to ensure that we achieved recovery after the war from the appalling conditions in which naturally we were

  465
  when the war ended. And hon. Members opposite, when they came to power in 1951, reaped all the benefits of the enormous recovery which British industry had made by that time, including a very substantial increase of production and an increase of exports in physical terms of three-quarters. Do not let us ever forget it.
  The whole of the basis on which the economy has since been running has been built on the platform created by the Labour Government at that time. Every intelligent observer understands that perfectly well, and decrertal powers were used for those purposes alone. The measures which the hon. Member for Carlton considers a social revolution were introduced by means of Bills and the hon. Member knows that perfectly well. The hon. Member seems to have little confidence in the British people, in the British electorate and in the House of Commons when he expresses himself in these terms of extreme anxiety, because there is not only the good sense of Governments from both sides of the House, but the very substantial powers that remain in Parliament and the fact that it is obviously impossible to govern the country against the will of the majority of the people. Those ensure that there is not an excessive use of delegated powers. The hon. Member for Carlton wanted us to go back in our legislation to where we came in at the beginning of the war, and by what I suppose he means that he wants us to go back to 2½ million unemployed. On this side of the House we have no intention of doing so.
  The trumpet call to freedom blown by the Lord Privy Seal has not called up a very large army from the benches opposite to support the Bill. This is not very surprising in view of the fact that the Bill is so difficult to understand that even the Economic Secretary in introducing it had to stick to his brief, and whenever he went off it to respond to a single question had to say that that would be dealt with later.
  The Bill is the result of the schizophrenia on the Government Front Bench. One half of the Government's mind, led by the President of the Board of Trade, is pursuing doctrinaire policies of laissez-faire, free trade, currency convertibility, and so forth. The other half,
  466
  whom I would have said, if it were not for the Clause in the Bill about the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, was represented by the Minister of Labour, perhaps realises that this is not possible in this changing world.
  Free trade, laissez-faire and convertibility are going or have gone over most of the world. Even the formation of a Common Market in Europe and a Free Trade Area is not likely to make a great deal of difference to the world as a whole and may increase restrictions on international trade rather than enlarge it. A country like Britain, with our industrial history, our shortage of raw materials and the changing economic conditions in which we find ourselves today, needs positive, not negative, economic policy.
  The result of the schizophrenia on the Front Bench opposite is this Bill, accompanied by a publicity hoo-ha which conceals very largely from their supporters on the benches opposite that the Government intend to keep a very large number of physical controls; and by physical controls I mean those which can be used in a discriminatory sense, as most of these controls can be used. Among the controls which they still keep, and quite rightly, are currency controls. But here dogma has led them to weaken the controls so much that every two or three years we are put in serious financial danger.
  The Government claim credit for having increased our gold and dollar reserves. It has been pointed out time and again that they have still not got back to the 1951 level and are still today only one and a half times the figure for 1939, although our liabilities are 6½ times higher and the value of world trade done in sterling is many times higher. In fact, the figures for the reserves are still quite petty and impose the need to continue controls over the transfer of currency.
  One of the widest powers of control which the Government are keeping are controls over imports and exports under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. This is an Act which gives the Government power to introduce delegated legislation by Order over a wide field and with practically no limitation whatever. Another control which is not in the Bill and has not been mentioned today is the control

  467
  on new issues by the Capital Issues Committee. It is a discriminatory control which we support and which the Government apparently intend to maintain. There is also control over hire-purchase, which is again discriminatory and can be put on and taken off at a moment's notice, with serious, disturbing effects on industry, on production, and on individual freedom of choice. But the Government apparently believe that they must keep it.
  The controls over industry, however, are now to be limited and even these apparently are to be maintained only because of the Government's experience over Suez. But conditions for these controls, under Defence Regulation 55, are not now very clear, particularly the control which is to be exercised when there appears to be a shortage of articles due to some action outside the country. I do not really fully understand what this means and I should like some explanation of it when we have a reply to the debate. In terms of economic dogma, there is no such thing as shortage, unless there is none whatsoever, because surely supply and demand always come into balance at a certain price.
  How are the Government to judge when there is a shortage? If prices rise, to what level must they rise before the Government decide that there is a shortage and that they will have to introduce controls under this regulation? Also, what are the special circumstances that have to arise in another country? I am referring to the special circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 (d) of the Schedule. Obviously retaliatory action by another Government, as in the case of the Suez disaster, is one of them, and, I presume, export restrictions imposed by another Government would be another of them. What about such actions as price support by another Government or output restrictions which raise prices; and at what level would the Government consider that action by another Government on these lines had so raised prices as to create a condition of shortage under which they would introduce Orders under Regulation 55 and in accordance with this paragraph.
  Why are these powers only to be used in case of actions outside this country when there may well be actions which are not necessarily due to the Government? Because let us face the fact, the know-
  468
  ledge and ability to carry out economic planning are still being developed by both sides of the House and by all Governments, and not always entirely successfully. So there may be situations arising inside a country where the Government will want to use these powers.
  The main power that the Government are throwing away is that of price control. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been making most play with this in their attempt to build the propaganda they will use in the next General Election. I do not believe, however, that the country objects to the use of price control where a clear necessity is seen for it, and nobody will introduce price control just for the sake of doing it. But, after all, the Government have not found the answer to inflation, or certainly not the answer to inflation without industrial stagnation and rising unemployment. It may be that even they, and certainly we when we get back into office, will want to use some controls, even if only temporarily, to ensure that we can once again get our economy expanding at the rate it was expanding under the Labour Government, in place of the three years of stagnation we have had recently, and without inflation.
  It might well be then necessary to hold wages and prices temporarily by means of, for instance, subsidies on some articles combined with price control in order to give a breathing space to the economy during which production and output could rise so as to cover wage increases. But the Government are now throwing away this power and, as has been said by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, they have also been trying to hamstring the Labour Government from using it when they return to office next year.
  This necessity to hold the cost of living, possibly by price control of a few articles for a short period, may arise if and when full employment returns and when world production begins to rise again and world productivity reaches a really high level. It seems to me generally in keeping with the economic dogmatism of the Government that they should abolish this power, just as, with much the same effect, they are abolishing the Industrial Disputes Tribunal.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carlton is not in his place because his

  469
  main arguments were on the basis of individual freedom. It is interesting that the powers which the Government have retained, and intend to retain, are powers which interfere with individual freedom and with persons. It was surprising to me to discover that exemptions to the Factories Acts are still in being which allow women and young persons to be employed for longer periods than would otherwise be legal under the current Act. I realise that this matter is to be dealt with in the new Factories Bill which has been presented, and we shall certainly want to examine the Clauses in that Bill in great detail to see whether or not the conditions of employment in factories are being worsened.
  I was surprised the other day to get the answer that there are still 1,665 exemptions current under the Factories (Evening Employment) Order and the Cotton Factories (Length of Spell Exemption) Order and that there are 667 individual Orders current exempting par-titular factories from the various provisions of Part VI of the Factories Act. Another protection for the individual is the inspection of boilers, and there are still 170 exemptions that lengthen the time before which boilers need inspection. There may be good reasons for this, but it is interesting that many years after the war these protections for the individual are still in suspense.
  Another of the powers which the Government retain against the individual is that of using troops in the case of a strike and without having to bring in regulations under the Emergency Powers Act, which would have to come before Parliament. So I do not think this Government can claim that in this legislation they are abolishing decretal powers over the individual because they are keeping many powers which they think necessary.
  One of the important areas in which the Government are abandoning their powers is in obtaining information from a large part of industry. No doubt some of these powers can now be found in other Acts; for instance, the Census of Production Act. However, a lot of the information the Government are obtaining from industry is still given voluntarily arid is inadequate. We all remember the Prime Minister's reference to having to operate the economy on last year's
  470
  Bradshaw, and it is most extraordinary that at a time when the Government say they want more information about the economy, they should give up the powers which enable them to compel industry to keep certain figures and information and to provide these for the guidance of their economic planning.
  I want to say something about a Clause which has not been dealt with very much so far. Clause 3 deals with the powers of the Ministry of Supply. This, of course, is a nice juicy piece of political nonsense rather along the lines of the accusation made by the hon. Member for Carlton. It is guaranteed to provide a comforting feeling of security among Tory old women against the bogey of Socialism being introduced by the flick of a switch, but this is on the assumption that the Clause has some effect on the nationalisation of industry.
  We on these benches certainly accept the argument that if the Government are taking over industry from private individuals or companies in order to nationalise it, this must only be done by the introduction of a Bill and all the procedure of turning a Bill into an Act of Parliament. But this Clause deals with nothing of the kind. This Clause merely refers to powers, which the Government have at present, to use their own factories, which are now faced with serious redundancy because of the reduction in the defence programme, to help the general economy. The powers which the Government have got they are now restricting in such a way that it will be much more difficult to use the existing equipment, skill and plant for these purposes.
  It may he that there are good arguments which can be used by hon. Gentlemen opposite who prefer private industry to public manufacture, but many of us think that these matters should be settled on pragmatic grounds. The Clause seems to me to represent a doctrinaire, anti-public industry policy—the idea that under no circumstances shall Government establishments, such as Royal Ordnance Factories, be used in competition with private industry, because that interferes with the profits that might be made by private shareholders.
  As I now understand Clause 3, it is rather more restricted than I had thought it was. It lays down that only when a

  471
  producer of articles asks the Government to make them in Royal Ordnance Factories or other public factories can the Minister do so. As I originally read it, I thought that the Clause also applied to the customer. I thought that people who wanted goods could ask for them to be made, but, apparently, only the producers can do so. This means that under no circumstances can the Government ever do anything which will compete with existing groups, monopolies, individual firms or industries against their will.
  This will prevent, for instance, Royal Ordnance Factories from undertaking the manufacture of machines, although there may be a real need for them and even though a number of consumers of the machines demonstrate the need and ask the Government to make them. The Royal Ordnance Factories could not, for instance, be used for research and development in respect of machine tools, an industry fairly backward in this country, as any manufacturing engineer will confirm. This could not be done because the Minister would be empowered under the Clause only to do this if the industry asked for it and not if the consumers of the industry asked the Government to do it. It seems an extremely restrictive Clause.
  Another restriction is that the work can he undertaken only if it can be done without expanding capacity. Does this mean without the provision of new buildings or that a factory cannot take on more skilled labour, technicians, draughtsmen and so forth? If so, it is extremely hampering. All other conditions being met, one might have a factory manufacturing a certain article which might find it necessary slightly to expand capacity in order to increase output. A small expansion may often produce much more than a commensurate increase in output. Presumably, under the Clause, the Minister would be debarred from allowing that to take place, which is a piece of doctrinaire nonsense.
  The truth is that where the Bill is not pure publicity-mongering it is largely based on doctrinaire conceptions. I do not believe that the electorate will be deceived in any way. I do not believe the electorate is frightened of the controls which are necessary to maintain full
  472
  employment in an expanding economy. I do not believe that in present conditions, with rising unemployment, increasing insecurity, continuous stagnation and a fall in output the electorate will be worried about proposals to use some of the controls which were employed when the economy was expanding, when there was full employment and when our exports were continuing to rise. Those ideas are well understood. The electorate is not so economically illiterate any more as to accept the doctrinaire views of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. For these reasons, the electorate will fully understand why the Opposition intend to divide against the Bill.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Bell: Now that the rapid fire has ceased for a moment I shall try to collect my wits and talk in some sort of sequence or order. I shall discard party vituperation, broad sweeps of economics and all the paraphernalia of party talk.
  I should have thought that back benchers on both sides of the House would have been united here. This is not a Bill about which control should exist, or which should not exist or whether one should continue, or should not continue. This is the age-old struggle in which both Front Benches must always be condemned, and ours is now repentant and a little humiliated by the record of the past Tory Governments. It is the age-old struggle between liberty and government. We ought not to waste our time with gibes about winning the next election and about the electorate being clever.
  As back benchers we ought to be agreeing to get at the rogues—I use that word in a familiar way—on both Front Benches, because it is not the Opposition Front Bench only which has legislated by confused, arbitrary Orders in Council. Governments, long before the Labour Government, usurped our powers. Back benchers ought to unite to keep to a minimum the encroachment by the Executive on the legislative and judicial fields.
  It is all very well saying, for party reasons, that the Bill does not set the people free, that it is all bogus propaganda, that the people like rationing or controls. The Bill and the White Paper make clear that there is a constitutional

  473
  issue. Of course, it can be argued that what is being retained and what is being abolished is good or bad.
  But I should be interested to know whether hon. Members opposite subscribe to the principle in paragraph 8, which says:
  "The Bill itself does not complete the process of reducing or revoking emergency powers …"
  There is no nonsense about "sweeping it all away."
  "… though the powers still exercised are few. What it does is to establish that powers should not exist in peacetime …"
  Not "all; powers" and there is this further qualification:
  "… unspecified as to their scope and purpose, which a Government …"
  Not any particular Government—
  "… might use at its discretion without the explicit authority of Parliament. It represents an affirmation of the principle that Parliament should be asked to grant only specific powers for specific purposes."
  Let us know about that! Do we back benchers stand together on that? That is the issue. It may be that the Bill keeps the wrong powers in existence, or ought to get rid of some others; but do we agree on that principle?
  I said that there had been encroachment by the Executive, and I want, neutrally and not on a party line, to show some examples which must be familiar to many of us who have looked at these matters. We can start with the party ones. There were 2,263 Orders made in 1946 as against 1,483 in 1944. Though the war was over the delegated legislation was increasing. It was not only increasing; as pointed out in the Select Committee's Special Report, it was breeding, for the Statute gave birth not only to Defence Regulations but, in turn, to children. That is Orders made under those regulations, directions made under the Orders and licences made under the directions. Not unnaturally, the Select Committee moaned about the five-tiered legislation which was carrying delegated legislation even further than had at first been imagined.
  There has been some reference to a "flick of the switch". A good point was made about how some regulations could be used to do something which it was not known they could do when they were introduced. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said that
  474
  petrol rationing at the time of the Suez trouble was brought in by a "flick of the switch". It is a had thing that we should have "flicks of the switch".
  There was a much more serious example in the case of the Regulation of Employment Order, 1947. A great number of Government back benchers complained that it was industrial conscription and that it should not be brought in by means of a Statutory Instrument or Order under a regulation. Nobody ever thought that it could be used for that purpose. To their credit, back benchers on the Government side, Socialists too, protested against the Order being brought in in that way. They were protesting against delegated legislation and using general powers for important specific purposes.
  That sort of thing is not new; it happened in 1930 and in 1925, well before the war. There were Acts like the Road Traffic Act and the Rating and Valuation Act with which the Minister winkled out of Parliament in those days, not only wide powers but powers to amend the Acts under which he was acting. In other words, Parliament even handed over its legislative power to a Minister. That was going very far, and I suggest that it is something which back bench Members on both sides of the House should unite in opposing.
  It is sometimes assumed that because an hon. Member is a Conservative he is opposed to all delegated legislation. That may be true, I regret to say, of some backwoodsmen, but it is not an official point of view nor is it practicable. Pressure of time, the technicality of managing a civilised State, unforeseen circumstances, and the necessity for flexibility, even for experiment, and for power to deal with an emergency necessitate that there must be delegation. What we back benchers must do is to see that it is kept to the minimum, that the powers themselves are specified and that they are limited to some sort of ambit.
  It was pointed out in the Donoughmore Committee that what was necessary in delegated legislation was clear terminology; some system in laying Orders—that is to say, that instead of a positive, or negative, regulation, or none at all, or a varying requirement that the Orders be laid for 21 days, or for 100 days, there should be a consistent system; it should

  475
  be the law that, generally speaking, orders should be subject to judicial control—that is, the courts, not the Minister, should decide whether they were ultra vires; and that there must be always exceptional grounds for the delegation of exceptional powers. I thought that such rules would appeal generally to back benchers. Despite the valuable work of the Select Committee and its Reports, made from time to time, clearly, even to this day, greater consideration needs to be given to the form of delegated legislation.
  I am not advocating what I think the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) described, as far back as 1946, when asking questions of witnesses before the Select Committee, "the traditional view." I do not know whether he meant that this view was that there should be no delegated legislation. Certainly, I am not arguing for that, nor are my right hon. or hon. Friends. I think that there must be some delegated legislation.
  With all the long lectures on economics which we have had and the personal remarks such as, "You know nothing" and "You are ignorant"—that charming schoolboy stuff which must dignify this assembly so much to the world—I should like to know the true attitude of the Opposition to the Bill. If they vote against it, as it appears that they will, will they vote against it because they object to particular Clauses, or because certain Acts have been retained or because certain regulations have been abolished, or will they have some deeper reason? In June, 1931, when delegated legislation was being considered by a Select Committee—Parliamentarians were worried about it even then—a gentleman called Sir Oswald Mosley said that the first act of a Government of Action should be the presentation of a General Powers Bill to Parliament conferring on the Government wide powers of action by Order in relation to economic problems.
  Is that the sort of thing which hon. Members opposite believe in now? For that, in different words, is what we find in "Problems of a Socialist Government". It said, by the mouth of Sir Stafford Cripps:
  "The Government's first step will be to call Parliament together and place before it an Emergency Powers Bill to be passed through all its stages on the first day."
  476
  Those are brave words, not inconsistent with democratic Socialism as it is practised abroad! Indeed, as I think I heard one hon. Member opposite say sotto voce, those brave words were carried into effect in the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, supplemented in 1946 by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, which, unlike its predecessors, was to continue for five years instead of being renewable annually.
  Best of all, as my right hon. Friend mentioned with admirable restraint, in panic, and despite some vigorous protests from their own supporters, the Government of the day rushed through, in a few hours, the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill containing the notorious Clause which is set out in paragraph 19 of the White Paper, which meant that the Executive could enforce full Socialism overnight. A point which my right hon. Friend did not mention —and I hoped there would be a Liberal Member to appreciate it—is that it took a Liberal Amendment to exclude from the proposed powers the power to suspend or suppress a newspaper. That had to be expressly excluded because the powers were so wide.
  I do not know whether hon. Members opposite still subscribe to the theory that they should have unlimited powers for unspecified purposes. Do they still agree that the important point is "not to do things with the most scrupulous regard to the theories of democracy or to exact constitutional propriety, but to get on with the job?" I should be interested to know whether anybody likes to commit himself to that point of view.
  I and many others prefer the views of our elder statesman, the infallible Member as I think he has been rather unkindly described—the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) —in his book "Government and Parliament", in which he said that when he was in office, before the 1951 General Election, he thought that legislation should be introduced which would enable Parliament itself to determine in reasonable detail the scope within which and the purposes for which such regulations should be made. He further observed that he was anxious to see that regulations should be made respectable by embodying them in Acts of Parliament.

  477
  Do hon. Members opposite subscribe to that view? Or can they spare a moment from party propaganda and rather stale village hall speeches to face up to the facts? I welcome, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Lewisham. South welcomes, the new respectability which the Bill is giving to Regulations 50, 51, 51A, 52 and 59, which are being replaced by existing Acts—the Land Powers (Defence) Act, the Opencast Coal Act and the new Factories Bill. I hope that at least the right hon. Gentleman will welcome Clause 2 (2) of the Bill as determining in reasonable detail the scope of those regulations which are to remain and that he and other back benchers on both sides will be satisfied with subsection (6). which deals with the procedure for laying Statutory Instruments. I hope that he will subscribe to the principle to which I have referred and which is set out in paragraph 8 of the White Paper.
  The final categories in the Bill, apart from those which have been given respectability or which are having their claws cut, are some which are being abolished, some which are expiring and some which, in one form or another, are being retained. The most interesting regulation, on which observation has been made, is that which is in Regulation 58AA. As I understand the position, when the prohibition against strikes or lockouts was removed by the Government of the day in 1951, a review was suggested but no agreement has been reached as to how the tribunal should be replaced. I understand that there were compulsory provisions, which were not justified in peacetime, and that at some time or other the tribunal had to go. I think that it can be replaced, and if there is the necessary will voluntary arbitration can easily take the place of this Tribunal.
  I welcome the Bill not because I believe that it sweeps something away, or because I think that it is good Tory propaganda, or that it will be so thought but because I am a back bencher and I do not trust any Executive. I like to see its claws being cut, because I believe that to be the traditional job of ordinary Members of Parliament.
  Parliament is a living organism, and we must not give Ministers a blank cheque in respect of the responsibilities we ourselves carry. I do not know whether
  478
  hon. Members opposite have such unlimited confidence in their leaders that they want to give them blank cheques. We like and admire ours, but we still do not want to give them a blank cheque.
  Parliament itself cannot be concerned with every individual matter. Some things have to be delegated, but the days have gone when, as in the twenty-second year of the reign of Henry VIII, the House could spend its time passing an Act for the boiling to death of the cook of the Bishop of Rochester. I do not know whether it was because the cook had failed to poison this saintly man, or because he had poisoned him.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Did the Bill get the Royal Assent?
  Mr. Bell: It was passed. We cannot. I say, get back to subjects as detailed as that, but neither should we get back to the other Henry VIII Statute of 1539. We do not want a Statute or Proclamation. No form of Statute or Proclamation could be satisfactory, except to Members of the Front Bench. The respected elder statesman to whom I have already referred said, in one passage in his book. to which passage I subscribe:
  "It is as well for Parliament to keep a watchful and even a jealous eye on it"—
  that is, delegated legislation—
  "at all stages."
  This Bill recognises that. It has endeavoured to circumscribe the powers. It has not done much about setting a standard in the laying of Orders, but it has done something to acknowledge that only in exceptional times, for exceptional purposes, is it in keeping with the English tradition that the Executive should have wide powers. We have had much trouble with the Executive in this House, Mr. Speaker, as you and your predecessors know. We have to watch it and raise the cry of privilege when it endeavours to obtain wider powers. Apart from questions of detail, which can be thrashed out in Committee, I remain astonished that this Bill does not receive the support of back benchers on both sides of the House.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) has given us a very interesting and very carefully prepared essay—with a great deal of

  479
  historical background—upon the relations between back benchers and the Executive, and I am glad to have an opportunity to reply to it. Many of his illustrations were quite out of date. The issue here is not whether delegated legislation is a good or a bad thing; it is far more subtle than that, and it cannot be dealt with in that very superficial way.
  In a sense it is right that all back benchers should be united in trying to restrain the powers of the Executive, but, although that may be a proper exercise of the duties of back benchers, it is quite wrong for the hon. and learned Member to claim —as a great many hon. Members opposite do—that that function is exclusively fulfilled by hon. Members of his party.
  Mr. Osborne: My hon. and learned Friend did not say that.
  Mr. Philip Bell: I made a particular point of trying to be generous. I said that when we had industrial conscription many hon. Members on both back benches objected to it.
  Mr. Fletcher: Then I apologise to the hon. and learned Member, and acquit him of having claimed for the back benchers of his party any superiority over ours in their vigilance in that respect.
  If the hon. and learned Member were logical he would object to the Bill. If his abhorrence of delegated legislation is as great as he professed in some passages of his speech, he would be against the retention by this or any Government of the powers that they are seeking to retain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) explained, although the Bill is called the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Bill it is really an Emergency Laws (Continuation) Bill. The effect of it is to re-enact and delegate to the Government a considerable degree of power to introduce all kinds of Measures under what had hitherto been Defence Regulations, but which are now perpetuated in another form.
  The hon. and learned Member has pointed out that during recent years there has been, with the consent of both sides of the House, the abolition of a large number of Defence Regulations which were in existence during the war. That
  480
  is not a matter for which the Government can claim any credit, for they were abolished by mutual consent. The Defence Regulations which gave the Executive power to circumscribe the activities of the individual—such as Defence Regulation 18B—may have been justified in wartime, but they are quite inexcusable in peacetime, and have long been abrogated. The regulations which remain operate in the economic sphere.
  The issue between the parties today is far more subtle than the hon. and learned Member would have us believe. He asks us whether we are in favour of retaining these powers. What strikes me as very odd is that in his analysis of the powers which the Government have retained and the powers that they are giving up he, as a back bencher, happens to agree precisely with the proposals of the Government.
  The Economic Secretary said that the Bill was an exercise in constitutional propriety. In my submission, it is an affront to constitutional decency. It is an attempt to hoodwink the electors, to hamper the next Labour Government and to defy the wishes of the electorate. The hon. and learned Member spoke in very opprobrious terms about the Supplies and Services Acts of 1945 and 1947. I forget whether he was in the House at the time—
  Mr. Philip Bell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fletcher: —but his party voted against the 1947 Act. The hon. and learned Member did himself and his party less than justice in overlooking the fact that if they had been sincere in their professions they would have made some attempt to sweep away those Acts long before this. It does not lie in the mouth of the Tory Party to challenge the Labour Party as being the party which believes in controls; it is the Tory Party which, although it voted against the Supplies and Services Acts, 1947—
  Mr. Philip Bell: I never mentioned anything about controls. I ignored all the arguments about that subject. I was talking about delegated legislation.
  Mr. Fletcher: I am talking about delegated legislation, and I want to answer the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He objected to the 1947 Act. His Party voted against it. He cited the terms

  481
  of that Act as in paragraph 19 of the White Paper—and expressed his disapproval. The hon. and learned Member should remember that during the last three or four years this Tory Government have invoked the 1947 Act when it suited them in order to introduce new Defence Regulations.
  Mr. Philip Bell: That was monstrous.
  Mr. Fletcher: I am glad that the hon. and learned Member acknowledges it. But I am not now concerned to argue whether it was monstrous or not. I am concerned to argue that it is inconsistent and hypocritical for this Government, having made use of the 1947 Act when it suited them to do so to introduce far-reaching and entirely new Defence Regulations, now to condemn the whole of the machinery of that Act and to deny any further Government from using, when necessary, similar powers.
  As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), the House should remember that, owing to the state of emergency to which it reduced the country at the time of the Suez crisis, this Tory Government had to take action and introduce new Defence Regulations; not merely new Statutory Instruments but to make far-reaching Defence Regulations which are quoted in the Blue Book. Otherwise they would not have been able to have introduced petrol rationing. A year or two ago they had to introduce new Defence Regulations to obtain power to enable them to introduce controls on hire purchasing and credit restriction agreements.
  The odd thing is that, having used the machinery of these emergency Acts when it suited them to do so, the Government have, in the last few months of an expiring Parliament, come forward pretending to be the advocates of Parliamentary supremacy in order to select which powers shall be possessed by future Governments and which shall be discontinued. The House and the country should ask why have the Government left it so late? They have exercised all the controls they wished to exercise under this machinery for the last four or five years. Why should they want to circumscribe the machinery under which future Governments may work, and do so during the last few months of the existence of
  482
  what is a dying and decadent Administration? There can be only one possible explanation. If the Tory Party felt any confidence at all—obviously it does not —in its ability to win the next Election —I see that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East is leaving the Chamber. I do not want him to go. I want him to stay and listen to the argument.
  Were it the fact that the party opposite had confidence in winning the Election, there would be no need for the introduction of this Bill now. It could be introduced after the Election. But if it is thought— as hon. Members opposite must think—that there is a good chance—I will not estimate the chance—of the party to which I belong winning the next Election, is the introduction of this Bill by this Government a legitimate exercise of Parliamentary power? Is it legitimate for them now to circumscribe the powers of a future Labour Government and take away powers which the present Government have exercised?
  The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East quoted paragraph 8 of the White Paper, on which he took his stand. But I am not sure that he analysed that paragraph fully or satisfactorily. The paragraph deals with the relation between Parliament and Government, but there is something else which is equally important; it is the relation between Parliament and the electorate. It is all very well for we back benchers to talk about the supremacy of Parliament and to say we should be more vigilant in the control which we exercise over the Executive. I am entirely in agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman about that, but we should not overlook the other issue. I am not talking about the legal sovereignty of Parliament. I appreciate as well as does the hon. and learned Member that there is no limit to the legal sovereignty of Parliament. But, by long-established tradition and convention, there is a limit to what a Parliament, in the last weeks of its existence, should do in relation to the electorate. The accusation we make against this Government is that by this Measure—
  Mr. John Mackie indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fletcher: It is no use the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) shaking his head.

  483
  The accusation we make is that this Government at this stage are deliberately introducing this Bill for two subtle purposes. One is to try to deceive the electorate and the other to frustrate the electorate. They are trying to deceive the electorate because they are attempting to pretend that the Tory Party, which has exercised all the machinery of controls that it has wished to do for the last four years, is the party which is trying to reduce controls. Hon. Members opposite are trying to say something which cannot be substantiated, and at the same time they are trying to do something which will hamper a future Labour Government from giving effect to the wishes of the electorate, as, for example, in ensuring full employment.
  Mr. Mackie: I know that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was not a Member of this House during the 1935 Parliament, nor was he present on that 24th August, 1939, to which reference has been made, when the Emergency Regulations then deemed necessary by the Chamberlain Government were rushed through this House. On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who then represented Epping, made a short speech before he went into office in which he said—I quote from memory, but I know that I am right—that we were entrusting these emergency powers to the Government well knowing that they were temporary and would be removed at the earliest convenient opportunity.
  Mr. Fletcher: I yield to no one in my admiration for the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). He has made many memorable speeches and has rendered valuable services to this country to which no mere back bendier, as I am, can pay adequate tribute. But it is fair also to recall the record of the right hon. Gentleman in relation to the matter which we are now discussing. Since he introduced the subject, may I remind the hon. Member for Galloway that—
  Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member should look it up.
  Mr. Fletcher: I have looked it up and I have here the report of the speech made by the right hon. Member for
  484
  Woodford on 8th August, 1947, as Leader of the Opposition. He was then opposing the Second Reading of the Second Reading of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill of that year. It is this machinery under which the Tory Party has been operating for the last four years and on that occasion, in dealing with a Measure which has proved so necessary and beneficial not only to the Labour Government but subsequently to the Tory Government, the right hon. Gentleman used language which he would now recognise—as I am sure the hon. Member for Galloway recognises—was completely extravagant. He said:
  "These powers are the negation of British freedom and our way of life in time of peace."
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to them as,
  "… the complete abrogation of Parliament and of all our dearly-bought and long-cherished liberties and rights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August. 1947; Vol. 441. c. 1801–5.]
  If that is right, then the Tory Government ought to have taken powers long ago to remove these Acts from the Statute Book.
  When the hon. Member for Galloway interrupted, I was trying to drive home the point, which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick, that the real object of this Bill—which takes away from the Government of the day powers which have hitherto been exercised in order to meet various emergencies at the time of Suez and the financial emergencies that arose subsequently—is an attempt to deprive a future Labour Government of the benefits of being able to use those powers if necessary to meet any future emergency, or to ensure full employment.
  There is no doubt that that is the motive behind the Bill. That was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I wondered, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) wondered, why it was that this Bill is being sponsored by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and not by the Home Office. All previous Bills of this kind, as my right hon. Friend pointed out to me, have always been sponsored by the Home Office. It is quite obvious why this Bill is not being sponsored by the Home Office. The Home Secretary

  485
  and Lord Privy Seal could hardly have the face and the effrontery, in view of the speech which he made a few months ago, to justify it. He let the cat out of the bag. He said that the Government intended, as he put it, to prevent a future Labour 'Government from introducing Socialism by a "flick of the switch".
  The right hon. Gentleman also said. when he was commending the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill tc us the other day that people must be judged by their motives. He has given away the motive for this Bill. There is no use the Government now trying to conceal it. The motive is partly to hoodwink the electorate and partly to frustrate the wishes of the electorate. The Government must think the electorate very stupid, because their attempt to deceive the electorate in this way has been revealed. It has been criticised by The Times: it has been condemned— speak subject to correction— by the Economist and by the Manchester Gqardian. The Times pointed out in very moderate language the other day, censoring the introduction of this Bill:
  "If a Socialist Government were returned to office. it would have been by the will of the people. And however wholeheartedly the British voter fights the party battle at Election times, he is experienced enough to know tint the country has to be governed. He is not inclined to like Government moves designed purely for the purpose of making things more difficult for a possible successor,"
  I hope that I have said enough to prevent the Tory Party being able to make party political propaganda out of a specious claim that it is the party which believes in the abolition of controls.
  The Bill retains some controls and abolishes others. This Parliament, in my submission, has no moral right, no constitutional right, at this stage to decide which of the existing controls should be repealed and which retained. That will be a matter for the next Parliament to decide. If it is the wish of the electorate, as I believe it is, that there should be a Labour Government after the next Eection, armed to deal energetically with the economic problems facing the country, it must be right for this Parliament to endeavour to ensure that that party and that Government have all the necessary power to give effect to the wishes of the electorate.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: Having sat through the whole of the debate, except for going out for one short telephone call, I should like to say that I cannot quite understand what all the pother is about this Bill. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say that it does not free the people to anything like the extent that some of my colleagues would like to suggest. I think that that is true. On the other hand, it is not the wicked piece of legislation that some hon. Members opposite would like the House to believe.
  Having listened to all the speeches, I should like to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), who is not here at the moment, on his speech. I think that it was the most balanced, sensible and thoughtful contribution made so far. and I am sorry that he is not here to hear what I have said about it.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) in his speech, appealed to me, and I should like to reply to the point which he made. He said that those of us who were here in 1945 remembered the post-war economic problems which faced the Government of the day, and that with the sudden ending of Lend-Lease, world restrictions and shortage of foodstuff and raw materials, the Government of the day had to have certain powers to protect the life and industry of the country. Of course they had. I entirely agree that such powers were necessary.
  The hon. Member went on to say that the economic position was easier. Of course it is easier. When we had finished the devastating war, our economy was in a dreadful condition and whatever Government succeeded in 1945 would have been faced with problems such as had never faced any British Government before. I agree with that; naturally, 13 years after the war our position should have been easier for whatever Government was in power.
  Just as he argued that we required emergency powers to deal with the problems which the war left with us, so, on his own showing, I should have thought, since things are easier and not so pressing now, not so many of these powers are required and, therefore, he might have supported this Bill. My hon. and learned

  487
  Friend the Member for Bolton, East said, in his very wise speech, that back benchers on both sides of the House had a duty to watch the growth of the Executive's power and to see that it did not abuse it. That is the basis of free democracy. He based his case on Clause 8, and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House, reading that Clause, would not feel that the Bill is anything like so terrible as hon. Members opposite suggest, or anything so wonderful as some of my hon. Friends might think.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who opened the debate for the Opposition, said that there were sharp differences between the two sides of the House, and that the Bill brought out those differences. It is living in a world of fantasy for anyone to suggest that we want every control abolished, or for anyone on this side of the House to suggest that hon. Members opposite want controls for controls' sake. We are living in a mixed economy. We want fewer controls and they may want a few more. It is only a matter of degree; it is not a matter of extremes in one case or in the other. I think that the differences between the two sides of the House are not nearly so great as some hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested today; nor are we trying to bring in this Bill for electioneering purposes.
  The right hon. Member for Smethwick said that the Bill abolished only three restrictions and that ten others which were obstensibly being abolished were being retained in other forms. He said that because of that we were not the freedom-loving party that some people might think. The "flick of the switch" argument has been overplayed on both sides. After the next General Election. whichever party the people decide for will have all the power necessary to do what it thinks right for the country. Therefore, if hon. Members opposite feel that they will then be returned to power. it follows that they will be able to do exactly as they want, and it is right and proper that they should carry out the programme that they have put before the country, and which the country has accepted. I entirely agree with that.
  On the other hand, that argument can be used for this side, too. At the last
  488
  test, with free elections, we were returned with a majority, and are, therefore, entitled to carry out what we believe the people returned us to power to carry out. Perhaps, one day, the other party will come back to power—but I hope that it will not be for another twenty years. However, the argument that we are doing something that will prevent them carrying out their programme, if they are returned, is just shadow-boxing, and both sides of the House know it—
  Mr. C. Pannell: But the Leader of the House said that that was the reason for it. He introduced the phrase, "flick of the switch." He said that that was the reason.
  Mr. Osborne: This is my speech. I am giving my point of view, and follow-mg up what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East said, that we back benchers should watch over the liberties of the individual and see that the Executive, no matter which party is in power, does not encroach on those liberties. That is our traditional function, and I am trying, though imperfectly. to carry it out.
  The right hon. Member for Smethwick also complained that the Bill would prevent a future Labour Government from being able to restore full employment. He thought that certain of the powers that we are said to be abolishing are necessary if a Labour Government are to guarantee full employment. That is one of the most dangerous misconceptions that is held in the House and in the country today. No amount of restriction, no amount of control—no matter by whom exercised—can, in a free society, guarantee eternal, complete and full employment—
  Mr. Douglas Jay: It would make it easier.
  Mr. Osborne: Well, we shall see.
  Ordinarily, the right hon. Member for Smethwick is a very responsible speaker, but I say that the greatest fallacy current today is that, somehow—by legislation, by controls, by restrictions—any party, in a free society, can do what the right hon. Gentleman said his party would do—guarantee full employment.
  It cannot be done, and it is a terrible deception of the ordinary people to pretend that it can be done. If I may say

  489
  so with respect—and I do not say this in an abusive way—if right hon. and lion. Gentlemen opposite go to the country with a tale like that it will be rather like getting votes by false pretences— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members say "Oh", but I believe it to be true because in a free society they cannot, even with the greatest imaginable controls, guarantee full and complete employment.
  Perhaps I may give one or two examples to illustrate why it cannot be done. In The Times today there is a very good article on the Lancashire trade problem, by its Industrial Correspondent, one aspect of which rather startled me. The article says:
  "Another small manifestation of the problem, in another field, is to be found in the appearance in Britain of sewing machines assembled from Japanese parts in Ireland, imported as Commonwealth products and selling with electric motors included for from £10 to £11 each."
  Built in this country, those machines would cost about £45. I know that, because in some of my factories we use many hundreds of them. With prices like that, no regulation or control in the world can prevent unemployment in that section of the engineering industry that produces those machines. Under such conditions, I defy any hon. Member, using any restriction, to promise full employment.
  I have another example—and this, I think, is the heart of the problem. As The Times article points out, the Lancashire people are feeling intensely the competition from India. What regulations, in a free society, can guarantee full employment to all the people in Lancashire, remembering that, low as the prices are in India, the Chinese are now offering equally good textile goods at 10 per cent. below Bombay prices, no matter how low those Bombay prices may be? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House and the country how, in those conditions, restrictions and regulations of any kind can guarantee full employment.
  I have a last example. Three years ago, I was in Poland, in Warsaw, talking to their Director of Economic Affairs. He wanted to buy a big group of Leyland motor buses, and to spend about £60 million on the electrification of one of his
  490
  railways—the orders to come to this country, and thereby provide employment. One. of his main sales then was coal to the National Coal Board. But this is a changing world, and as a result of the substitution of oil for coal, the more economic use of coal, the beginning of competition by nuclear power, we now have 15 million tons of coal than we can neither use nor sell.
  Therefore, we are not buying any more coal from Poland. Because we will not, cannot, buy Poland's coal, Poland is no longer in a position to buy those Leyland buses and the railway electrification equipment. That is why I say that, in such conditions, nobody can guarantee work, eternal and full, either to the miner or the engineer, and it is a fraud of the first magnitude for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to claim, even though sincerely, that, somehow, the restrictions that we are taking away will rob a Labour Government of their ability, in a free society, to guarantee full and complete employment—
  Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Member really deny that there are certain things a Government can do that makes full employment less, or more likely?
  Mr. Osborne: I will agree with that, but I am speaking about the absolute claim. If the right hon. Gentleman will read his colleague's speech in HANSARD tomorrow, he will see what was said. It is to that that I am trying to reply. And this is a problem that faces both sides.
  Another case will interest all hon. Members who represent coastal areas. The shipbuilding industry, only a few weeks ago, said that the total number of foreign orders had fallen and, for the first time in our history, at a level of 250,000 tons—
  Mr. C. Pannell: Not in our history.
  Mr. Osborne: I have not finished my sentence. Foreign orders had fallen to 250,000 tons, and, for the first time in our long history, we were net importers of ships rather than net exporters. Why? The Japanese and the Germans can produce ships either more quickly or more cheaply—sometimes a little of both.
  There is nothing taken out by this Bill which could enable right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell the shipbuilders around our coasts that they

  491
  could make the foreigner buy British when Japanese and German ships were available for them to buy so much more cheaply. We do a disservice to our people in pretending that there is so much politics in the Bill, or in pretending that we can do so much for them through the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said that Clause 3 was the Ministry of Supply Clause. After I had read it, I looked up the Imperial Calendar and Civil Service List. I commend this to hon. Gentlemen on both sides. The Ministry of Supply, to which Clause 3 is given or dedicated, has, practically 80 double-column pages in this Calendar devoted to the names of its senior civil servants, at salaries from £1,500 to £4,500 a year. This is, as I hope, a temporary wartime, Government Department. In all seriousness, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend and to my hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench that, instead of the Ministry of Supply being given more work and more powers, it should be wound up. Could not its work be put elsewhere and a good deal of what is revealed by this Calendar saved?
  I shall support the Bill not because it will do an immense amount, and not because it will deceive the electorate. I shall support it because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East said so well, in a mixed society we have to accept a certain amount of control, but the less control we have, the better type of society and the more freedom we have to live our own lives in our own way, controlling our own affairs, the better will it be for us as citizens.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: This Bill is largely concerned with Acts of 1945 and 1947, and I think that in every case I moved the Second Reading of those Measures in the House. I am asked, therefore, to witness, if not the slaughter, at any rate the considerable mutilation of some of my children. That is a prospect which not even the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department can imagine that I view with much glee.
  It is quite clear from the way in which the debate has developed that we are
  492
  really dealing here with some of the essentials of the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights of the people. It is astonishing, therefore, that, except for a few brief minutes when the Minister of Health was here, not one Member whose name appears on the back of the Bill has honoured us with his presence. If hon. Members will look at the back of the Bill, they will see that the Minister of Health is the only one who has been present at any time during our debate.
  The Solicitor-General: I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply was here, at a time when, I think, the right hon. Gentleman himself was not here.
  Mr. Ede: That must have been for only a very few minutes indeed when I was dealing with some matters which related to my former tenure of office at the Home Office, as the Joint Under-Secretary will know. However, if the right hon. Gentleman was here, I will certainly make that allowance. Neither the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate nor the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply has his name on the back of the Bill. I do not think that that is treating the House with the respect it deserves. If Ministers put their names on the back of a Bill, they ought, at any rate, to show some interest in the proceedings in the House.
  At the end of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), I came to the conclusion that the proper summary was, "What is the good of anything?—Why, nothing." He clearly demonstrated, to his own satisfaction apparently. that no matter what any Government did, our own internal economic conditions would be at the mercy of the other countries of the world which had low standards of living. I do not hold that doctrine at all. I believe that there is a great deal more to be done through international effort on some of these matters, and I am quite certain that no one on his own Front Bench will say that the Government of this country are as powerless when economic disaster might be approaching as he tried to make them appear.
  Mr. Osborne: All I was trying to show was that no powers can alter what I call the international economics of the world.

  493
  Since we have to export 20 per cent. of all we produce to pay for our foodstuffs and raw materials, and sell the things in competition with low-cost producing countries in the world markets, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he suggests that these powers can help.
  Mr. Ede: I am not trying to prove that the powers retained or abolished by this Bil1 would do that. What I am saying is that I am quite certain that any Government in power in this country, if they thought the position was as desperate as the hon. Gentleman tries to make it appear, would come to the House with proposals, either to exclude goods from their markets or to arrange some international conference, just as we recently had within the Commonwealth, to see that those matters were put right.
  I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view that the industries which he named are incapable, given proper Government support, to deal with any situation which may arise. In 1945 and 1947 our position was a great deal more desperate than it is today. We had to take certain powers which we used and which we said we would use—I do not shrink from answering what the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) said— and by the help of which we carried through a peaceful social revolution which in some respects will be to the lasting credit of this country.
  The matter has been so closely argued on both sides that I do not intend to go over the ground again, but I believe that in the end, in the modern world, it will be necessary for a Government that desires to see even-handed justice done in the country between the various interests and sections that there shall be some governmental power and direction that will ensure that there shall be some central guidance about the way in which the economic resources and manpower of this country can be used so that useful people get the opportunity to exercise their usefulness inside the community.
  After all, the Government have had no compunction about using the economic powers that they like when they want them. No legislation gives the Government the power that this Government exercised of putting the Bank Rate up as high as 7 per cent. when they think the occasion demands it. That was done as recently as September, 1957, and the
  494
  Government, faced with what they regarded as an emergency, had no compunction then about altering hire purchase systems, of making the lives of many people of moderate means very miserable, of applying a credit squeeze with very shaky legislative backing which gave plenty of small businessmen, employing a few men, the gravest anxiety and putting a great deal of anxiety also into the minds of the people employed by them.
  Do not let us pretend that when there is a crisis to be faced whatever Government is in power will not apply what it believes to be the appropriate remedies. I do not think the remedies which appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite are the remedies that are always suited to the particular illness with which they are trying to deal. I frequently think it is one of those cases that if the doctor only left the patient alone it is probable he would recover from his own internal vitality.
  This Bill is one of the preliminary steps to the withdrawal of the protection of Order No. 1376 from a very deserving section of the community whose incomes have to some extent been safeguarded by its existence. I received a letter from the National Union of Bank Employees in my constituency saying that it regards the Government's action as being very detrimental to its future prospects. I do not think that people would regard bank employees and people of a similar social and financial status as being likely to vote in overwhelming numbers for the Labour Party.
  Mr. Mackie: They vote Liberal.
  Mr. Ede: That would show that they have even less political acumen than I was giving them credit for. An astounding thing is the way in which the Government have not merely neglected the interests of that group of people in society but have been actively hostile to them. I was astonished when I got letters from the people in the Health Service who wec.e adversely affected by the refusal of the Government to implement an award that they had received. Nearly every one of the letters came on headed notepaper with a telephone number. That is some indication that they belong to about the same social group as the people in the banks and in the local government service who are interested in the repeal of Order No. 1376.

  495
  I hope that these people will realise that when we get down to harsh economic facts this Government could put them among the working classes and treat them as though they were workers. All they do is—
  Mr. E. Partridge: Are they not workers?
  Mr. Ede: They are, not that all of them would be very flattered if the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) went round and told them that they were members of the working class.
  Mr. Partridge: The right hon. Gentleman denied that they were workers.
  Mr. Ede: No, I did not. It was the hon. Member who hinted that.
  I appeal to the Government, on grounds of social justice, that if they are withdrawing the protection of Order No. 1376 from these people, they shall provide alternative protection that puts them in a reasonably equal position with their employers when it comes to bargaining about salaries and the conditions under which they carry on their professions in which they work.
  I have some idea that this matter was going very well until there was a change of Minister at the Ministry of Labour and National Service. In certain negotiations that I was having with the Minister of those days, who is now Lord Monckton, we appeared to be getting on very well and I received some comforting assurances. As soon as the change took place, however, I discovered that one of the people who had been most hostile to granting any extension of Order No. 1376 was the Minister who had been Minister of Health and who became Minister of Labour and National Service, because as Minister of Health he was anxious that some of the better-paid people, so I am informed, who were in his employment as Minister of Health should not get the benefit of Order No. 1376 and be able to take him to the Industrial Court.
  Mr. C. Pannell: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the Industrial Court. I am sure that he means the Industrial Disputes Tribunal.
  Mr. Ede: I thank my hon. Friend for putting me right on the exact technical term to apply to this tribunal.
  496
  I hope that the Solicitor-General will see to it that some effort is made not entirely to deprive these people of the none too strong protection they have already had without giving them something which, I hope, will be even stronger. I shall vote against the Bill tonight, if for no other reason—
  Mr. Mackie: So there will be a Division.
  Mr. Ede: That is not for me to decide, although I know what I shall shout when Mr. Speaker puts the Question. I shall vote against this Bill tonight, because without entering into all the arguments that have been used, I consider that the case against it has been amply proved in the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. John C. Bidgood: In following the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I must first of all apologise to him for being one of these people who are in at the strangulation of some of the babies to which he referred in his remarks. In very graphic terms the right hon. Gentleman explained to us the programme of legislation which was carried through by the Government of 1945 to 1951. While we have no doubt about the antecedents of the children, the Bills to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, we know that he had a great part in the paternity, but if he tries to bring in the question of the paternity of the Bill that we are debating tonight I am afraid I must cross swords with him, because those Measures were carried through, and that child was born and nurtured, on a dual paternity, on the paternity of the Canadians and the Americans who subscribed sufficient money in the form of loans to enable that programme to be carried through.
  Most hon. Members of my own age will, I am sure, not disagree with me when I say that almost from the time when I began to take an interest in current affairs as reported in the Press there has been a continual campaign by most of the newspapers for the repeal of the Defence of the Realm Acts. I can remember when I was quite a young boy the popular Press constantly lobbying for the repeal of those various Acts, the old D.O.R.A.
  It is interesting that when the Defence of the Realm Bill was debated in 1914

  497
  the then Home Secretary came into the House without a draft of the Bill and only half a page of notes in his hand. That was because the Measure was so urgent, and had to be rushed through very quickly. We all know that, despite the short period of time in which that Act was born, it survived far too long.
  Then we came,to the Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill of 1939. The then Home Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, regretted that the Home Secretary had to come to the House after twenty-five years asking for powers which, to use his own words,
  "trench on many of the most cherished liberties and practices of his fellow citizens."— [OFFCIAL REPORT, 24th August, 1939; Vol. 351, c. 63.]
  I maintain that in 1958, after a further period of nineteen years, this or any other Government need have no regrets at continuing the process of restoring these cherished liberties and practices to which that Home Secretary referred in introducing that Bill nineteen years ago.
  I have made reference to the continuing process. Hon. Members will know that for this Government it has been a continuing process. Today we are at a very advanced stage of the process of eliminating this emergency legislation. The exercise commenced in 1951. At that time there were 215 Defence Regulations in force. As has been explained to the House today, these have been reduced to thirteen, and most of these are to go.
  It is interesting to note that the Second and Third Readings of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act in 1939, to which I have referred, took two and three-quarter hours. It has taken us nineteen years to get round to the Second Reading of today's Bill which will take about twice that length of time in debate, and we are still left with five substantive regulations. It is truly said that it is quicker to get legislation on to the Statute Book than to get it off.
  The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) suggests that the Bill is not a charter of liberty, but will do great damage to the nation. He asks why, if we had a genuine desire to do it, WC did not complete this process three or four years ago. I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that four years ago we had reduced the number of Defence
  498
  Regulations from 215 to 69, and the process has continued. What surprises me most about the Opposition is the result of the comparison that one must make between its attitude today and the attitude which it took up when the Act was first put on the Statute Book in 1939.
  During that debate, on 24th August. 1939. the then Home Secretary said:
  "There is another point to which I would draw attention. Hon. Members may say to me, ' Here you Members of the Government are asking for a free hand to deal with matters that trench upon the lives of every individual in the country. You are asking for emergency powers. What safeguard is there that, having obtained those emergency powers, you will not continue to enforce them when the emergency is past?' This was a point put to me with great force and very legitimately by the leaders of the Opposition with whom I discussed the provisions of the Bill. I am anxious to meet these suspicions."
  He then referred hon. Members to various Clauses and added:
  "I hope that this provision will make it quite clear to every hon. Member that we have no intention whatever of using these emergency powers for peace-time purposes."
  Mr. Pickthorn: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Bidgood: The then Home Secretary made these comments in deference to the wishes of the Opposition at that time. Later in the same debate he said:
  "… I ask that this Bill should go through with no undue delay, and that we should make it clear to the world that we are prepared to arm ourselves with powers to meet any emergency, and that if for the time being we are setting in abeyance the liberties and privileges that we have prized so much in the past, we set them aside, not as a result of any dictation, but as an act of our own volition, and as an insurance that in setting them aside for a short time we shall retain them permanently in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th August, 1939; Vol. 351, c. 66–9.]
  Certain Opposition Members said at a later stage during that debate that if they did not challenge a Division it was because they were taking a previous Division as having shown their general opposition to the Bill. Now the Opposition apparently wants the cake and the penny as well.
  The Opposition did not approve of the legislation which we are repealing today when it was enacted nineteen years ago. Opposition Members were fearful at the time lest these powers should be used for peace-time purposes. In view of the undertaking given by the then Home Secretary, it would be a breach of faith on

  499
  the part of the Government if this Bill were not brought in. It is indeed a charter of liberty and, what is more, another example, if one were needed, of a Conservative promise kept.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Boyd: The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood), and indeed, nearly every other speaker in this debate, has laid great emphasis on the issue of freedom involved in this Bill, to which we are asked to give a Second Reading tonight. It is right, of course, as several hon. Members have emphasised, that such a matter should be discussed very fully before further steps are taken to increase or diminish the powers of the Government in relation to the subject—or perhaps we should more appropriately say citizens when considering the question of freedom.
  All of us are anxious to preserve the maximum freedom of the individual in this country. In practice, perhaps, we shall never succeed in sustaining as much freedom as has existed unless we are continually seeking how to enlarge the freedoms of the citizens of our country. The only way in which we can keep this concept of freedom up to date and alive is by keeping it relevant to modern life and to the daily lives of our constituents.
  It is natural that we as professional talkers, perhaps professional controversialists, should be fully aware of the importance of free speech, and so perhaps there is no danger that this House would ever neglect that kind of freedom, although there have been accusations flung about from time to time. I can remember one allegation in 1950, when my Conservative opponent went round on polling day with a loudspeaker declaring that this was the last opportunity his constituents would have to vote in a free election. Certainly that is one of the most crucial freedoms. All experience seems to show that a Government responsible to a freely elected Parliament is the greatest and strongest of safeguards for free speech.
  However, these kinds of freedoms have been debated more fully, and people have struggled for them for longer than some of the others which affect more closely the poorer members of the community. Do we give enough importance to the question of a free choice of occupation,
  500
  of where one lives, of what one eats and of what one wears? Those freedoms are important to many people but are perhaps more difficult to achieve—and therefore more crucially important—to the poorer of our constituents than is sometimes recognised.
  Those freedoms are enormously increased in a community which is fully employed, where people then have real opportunities of changing their employment if they wish to do so. Indeed, a change of boss is often one of the most urgent needs of an individual for his self-respect; also a change of home, which depends often on whether a chap has got employment and on the size of his income. Therefore, for many people the range of free choice available in their daily life, in things other than talking, depends a great deal on the prosperity of the country, and it is not irrelevant to the cause of freedom to insist that the country should use its resources to the full. Not only the manpower but the plant and machinery and the natural wealth of the country must be fully utilised for production. That is an essential part of enlarging the freedoms of our people to the utmost extent. In particular, full employment gives the maximum opportunity of a free choice of employment.
  In practice in recent years we have been finding that full employment, as might have been anticipated, is difficult to combine with a stable currency, and the more the controls, the planning machinery, inherited by the Labour Government from the war and by the Conservative Government from the Labour Government, have been gradually dismantled the greater has been the difficulty of combining full employment and an expanding economy with a stable price level. At this time, when Ministers themselves recognise that unemployment is bound to increase further, to a little over 600,000 in January, it is surely rash to be dismantling more of the machinery by which the problem might be solved. This is at a time when it is most visibly and obviously failing to be solved.
  There was a time under Sir Stafford Cripps when we had a fairly stable price level in a world of inflation, and when we also had a very high level of employment, which some called over-full employment. We certainly had a fully employed

  501
  population, a rapidly expanding production and a rapidly expanding export trade. At that time, it might well have been argued that we could afford to relax some of the machinery that had been thought necessary for organising the economy. Indeed, the bonfire of controls associated with the name of my right hon. Fr end the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) occurred about that period, and it was apparently accomplished without affecting the continuing expansion of production which went on until the Korean War and then the Conservative Government disrupted it.
  This is not a time like that. Production is lower than last year, and it has been stagnant for a long time. There is no doubt that more people are having difficulty in making ends meet. There are people who have been dependent upon overtime which is no longer available to them. Some people are on short time, some people are actually unemployed, and some people are faced with the threat of unemployment. This is no time to be dismantling further the machinery by which employment and production could be expanded without the danger of inflation.
  I do not believe that one can in practice reconcile these two things without some control of prices. It is mainly to abolish the power of price control that the Bill is being introduced, and it is mainly for that reason that I think it ought to be rejected. This will not very much affect the present Government. The Bill is intended to clip the wings of the next Government. I trust it will not take very long for the Labour Government to reequip itself with the necessary powers. However, I think it may be a little reluctant about it.
  I can assure hon. Members who may have doubts that there is no excess of enthusiasm among my right hon. Friends for slapping on price controls on all sides. I fear that my right hon. Friends may be a little too reluctant to recognise the necessity for controlling prices fairly widely in order to get the maximum expansion of production without danger to the currency. I think that it will, in practice, quickly be forced upon my right hon. Friends—that they will proceed too gingerly with expanding production to take care of prices without controlling prices, and they will find that by con-
  502
  trolling prices fairly widely they can go much further and expand production and trade much more rapidly, to the great benefit of the country.
  I plead that the Bill should be rejected and that the power of price control should be firmly retained. Indeed. I shall be surprised if in a decade or two's time it does not become usual for Conservatives, too, to say that price control by Governments is one of the necessary operations in the framework of a prosperous national economy. If there are Conservative Governments for any appreciable part of the next two or three decades, I think they will find that it is not a vital part of the freedom of the individual that manufacturers should be compelled to spend much of their time haggling about prices instead of expanding production, cutting costs and finding more efficient ways of production.
  That is what it seems to me happens today, for prices are largely settled by trade associations or, in the absence of such associations, informal rings have to be constructed and business men may have to spend much time in settling prices. In practice business men have to spend much time on the question of prices and in getting the best price as the best way of increasing the prosperity of their business, often at the expense of loss of production.
  Trade associations could assist in negotiations with the Government in settling prices. In that case both the public interest and the interest of the manufacturer involved would be taken into account in the settlement of prices and business men and managers of industry would be free to devote more of their time and energy to organising production efficiently so as to get the maximum turnover, at the price already settled on recognised principles between the Government and the trade associations. They would be free to obtain the maximum profit through the maximum turnover, and by cutting their costs as far below the fixed price as they could. That is the way to produce the most prosperous economy. In that way price control can help to obtain an expanding economy, and, so far from restricting freedom, it is an enlargement of the liberty of the manager in industry in giving him greater freedom to get on with the job which he prefers to do.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: The new Economic Secretary today made a maiden speech of almost maidenly innocence. He gave us a detailed and legalistic explanation of all the things that are in the Bill, but he gave no reason why the Government have put them there. All that has been left to the Solicitor-General.
  I could not help thinking that the very fact that the Economic Secretary was so reluctant to tell us why we have the Bill in this form might imply that the reason for it was not such a reputable reason, After today's debate there is not much left of the claim that the Government have been inspired by pure-minded zeal for civil liberty in introducing the Bill, The present Government are perfectly willing to balance civil liberty against economic expediency when it suits their purpose.
  What the Bill does, stripped of its legalities, is to weaken the power of future Governments, Tory or Labour, to prevent rises in the cost of living, to maintain full employment or industrial peace, to achieve expansion without inflation or to develop Commonwealth resources as quickly as we ought to develop them. The Economic Secretary protested great enthusiasm for what he called constitutional propriety in placing these emergency laws, as a matter of principle, on a respectable permanent basis.
  We entirely agree that powers which are retained should be put upon a proper permanent legislative basis. But the Government have taken seven years to carry out these virtuous principles. They are making an honest woman of themselves after seven years' legal twilight, during which some of the children have grown to a quite advanced age. It was the Manchester Guardian, and not I, who
  described this as a deathbed repentance, whose real object was to spite the heir rather than to right a wrong. If this hasty deathbed conversion is all done out of a new-found conviction—as the hon. Member rather suggested—I do not see the purpose of the Lord Privy Seal's recent speech, when, in one of his characteristic bursts of candour, he talked about this as a flick of the switch. What did he really mean?
  504
  Moreover, contrary to the impression given by the Economic Secretary, and contrary even to what the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) seemed to think—although I hesitate to suggest that he is ever fallible or wrong about anything—the fact is that the Government are not putting the remaining emergency powers upon a permanent basis. The Bill, for the most part, is merely continuing certain Defence Regulations and other emergency powers, as temporary powers, until 1964, very much as the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, continued them for five years, until 1950.
  As for the constitutional propriety of the matter, the Bill is neither more nor less respectable than was the 1945 Act. Nor is it the slightest good for the Government to pretend that they object upon a ground of high principle to economic controls as wicked and tyrannical invasions of the liberty of the subject. That pretence has not survived this debate. The Government are themselves retaining, and in many cases operating, a whole battery of economic controls—and I think that they are doing so rightly in respect of foreign exchange, imports, hire purchase, and the price and distribution of certain welfare foods, and they are also retaining them for the supplies allegedly interrupted by overseas Governments.
  It is not the principle of controls to which the Government object, or in respect of which the two sides of the House are divided today. What really divides us is our respective valuation of the aims which made it worth while to exercise these powers. The Government believe that the limitation of imports and the control of hire purchase, for instance, are worth the trouble of the restraint imposed upon individuals by those controls.
  We attach equal importance to full employment, price stability, the strength of sterling, industrial peace, and Commonwealth development—none of which was mentioned by the Economic Secretary this afternoon. We value full employment, price stability, industrial peace and the rest so much more highly than the Government that we are willing to incur the trouble and sacrifice which they regard as necessary for other purposes, but not for this.

  505
  Leaving aside the legal framework, what substantial powers does the Bill propose to abandon? If I am right, price control over almost all kinds of goods is abandoned, as is control over the production and supply of a large range of goods. Compulsory arbitration, and many of the purchasing powers of the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade, and a few others, are also abandoned.
  No impartial person who understands the Bill can deny that the sweeping away of all those powers must at least make far more difficult the practical job which every speaker in the economic debate a fortnight ago recognised to be the most crucial issue facing us in internal affairs— the job of achieving expansion without inflation.
  If, for instance, we abandon these powers of price control altogether, even the power to use price control temporarily in certain circumstances, we have little power left to stop a rise in the cost of living; except by slowing down the economy and experiencing the sort of stagnation policy which we have had in these last three years. On the evidence of the last ten years or so, I do not believe that very many price controls should normally be necessary to keep living costs under control, provided that import prices are not rising.
  That is why, incidentally, it is doctrinaire nonsense to say that price control need involve rationing, because, were price control applied at all, it clearly would be applied in those instances where rationing was not involved. But to throw away the power to use price control altogether in any circumstances is surely to force us into the dilemma of having either low prices or vast chronic unemployment.
  Even during this past year we have had a 2-point rise in the cost of living, with our industry heavily under-employed and a 10 per cent. fall in import prices. That is not encouraging to the theory of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is why I believe that this Bill in its present form will make stable prices and full employment more difficult to achieve. I agree with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) that no Government can guarantee full employment always in any circumstances with any certainty. But we say that they can do 'some things which makes it more
  506
  likely and many things which makes it less likely.
  The Government are also virtually abandoning all the general powers of control over industries and supplies contained in Defence Regulation 55. Certainly, those powers, so far as they are retained, ought to be enshrined in permanent legislation. Certainly, they ought to be very sparingly used and probably normally only in the case of essential goods where Parliament, by Statutory Instrument, specifically judges that to be necessary. But to sweep away virtually the whole lot is, in our view, going much too far and will again make any priorities, or planned use of resources in difficult times in the future, far harder to achieve.
  In the past few years the present Government have, for instance, at times rationed both steel and oil. Under the provisions of the Bill we shall not be able to do either of those things even in a period of shortage. I agree that the Government have not been able entirely to blot out of their mind the memory of Suez. What happened then? It was not until 31st October. the clay after the Suez ultimatum, that the Government thought of laying an Order before the House to take emergency powers to safeguard our oil supplies. But they would not be able to do even that under the provisions of this Bill which says that such powers could be used only if the shortage of essential goods was caused by measures taken by the Government of any country outside the United Kingdom. The shortage of oil after Suez was not the result of measures taken by another Government. It was the result of measures taken by this Government.
  I suppose that the learned Solicitor-General may tell us that the Government have at least learned that lesson and will never commit a folly like that again. But Lord Hailsham is still a member of the Government and he has one unique distinction in British politics. He was an enthusiastic defender of both Munich and Suez. That is a distinction which even the Lord Privy Seal would not claim to rival, because he was somewhat lukewarm about both.
  The Bill also severely limits the power of the Ministry of Supply to produce civilian goods. In my view, that is another blow to employment in Scotland. Wales, Lancashire and other areas

  507
  affected by unemployment. It virtually abolishes, apart from jute, where, again, the Government admit that there is nothing wrong with the principle, the power of the Ministry of Supply and of the Board of Trade to purchase the produce of Commonwealth countries, such as the West Indies, West Africa, Ceylon and India. That in itself is a blow to employment and the development of those countries. I do not think that we can do that sort of thing and then complain when Commonwealth citizens come here in thousands and expect employment in this country.
  There can be no doubt that the Bill will make it more difficult to break out of this stagnation policy, which is at present costing the country about £2,000 million a year of income. What extraordinary folly and waste this stagnation policy of the Tory Government is, because while production here stands still, it is going ahead not merely in most of the countries of Western Europe, but in Russia and China and many other totalitarian countries as well.
  Of course, the Economic Secretary tries to imply, although he had not quite the face to say it, that under the wise management of the present Chancellor we have virtually overcome all the temporary postwar economic difficulties and so can dispense with all these unusual powers.
  The Chancellor himself, last week, boasted of his luck, and he gave me the impression that, in his view, it would be by faith rather than by works that he would guide the economy from now on, That did not inspire me with a great deal of confidence. All Chancellors of the Exchequer tend to suffer from a sort of delusion, not of grandeur but of virtue, that thanks to their own personal purity and sacrifice the country has at last overcome all its economic difficulties and can cast away all defence and restraints.
  If the Chancellor is now fitting that halo on to his head, and that is his one 'reason for sweeping all these powers away, let me remind him and the Government of one or two facts before we pass from the Bill tonight. Consider, for instance, the last Chancellor of the Exchequer, the one that we do not mention, as my right hon. Friend called him. Incidentally, he seems to have become not merely unmentionable, but invisible this
  508
  Session. It almost seems that the Patronage Secretary has hounded him out of the Chamber altogether. Wherever he is, the last Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), said in his Budget speech in April, 1957, that expansion must be our theme. He thought that most of our troubles were over. Yet, by September, 1957, we were in the worst exchange crisis since the war and the full employment policy was virtually abandoned by the Government.
  Out of the last four autumns, we have had three severe exchange crises. We all rejoice at the inflow of gold into this country since 1957, but does the Government Front Bench recall, for instance, that gold flowed into this country every month from September, 1949, to June, 1951, that was not 14 months but 21 months, and the reserve in June, 1951, was very much higher than it is now?
  That, I believe, is a warning against assuming that our difficulties can be too easily overcome. Again, if the Government still deceive themselves into thinking that these powers are no longer necessary because everything is running smoothly, let me remind them of this one fact. If import prices had moved between 1957 and September, 1958, as they moved between 1950 and 1951, we should now have not a balance of payments surplus of £400 million, but a deficit of about £1,000 million. I think that that, again, is a warning of the kind of thing that can happen. Therefore, I believe that we should show a little more humility, modesty, and caution in the face of economic fortune, and not throw away the steering wheel when we have barely climbed out of the ditch for the third time in four years.
  I myself hope that it should not normally be necessary, in future, to use more than a few carefully selected controls, temporarily, at certain times, to achieve expansion and stability at the same time. Indeed, as is well known, the Labour Government got rid of a great number of controls in those six years. Nevertheless, to throw away altogether even the power to impose price control in certain cases, building control, and control over any other supplies generally is, in our view, imprudently flying in the face of recent experience.
  The Government have now been giving an exhibition, for three years or more, of

  509
  trying to drive the economy without a steering wheel. They have landed the country three times in the ditch in four years. Throughout 1958 we have been standing still for fear of moving too fast, and we fear that this Bill will make it even more likely that either stagnation will continue for a number of years further, or that we shall be in the ditch again before 1959 is over.
  9.22 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): This debate has certainly ranged wide. While I was listening to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) I thought that I was back in an exclusively economic debate. Other hon. Members have been concerned with medical services, baking bread, the Ministry of Supply, in various aspects, and a good deal with labour matters. Indeed, it could hardly be otherwise, because when we are cleaning up, in part, some remanet of emergency powers, the discussion, obviously, will range widely.
  On the other hand, there was an eccentric moment this afternoon when words were being exchanged across the Floor of the House on the subject of omniscience. Fortunately, I was not involved in that and I at once disclaim any omniscience in dealing with all the aspects of the different activities discussed, some of them depending on, or relating in some way to the Bill, and others not. I would, however, beg the House to remember that this Bill, which is said not to be a sweeping-away operation, is, of course, not that. It is essentially a holding operation, but it is not to be regarded in isolation.
  During seven years we have been working steadily away at the process of getting rid of unwanted emergency powers, or translating wanted emergency powers into some kind of more permanent state. At the risk of boring the House for a moment, perhaps I might remind it just how much has steadily been done in this process. I want to do so because, tonight, we are, in part, accused of performing some operation for an electoral purpose, at some late moment.
  That is really quite untrue. If we look at what we have been doing, we will see that this is another step in a perfectly consistent process that has been going on all the time we have been in
  510
  Government. I ask the House if this is not just enough in itself?
  There was, of course, a great deal done in the past. In 1951, for instance, we got rid of the remaining controls on building materials.
  Mr. MacDermot: The end of building controls came in 1954.
  The Solicitor-General: I accept that building controls went in 1954, and they form some part of an argument I wish to address to the House a little later. So as to save time, I will, if I may, read as a list what was done to abolish con. trots during 1952: soap rationing; the the utility clothing scheme; the manufacture and supply of floor coverings, pottery, containers and packaging, flaxseed, textile bags, domestic and certain commercial electric appliances; the distribution and use of copper and copper alloys, lead and zinc; sales by auction and tender; the hire of building contractors' plant; the use of electric light for advertising and certain other purposes; the freeing from licensing control of food retailers and tea wholesalers; and the removal of price control on a range of articles—jute yarn, pelts, newsprint, mechanical printing paper, coffee, biscuits, tea, bananas, lead, aluminium, brass, cupronickel and other metal scrap, carpets, hollow-ware, domestic pottery, children's non-Utility clothing, perambulators, candles, domestic woodwork, typewriters, furniture, clocks and watches, and all remaining second-hand goods, laundries, and wholesale coal.
  The point is made against me that this is done at the last moment before an Election, and I desire to make a sound point, if it be one, that this is steady progress over the years. In 1953, there was the abolition of sweet rationing; the abolition of controls on the manufacture and supply of netting, silk yarn, glassware, pianos and organs; on the manufacture, distribution and price of animal feeding stuffs; on the distribution and price of home-grown grains; on the distribution of sugar, invert sugar, glucose, syrup, treacle, dried fruit, starch and dextrine, zinc, pig iron, iron and steel products. aluminium and alloys, copper and nickel; on timber, bristles and fertilisers; on the licensing of food canning, the manufacture and use of confectionery,

  511
  soft drinks, milk and cream; on trading in milk; on check trading; on registration of ships built in the United Kingdom; on the requisition of space in ships and aircraft; on the requisitioning and sale of foreign securities—and another batch of price controls, sausages, sausage meat, cereal fillers—[Laughter]—I want to complete the case.
  In 1954, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) reminded me, there ended the control of building work, all remaining food rationing, powers controlling the manufacture and distribution and price of goods of all kinds reduced to a limited number of specified commodities. Utility furniture, and certain other goods, the processing and distribution of oils, fats, bacon, and so forth. I really am not entitled to weary the House more.
  Mr. Jay: Does the Solicitor-General not realise that he is answering the wrong charge? The charge against him is not that he has waited until just before an election to get rid of controls, but that he has waited until now to put the remaining ones on a proper and permanent legislative basis. Every word of what he has just said is irrelevant.
  The Solicitor-General: I am content to abide by a reference to HANSARD for what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). I do not question the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North any more than I question my own. I am content to be bound by a reference to HANSARD. I assert that this is a continuing operation which we have been carrying on across the years, in which the present Bill represents a further step. It is not more than a further step, because we continue by it those powers which we think are necessary for the good government of the realm.
  Even as to those powers which are continued by the Bill, we set them a term, a life of five years. We set that term because we believe that five years should give sufficient opportunity to place all of them upon a firm and proper statutory basis. How much the powers retained by the Bill will, in future, be required, I do not know and do not speculate. But we believe that by setting
  512
  a term of five years to their life we at least will bring succeeding Governments, whether Conservative or Labour, up against the necessity of considering, aye or no, whether they do not think that what remains of this war-time emergency legislation could not then be put into permanent statutory form. If one looks at what has been done, I do not believe,hat anyone in this House would think that we could conceivably have found the time at any stage to do more in this direction than we have done already and now do in this Bill.
  I will seek as best I may to answer the questions which have been addressed to me. I have had to be absent from the debate for short times, so that I did not hear all the speeches. I heard as many as I could and when I could not hear the rest I endeavoured to read the writing of the notes that others took for me, in which I may have been indifferently successful.
  I must make one apology to the House A number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, such as the right hon. Member for Smethwick, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in particular the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn)—in a speech which, if I may say without impertinence, I thought was one of the most delightful of many that I have heard him deliver—have all been speaking urgently about the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. I recognise that these are serious pleas and arguments about the continued existence of that Tribunal.
  I am sure the House would not want me, a mere lawyer, dealing with an Emergency Laws (Continuation) Bill [An HON. MEMBER: "Emergency Laws (Repeal) Bill."] I said that it was a holding operation, and it is. I am sure that the House would not want me to try to deal with serious arguments and considerations relating to that Tribunal in a few moments of a winding-up speech. I know that the House would wish to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in particular, has to say on this topic. I know the House knows what the true position is regarding a certain Order at the moment.
  My right hon. Friend has made an Order the effect of which, if it is not

  513
  successfully prayed against—if I may use that phrase—will be to bring to an end on 1st March next year the Order on which the Industrial Disputes Tribunal rests. I understand, however, that agreement has been reached through the usual channels that a whole day shall be devoted to that topic in the near future, and I thought it probable that the House would think it right to deal with that matter on that occasion and treat it as one deserving of a full day's debate, as evidently is the agreement between both sides of the House. I hope that the House will allow me to take this course. It is not that I do not think that it is an important matter, and it is in no sense a discourtesy to hon. Members who have raised the matter.
  A number of relatively small points were raised. There was. for instance, the rather painful concept of the 14 oz. loaf. The right hon. Member for Smethwick asked about it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris). When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about it I began to think that he was asking for the retort which he got, which was, "If this thing is such a naked fraud, permitting bakers to perpetrate a naked fraud continuously, why did you not do away with it?" [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the right lion. Gentleman would think that that was right because it really is not one of those glorious pretences that are made regarding the contents of bottles. It is necessary because of the law.
  There is the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926. It is no good saying that we should amend it. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had a great many more years to amend it and they did not bother because of this very convenient operation. Incidentally, the provision of the particular weights and measures Act is that if a person is selling a loaf more than 12 oz. in weight, he may only sell it in units—I do not quote the words, because I do not remember them—of 16 oz. or multiples of 16 oz. That proved to be inconvenient at the appropriate time and so—mark the literary form of the name of the Order—the Bread (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, of some wartime date, which I forget, suspended the operation of that provision and made it legal, for the first time, to sell loaves of 14 oz., rising in 14 oz. multiples.
  514
  I assure the House that no kind of fraud is perpetrated on the public. The 14 oz. loaf is not sold as a 1 lb. loaf. Anybody who goes to try to buy one asks for a small loaf as opposed to a large loaf and gets one. Unless one is rather ill-trained in these matters, one knows that what one is getting is a 14 oz. loaf. There is no kind of fraud, as it appeared when the right hon. Member for Smethwick was describing the process that we have sanctioned for so long.
  If we were to change this position suddenly, we would be upsetting an industry whose production has been geared to the 14 oz. shape of loaf for something like twelve years. It does not seem to be a very large or serious matter of anxiety and we propose for this moment and for this purpose, and for the spell of this Bill, to retain that power That is the reason for it.
  Then, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members asked why it was necessary to retain the price control power in relation to medical supplies and the power to get information concerning them. My hon. Friend asked why the Government cannot simply trust the ordinary competition of trade to get them the right price and not bother about control. The difficulty is that the service is financed by the Exchequer, but the Minister of Health is not a party to the contract between the supplier and manufacturer and the wholesaler and the chemist. The chemist—I speak in the presence of those who know much more about it than I do—has no practical incentive to drive a hard bargain, because his remuneration in this context is determined by some kind of cost-plus system; he gets something over and above the assessment of cost.
  It is necessary in the public interest to retain the power of price control and the power to get information to see that the cost is being rightly arrived at. Although we would always hope that we would not have to use the powers any more than, I suppose, our predecessors have had to use them in that direction, it seemed to be necessary in the public interest to keep the power of price control and of getting that information.
  Another complaint which was made was not so much against the Bill as the operation in which we are here engaged. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) drew attention to the

  515
  extent of the powers that we were keeping and how wide they were. He pointed to the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act. He forgot the Exchange Control Act, but it goes into his point. Adding to that the Defence (Finance) Regulation 2A, which is here continued and which makes an even further extension, the hon. Member asked how wide were these powers that we are keeping.
  We are not frightened at the wide powers if we deem them to be necessary and required for the public good. I quite accept that there is a great difference of political philosophy between the two sides of the House. The point I am meeting is that there is no inconsistency in our retaining our view just because we do not share the view of the party opposite. There is nothing inconsistent about it.
  Mr. MacDermot: Surely there would have been no need to cut down the other ones unless the Government thought they would cease to be the Government.
  The Solicitor-General: I will come to the other ones in a moment. Let me deal first of all with the hon. Member's point.
  The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act would be a formidable Act to amend, to slice or to prune in any way. I think the whole House would agree that we need these powers at least for the moment for the purpose of strategic control, and to substitute a new Act, which is something I dare say we should all like to see in due course— I do not know—is a major legislative operation which clearly ought not to be undertaken, I would submit to the House, till we know where we are in relation to things like the European Free Trade Area negotiations about which the Economic Secretary was talking.
  So far as the Exchange Control Act is concerned, which this Bill does not touch, everybody, I think, would agree that it is right to keep that in its entirety. We need it. Clearly we are going to need it, and we need the supplement we get in relation to those kinds of transactions dealt with in the Finance (Defence) Regulations. Frankly, I have some difficulty in understanding the protest of hon. Members opposite about the fact that we have here selected as we have.
  There is one incidental point I could perhaps conveniently deal with at this
  516
  stage. I am very sorry I had the misfortune to miss the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). I am very sorry, but there were other obligations which made it necessary. If I rightly read the note of his speech on which I am depending he was asking for an explanation of the kind of events which the Government were contemplating would render necessary the powers under paragraph (d) of Regulation 55 (1) as it will be after this Bill. I hope I have the point rightly. It appears from the wording at page 13 most conveniently.
  If I may take him to task without impertinence, I thought, with great respect, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) simply was not making the point fairly just now on this matter, because he was saying that the power to deal with the interruption of supplies, as it might be, which here appears, would be dependent upon some action of a foreign Government. He made the point by leaving out the other words which raised the problem which, I think, was in the hon. Member's mind. The words are:
  "or as the result of other special circumstances arising in any such country".
  That is, in a foreign country. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may not have meant to put it as he did, but he put it solely on the first set of words, and, of course, it makes a difference.
  I hope we shall not be chided for drafting in wide terms because at other moments we are chided for risking too narrow a foresight in this field, and that is why we have used wider terms here. The sort of thing we have in mind is that a country has put a ban on supplies, a political act of a foreign Government. We have to maintain supplies against interruption for other reasons, civil war, unrest—[An HON. MEMBER: "Suez."] Suez, if you please, somebody sitting on our line of supply by Governmental action, if you please, or for things like had harvests or a series of bad harvests.
  I do not think I could give any exhaustive list of what from a lawyer's point of view would be covered by these words. I suppose that "other special circumstances arising in any such country" would be construed on the basis of what lawyers call the ejusdem generic rule.
  I would submit that it is right not to

  517
  draw that too tightly or we may tie ourselves too narrowly on the circumstances in which we could exercise that power. We do not put domestic crises into this, as opposed to foreign crises, because, we hope that if we—or any other Government in this country—needed to deal with a domestic crisis, then Parliament would at once give the Government the powers for which they asked.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that Parliament would give powers if a great emergency arose over something abroad but would not do so for an emergency at home? Surely that is an extraordinary argument.
  The Solicitor-General: I am not saying that. I am thinking that, or rather we were thinking that—[Laughter.]—the foreign crisis. of which one does not get warning or any opportunity of anticipating, is an emergency probably requiring greater speed of action. It is for that reason that we have this reserve power and we do not think that it would be the same in relation to a domestic crisis. That is the distinction.
  Hon. Members opposite complain about the fact that we select some of these powers to keep and some not to keep. If one sets about the operation of pruning from time to time those powers which do not depend on legislation going through the House, one has to make a process of selection. One makes it according to one's political line, and we do not expect the Opposition to make the same selection as we would make.
  This is not, as someone has said, a fancy hotch-potch. It is a careful selection after working through all the Government Departments to see what we must keep in the form of decretal legislation in order to ensure the good government of the Realm. It is puzzling to hear the argument that all this is presented as some kind of spoiling operation, something which is to hamper the Socialist Government that is to succeed us. That was the phrase used by one right hon. Gentleman.
  For the first time in my life I have heard today one of my colleagues chided for not being sufficiently controversial. I do not want to be controversial. I wish to develop the argument. I do not wish to enter into the slightest controversy
  518
  as to who will be the Government after the next Eleotion or the Election after that or the next Election after that one. But supposing, just for the purposes of argument, that it were in my mind that hon. Members opposite should be voted on to these benches next time. How very inept this Bill would be as a spoiling operation.
  I was greatly obliged to the hon. Member for Leeds, West, whom I regret I do not see in his place at the moment. When one of his hon. Friends was developing this point the other way round, the hon. Member for Leeds, West said Ineffective". Why he should assume that the Front Bench would not also have got the point that it would be ineffective I do not know. But how very ineffective it is. It is sometimes very difficult to discover the intentions of hon. Members opposite. I understand that their many pamphlets in certain quarters have been said to make no impact whatsoever and that they are having to produce some shortened document to explain them.
  Mr. Harold Davies: The difference between the pamphlet sent out by Transport House and pamphlets from the Conservative Party is that that was not sent out in an envelope marked O.H.M.S.
  The Solicitor-General: I wonder whether it would have made any greater impact on Socialist supporters had it been so. I think that I read somewhere that this document made the impact of a soggy pancake, but let me revert to my serious argument.
  When I wanted to see, in this very imaginary situation, whether we are trying to spoil what we can suppose will be a Socialist Government next time, this is what I read:
  "Planning does not mean a return to detailed controls. Direct controls over consumer goods and raw materials were necessary after the war, mostly because of conditions of extreme scarcity, and are unlikely to be needed again in the future."
  Hon. Members: Read on.
  The Solicitor-General: I can read on, but it is not relevant to my point. Nor is this famous pamphlet being used in any way unfairly in the context. I do not distort the text by not reading further.
  Assuming that is the pattern I was supposed to accept as the policy of hon. Gentleman opposite, there is nothing

  519
  whatsoever in this Bill which spoils that operation, absolutely nothing. What else do they praise in here or attach importance to in here? I made a list. It is not for me to expound the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I have to see now true this accusation is, and if I misrepresent their policy, I hope they will correct me.
  These are the other matters to which importance is attached apparently: import control—left entirely unaffected by this Bill; exchange control—left entirely unaffected by this Bill; capital issues control—nothing whatsoever to do with this Sill in any sort or kind of way; building control—that is true, but it is nothing to do with this Bill because it has gone already, in 1954. I would add investment control, but that also is nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill.
  Mr. Jay: If this is the argument now, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what the Lord Privy Seal meant in his speech by "the flick of a switch"?
  The Solicitor-General: Yes, I will tell the right hon. Gentleman in due course, but I shall be much obliged if I may develop my argument in its present state. Now I find that it is not exactly as it is presented in that pamphlet, unless I misread it. It is said today, "Oh, but we want to retain the power to control prices". What power do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to control prices? Are they asking that they should have, and have kept for them, the hill powers conferred by Regulation 55AB plus the power to vary, which we have been reproved for abrogating? Incidentally, of course, we have to abrogate the power to vary else we do not reduce the power to make regulations in any sense. But are they really asking to retain these powers:
  "A competent authority may by order provide for controlling the prices to be charged for goods of any description or the charges to be made for services of any description …"?
  There is a whole range. If they are not desiring to keep that power, precisely what power are they desiring to keep? And what are they worrying about in the event— the unlikely event as I believe—that they should be voted back into power? What are they frightened about? The House of Commons such as it would be then, if it put them back into power,
  520
  would scarcely be likely to deny them any power they wanted, assuming of course that they could put forward any decent reason for wanting it.
  Really I do not appreciate how this can be presented in any way as some kind of spoiling operation, because on the face of it this is clearly designed not to interfere with any of those matters with which according to their documents and pamphlets, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were on paper relying when considering what their economic policy should be for the good government of this realm.
  "The flick of a switch." That is a very good interrupting theme of hon. Members opposite. They were not my words, and if I assume to interpret the phrase I would have thought it was quite a good phrase to use to a non-technical audience, instead of using some pompous phrase like "going through the full legislative process" as distinct from making some order under a power conferred by Parliament.
  I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will now allow me to commend this Bill to the House on what I believe is its true principle. It is a holding operation and merely another step in a process which has been going on for seven years, and it is not doing anything to which I can conceive any hon. Member of the House basically objecting. The fact is that we here are, as we ought to be, the prime protector of the citizen against the mischievous activities of the Government of the day, whatever its political complexion may be, and the way in which we exercise that protection—a number of right hon. and hon. Members have been doing it all today gleefully—is by public discussion and debate of the legislative proposals of the Government of the day.
  There come times of war, times of emergency and times which are the aftermath of war and emergency, and then the Government of the day come to the House and receive at the hands of the House, if they make a good and true case, very wide powers to legislate by delegation, whether by Statutory Instrument, order, rule or regulation, whatever fancy name is attached to the process, including an Order in Council. That is what happens. But when the House grants those powers it makes on every occasion a surrender of its own, of its

  521
  ability to protect the citizen against the Government.
  It would be easy, I suppose, if these powers did not have great administrative convenience, to get rid of them, but I suspect that there is no right hon. or hon. Member present who has been concerned in any way with government who does not know the truth of this, that they have a persistent and powerful way of living on
  on their own because of their administrative convenience.
  I commend the Bill to the House because it represents another step in the reassertion of the supremacy of Parliament over the Executive.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 229.

  Division No. 5]

  AYES

  [9.57 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hope, Lord John

  Aitken, W. T.

  de Ferranti, B. R. V. Z.

  Hornby, R. P.

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

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Alpert, C. J. M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Howard, John (Test)

  Arbuthnot, John

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

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

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

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

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

  Barber, Anthony

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

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

  Barlow, Sir John

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Barter, John

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt.Hon. Sir Harry

  Batsford, Brian

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Fell, A.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Finlay, Graeme.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Forrest, G.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Fort, R

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Kaberry, D.

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Keegan, D.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Gammans, Lady

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Bishop, F. P.

  Glover, D.

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Black, C. W.

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Kimball, M.

  Body, R. F.

  Godber, J. B.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Bonham Carter, Mark

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lagden, G. W.

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

  Gower, H. R.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Braine, B. R.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Leavey, J. A.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Leburn, W. G.

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

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

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

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Grimond, J.

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

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Bryan, P.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col, R. G.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Gurden, Harold

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Lleweilyn, D. T.

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

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

  Campbell, Sir David

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

  Carr, Robert

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Cary. Sir Robert

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth W.)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Cole, Norman

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Cooke, Robert

  Hay, John

  McAdden, S. J.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

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

  McKibbin, Alan

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hesketh, R. F.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Crowder, Sir John (Flnchley)

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

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

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Holt, A, F.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Maddan, Martin

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Teeling, W.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Temple, John M.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Redmayne, M.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Mathew, R.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Mawby, R. L.

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

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

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Russell, R. S.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Wade, D. W.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Shepherd, William

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Nicholls, Harmar

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

  Wall, Patrick

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

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

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Speir, R. M.

  Webster, David

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

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

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Osborne, C.

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

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Page, R. G.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Partridge, E.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Peel, W. J.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Woollam, John Victor

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Storey, S.

  Yates, William (The Wrekln)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Pitman, I. J.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Mr. Oakshott and

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Mr. Edward Wakefield

  Pott, H. P.

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Deer, G.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Albu, A. H.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Diamond, John

  Janner, B.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dodds, N. N.

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

  Awbery, S. S.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Baird J.

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

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

  Balfour, A.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Bellenger, R. Hon. F. J.

  Edelman, M.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Benn, Hn Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E)

  Edwartls, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

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

  Benson, Sir George

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Bevan Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Blackburn, F.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kenyon, C.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Finch, H. J.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Boardman, H.

  Fitch, Alan

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Lawson, G. M.

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

  Foot, D. M.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Forman, J. C.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Boyd, T. C.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Gooch, E. G.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Lewis, Arthur

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Logan, D. G.

  Burke, W. A.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  McCann, J.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hale, Leslie

  MacColl, J. E.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne valley)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Carmichael, J.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Champion, A. J.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  McInnes, J.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hastings, S.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hayman, F. H.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Clunie, J.

  Healey, Denis

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Coldrick, W.

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

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mahon, Simon

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Holmes, Horace

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

  Cronin, J. D.

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Mason, Roy

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield. E.)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  524

  525

  Monslow, W.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Timmons, J.

  Moody, A. S.

  Reeves, J.

  Tomney, F.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Reid, William

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

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

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Mort, D. L.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Moss, R.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Moyle, A.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Weitzman, D.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Ross, William

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

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

  Royle, C.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Short, E. W.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Oram, A. E.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Wigg, George

  Orbach, M.

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

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Oswald, T.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Padley, W. E.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Willey, Frederick

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

  Snow, J. W.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williams, Rev. Llyweiyn (Ab'tillery)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

  Parker, J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Paton, John

  Steele, T.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Peart, T. F.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Pentland, N.

  Stonehouss, John

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Popplewell, E.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Woof, R. E.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Swingler, S. T.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Probert, A. R.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Purvey, Cmdr. H.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Randall, H. E.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

  Rankin, John

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  EMERGENCY LAWS (REPEAL) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal certain emergency laws and, in particular, the enactments provicing for the continuation of Defence Regulations, and to continue in force for a limited period and with modifications certain Defence Regulations and other emergency provisions, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Government department, including any department of the Government of Northern Ireland, which are attributable to the provisions of that Act.—(Mr. Erroll.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD(MONUMENT)
  Resolution reported,>
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Marshal of the Royal Air Force the Viscount Trenchard, G.C.B., O.M., G.C.V.O., D.S.O., D.C.L., LL.D., as an expression of the admiration of this House for his illustrious career and its gratitude for his devoted services to the State, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  GHANA (GIFT OF SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  Resolution reported,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the Parliament of Ghana, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  TRANSPORT (RURAL AREAS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Rupert Speir rose—
  Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The notice exhibited behind Mr. Speaker's Chair says that the subject for the Adjournment debate tonight would be "Violence in Cyprus" and it is in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir). A similar notice was contained in the memoranda circulated in the Votes and Proceedings last Friday.
  It is clear that the notice exhibited behind Mr. Speaker's Chair and the notice in the memoranda are not mandatory, but I submit that it is quite clear from Rulings given by you, Mr. Speaker, and by your predecessors, that hon. Gentlemen are under an obligation to take into account the rights of this House and of other hon. Members.
  I suggest that the hon. Member for Hexham is clearly in breach of what one of your predecessors called playing the game "on this subject. There are no Standing Orders and any indications which you, Sir, have given of the procedure that you intended to follow are matters of precedent. I have no cognisance of any sanction or Order of the House. It is clear that if every hon. Gentleman did what the hon. Member for Hexham is attempting to do tonight the matters raised on the Motion for the Adjournment would become an absolute farce.
  The hon. Member for Hexham has not only used the notice board behind Mr. Speaker's Chair and the memoranda circulated in Votes and Proceedings, but he has also used the Press to inform the country that he intended to raise a matter of great public importance, involving the lives and safety of British forces in Cyprus and of British civilians in Cyprus. I submit that the whole history of Cyprus has been bedevilled by just this kind of back-bench pressure exerted in a most irresponsible way without any regard whatever—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Wigg: The predicament in which I find myself is this. I had read of the intention of the hon. Member for Hexham and I had seen the notice behind Mr. Speaker's Chair—which, I may point out is still there—which said that the subject of the Adjournment debate tonight was the question of violence in Cyprus.
  I went to the Officers of the House and asked whether I should be in order in raising this matter if the hon. Member for Hexham did not do so. I was informed —it is a view which I accept—that you, Mr. Speaker, would deprecate such a procedure because, of course, it would mean —as happened on a previous occasion—disregarding the rights of the House. If an hon. Member talks about a subject when there is not a Minister present to reply, or, as happened on one occasion, if a subject is raised about which there is no Ministerial responsibility, it is a travesty of the rights of the House.
  I did not, therefore, try to catch a political minnow. Shooting at sitting birds is something which does not interest me very much. This morning I telephoned to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and I also wrote to you, Sir, giving notice that if the hon. Member for Hexham did not raise the subject of Cyprus, I wished to do so. I wish to do so in the interest of every hon. Member in the House so that the matter can be —
  Mr. Speaker: Could the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) tell me what is his point of order?
  Mr. Wigg: I do not want to worry you, Sir, nor do I want to weary the House by reading all the precedents, but my point is to ask you to reconsider the procedures which are outlined and which have been laid down by yourself and your predecessors in relation to the kind of action taken by the hon. Member for Hexham in quite irresponsibly, and without due notice, changing the subject.
  I would ask you to consider, with great respect, Sir, your own personal responsibility in this matter, because you are not buttressed in this matter by any Standing Order or any ruling of the House, but merely by a diktat, if I may use that word, or by notice which you gave to the House on 25th March, 1955, of what you intend to do.

  529
  I should have thought, Sir, that you are guided by the advice and decision of your predecessors to hon. Members as to what their rights in this matter are. It has been pointed out that Mr. Speaker Clifton Johnson—
  Hon. Members: Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown.
  Mr. Wigg: I beg the pardon of hon. Members. It was a slip of the tongue for which I hope I may be forgiven.
  Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown said that this was a matter of playing the game—
  Mr. Speir rose—
  Mr. Speaker: So far as I can understand the point of order of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wiag), it is wrong for the hon. Member for fiexham (Mr. Speir) to raise a subject different from that which appears on the notice behind my Chair and in the memoranda circulated with the Votes and Proceedings. The truth of the matter is that before the war there was no such system at all. An hon. Member gave notice that he would wish to raise a matter on the Adjournrnent and a convenient date was fixed for that to he done. It was by no means every night that we had an Adjournment Motion. Owing to the truncation of private Members' time during the war, there was such a large demand for these half-hour Adjournments that my predecessor, Colonel Clifton Brown, introduced the system of a ballot by which hon. Members put down their names in advance, with the subject which they intended to raise, and then there was a ballot taken and days allocated to them according to the ballot.
  That has been varied in my time to this extent only, that the House has allowed me to choose subjects myself on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays the issue of what hon. Member has the Adjournment is decided by ballot, as it was in my predecessor's This is a Wednesday. As to whether the Adjournment should belong to the Member or to the subject which he announces, my predecessor, Colonel Clifton Brown, under whose aegis this system was inaugurated, was quite definite On the point. He had been asked for a Ruling on this subject several times and
  530
  this one was given on 10th February, 1944.
  "Mr. Speaker: I think it is perfectly clear —"
  I think that exactly the same point as that raised by the hon. Member for Dudley was then raised by Mr. Driberg—
  "that the Adjournment is given to an hon. Member as an individual. It is for the convenience"
  This is the point of the hon. Member's point of order—
  "of the House that a list is put up showing what will be the subjects. It might not be convenient for a Minister to attend on a particular day and the hon. Member who has that day would be entitled to change the subject; but I do hope that hon. Members, having once stated the subjects which they wish to raise, and the list having been put at the back of the Chair, will do their best—and Ministers, too—to abide by the decision to raise that subject and not change it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1944; Vol. 396. c. 1916.]
  I have carried on that system entirely with regard to the days decided by ballot, but I have frequently had the experience of an hon. Member on either side of the House putting down a subject which he thinks he wants to raise and then, before he is successful in the ballot, finding that owing to Ministerial action or some other cause, there is no further necessity for him to raise it. Either the grievance has been settled, or some other circumstance has taken place. He then comes to me, and asks me if he can change his subject, and as the hon. Member has the Adjournment, and if he can get the Minister responsible to reply to him—because I think that it is for the convenience of the House to hear both sides—I allow it.
  I have acted no differently in this case from what my predecessor did, or from what I have done all along, and it seems to me to be quite clear that that is correct.
  Mr. Speir: On a point of order.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: On that point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order. I have ruled on that for the hon. Member for Dudley. Mr. Speir.
  Mr. Speir: Before the debate goes further, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say—
  Mr. Delargy: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I am dealing with a point of order. Mr. Speir.
  Mr. Speir: May I be allowed to tell the House what it is that I wish to speak about—
  Mr. Delargy: On a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Hexham is addressing a point of order to me.
  Mr. Speir: I wish to tell you, Sir, exactly what I wish to talk to the House about, and, perhaps, to give a tip to the hon. Gentleman for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I am a bit of a poacher myself—I must explain that—but I do not like other people poaching on my preserves.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not strictly a point of order. I have ruled according to the rules that govern Speakers in this matter. I say that the hon. Member for Hexham, having won his place in the ballot, is entitled to raise any subject he pleases. According to the strict rules of order, any Member who catches my eye on the Adjournment is entitled to raise any subject that is not out of order on the Adjournment. These rules of the ballot, and so on, are merely for the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Delargy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your predecessor, Colonel Clifton Brown, ruled, as you have just read to us, that the subject of the Adjournment might be altered only because of the absence of the Minister [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was the only reason you gave, Sir. The Minister concerned in the debate which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) should have raised was here until two minutes ago, so, with great respect, I submit that the one reason given by Colonel Clifton Brown does not apply in this case.
  Mr. Speaker: My predecessor gave that as an instance of where the subject might be changed.
  Mr. Wigg rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dudley is not disputing my Ruling?
  Mr. Wigg: No, Sir. With respect, I wish to point out that following the Ruling you gave from the statement of Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, Mr. Speaker
  532
  Clifton Brown said, on 28th November, 1944
  "I do not think that he could have a prescriptive right. I think it is a pity when a Member changes the subject. It causes inconvenience to other Members, and to Ministers who have to be there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 2404.]
  Subsequently, on 2nd March, 1948, he said:
  "My impression of hon. Members is that if I lay down something they will always play the game. I should prefer to trust hon. Members to play the game."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 2nd March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 217.]
  It is obvious that what has happened now is that the hon. Member for Hexham is not playing the game.
  Mr. Speaker: Even if that were so, it is not a point of order. I entirely endorse Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown's remark about Members playing the game, and I hope that hon. Members will do so.
  Mr. Wigg: The point I want to submit to you, Sir, is that, in view of this happening, and in view of the fact that the horn. Member for Hexham has abused the rules of the House—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order, he must himself try to keep order. It is not the case that the hon. Member for Hexham is abusing the rules of the House. The rules are as I have said that they are. The hon. Member for Hexham has complied with them.
  Mr. Speir: May I continue with my point of order, Sir?
  Mr. Wigg rose
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speir.
  Mr. Speir: In rising to speak, Sir, I wish to explain that I am not one-track-minded, like the hon. Member for Dudley.
  Mr. Edward Short rose
  Mr. Speaker: To a point of order?
  Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. You put the point, Mr. Speaker, that the Adjournment belongs to the man and not to the subject. I suggest to you that that principle has now been modified by the fact that you select certain subjects on certain nights of the week.
  Dame Irene Ward: Not on a Wednesday.
  Mr. Short: It surely cannot be said—
  Dame Irene Ward: Not on Wednesday.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I see the drift of the point being made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), but, of course, this is a Wednesday, and this was chosen by ballot. The observations of Colonel Clifton Brown refer to this exactly.
  Mr. Short: That was not quite the point I was putting, Sir.
  Mr. Speir rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time, not even another Member and the Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Hexham, who started a point of order, seemed then to wish to explain the subject he was going to talk about. That is not a point of order. I have no concern with his subject. I said that he was entitled to change it, as hon. Members are when they consider that their grievance has been remedied. That is quite proper, and I see no reason that he should not be allowed to proceed.
  Mr. Desmond Donnelly: On a point of order.
  Mr. Short: The point I was putting is that this principle has been changed in the last few years—
  Dame Irene Ward: It has not.
  Mr. Short: —by the fact that you now select certain subjects, Sir. If this principle applies to the Adjournment on certain nights of the week, it must apply on other nights of the week. Surely the subject is an important element, not merely the individual.
  Mr. Speaker: That might be so if were choosing the subject. It might be so; I reserve judgment on that, because it is not relevant to the present situation, which is the sheer luck of the ballot. The lion. Member is entitled to the luck of his ballot. Mr. Speir.
  Mr. Speir: Mr. Speaker —
  Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order.
  Mr. Wigg rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I have ruled on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dudley, and I must ask him not to persist in defying my Ruling.
  Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir—
  Dame Irene Ward: Draw a place in the ballot, too.
  Mr. Wigg: My submission to you, Mr. Speaker, is that neither you nor your predecessors have ever given a formal Ruling on which is paramount, the subject or the individual, and it is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Central (Mr. Short) has submitted, that the changed procedure has heightened the tensions between these two points of view. All I am asking is that you should give the matter your further consideration, Mr. Speaker—not tonight—and lay down some simple rules which all hon. Members, not only the hon. Member for Hexham, must follow if they wish to change the subject of the Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Speaker: I will give the matter further consideration, but, as I said before, the rules of order—and I am bound by them—are that any hon. Member who raises a proper subject on the Motion for the Adjournment is entitled to be heard if there is time and if he catches my eye, for there is always that other factor. The hon. Member for Dudley must realise that he has made a gallant protest about this matter, but there is such a thing as carrying a matter too far. I hope that the House will now listen to the hon. Member for Hexham in the limited time left to him.
  Mr. Speir rose—
  Mr. Wigg: Further to the point of order. I have not raised the matter for a personal reason. My points of order—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Speaker: I really think that the hon. Member for Dudley is tending to abuse the rules of the House.
  Mr. Wigg: With respect. Mr. Speaker, because of the hullabaloo I am not allowed to put my point. I have been consistently interrupted. I would agree that my point of view is based upon a protest at the conduct of the hon. Member for Hexham, but my purpose in

  535
  putting it is to clear up a matter about which there is doubt. I ask that in your further consideration of the matter, Mr. Speaker, you will be kind enough to give attention to one simple point. Your Ruling of 25th March is not a Standing Order. Perhaps it ought to be. But surely there ought to be, so that hon. Members in all parts of the House can know what subjects are to be raised, at least an hour's notice or two hours' notice. Certainly, the notice behind your Chair should bring the matter up to date. I submit that that is elementary.
  Mr. Speaker: Not that point.
  Mr. Speir rose—
  Mr. Donelly: On a point of order. May I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that as hon. Members have the Adjournment subject vested in them on certain days of the week it raises very considerable administrative problems for other hon. Members? I came here today anxious to hear what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) had to say about the violence in Cyprus. I read in the national Press that he had stated that he was hopping mad.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not raising a point of order at all. He is making a series of comments.
  Mr. Donelly: Perhaps I might telescope my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I think many hon. Members have come here to hear the statement of the hon. Member for Hexham. We have had no notice that he has changed the subject. The whole House is here waiting. The hon. Member would not have had an audience like this in ordinary circumstances. May I suggest that in future this question of the subject being vested in the individual hon. Member should be reconsidered and that in your reconsideration you should decide that the subject should come first, before the question of which hon. Member has the Adjournment for the evening?
  Dame Irene Ward: I disagree about that.
  Mr. Speaker: The House will realise that all hon. Members have their own ideas of what is important to them. A constituency case about a poor widow
  536
  may be just as important as any of these larger topics. On the Adjournment is one of the few opportunities that an hon. Member has of raising such matters. This is the sort of case to which I naturally give preference.
  The hon. Member for Hexham is entitled to go on with his speech and I hope that hon. Members will not abuse the rules of the House by preventing him by raising points of order. The business of the House cannot go on properly if the point of order is made a shield for other things. It should not be done. I have listened with great care and great patience to all that the hon. Member for Dudley has said, as well as to other hon. Members who have been good enough to put their submissions to me, and I think that I have answered them all. I am bound, as far as this matter is concerned, by the Rulings of my predecessor. Mr. Speir.
  Mr. W. A. Burke rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?
  Mr. Burke: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I stayed behind tonight to hear what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) was to say about Cyprus and I do not think I ought to have been deluded into staying behind when it was to hear something on a subject different from that given notice about on the list of Adjournments. I—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no obligation on the hon. Member to stay if he does not want to stay. Mr. Speir.
  Mr. William Ross: On a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: I have come to the conclusion that I have ruled sufficiently on this matter. I will hear no more points of order on it. Mr. Speir.
  Mr. Speir: It is all very well for the Opposition to pretend—
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: On a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The point of order I wish to raise is that there must be some authority for your statement,

  537
  Sir, but that we on this side of the House are a little puzzled about the discretion which you have to say that you would not hear more points of order. Points of order which may still be raised may raise very important matters of substance, and they would be completely eliminated by a Ruling of that kind. I ant sure that there must be some authority for this, but we are troubled as to what is that authority.
  Mr. Speaker: I merely said that I have come to the conclusion that this particular point of order, which has been raised and has now occupied us for 25 minutes, has been thoroughly thrashed out. There is nothing more I can add to it. I do not want any further questions about it. The position is that we are now on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House and, by the custom of the House, the hon. Member for Hexham has the right to speak. That right has been challenged, all the grounds of the challenge have now been heard and I have given my Ruling on them.I think that the House should let the hon. Member for Hexham speak. Mr. Speir.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Further to that, Mr. Speaker, do I understand, in view of what you have now said, that you were not ruling before, as we understood you were, that you would not hear further points of order but merely that you were not hearing further points of order upon the particular point raised by my hon. Friend and that it was, of course, open to hon. Members to raise other points of order?
  Mr. Speaker: I would, of course, listen to a proper point of order. The House will realise that I am largely in the hands of hon. Members over points of order. I have to listen to them, and it annoys me, and, I think, other Members, when a point of order is used—I am not referring to this particular case—as a cloak for debate. It does not play fair with the Speaker or with the House, and I hope that hon. Members will concur with that. Of course, I am not ruling that I will not listen to points of order.
  538
  I am only saying that I am satisfied that I have heard this particular point of order put most exhaustively and I have ruled upon it. There is no more I can say, and I cannot hear any more on it.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: Further to that point of order. As I understand, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is endeavouring to raise, not the subject of Cyprus, but the question of rural transport. Clearly, there is substance in the point which some Members of the Opposition have been trying to put to you. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would regard this as a fair summary of their point of view: that just as long as we can talk, let the country people walk?
  Mr. Speaker: That, again, is not a point of order.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Our people are being shot in Cyprus.
  Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Speir.
  Mr. Speir: The subject of rural transport, although it may not be as pressing as the subject of Cyprus, is one which is extremely pressing to those who live in rural areas. [Interruption.] May I give the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) a tip? If he wants to go poaching on other people's preserves let him remember that silence is golden, and that he does not want to advertise the fact to the Daily Mail.
  This subject has been raised often enough in recent years and weeks, but the fact remains that the Transport Commission is closing down railway branch lines right and left. I do not quarrel with that policy, but I do say that some form of public transport must be made available—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SHIPPING
  Convention on Oil Discharge (Ratification)
  Convention on Oil Discharge (Ratification)
ROADS
  Vehicular Traffic (Capacity)
  Vehicular Traffic (Capacity)
  Junction, Chipping Ongar
  Junction, Chipping Ongar
  A.30 and A.303
  A.30 and A.303
RAILWAYS
  Road Bridges and Level Crossing
  Road Bridges and Level Crossing
CIVIL AVIATION
  Flying and Gliding Clubs, Devon and Cornwall
  Flying and Gliding Clubs, Devon and Cornwall
TRANSPORT
  High Court Judgment (Car Parks)
  High Court Judgment (Car Parks)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Cyprus (Service Families)
  Cyprus (Service Families)
  Christmas Parcels
  Christmas Parcels
  EGYPT (BRITISH PRISONERS)
  EGYPT (BRITISH PRISONERS)
  YEMEN (FRONTIER INCIDENTS)
  YEMEN (FRONTIER INCIDENTS)
  VIETNAM (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION)
  VIETNAM (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION)
  SAUDI ARABIA (DETAINED SOLDIERS)
  SAUDI ARABIA (DETAINED SOLDIERS)
  MIDDLE EAST (SLAVERY)
  MIDDLE EAST (SLAVERY)
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  UNITED NATIONS (SOUTH AFRICA)
  UNITED NATIONS (SOUTH AFRICA)
EMPLOYMENT
  Lincolnshire
  Lincolnshire
  Aberdeenshire
  Aberdeenshire
  Bank Employees (Union Representation)
  Bank Employees (Union Representation)
  Industrial Disputes Order
  Industrial Disputes Order
  Coking Plants (Closures)
  Coking Plants (Closures)
  Rhymney Valley
  Rhymney Valley
  Ship-repair Workers
  Ship-repair Workers
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Aircraft and Radio Industries
  Aircraft and Radio Industries
  Feltham and Hounslow
  Feltham and Hounslow
  I.L.O. Survey (Freedom of Association)
  I.L.O. Survey (Freedom of Association)
  Factory Accidents
  Factory Accidents
  Borough Employment Exchange
  Borough Employment Exchange
  West Fife
  West Fife
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Ironworks, Glasgow (Closure)
  Ironworks, Glasgow (Closure)
ROYAL NAVY
  Aircraft Repair Yard, Donibristle
  Aircraft Repair Yard, Donibristle
SHIPBUILDING
  Orders
  Orders
BRITISH ARMY
  Secretary of State for War (Visits)
  Secretary of State for War (Visits)
  Recruitment and National Service
  Recruitment and National Service
  Accident, Fylingdales Moor
  Accident, Fylingdales Moor
  Training Camp, Stiffkey
  Training Camp, Stiffkey
  Highland Brigade Depot, Fort George and Aberdeen
  Highland Brigade Depot, Fort George and Aberdeen
  Corporals Ford and Munday (Courts-Martial)
  Corporals Ford and Munday (Courts-Martial)
  Victoria Cross (Gratuity)
  Victoria Cross (Gratuity)
POST OFFICE
  Stamps (Design)
  Stamps (Design)
  Sub-Postmasters (Assaults)
  Sub-Postmasters (Assaults)
  Postal Services, Hastings (Guestling Green)
  Postal Services, Hastings (Guestling Green)
TELEVISION
  Reception, Bexhill
  Reception, Bexhill
  Third Network
  Third Network
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Thor Missiles (Training)
  Thor Missiles (Training)
  Perranporth Airfield
  Perranporth Airfield
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Land (Report)
  Common Land (Report)
EDUCATION
  Further Education
  Further Education
SCOTLAND
  Mallaig-Fort William Road (Improvements)
  Mallaig-Fort William Road (Improvements)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Distribution of Industry, Scotland (Assistance)
  Distribution of Industry, Scotland (Assistance)
  Water and Sewerage Schemes
  Water and Sewerage Schemes
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Hospital Service, Middlesex
  Hospital Service, Middlesex
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Maria Soti (Death)
  Maria Soti (Death)

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO
Edmund Robert, Lord Bishop of Truro—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD BOOTHBY
Sir Robert John Graham Boothby, K.B.E., having been created Baron Boothby, of Buchan and Rattray Head in the County of Aberdeen, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

HIRE-PURCHASE VEHICLES AND ROAD ADEQUACY
2.45 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government: whether any estimate has been possible, as yet, as to the probable effect of the relaxation of hire-purchase restrictions on the number of motor vehicles which will be in circulation on our roads; whether Her Majesty's Government would anticipate a considerable net increase due to this factor; whether any such increase would be in addition to the estimate of the Road Research Board that existing traffic would be doubled in ten years; if so, whether a further review of the adequacy of our road system to deal with such increase would be advisable, and whether a further increase in the road programme would be necessary to deal with it; and, if so, whether it can be treated as a matter of national urgency.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, it is not yet possible to estimate the effect of changes in the hire-purchase regulations on the number of motor vehicles likely to be in circulation on the roads. It would be natural to assume that there
390
will be an increase in the number of vehicles on the roads due to these changes, though the increase is likely to be largely due to week-end and holiday traffic.
The new construction and improvements in the present road programme of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation are designed to cater for traffic increases for many years to come. As for the road programme itself, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to press ahead to the limits the country can afford.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply and paying every tribute to the work of the present Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, I should like to ask him whether he has by any chance studied the figures in the chapter entitled "Traffic" in the Report of the Road Research Board, 1957; and, if so, whether he thinks, and whether it is the view of the Government, that the roads are really adequate to carry a much greater load in the years to come.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his tribute to my right honourable friend, I should tell him that I have studied that Report, and, as I said in my statement, the roads are designed to ewer for traffic increases for many years to come. I would ask the noble Earl to wait and see what the position is when the new roads have been completed. I am sure that he will not be disappointed.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, does my noble friend mean that the present road programme will look after the increase of traffic for many years to come? If so, is that not a new statement of Government policy?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the road programme is capable of considerable expansion, as and when it will be required, and the position is kept under review constantly.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, by "the road programme", is the noble Earl referring to the present road programme, or to one about which we have not heard?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the programme on roads for the future is kept constantly under review, and the

391
design of roads for the future is in itself capable of expansion to cover any increase in traffic which has not been envisaged.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, in view of the fact that British railways are obviously out of date and uneconomic, would not now be the time to set up a Royal Commission to study the whole future of transport in this country, and perhaps divert to our roads some of the millions of pounds spent on backing up an out-of-date railway system?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I do not think that question is related to the Question in hand, but I will bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

DISPOSAL OF WARSHIPS
2.50 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a statement can be issued indicating what ships of the Royal Navy of all classes it is intended to dispose of (a) by scrapping and (b) by sale to other countries; and, if so, whether such statement can be retrospective to the beginning of 1958.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, as already announced and debated earlier this year, the Admiralty will scrap no ships which have a useful life left in them or which we should expect to bring forward for service in war. We have already announced nearly all the ships to be disposed of in pursuance of that policy.
However, to bring this fully up to date, the figures in the different categories of the more important warships stand as follows: 6 aircraft carriers; 9 cruisers; 14 destroyers; 44 frigates; 24 ocean minesweepers; and 13 submarines. These ships are all of war-time or prewar construction, and I cannot conceive any circumstances in which they would be of use to the Royal Navy. I cannot, of course, anticipate which of these ships may yet be purchased by other countries.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, as an instance of whether these ships can be of use or not, I would suggest that it is surely better to take a non-operational aircraft carrier as a troop carrier than it is to take an operational one which would, so to speak, be out of commission for operational purposes for an almost indefinite period. Would it not be better to think again before you scrap all the out-of-date aircraft carriers?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, in the first place I would not regard troop carrying as a necessary function of the Royal Navy. We have done it from time to time, but I should hesitate to say that we should regard it as one of our normal tasks.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should have thought it was the constant operation of the Royal Navy in my long years of experience at the Admiralty. Might I ask the noble Earl whether there has been some change of policy? We were all interested in the Prime Minister's speech at the Guildhall on Monday night, in which he stated quite specifically that it was necessary to keep the armaments up and in no case—I am trying to interpret him—to have unilateral disarmament. Many of us feel that we have had unilateral disarmament for the last two years. Has the policy been changed?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am glad the noble Viscount has asked that question, because this is not a question of disarmament; it is a question of disposing of equipment we do not want. What I am emphasising, and have tried to emphasise, is the importance of new equipment. I do not think the noble Viscount would greatly disagree with me when I say that such resources as we have should be used to give the Navy new ships and equipment—that is what I am trying to do—and that we should avoid spending money on older ships which have practically no value at all.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, to follow the general relation of that to the policy of armament in general will be of great interest. But is it not a fact that, whatever the future may be in the next five, ten or fifteen years, many of these ships, although not right up to modern standards, would be exceedingly useful? We

393
have proved that over and over again in more wars than one, and in ways that we never expected at the time the operations broke out. That is the fact, and I trust that the Admiralty are not simply scrapping everything in the hope that they are going to get a big expansion on something new. They should not scrap anything until they are quite certain it is never going to be used.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that we have this point very much in mind in the decision to which we have come. I do not think he wants to develop this matter into a broad argument, and I think it would be inappropriate on this Question.

CYPRUS
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I said yesterday that I would be making a statement on Cyprus to-day, and I would just tell your Lordships that I hope it will be soon after half-past three.

EGYPT: DISTRESS OF EXPELLED BRITISH NATIONALS
2.58 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD rose to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the continuing distress of British Nationals expelled from Egypt; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had a number of debates on this particular subject during the last two years, mainly initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, who has, I think, done more than anybody to keep the cause of British Nationals in Egypt before the minds of your Lordships. Your Lordships may ask why I should have thought it necessary to raise the matter again at the present time. It seems to me appropriate, because it so happens that it is almost exactly two years since British troops first landed on Egyptian territory. It is no part of my intention this afternoon to revive the bitter controversies of that time. We all had our individual views, and for my part I do not apologise for saying that I was a strong supporter of the Government. But the rights or wrongs of our intervention in Suez are really irrelevant to the issues which I wish to
394
place before your Lordships this afternoon. I think myself that they are much better forgotten, and I hope that during this debate they will be forgotten. But what it seems to me cannot be forgotten and should not be forgotten are the consequences of that intervention.
At the time of Suez the present Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons on October 31, 1956, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 558, col. 1571]:
"We in the present situation are, I believe, taking the right course in order to achieve peace, in order to protect British lives and interests"—
I should like to repeat that sentence—
"in order to protect British lives and interests and contribute to a final settlement."
Well, my Lords, I do not doubt the intention of the Government at that time, but I think that your Lordships, after two years, will have to agree that the results, unhappily, have turned out very differently, because British property, far from being protected, has been expropriated and all British nationals have been expelled from Egypt. I do not wish to labour unduly the connection between those two happenings. Frankly, the connection seems to me, self-evident, and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will be prepared to go in greater detail into that particular point. But since, in my opinion, this is a matter of cardinal importance, I should at this stage wish to make clear ray view that the expulsion and the expropriation suffered by British subjects were acts of direct retaliation by Nasser for the landing of British troops in Egypt: I think that the two things followed as night follows day.
I do not wish to waste your Lordships' time, because we have had many debates, by going too much into the history of this matter, but your Lordships will perhaps feel it appropriate that I should briefly sketch the events that have happened since then. Most of those people who were expelled came to this country, as your Lordships know, and when they arrived they had little more than the clothes in which they stood up. Everything had been taken from them—their houses, their cars, their furniture, their money, their businesses. Many of these people, of course, had few or no assets in Egypt, and in their case the problem of compensation did

395
not arise, although the problem of rehabilitation did arise. Where they were capable of finding jobs, the Government (I wish to be perfectly fair, and to pay tribute to the Government wherever I think the Government deserve tribute; and I think they do here) did a great deal in helping them to find jobs, and also fed and clothed them while they were doing so. It is a fact that a number of these people did find new jobs and started new lives, either in this country or in the Commonwealth. On the other hand, there were many who were unable to find jobs on the same level as the jobs they had in Egypt and who are still in financial difficulties. That is not really surprising when we consider that a great many of these people were leading executives in Egypt or had their own businesses.
There were others who, through age or infirmity, were unable to find employment. It so happens that I am the President of an organisation known as the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society, which is a charitable body to help these people, and I know something of these very pathetic cases; and I think perhaps they deserve more attention than Parliament has yet devoted to them. Here again I would pay tribute to the Government: the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board has done a great deal of good for these people, and I think it would be a valuable thing, in the light of the last Report of the Board, if, either to-day, or possibly, since I have not given the noble Viscount notice of this point, fairly soon, we might have some statement of the Government's future policy about the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board.
Apart from those people who had no assets, there were many people who had assets in Egypt. Those assets ranged from those of great enterprises like Shell and I.C.I. to those of small shopkeepers, and most of the people who had assets in Egypt lost everything. Even those fortunate enough to have cash or securities in a British bank found those assets frozen, so that, in practice, they were no good to them. Like the people who had no assets, those people were also given accommodation in hostels by the Government and assisted to find jobs. Here again, in many cases, the only job they could find was well below the level of the job they held in Egypt. These people owned
396
their own businesses or were leading executives in Egypt, and the jobs they found in this country were inferior in status and salary to those they held in Egypt. On the other hand, their commitments in most cases, with regard to children, education, and so on remained the same.
There were also a number of people who had reached, or were approaching, retiring age and who were unable to find jobs. I think your Lordships know that it is very difficult for a man over fifty years of age to find a job of any standing in this country to-day. Those people have worked hard in Egypt all their lives in a not entirely congenial climate. They were indeed the foundation of our whole economic position in Egypt; and let us not forget that. Yet, having saved for their retirement in this country, to which they looked forward, they found they had lost their lifetime savings in a night. That was a bitter blow to them, and it is not surprising that, in those circumstances, for the last two years all that most of those people have thought of is how they could get compensation for the losses which, through no fault of their own, they have suffered.
In their distress they turned, not unnaturally, to Her Majesty's Government for advice and for assistance. They got both. The advice they got from Her Majesty's Government I think I can paraphrase as follows. The Government said, "We cannot accept any responsibility for compensating you for your losses. We are very ready to help you to lodge your claims and to pursue them, but we must make it clear to you from the word 'Go' that your claims are against the Egyptian Government and not against us." So much for the advice. So far as the assistance is concerned, as your Lordships are aware, for those with assets the assistance has taken the form of ex gratia loans.
The first scheme for such loans was announced in your Lordships' House on July 15, 1957, and the second was announced about a fortnight ago, in response to a Question which I put down. Before I deal in more general terms with the question of these ex gratia loans, there is one point that I should like to clear up; and it is a matter which arose out of a reply by the Lord President to a Question that I put down. I would remind your Lordships that the Lord President

397
made a statement on this matter in this House on July 23. He was talking about the question of discussions on these loans, and he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211, col. 123]:
"The Government are therefore ready to consider sympathetically a limited extension of the existing scheme and are ready to enter into discussions with the appropriate interests concerned regarding the form which such an extension might take."
Later on, in answer to a supplementary question on this point, the noble Viscount said (col. 124):
"My Lords, the first necessity is to ascertain the form which the extension of the scheme must take. That must necessarily be done through discussions between those involved as to the best use of public money to mitigate harder cases when they have been arrived at. No doubt machinery will evolve out of the form and during the course of the discussions; but if I can be of any assistance in expediting matters I will continue to act as I have acted in the past."
I must confess that, having heard those two statements of the Lord President, I got the general impression that not only would the claimants have a further opportunity of stating their case, which they did (actually they stated their case on two different dates; two bodies, I think, stated it on one day, and the remainder stated it on the other) but they might be informed of the Government's intended proposals before they were announced and be given a chance of commenting upon them.
Here I should like to take the opportunity of repudiating something which was imputed to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on October 30 last, when in response to a supplementary question, he said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOI. 212 (No. 3), col. 81]:
"If my noble friend is seriously suggesting that a discussion is a discussion only if the claimants agree to everything that is said, it is not a view that I should care to endorse."
My Lords, I have never suggested that the Government should agree to everything the claimants have said, and I must say to the noble Viscount that I think that his comment was less than fair. All I have ever said was that I thought it would be better, from everybody's point of view, if, before the Government finally made up their minds on these proposals, they gave the claimants an opportunity of making some comment upon them. It might even have been that the claimants would have suggested something useful. Indeed, I am bound to say that, if such
398
an opportunity had been given, I think the last scheme might have been rather better than it is at the present time.
However, as I see it, and by my understanding of the normal use of the word "discussion", on this last scheme that has been put up there was no discussion in the proper sense with the claimants. That is my view. That is what the claimants have told me happened, and I must leave it to your Lordships' judgment as to whether you think the discussions, in the sense that I think we all understood the noble Viscount to mean when he made that statement in July, ever took place. My Lords, let me turn to these ex gratia loans—
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that part of his most interesting speech, could he give us a rough idea of the number of people involved in the different categories to which he has referred?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, we are all in great difficulty over this particular point, for the simple reason that the claims have not all been put through the same channels.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not know whether I can help my noble friend or the noble Lord opposite. Of course I do not want to stop my noble friend from giving any information in his possession, but it may assist the noble Lord opposite to know that it is my intention to give as accurate an account of this matter as I can; and it will be, I think, fairly accurate.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, if that deals with the noble Lord's point, I will not bother to pursue it now; in any case, I am sure that the noble Viscount's information is more accurate than mine.
I want to say a word now about these ex gratia loans, because, in my opinion, both these schemes have a number of defeats. It is only fair to say to the Government that I think that the second scheme which they have produced corrects a number of the more obvious defects of the first scheme. For example, the business assets of these people are now reckonable when the question of loans is being considered, and undoubtedly the scale of loan under the new scheme to people with assets of up to £20,000 is a great deal more favourable than the scale in the old scheme. I

399
think it only fair to pay that tribute to Her Majesty's Government, because I believe it to be true. Nevertheless, there are a number of anomalies even in the new scheme: for example, it seems to me absurd that a man who has assets of £19,999 should qualify only for a loan of £7,500, while a man who has assets of £20,001—£2 more, or the cost of a television licence before the price went up—should qualify for a loan of £10,000. That seems to me a complete anomaly and quite absurd.
Again, if we look at the list of business assets, it seems to me slightly odd that there is no mention of such items as "Bills receivable" and "Sundry debtors", which in most businesses are an important part of the assets. All these things are left out. Those are just two small points that I pick at random. I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time than is necessary, and no doubt other noble Lords will amplify the point. I do not want to get too deeply involved in the details of these loans because, to be perfectly frank, I do not believe that, on their present scale or in their present form, they provide any solution to the problem with which these people are faced. If I have wasted any time on these points it is purely because it seems to me that if the Treasury are going to produce a scheme in that form the combined brains of that organisation might have produced something slightly less absurd than the two things which I have mentioned; and I should have thought that they ought to have been remedied after two years.
As I say, I do not believe that the sort of scheme which has so far been produced is going to meet the situation, and I should like to tell your Lordships why. If your Lordships will examine the two schemes, you will see that under the first scheme the maximum loan for any man—no matter what his assets were: they might have been £1 million or only £20,000—having over £20,000 was £5,000. Invested at 5 per cent. that £5,000 would have produced to him, on my calculations, an income of £250 per annum, or rather under £5 a week. I do not think I need address your Lordships on that point. I am always told by my own agricultural labourers that they are the worst paid people in this country; but they get £7 16s. 0d. a week,
400
a cottage, a pint of milk and various other things. Is it really suggested that these people should live—my noble friend, I think, says, not his. If that is so, he is contravening the law, because the minimum wage is £7 16s. 0d.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was saying something to my noble friend next to me, and I did not say that which was attributed to me by the noble Lord. I said something quite different, and it was not intended for his ears.
LORD LLOYD: I did not think that so eminent a lawyer would break the law, and I was horrified to hear what he said.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What in fact I said was, that mine had not got £5,000.
LORD LLOYD: Perhaps I might point out that if the noble Viscount's people were told that they were to get £5,000, but that they would have to work for it for the next fifty years, many of them would not take it on. In point of fact, as I was saying, that sum invested would produce to those people an income of rather under £5 a week. Again, I must leave it to your Lordships' judgment as to whether you really believe that these sort of people ought to be compelled to live on £5 a week in this country to-day. Incidentally, I might say that under the old scheme a man who had worked all his life in Egypt and had saved only £10,000 got a loan of £2,700, which would produce about £2 10s. 0d. per week. I do not know how anybody can be expected to live on that sum. I wish to be fair, and I acknowledge that these sums were intended by the Government as temporary expedients because in due course, we were always told, a settlement with the Egyptians was going to be made, and this was merely to help these people along. I do not wish to make an unfair point. That was the Government's argument.
Next I wish to point out that under the new scheme the maximum loan that a millionaire can get is £10,000. That is double the amount provided under the old scheme, and I should like to pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government for that increase. That amount invested at 5 per cent. will produce £10 per week. But, of course, your Lordships must remember that for two years these people have been receiving only £5 a week and

401
have not been able to live upon that, so that they will have spent a certain amount of capital and will not have another £5,000 to invest, with the result that they will probably be living on a good deal less than £10 a week. Again I must put it to your Lordships for consideration: do you think it right that these people, who toiled all their lives, not entirely for themselves but for this country—because in Egypt they have done great things for us,—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD LLOYD: They have built up the economic position in the country. Is it right that in the evening of their lives they should be reduced to a standard of living of this kind?
In any event—and this is the point I particularly wish to put to your Lordships—in my view the situation has changed. Hitherto, as your Lordships will remember, in all the debates we have had on this matter we have always been told by Her Majesty's Government, "You must not press us too hard: we are on the verge of negotiation with Colonel Nasser." or, "We have just concluded one round of negotiations with Colonel Nasser and things look hopeful. We hope to start again." Always there has been held out the chimera of a settlement round the corner. We have waited two years. Does anybody really believe to-day that a settlement with Colonel Nasser is round the corner?
I myself have always rather wondered whether there was ever a prospect of a settlement with Colonel Nasser—and when I speak of a settlement I mean a reasonable settlement. Here I should like to pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government. If there has not been a settlement during these two years I believe that part of the reason is because Her Majesty's Government have had the courage and right thinking to defend our people's interests against Colonel Nasser and have not been prepared to accept any kind of settlement for these people. For that Her Majesty's Government deserve full credit, which I give to them. The fact remains, however, that we have not got a settlement and I do not think we are likely to get one in the near future. I will give your Lordships one or two reasons why I believe that to be the case.
402
In the first place, apart from anything else, these assets have been in the hands of the Egyptians for two years, and my information is that practically everything that was not nailed down—every liquid asset—has already been dissipated. I have one case which I should like to give your Lordships as an example of what has happened. I believe this to be true. This was an old-established and successfully run British agency business, which was typical of many of those taken over by the Egyptian sequestrators following the expulsion of their owners. Since the sequestration the loss on the working of that business has amounted to £25,000, on a capital of £30,000. A copy of the balance sheet shows, under "Liabilities", overdrafts from the different banks, with whom the owner had hitherto not done any business, totalling some £49,000. This amount is partly offset by a single item on the "Assets" side of £41,000 for "Sundry debtors." That is the only item. I would only add that this business has never allowed a credit of more than £4,000 to any customer. Does anybody really think that if that business were returned it would be worth anything, except possibly for the building and land?
I believe that what applies to that business applies to every other business taken over by the Egyptians; and when we speak of despoiled by the Egyptians" that is indeed what has happened. It is perfectly clear to me, therefore, that if any reasonable settlement is to be reached it is no good the Egyptians merely handing back the only things they have not been able to dissipate. They cannot dissipate the land, and they have not knocked down the buildings; but obviously there would have to be very large cash compensation to every single claimant. The hard facts of the situation are that Colonel Nasser has no cash. The only cash he has is the £80 million-odd (I believe that is the right figure) of sterling balances held in this country. Incidentally, I should like to remind your Lordships of what the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said about those sterling balances in another place on May 16, 1957 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 570. col. 584]:
"The blocked accounts"—
and presumably he means all the blocked accounts—

403
"are our security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government. We have no intention of whittling away that position. The House can be sure of that."
The answer is that Colonel Nasser has no advantage, from his point of view, in a settlement, for all he wants is to get hold of the sterling balances; and if there is to be a just settlement most of those sterling balances will have to go to meet the claims of these people. For those reasons I do not believe now that there will be a settlement. I dare say that we shall be told again this afternoon that a settlement is round the corner, but again I must leave it to your Lordships' judgment whether you think that is probable.
If, as I believe, there are no prospects of a settlement, I feel that the time has now come when we have all to consider what is to be the future position of these unhappy claimants. Are they to be expected to struggle along indefinitely, on a series of temporary and rather inadequate loans? Has not the time come for Her Majesty's Government to face up to what I believe are their responsibilities in these matters? Hitherto Her Majesty's Government have maintained that these claims lie exclusively against the Egyptian Government and have refused to accept any responsibility. I am not a lawyer, but the noble and learned Viscount Lord Hailsham is. No doubt he will tell your Lordships that legally that is perfectly right—and for all I know that may be so. Certainly I am quite convinced that Her Majesty's Government were right to try to squeeze every penny they could out of the Egyptians. But, whether legally that is the position or not, it is my belief that, morally, we as a nation—not merely Her Majesty's Government—are in honour bound to see that these people obtain fair compensation for the losses which they have suffered as a direct result of the intervention of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt.
I know it has been argued that that would create a precedent, and that British nationals abroad cannot expect compensation from their own Government in times of trouble. That is as may be; but, as other noble Lords, I am sure, will say later on, in our view this case is sui generis. I know of no other case where our nationals have been exposed to these losses as a direct result
404
of our intervention in a foreign country, and I should be interested to hear of any such cases. For that reason it seems to me that this would be creating no precedent and that this is a case on its own. I agree that if compensation could have been obtained from the Egyptians it would have been so much the better. But since it has not been, I believe that the only source from which the claimants can hope to obtain justice is Her Majesty's Government. I would conclude by just saying this: that to my mind the obligations of Her Majesty's Government in this matter are quite clear, and I believe that the time to discharge these obligations is now. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the continuing distress of British nationals expelled from Egypt.—(Lord Lloyd.)
3.29 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, you will have heard from my noble friend the Leader of the House that at about half-past three he intends to make a statement about Cyprus. It is not in order to make it before the moment has arrived and it would probably be for the convenience of your Lordships if I did not embark upon my speech for thirty seconds or so and thus postpone that statement. In the thirty seconds which remain to me perhaps I can make one or two preliminary observations. I hope that that will be entirely to your Lordships' convenience, rather than that the statement should be postponed until after the speech which I propose to deliver.
I think that no one can complain that my noble friend Lord Lloyd should have reintroduced this subject for discussion. It is some time since we had a full debate about it and, speaking for myself, I am glad of the opportunity which I now take early in the debate of laying what facts I can before your Lordships. Likewise, no one can regret more than I do the reason why a further discussion has become necessary. Whatever criticisms may or may not be levelled against the Government, it is vital that one reason, at any rate, should not be obscured, and that reason is the failure, so far, by the Egyptian authorities to implement what is manifestly their duty

405
on any view of International Law—namely, the return to the property-owners of sequestrated property and the payment of compensation in those cases where the property has been expropriated. I was glad to notice that during the course of my noble friend's remarks he, at the appropriate place in his speech, emphasised that point no less than I do.
I confess that, rather unlike my noble friend, I am surprised at the delay; and I hope to convey to your Lordships a certain element of my own surprise at it. Lest there should be any mistake about it at all I must say categorically that it has always been our desire to normalise relations with Egypt. It remains our desire to do so. As your Lordships know, there have been quite a number of negotiations; there have also been a number of informal contacts. I have, I confess, heard something, although not everything, of what has transpired, and I am bound to say that I still find myself somewhat surprised, after what I have heard, that they have not by now reached a satisfactory conclusion. I can assure the House—and I was glad that my noble friend accepted it—that so far as we are concerned the fault does not lie with us in this matter; and the fault appears to be political rather than any fault or argument connected with the merits of the case.
However that may be, what we have to consider this afternoon is how we should act in the face of this delay. My noble friend is rightly concerned with the hardship to those who have been expelled from Egypt and how that hardship can be mitigated. But d think he would be the first—and I think, as I understood his speech, that he would willingly be the first—to agree that that is not the only factor which the Government have to take into consideration, even in the interests of the refugees themselves. We are all put in a false position by this delay, and I would suggest that it behoves us all to show a considerable degree of restraint and understanding both for the position of the British nationals concerned and for the situation of Her Majesty's Government.
To my own infinite regret I am still convinced, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was so long ago as March 28, 1957, when he was answering the debate
406
which was then held on behalf of the Government, that—and here I quote his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 934]:
"… if by anything we did at present we prejudiced the final settlement of claims which might be owing, we should have done the refugees themselves no good at all."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I need only remind the noble Viscount that he is still where I was a year ago. I have changed my view in the light of changed circumstances.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Marquess is utterly arid completely mistaken. We are not where he was a year ago. The whole of the loans scheme, which is what we are discussing this afternoon, has emerged since the noble Marquess left the Government. So we are not where he was a year ago. But I hope by the time I have sat down to have made good the case which I ventured to express in the words of the noble Marquess and also to have convinced the House that there are quite a number of public interests involved which really cannot be overlooked or brushed aside.
My Lords, I hope it is to your Lordships' convenience if I now postpone the remainder of my speech. I am sorry to have had to adopt this method, but I think it would be convenient if I broke off now in accordance with what I said.

CYPRUS
3.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I rise to make a statement which the Prime Minister is making in another place at the present time, and for the convenience of the House I think it would be better to read it in the Prime Minister's own words:
"On October 30 my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary explained to the House the position with regard to the discussions on Cyprus in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and on October 31 Her Majesty's Government issued a White Paper publishing the relevant documents. This makes abundantly clear the sincere and continuous efforts which we made to make possible a conference on the basis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation discussions. The Greek Government have subsequently issued

407
a statement commenting on the White Paper. Although Her Majesty's Government cannot altogether accept this Greek version of events, I do not think it would be helpful for me now to engage in further controversy over these past exchanges.
"It is important to note that there has been general agreement that whatever might be the appropriate final settlement, such a solution was unlikely to be reached immediately and it was therefore necessary to find an interim arrangement. It would however be necessary to ensure that such an interim arrangement did not prejudice any final solution. It was made clear that as well as a general discussion on the possible final long-term solution, particular attention should be given by the conference to this point. We still hope that the Greek Government will in due course find it possible to come to the conference table on the basis which was virtually agreed in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation discussions. We ourselves are still willing to attend on that basis.
"As the House will know, the Greek Government have tabled on the Agenda of the General Assembly of the United Nations an item entitled 'The Question of Cyprus'. Before long we may expect a debate on this item. We are quite ready to make clear our position to other members of the United Nations. We would explain in particular our own policy, which we believe to be the fairest compromise attainable in present circumstances. We would also make clear that we have tried, and still desire, to arrange a conference which would discuss not only our policy and amendments to it but also any ideas for a long-term solution. Nevertheless it would be our endeavour that the debate in the United Nations should not make agreement more difficult and should in fact facilitate the convening of the conference which once seemed so near.
"I now turn to the position in the island. Terrorism continues and has recently taken new forms. In addition to attacks on the Security Forces, on patrols and on military installations, there has been an increase in murderous violence against civilians. I regret
408
to say that nine have been murdered in the last five weeks. In countering these measures the Governor is acting throughout with the full support of his military advisers—and I would like to make it clear from the start that we have complete confidence in the Governor and his advisers, both civil and military. I must add with equal force that there is the fullest cooperation and confidence between the civil and military sides.
"Various new precautions are being taken and new measures introduced. In certain respects these have been successful. The number of ambushes is steadily falling. It is indeed because of these successes that the terrorists are turning towards attack upon unarmed civilians. In this situation the Governor is being given, and will be given, every help and support that he requires in the administrative and legislative field. At the same time, every requirement of personnel or material that the Director of Operations needs will be made available to him.
"We are convinced that by far the greatest proportion of Cypriots are tired of the whole terrorist situation, but the House will appreciate that they live in an atmosphere of fear. Until we can make further progress in attacking the evil at its root we shall not command their co-operation.
"Many suggestions—some very helpful—have been put to me and to my right honourable friend, and have been passed on to the Governor. We must, however, bear in mind that, while we are obliged to take security measures such as the dismissal of Cypriots employed in military installations and camps, we have no desire to resort to punitive retaliatory measures against the population as a whole—although such measures may be justified in special cases.
"I must now say a word about the British civilians. I would like to pay tribute to their courage. It is what we have learned to expect, and it is reinforced by the enthusiastic readiness of people in this country to volunteer for work in Cyprus. This must impress the House.
"Some criticism has been made as to the recent decision of the Governor to arm civilians. Here I am content to

409
rest upon, and support, the Governor's judgment. The legal position has of course been fully safeguarded.
"To sum up, I think the House and the country can have full confidence in the men on the spot, and we can best help them by giving them our full moral and practical support.
"There are thus two aspects of our Cyprus policy to-day. We are going forward on the one hand with a constructive policy for political progress in Cyprus, and we shall proceed quietly and unprovocatively with the arrangements contemplated under that policy. We shall also continue the search for a policy agreed by all parties concerned, inside and outside the island. But, on the other hand, we shall not be deterred by violence or the threat of violence, and we shall impose whatever measures are necessary to maintain security and good order and to prevent further loss of life. There is no contradiction between these two aspects of our policy. Peace and security are the only sure foundations for political progress. We shall combat terrorism with all possible vigour; at the same time we shall continue our efforts to reach a political agreement. It would be a great help to us in this double task if the Greek Government and the Greek Cypriot leaders would dissociate themselves from the campaign of horror and violence in the island."
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House for bringing the Prime Minister's statement on Cyprus to our notice, and we shall all, I am sure, have an opportunity of studying the statement in more detail when it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT. However, may I, with the permission of the House, at once say one or two things upon it? First, we are glad that the statement is so firmly made that, in spite of all the rumours that have been cast about and the expressions of opinion here and there, there is apparently no difference or disunity between the Governor and the military commanders. That is a point of considerable importance and of great substance in considering what has to be done in the future.
410
Then I should like to say this: that it is time, I think, that the leaders of the E.O.K.A. movement and others allied with them in Cyprus understood something of the reactions in this country to the turn of events which has taken place in the last few weeks. All parties in the State have been simply horrified at the form of murders adopted against the civilian population—people quite defence-less in themselves—for which there can surely be no justification whatsoever, either on political or on any other ground. I should have thought that, however much Archbishop Makarios might consider that he had made an offer which might have been taken up rather differently, it was high time that he repudiated any responsibility for and asked for a change to be made in that policy of murder and violence which has, I think, shocked the whole world as well as the members of our own nation.
On the other hand, I am glad to know that the Government do not propose to be deterred by violence. I am glad to know that they especially stress that they are going to try to get a political settlement. Situations like this have arisen in other countries, in other parts of the Commonwealth in which we have been interested, and the like, but we have always found at the last that in truth you have to have a political settlement, even though sometimes you may have to shake hands with those who have been responsible for really abominable crimes. That has actually taken place; and it is in cases like that of, say, Ireland, where that had to follow and did follow, that it is found that, after too long a maintenance of hate and too long a violent struggle, that country then does not remain in the Commonwealth. I think that all that wants careful attention when the Government are, quite rightly, pursuing their efforts to come to a political settlement.
The only other doubt that I have about the statement concerns the reference which is made to "the population as a whole". If I may just quote it—because I have had the advantage of a copy of the statement from the noble Earl the Leader of the House—it says:
"we have no desire to resort to punitive retaliatory measures against the population as a whole"—

411
I should have thought that that would have been taken for granted in any case—
"although such measures may be justified in special cases".
I wish I could have some clarification of that passage, as to whether it would in fact be proposed to take action against the population as a whole in special cases or whether perhaps the wording is a little unfortunate.
Apart from that, I should like to say how grateful we are for the information given. It cannot hold off for very long the desire of your Lordships to debate the situation there, but in view of what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has reported to us, through the Prime Minister's statement, of the possibility of a debate in the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation on the Greek resolution, I think one might wait a few days and see how the proposed arrangements for that go before fixing a date. However, I should be glad to have an assurance that, as soon as the date when the debate is to begin in the United Nations is indicated, we might then have a very early date fixed for a general debate in your Lordships' House on Cyprus.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. Of course, there are, such questions as the United Nations debate to be considered, and perhaps we might know a little more about that and about timing next week. I should like to thank him, too, for his reference to the Governor and his military advisers. There is not only no disagreement between them but they are, as I have said, working in most complete harmony, and that should be known everywhere. Again, whatever the political feelings are, and however strong the political views that are held on either side may be, there can be no justification whatever for this campaign of callous murder, and it should be denounced by all responsible people.
In regard to this matter of retaliatory measures which might be applied in special cases, I think that refers to such things as curfews and fines which have been used in the past in certain circumstances. I think there is no new meaning which should be attached to that particular phrase.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is the noble Earl going to tell us any more about the arming of civilians? Are those who receive arms from the Government enrolled in a special constabulary scheme? Are arms available also for other nationals who are in danger, such as the Turks and friendly Greeks?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should like any particular matters of that kind put down at a later stage.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I would only say that the whole situation bears a ghastly resemblance to the situation I remember very well thirty-five years ago, when the same arguments were advanced in favour of the Black-and-Tans and failed then.

EGYPT: DISTRESS OF EXPELLED BRITISH NATIONALS
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to express once more my gratitude to your Lordships for permitting this courtesy and will also show what forbearance your Lordships may should I, as a result of the intermission in my speech, have slightly lost the thread of my argument. During the week-end I have gone over again the catalogue, to me a somewhat melancholy catalogue, the length of which no one can regret more than I do, of the various debates we have held upon this subject. I find that, except on one occasion, which was more than a year ago, my own part has been limited to answering questions or replying at the end of a debate to a number of individual points and arguments. Without any disrespect either to the House or to myself, I think that it is quite inevitable that over such a period of time a certain amount of misunderstanding, both about fact and argument, is likely to accumulate, and I have risen thus early in the debate this afternoon because, after reflection, I thought that it would be more useful, in the hope of clearing away some of this misunderstanding, that I should review the situation from the point of view of the Government, in order to give, so far as I am able to do so, a coherent view of the facts and arguments as we see them. This and what follows will, I hope, help to answer the noble

413
Lord, Lord Silkin, who expressed an interest in this part of the subject.
It is estimated that at the time of the events of 1956 there were upwards of 13,000 British subjects resident in Egypt. Of these about 3,000 were of United Kingdom origin, 4,500 were Cypriots, 5,000 were Maltese and 700 were of mixed Commonwealth origin. Of this figure of 13,000, a large number left Egypt, though not (as my noble friend said) all of them, and we estimate that between 7,000 and 8,000 came to this country, of whom about 6,250 are estimated still to be resident here. I may say, in passing, though it is irrelevant to my main theme, that about 1,500 have been assisted to emigrate to various parts of the Commonwealth and of the world, I think mainly to Australia, as a result of schemes which have been in force. Of the 6,250, about 4,000 have been resettled by the Resettlement Board and about 500 remain to be resettled. About 1,000 persons have received ex gratia loans without seeking further aid from the Board. Of the 7,000-odd refugees who came to Britain in this way, it would seem that about two-thirds had few or no tangible assets at all. I would say, again in passing, although I am sure that what he said was textually accurate, that I think the picture which my noble friend managed to paint, at any rate in my mind, of the typical refugee being an elderly executive of sixty or thereabouts is not quite accurate. Only about 2,600 had assets which ranked for the loans scheme, and of these well over half, or just over 1,500 had assets in Egypt amounting to £2,000 or less.
My noble friend's Motion draws the attention of Her Majesty's Government "to the continuing distress of British nationals expelled from Egypt." So far as the majority are concerned—that is, the two-thirds who had no assets—my own view is that they were all treated in a manner far more generous, so far as I know, than any other British subjects who have come to this country as refugees have ever been treated before. I gave your Lordships' House in June, 1957, particulars of what had been, and was then being, done. Apart from early teething troubles, of which, of course, there were some, as those of us who have had experience of administrative problems of this kind must expect, I have not
414
heard a word of criticism about the way in which these persons were treated; and since June, 1957, not one single Question relating to that treatment has been put down in either House of Parliament.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I have a good deal of experience of these people as well, and if I have not said much about them to-day, it is because I did not want to confuse two issues. In point of fact, I wish to put down another Motion for a debate on the very question of those who have no assets. I do not agree with the noble Viscount. Many of them may have been resettled in the terms of the Resettlement Board, but from many points of view I should not regard them as being resettled. I think that that is a slight over-statement of the noble Viscount. Many of these people are still in great difficulties.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not understand why my noble friend did not raise the position of these people to-day if he wanted to do so. The Motion is not limited to those with assets; it draws attention to the hardship of British nationals expelled from Egypt. I would say that I have every intention of discussing this matter to-day. I must tell my noble friend, because I do not think that he has been quite fair about this that no single Question relating to the general treatment has been put down in either House of Parliament. I have been through the copies of Hansard. There have been two Questions in another place, neither of which, I think—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I interrupt?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Do let me finish the sentence.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is a point of Order.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If it is a point of Order, I am sorry.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I understood that it is a well-accepted rule that it is quite impossible to discuss in your. Lordships' House the procedure in another place, except a statement made by a Minister.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not going to discuss the procedure in another place. There have been two Questions

415
in another place, neither of which involves any qualification of the remark I was making. There was also a Question about an individual case in which the refugee had taken the somewhat unusual course of going to Cyprus. I am talking not of details but of the general position, and I am perfectly sure that your Lordships' House would want me to do so. Having heard my noble friend's speech, although he did not adequately deal with the two-thirds who had no assets, he did not, at any rate in his speech, address one word of criticism regarding the treatment of this large majority.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I really must say a word to the noble Viscount about that. If he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT, the noble Viscount will see that what I said was that there were a large number of people—I did not say the majority, though that makes no difference—who had no assets. I said that many of these people had no adequate resources and that I was not satisfied that they had been resettled. I said that many details depended upon the Government's future policy in regard to the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, but that as it would take a long time to go into the details, I preferred not to do so, and that I hoped the Government would make a statement on which we could have a discussion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as I understood what the noble Lord said, it was that he was concerned lest those who had no assets were off the books of the Resettlement Board too soon. The point that I am making is that there was not one single point of criticism that the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board were treating those on their books ungenerously—although there may be hereafter some criticism. That seems to me to be a legitimate summary of what my noble friend said. My view is—and I feel bound to tell the House this—that they have not only not been treated ungenerously, but they have been treated generously in the matter of grants for businesses, housing grants, resettlement grants, clothing allowances, maintenance allowances, facilities for education and, where it was desired, emigration.
It is as well, if we are going to consider charges of niggardliness and lack of
416
generosity by the Government, that regard should be had to the almost total lack of criticism on this, the primary function of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, financed by the taxpayer, and applying to two-thirds of the cases. And it is as well to remember, before we go on to consider the question of those who had assets (which I promise your Lordships I am not going to forget) that before they came under the loans scheme at all, all of those who had assets were entitled to the full advantage of the activities of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board just as much as those who had none.
There was a family in which I know my noble friend has taken interest, and as to whom he has been in correspondence with one of my colleagues. I do not intend to specify it as a particularly hard case—it would be invidious to do so—but I will return to it later to illustrate another point. This family not only have benefited by the existing loans scheme to the extent of £4,000, in spite of the assets in Egypt to which they laid claim, but have received another £1,800 by way of grant or maintenance from the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board; so that, in addition to the loans scheme, over the period of two years they received £5,880. I think it is unfair on the part of noble Lords to talk only in terms of the loans scheme, whereas, in fact, in some cases, whether they have substantial assets or whether they have no assets, they may have received sums up to £2,000 by way of grant and not by way of loan.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We seem to be uncertain about the particular case which the noble and learned Viscount cited, as to whether the £5,000 was by way of loan or by actual grant. He referred to it as if there were other loans besides.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Viscount must have misunderstood me. What I said was quite clear: that there were loans of approximately £4,000, and grants and maintenance allowances, which were not loans, of about £1,800, making a total of £5,880.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Viscount said that, in addition to the loans scheme, they had £5.880.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If I did, I apologise to your Lordships. I intended to say that they had received, in addition to the loans scheme, £1,800 by way of grant or maintenance, so that they received over the period of less than two years £5,880. If I did, by a mistake of the tongue, say the opposite, I apologise. I am anxious not to mislead in any way.
I will come back to the question of those with assets, but before I do so I feel it is necessary—and I am sure the House will agree with me that it is—to discuss a little more in detail the actual physical assets there were, what became of them and to whom they belonged. This may be a long digression, but I must say to the noble Lord and to my noble friend that I do not see how I can present my argument until I make it. If the majority of those who are refugees had no tangible assets, it is equally true, so far as one can judge, that of British assets which were owned in Egypt at the time of the events of 1956 the majority were not owned by those who subsequently became refugees: they were owned by British subjects elsewhere than in Egypt. Here, I am sorry to say, I am not in a position to give exact figures, but it is a fact which from the point of view of the argument I must not pass over.
My noble friend's motion refers only to those who were expelled from Egypt, and draws attention to their hardship, to which in terms the Motion is limited; but, from time to time during your Lordships debates, and, indeed, during my noble friend's speech, there has emerged a quite different proposition, which is a demand for compensation not based on hardship but based on what is alleged to be a legal or moral right to compensation for all sorts of losses. That is quite a different thing from hardship. It is not true that all those who have lost assets are refugees; and it is not true that all those who have lost assets are suffering hardship. You must refuse a claim for compensation, even if there is hardship, if no title to compensation is made; and you must grant a claim for assistance based on hardship, even though a title to compensation is not made out.
I must point out that strictly such a proposition is outside the Motion, to which I am bound, to some extent, to adhere; but I should be surprised if all mention of the subject were excluded from your Lordships' debate this afternoon.
418
For this reason, I cannot avoid observing that, in assessing any question of liability, moral or legal, on the part of the United Kingdom Government to pay compensation for the loss of any of these assets, it is, in my opinion, difficult, and I should have said impossible, to draw any logical distinction between those assets which are and those which are not owned by persons expelled from Egypt. Indeed, in some ways the position of the British resident owners could be argued to be as strong if not stronger. They have at least incurred for many years the obligations which exist in this country.
In any event, neither of the two criteria proposed in this connection at any time by any noble Lord as justification for compensation could be expressed so as to afford any valid distinction between any class of British asset, whether privately owned or owned by a public company of which British subjects are shareholders, whether their owners are refugees or not. The objects of the landings of 1956 included the intention to protect British lives and property but this was not limited to the property which happened to belong to British subjects resident in Egypt at the time.
Before I return to the question of those who had assets in Egypt and who have been expelled, which is the group with whom my noble friend was for one reason or another particularly concerned in his speech, it is important that I should ask your Lordships' indulgence to consider what has happened in the meanwhile to British assets in Egypt whose ownership belongs partly to those expelled and partly to those who resided elsewhere.
Part (I think rather less than half and mainly business assets) were, to use the language of the Egyptian authorities, Egyptianised. This means that businesses built up by the enterprise of British subjects were expropriated and handed over to Egyptian ownership. I am not going to characterise the morality of this procedure, nor must I be taken to accept or endorse its legality. However, it is no good in this connection expostulating about that. The property was seized and expropriated, and whatever else may be true about their procedure the Egyptian authorities have never denied their liability to pay compensation. They admit their liability to pay compensation, though in fact they have never paid.

419
From their point of view—and again I must not be taken as necessarily endorsing it—they regard the property as having been nationalised for social, or, perhaps one might say, socialist, reasons; and the consequence is that they regard themselves as liable to pay compensation for what they have taken, although the property is expropriated. Their failure to pay—which is one of the causes of the delay which we are discussing this afternoon—is certainly not due to any want of anxiety on the part of Her Majesty's Government that they should discharge it, but to other quite different factors which it is probably impossible in the United Kingdom fully to evaluate.
Here I must say something to my noble friend. I do not think he has realised —certainly from the language of his speech he did not indicate that he realised—that the Egyptianised or, shall we say, nationalised property, in respect of which there is an obligation to pay compensation, forms only a part, and probably—I should myself say quite certainly—not the largest part, of British assets in Egypt at the time of the events of 1956. The other and probably—again I would say quite certainly—the biggest part was sequestrated. Again, it is important to recognise the status of this sequestrated property—I am sorry for this discourse, but it is absolutely vital to the understanding of the problem that I should make it—because that, and not the failure of the Egyptian authorities to pay compensation for the Egyptianised or nationalised property, lies very much at the heart of our present practical difficulties. Without going into the question, irrevelant for this purpose, of whether or not a state of war existed, I might say that the process of sequestration in itself does not differ markedly from the process known to the law of this country as the handing over of enemy property to the Custodian of Enemy Property.
The point is that, contrary to what my noble friend said, whatever the merits or demerits of this procedure the essential point is that it is not confiscation, it is not expropriation; and it is not true to say that the sequestrated property has been, in the strict sense, expropriated. The property is held on trust and is administered on trust. I quite recognise that there may be issues between us and
420
the Egyptians as to whether the property has been properly managed. That is a matter for discussion. But the income should be accumulating—and some of it is—subject to whatever administrative charges may ultimately be decided upon. In accordance with ordinary International Law, and at the end of hostilities, the property ought to be handed back to the true owners. This is the essence of the matter, and this is the present position. The sequestrated property is largely there. It is being administered, and the Egyptians, to do them justice, have never once denied their liability to hand it back. It is true that they have not handed it back, but in all the negotiations we have had with them they have fully recognised their obligation to do so. Nor, I think, could any civilised Government do less. Nor is it true to say, as my noble friend appears to think, that most of this property has disappeared into thin air. Of the sequestrated property, which is, I should judge, more than half the whole, 20 per cent. represents bank balances and securities, and 20 per cent, land and buildings, which presumably are bringing in rent.
Here I must put forward one or two contentions. A very large amount of property is at stake on both sides in this matter. It would, at any rate in my opinion, and I believe the House will accept it—but I must at any rate put it forward quite sincerely as my opinion—be utterly wrong for Her Majesty's Government to do any act at the moment which showed that they believed that Colonel Nasser could or should or was likely to retain possession of the sequestrated property or refuse to pay any compensation for the Egyptianised. Such an act would, I believe, be wholly contrary to the interests of this country, because it would practically, if not theoretically, abandon claim to assets amounting, it might be said, to very many millions of pounds, of which most are still in existence and still yielding income, at a time when the Egyptian authorities themselves have never repudiated their liability. It would also mean that, unless we paid out compensation on the basis of the entire claims put forward by the claimants themselves, without further verification, we should have to betray the cause of the same claimants in the negotiations with Egypt

421
when we have hitherto sought steadfastly to maintain their cause.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount again, but he is dealing with a particular point, and I want to get the facts right. I was perfectly aware of the difference between expropriation and sequestration. The case I have given him—and I believe the facts to be accurate—show that in two years the assets of the business have been dissipated. I venture to think that, from what I have heard through various sources, that is probably true about others. The noble Viscount brushes that point aside, but in point of fact the assets have disappeared: instead of a credit balance, there is a debit balance, an overdraft, of £49,000. That is what I am asking the noble Viscount to deal with, and I should be grateful if he would.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Nobody is brushing anything aside. The noble Lord has never said, and I do not know, whether this business is alleged to have been nationalised or sequestrated. But on the assumption that it was sequestrated, clearly it is possible for assets to be dissipated, in which case, if they are dissipated as a result of bad management, we are putting forward a claim for compensation. But I have to point out that, speaking in the broad—and we cannot go on discussing individual cases indefinitely—a great number of these assets have either not been dissipated or are not capable of dissipation. Twenty per cent. represents bank balances, some of which are certainly in existence, amounting to millions of pounds, and 20 per cent. represents land and buildings.
I must make this clear. My noble friend says—and I quite accept it—that he understands the difference between sequestration and expropriation. None the less, I think he missed the point of the argument, because he allowed himself to say that the property had all been expropriated, which is not accurate. Moreover, the fact that this large amount of property exists, some of it at any rate in a state to be handed back, is precisely one of the factors one has to take into account in considering what to do.
LORD JESSEL: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? How can he say that
422
bank balances are not capable of being dissipated? I know of a case where a company started with a bank balance which has all been dissipated.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am afraid that I must have spoken indistinctly, because I said they could be dissipated, though I quoted other things which cannot be. I must apologise for not having said it more clearly. The noble Lord is behind me, and perhaps my voice is not carrying as I was trying to make it do. None the less, we should be doing exactly what I regard as irresponsible and wrong if we either paid out the claimants and took over the claims, or paid out the claimants by satisfying them, in whole or in part, out of the blocked Egyptian balances, which some noble Lords have suggested from time to time. By doing the latter, we should be slamming the door, because the Egyptian sterling balances no more belong to us than the sequestrated property belongs to the Egyptians. We should at the same time be undermining confidence in ourselves as bankers.
Moreover, we should, if we were to take the proceeds of the sterling balances, be betraying the interests of a large class of claimants who are not refugees at all. By taking the other course we should be doing the same thing de facto, because we should be rendering it impossible for the present series of negotiations to continue on their present basis—and that at a time when we do not believe that it is at all out of the question for them to succeed, and when I believe that, on the whole, most people in this House would desire to see them succeed. Moreover, these negotiations are based from one point of view entirely on the separability of individual claims from public claims.
Whilst all this is still unsettled, I would have said, quite sincerely—and again I believe that the House will agree with me on this—that we must cast about for a reasonable and just course of action which is not designed to prejudice the normalisation of relations with Egypt or the ultimate claims of the refugees themselves. This must lead us to look at hardship and again to make loans against claims of assets. This is in fact what we have done, and as I understood it, although I may be wrong, this is exactly what, on March 28. 1957, the noble Lord,

423
Lord Killearn, asked should be done; and I would now wish to discuss with your Lordships the criticisms which are made of it. I am not prepared to admit that in principle, in this conjunction of events, the practice of granting loans was a wrong one, since it was the only way we could find of assisting the refugees which did not at the same time prejudice either the claims or the existence of the negotiations. I am not prepared to admit that the time has yet come for a permanent solution, for to do so would be to abandon hope of very many important advantages which might be obtained. I say this after having carefully studied the state of play in the matter of negotiations.
Here, perhaps it would be fair, if the House would bear with me, if I read out an answer given in another place by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, because I think it bears on what I am saying. I do not know that it carries it much further, but I think I should, in order to be accurate, refer to it. It was in reply to a Question asking him to make a statement regarding progress towards resumption of diplomatic relations with Egypt. My right honourable friend said:
"I had a long discussion with the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic in New York during the Special Assembly of the United Nations in August. As a result of that we agreed to a speedy resumption of the financial negotiations. There were further discussions in Rome in September which unfortunately did not result in progress. I am considering what can he done to resume the talks with some prospect of a satisfactory solution, but I have nothing further to say publicly at this stage."
Noble Lords are, of course, perfectly at liberty to criticise our decision to advance loans, or to make any other criticism on the actual form which the scheme has taken; but since this is the first opportunity I have had since the announcement of the scheme over a year ago to describe it in detail, in answer to some of the criticisms which have been made, I hope that noble Lords on both sides will be extremely slow to make up their minds until they have heard the other side of the case. I do not complain of pressure from noble Lords to increase the scheme. That is what Parliament is for. But I do not regard noble Lords and the Government as being on different sides in this particular matter, and although it may be that we view matters
424
from different points of view—and, indeed, our responsibilities are different, which makes it inevitable that we should do so—I believe that in fact we have the same objects at heart.
No one who knows my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could conceivably suggest that he was an inhumane or ungenerous man. I hope, though it is not for me to judge, that I am neither inhumane nor ungenerous myself. The fact of the matter is that we have been anxious from the first to do what we could properly do. It may be that we have not had to concern ourselves so much with the plight of the minority of the refugees, as some noble Lords have done. Our concern has had to be equally with those who have had no assets and those who have had only a few. It should not be forgotten that, quite apart from the loans scheme, we have spent £3 million on this group of between 7,000 and 8.000 people, of whom the majority had no tangible assets at all. At the risk of repetition, I draw your Lordships' attention again to the fact that, after the first teething troubles, there has been very little criticism of our treatment of the majority.
I turn back from the assets to the refugees who owned them. I repeat that of the 7,000 to 8,000 refugees we are concerned with not more than about one-third, or about 2,600. More than half of these, about 1,460, had reckonable assets of £2,000 or less. May I say in passing, in reply to my noble friend, that we do not want to get involved in a mass of detail, because I say here and now that any detailed criticisms which have been made will be reported to my right honourable friend, and we can consider them. But I do not think that the criticism that some assets do not reckon for loans at all is quite so solid as my noble friend appeared to think. I do not think that sundry debtors of a business in Egypt or bills receivable by a business in Egypt stand in quite the same position as plant and machinery. Obviously, we must consider these matters of detail. He said that in the one business of which he gave details the debtors had been increased beyond all measure—we do not know their value—and the bills receivable had apparently been dissipated.
In respect of tangible assets of £2,000 or less, the claimants have been paid by way of loan, on their own unverified word,

425
at the rate of no less than 70 per cent. of the amount claimed. No interest has been charged, and it has been expressly stated that no return of the loan will be asked for until something is forthcoming from the Egyptian Government. All these claims are unverified; all of them were expressed in Egyptian pounds or in kind. They included claims at the owners' valuation in respect of furniture, personal effects, vehicles, boats and livestock. I say frankly that I cannot recall any previous instance where public money has been paid out on this scale on the basis of unverified valuation in a foreign currency in respect of matters such as those. I do not call this, and I do not believe the House will call it either, ungenerous or niggardly; and I must say that since the loans scheme has been initiated nobody has put forward a considered suggestion that we could safely have allowed ourselves to advance public money on a much bigger scale.
The original scheme put forward by the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society itself provided for 80 per cent., which is only a little more, but provided that the claims should first be verified by an impartial body. Since these individual claims are so relatively small, even an increase in the percentage granted would mean no more than a small cash grant, which would make no ultimate difference whatever, however welcome it might be, to the wellbeing of the individual concerned. Yet these claimants amount to no fewer than 1,460, out of a total of 2,600, leaving a group of only 1,160 out of 7,000 persons, or between one in six and one in seven, about whom complaint is now made.
That is the size of the whole problem we are really discussing, or at any rate which my noble friend appeared to be discussing, this afternoon. May I say at once, and absolutely unequivocally, that of course the size of the problem is no measure of its importance. Of course, if this small group of people have, in fact, been the subject of niggardliness, of lack of generosity or of injustice on the part of the Government, it is right for Parliament to insist on a recognition of their claims. It is also right for Parliament, if it be so minded, to say that the fact that they are few in number might make it easier, and not more difficult, for the Treasury to be generous. I would not suggest the contrary. But when we are
426
discussing the somewhat intemperate language which has sometimes been used about these claims, I think it is right that the Government should remind the House that six-sevenths of the problem has been dealt with in a way which has given rise to remarkably little criticism.
I therefore turn to the remaining one-seventh, about 1,160 cases. I am not admitting that there is any legitimate complaint even about them, although of course I will report to my right honourable friend all the criticisms which have been made and ask him to review the situation in the light of those criticisms. Of the 1,160 cases which I have not so far dealt with, 540 are between the £2,000 and £5,000 mark. None of them has received less than £1,500 to date in respect of the loans scheme, alone, apart from what they may have received as resettlement grants from the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board by way of absolute payment. Those with £3,000 and upwards have received £2,000. None of them will have received, by the time the extension I announced the other day has been implemented—less than £1,500, and those with £4,000 and over will have received £2,500.
I personally do not call this particularly ungenerous treatment, in the context which I have been trying to describe. Owing to the fact that these loans go up in steps some of them will have received better treatment even than those with £2,000 and under. Nobody will have received less than half his claim, and all the points which I made in relation to the smaller claims apply equally here, although, of course, the risk to public funds of treating unverified claims in this way is very much greater in any one case.
There remain 620 people or thereabouts with reckonable assets of £5,000 and over of whom 200 have registered £20,000 and over. I should remark at this stage that not by any means all of those who have made claims on the loans are without assets in this country. Some of them are very well off indeed. Moreover, it is true that some of the claims are very large indeed. Out of the 620 individual cases of £5,000 and over, no fewer than 16 form part of a single family unit whose aggregate claims amount to a figure of between £10 million and £20 million—about £1 million each. This single unit has already received

427
£80,000 out of the loans scheme, and will be entitled to receive another £80,000 out of the extension recently announced.
When my noble friend says unequivocally that the time has come to recognise an absolute claim for compensation, which has, as I have pointed out before, not a necessary relationship to hardship at all but is a claim to compensation for assets lost, I should like to inquire what exactly it is that noble Lords are asking us to do to-day. Is it that we should spend between £10 million and £20 million of public money, free of tax, as compensation to a single family? I do not wish to utter one breath of criticism against this single family. I am not going to say that there is the smallest breath of criticism to be uttered against a family that has done so well in the world. But are we really asked to spend money by way of compensation in this way? If we are, I should like to know. I think I am entitled to a constructive answer.
However that may be, because that was an exceptional case, let us look at some of the remaining cases. Not one single person in the group which I am discussing, those with £5,000 or over, has received less than £2,700 under the scheme announced over a year ago. Those with £20,000 and over—remember, this is what they claim—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? Does he suggest that these people are making false claims? Because that is the implication.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I certainly neither implied nor intended to imply or suggest it in any way. I only said that this is what they have received in respect of a claim. The noble Marquess is, I think, being unnecessarily critical here. These claims are made in relation to assets at present in Egypt which cannot, in the nature of things, be verified. We all know that if we were claiming a sum of money for a motor car we had lost in those circumstances, we should quite honestly put it down. But public money cannot be paid in full on a claim of that kind, and I am entitled to say that of those who have claimed £5,000 and over nobody at all has received less than £2,700 under the existing scheme, and those with £20,000 and over have received
428
£5,000 on their unverified claims. Under the extension none of them will receive less than £3,200 and the top class will have received £10,000. I do not myself regard such payments as niggardly or ungenerous.
Here, may I again say that I have repeatedly asked noble Lords since I have been handling this question to give me particulars of hard cases. I do so again. In the summer of 1957 I was receiving a regular stream of them—not in excessive numbers, but I was receiving them, and each one was looked into with the greatest care. Some of them I was able to bring within the existing scheme. Some of them I recognised as forming the basis of an extension or modification of the existing scheme. All I tried to help. But I am bound to tell noble Lords that I can recall off-hand only two hard cases of this kind that I have had since the summer of 1957. They came in by way of my noble friend Lord Middleton.
The House will remember that in July we were discussing this subject and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, asked me whether I was aware that some of the persons concerned had been compelled to seek public assistance. I told him I was not, and that I would be anxious to receive particulars of any cases where that had happened. He sent me two cases. I do not think it was strictly true that they were cases for public assistance, but it so happened that they were both cases where the claimants' assets had been in a business. It is exactly that sort of case which is so helpful, because I was then able to use it as an illustration of the point that business assets ought to be included; and, so far as I know, both of them are covered by the extension which has now been announced. But I must add this. In August the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society made the suggestion that some of these persons were compelled to seek public assistance. Immediately they were asked for particulars. They have been reminded of that request, but they have not responded to it, and really I must say—
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, is the noble Viscount talking about the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society or the British Chambers of Commerce in Egypt? We ought to he clear on that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The information which I have received indicates the former. But if it is mistaken I would gladly correct it for the latter. The information I have is the former and that is what I said. I should like to make it clear that the fact that we have now announced an extension on this scale does not mean that we shall close our eyes to further hardship, further hard cases or further consideration. I must say that I am not satisfied that we are on the wrong lines as my noble friend suggests.
Let me take the individual case to which I referred some time ago, which is one in which I know my noble friend is personally interested. Again, I do not mention names because I am sure that it is right not to do so. It is the case of a couple who in less than the two years since their arrival have already received £5,880, of which £1,800 has been by way of maintenance and free grant under the resettlement scheme; the remainder has been under the loan scheme—£4,000 or thereabouts. Their total capital in Egypt, or the total claim which they registered, was just over £10,000. Under the extension which I have already announced they will have received about £7,000 out of £10,000. I am not prepared to admit that this is altogether ungenerous treatment as a payment in less than two years.
I know that my noble friend says that if they had been given £10,000 at once in exchange for the Egyptian assets they could have lived on the income of that capital; but, frankly, that is wholly unrealistic. If they were to have spent about £7,000 in two years, which is, so far as I can judge, the situation, including £1,800 of resettlement money, it is evident that they were living at a rate which they certainly could not have got from any income which could have been yielded by £10,000. I am not in the least suggesting that they were spending money improperly. Again, if the noble Marquess suggests that I am uttering a breath of criticism against these people, I indignantly repudiate the suggestion. But it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that had they been given the whole of this claim on the day they landed, it would have yielded an income on which they could spend anything like £7,000.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in the particular case that my noble friend is talking about, did they spend that money as income or was some of it capital investment?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I cannot say what they have spent; I can only say what they have received.
LORD DERWENT: It makes a difference.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The proposition which I am putting forward is this. My noble friend spoke as if at some stage they ought to have got their £10,000 of capital in order to allow them to live, as he put it, for the rest of their lives on the investment income. That is the proposition. I am only pointing out that they have received £7,000 which will not be asked for until money is available from the Egyptians in respect of that claim, and it cannot be pretended that if that money was spent over two years it could have been derived from any income which would have been yielded by the capital sum of £10,000. I hope that that is plain. They would have had to dip heavily into their capital in any event, and, in the meantime, I must remind my noble friend, the income on their capital has, one hopes, been accumulating in Cairo and we are trying to get it from the Egyptians—who do not repudiate their liability to account for it.
Let no one suppose that I am speaking of this couple or any other people disrespectfully. I know what they have suffered. I also know the difficulties with which Her Majesty's Government have had to contend. I do not believe that any other class of refugees at any time in our history has been more generously treated than these; but I will not to-day reject out of hand any single criticism that is made. On the contrary, we are anxious for criticism, provided it is constructive criticism.
By the time this extension is in force we shall have dispensed upwards of £10 million on upwards of 7,000 people—£3 million on resettlement, £4 million on the original loans scheme and £3 million more on the extension. I recognise that since I announced the extension in July there has been a considerable delay, but I would say to your Lordships that the reason for that delay is not at all discreditable to Her Majesty's Government.

431
When I made my announcement in July I had reason to hope for an early settlement, and it was in that atmosphere that the discussions were then held. When I returned from Canada in September I immediately resumed my work on this problem, and it seemed to me and my colleagues that as the prospects of a speedy termination to the negotiations were by then less favourable it would be legitimate for Her Majesty's Government to increase the scale of the extension.
The result has been that the limited extension which I promised in July has turned into an extension of 75 per cent. on the whole scheme. Obviously with my right honourable friends at Montreal, Delhi and elsewhere, and also concerned legitimately with other public matters, it was difficult to have the necessary consultations. But I do not think that in the circumstances we wasted any time or failed to consult the parties. I must say I cannot understand the criticism which has been made of the discussions with the parties. If I did, I should be disposed to suggest to your Lordships in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, that the proof of this particular pudding is in the eating. If the scheme itself is defective in any respect, by all means let it be criticised for its defects; but if it is reasonable, as I have tried to show it is, I should have thought that criticism of the method of discussion was a work of supererogation. But I cannot accept the criticism of the discussion.
In seeking to meet people with financial claims, as the Treasury have to do every day of the week, a long convention has grown up that the Treasury seek to ascertain from them what those claims are and how their grievances are expressed, both in kind and direction, since the Treasury properly wish to use public money to the best advantage and where it will be most appreciated. In dispensing public money there has never been a practice whereby the Treasury enter into a treaty with those who are to receive it; nor has any Treasury official the authority which only a Minister can have in promising disbursement of money. This is the place where schemes have to be announced and that is something for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty's Government must take responsibility.
432
We found the discussions extremely valuable to us. We believe that they were in the interests of those whom we seek to serve and in particular of those who were expelled from Egypt. But they could not have taken place at all had we thought that in order to give them reality we were bound to carry with us the agreement on figures of those who were making the claims upon us.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount really must not misrepresent what was said. I have never said that in this House. The noble and learned Viscount has already once misrepresented me. I was careful in what I said. I never claimed that Her Majesty's Government should have sought to agree with these people on the figures. I said that it would be advantageous had they had the courtesy to show what was proposed and to invite comments.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that is exactly what I was saying—that on the whole it was not desirable. What was desirable was to find out where the shoe pinched; and five separate discussions were held with four or five separate organisations. Their view on the question of where they felt the scheme was inadequate was most earnestly solicited, and if my noble friend will do me the courtesy to look at the extension of the scheme I think he will find that almost every legitimate point has been met. It really is not the case that when the Treasury enter into discussions with those claiming money it is their obligation to put to them detailed propositions, with figures, before the discussions can be fruitful or valuable. Nor, had that been the intention, could the discussions have been held at all. I certainly did not intend to misrepresent my noble friend and, so far as I know, I did not do so—certainly not willingly. Certainly those who were in the discussions with us were always eager—and have always been eager—to point out that they have not the right to enter into any such negotiations since they could not, even collectively, represent the whole body of claimants. Their views were of value and were sought, and I believe we have gone a very long way to meet them.
Now I turn to the future. I must say I regret some of the isolated quotations made from time to time, and though I am anxious in no way to misrepresent my

433
noble friend I thought that in the earlier part of his speech it was suggested that Her Majesty's Government do not recognise any obligation to claimants. If such quotations are made they are used out of context. Your Lordships have never heard me say anything of the kind, nor, I think, would any of my colleagues have done so in context. What we have refused to do is to undertake, in advance, to compensate claimants for losses which are not yet fully ascertained in respect of obligations of the Egyptian Government which the Egyptian authorities not only do not repudiate but have accepted in every negotiation we have had with them.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount is basing his whole case on the fact that it will all be settled up by Colonel Nasser in the end. Can he tell us, on his heart, what amount of money he thinks Colonel Nasser will hand out in compensation for our invasion of Egypt?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think I should be pressed to do so. We have been negotiating and I should not be taxed on figures, for, if so, with all respect to the noble Viscount, I must decline to answer. What I have said is that we cannot undertake in advance to compensate claimants for losses which are not yet fully ascertained in respect of obligations of the Egyptian Government which the Egyptian authorities not only do not repudiate but have accepted in every negotiation we have had them. That is true. We have also refused to accept in principle either of two general propositions which I venture to think no responsible Government can accept. We cannot accept the view that if an expedition has among its objects the protection of British lives and property, that automatically puts upon the British Government an obligation to compensate out of the Consolidated Fund, from the moneys of the taxpayer, anyone who can show that their property was not in fact protected.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, is that regardless of the conditions in which the expedition takes place?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have said that we cannot accept the view that the mere circumstance that an expedition has among its objects the protection
434
of British lives and property automatically puts upon the British Government an obligation to compensate out of the Consolidated Fund anyone who can show that their property was not in fact protected.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, even if a British shop was bombed at Port Said we should not pay for it?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I did not say that, and the noble Viscount must not put words into my mouth. Nor, with due respect to the noble Marquess, who I know holds strong views in the matter, which I am sure he knows I respect and to which I give that great weight which we all attach to anything he says, do we accept the general proposition that every time an act of British policy, directly or indirectly, as a result of the violence or lawlessness of a foreign Power, leads to loss on the part of British subjects, there automatically arises a financial obligation on the British taxpayer to make good those losses, whatever happens.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I understand that the noble and learned Viscount is suggesting that all this arose from the nationalisation of the Suez Canal by Colonel Nasser and that that was a lawless act. In fact it did not arise from that. This action we took in going into Egypt was on our own initiative and that is why we feel that this particular case is sui generis.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope that I am not in any way being impatient with the noble Marquess, but I really said not a word about nationalisation of the Suez Canal, nor did I intend a word about nationalisation of the Suez Canal. I am saying that for reasons which I have given, I do not think this is the appropriate moment to discuss the ultimate responsibility in this matter. What I said was (and if the noble Lord will look at it in Hansard he will see my words, and I shall be astonished if the noble Marquess, on reflection, would desire to say the contrary) that we should not accept the general proposition that every time an act of British policy, directly or indirectly, as a result of the violence or lawlessness of a foreign Power, leads to loss on the part of British subjects there automatically arises a financial obligation on the taxpayer.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, that is not what we claim at all. We claim that it is sui generis. We are not challenging the general principle; we say that this is quite a special case, as indeed it was.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not prepared to agree that it is wholly special, but it may be that there is less between us than appears, and I was about to make that very point. Between that extreme proposition, which we reject, and repudiation of all obligations, which we have never done, there is obviously an immense field for discussion—and, I should have said, for friendly discussion. All I say is that some of that may be premature, and that, at this stage, some is better held in private than in public. I do not believe that the facts I have outlined this afternoon show any want of generosity. Whether expenditure of £10 million of money is the end or whether it is not must depend on what we get from the Egyptian Government, and when. I know that it must be very hard—
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, is the noble Viscount really contending that until the end of time he is going to shelter behind Nasser—I use that word, which is less offensive than the word I have in mind.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will never use an offensive word in this House. I should have thought that what he put into my mouth is the opposite of what I said. I know that it is very hard for those who have enjoyed much better times to view these matters calmly; I do not even ask that they should. But I hope I am entitled to ask noble Lords to study carefully what I have said before they condemn the Government's policy. I should have thought they would have wanted to consider it. I promise to think about any constructive criticisms made during this afternoon's discussion, and I shall take them back to my right honourable friend and ask him to consider them. In the meantime, I await these arguments, and I can only apologise for the length of time in which this factual statement has led me to indulge.
4.53 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure that we are grateful to the noble Viscount the Lord President
436
for his full deployment of the Government's case, which I regret I found wholly unconvincing, on the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Lloyd. The Motion is drawn in general terms, and the Lord President chose, as indeed is his right, to devote a considerable portion of his speech to two-thirds of the British nationals expelled from Egypt who had no assets and who, he claims, have been most generously treated. The previous debates have been concentrated rather upon the case of the British nationals who have been deprived of their livelihood and their possessions, and I propose to devote a few remarks to that particular aspect. If I traverse a few points which were covered by my noble friend Lord Lloyd, and which will no doubt be covered by other noble Lords, it is because I find, in the light of experience, that it never hurts to put the same points three times to any Government in order to make much impression.
Of course, the new scheme announced by the Lord President on October 28 is an improvement on the old, in the form of ex gratia loans. But I would venture to submit that the improved scheme would probably never have seen the light of day had it not been for Parliamentary pressure here and in another place. To me, no scheme of ex gratia loans can be acceptable, on grounds both of practice and of principle, in spite of what the Lord President has said to-day. I shall, in a few moments give my five reasons why the practice is unacceptable. It means that the Government are, in fact, forcing the victims to use the capital for current living. It is no good saying that a man has £7,000 and therefore he is living for two years at the rate of £3,500. That really is not worthy as an argument of the Lord President.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I did not make it.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE:I beg the noble Viscount's pardon.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I said that I did not make it. What I was saying was that it was wholly unrealistic to suppose that if such a man had been paid £10,000 on the day he landed in this country he could have lived on an income at the rate at which he had in fact received money; and that it was absolutely unrealistic to talk in terms

437
of the entire capital being handed over and not being dipped into at all. My point was that it would have to be dipped into.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, a large proportion of the capital is probably spent in providing a roof for himself and his family, and that takes a large "bite". You are making the man use an ex gratia loan for his living expenses, be they capital expenditure or on what I would call the monthly house-books. That is wrong. If and when any assets are ever received back in compensation by the man, he will have to repay that particular loan.
The second reason I would submit why the practice of ex gratia loans is quite unacceptable is this. The loan assumes hope of recovery of the security upon which that loan is made. Here I come to what I might term as the glorious optimism of the Lord President in his expectation that in the not distant future everything is going to be quite all right with Colonel Nasser. I was very careful to take down certain of the Lord President's most unconvincing sentences. He regretted that Egypt has not acted according to International Law and returned the property. He was surprised at the delay in doing this by Colonel Nasser. Really! I think he must be about the only noble Lord in this House, apart from perhaps a few very exceptional ones, who has that surprise. He still hopes for normal relations with Egypt. But we all hope for a lot of things we know we are not likely to obtain. He says that in this delay it behoves us all, including the British victims, to display patience. We are, I believe, comparatively fortunate in this House. We are not like these people who have seen the whole of their lives changed, and it is not for us to tell these people to exercise patience. It is rather for us to exercise all the energies and efforts we can to help them.
He said he would condemn Egyptianisation—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that I would not characterise it, and that I must not be taken to endorse its legality or morality.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, we will look in Hansard to see
438
what the Lord President said. I took down the words, but I must say at once that I took them down wrongly—my pencil skidded over the paper wrongly. It was said the Egyptians have never denied liability. I really was shocked—I repeat, shocked—at the sort of optimism of the Minister that Colonel Nasser was going to come and "play ball" with us, because in fact I believe that Colonel Nasser has now gone to the Left and, to a large degree, has gone to the Kremlin for his financial assistance. I would also venture the view that Colonel Nasser dare not come to any settlement with us in view of his position with the rest of the more militant Arab national movements
The third reason is that the loan postulates a settlement with the debtors. That is now, I believe, further off than ever, and I do not think that that is a hope which these people should be made to accept. The Rome talks, as was said, broke down in February, and so far as I know there is no immediate sign of any renewal.
The fourth reason is that our past patience has been based on the twin pleas that we must not embarrass the hopeful position with Nasser and we must not press Her Majesty's Government to acknowledge direct obligation to the refugees, because it would weaken Her Majesty's Government's position in current negotiations. These twin arguments are really dead, because what we all hoped, and what the Government hoped, was a temporary position has now become a permanent robbery of British nationals—nothing more and nothing less.
My Lords, there is a fifth, and final, reason why their practice of making ex gratia loans is wrong. The Government are offering ex gratia loans. Thus the money does not become the property of the people; it becomes their own only when certain circumstances which are not likely to come about do come about. I submit that to these nationals the Government should not offer ex gratia loans but, I believe, justice—and here we come straight into conflict with the principle which the Minister has said the Government must stand by. I believe that we now have to leave expediency and get back to face this principle: whether the Government finally accept

439
responsibility for the conditions of these people and their right to compensation for their losses.
The noble Viscount said, of course, that the Government have never denied responsibility. I must say there has been some confusion on this point. I was looking up the statement of the Minister of State in another place, and he said:
"We do not accept responsibility for this loss. It was the result of the action by the Egyptian Government and not Her Majesty's Government."
That is one extreme view: one positive view. There is, of course, the other view, that of the Prime Minister, who said:
"We fully realise our responsibility and the urgency of the matter for all concerned."
That was the Prime Minister speaking, on May 15. I think that we ordinary private Members are quite entitled to have some doubts as to the degree of responsibility which is accepted when we receive two completely opposite statements like that. But, as I have said, we have got to get back to this principle. If the noble Lord looks up the previous debate he will see that on July 16 some noble Lords, including myself, said that we were not debating it that day but that we might have to come back to it, and we have now come back to it.
The Government say that they cannot be responsible for losses to British nationals abroad brought about by the results of war. That sums up the matter in a sentence. That view is, of course, tenaciously held by the Treasury. They fear that if that rule were breached there would be all sorts of repercussions—Malaya, Hong Kong, the citizens who were affected in this war by the bombing, and their claims to compensation for assets. I see all those difficulties confronting the Treasury. They fear that, if this bastion were once breached, all the claimants would try to rush the opening, as it were, and would register their claims. But I say, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury has said, that none of this really applies here. World War I was started because Germany invaded Belgium. World War II was started when Hitler overran Poland. The seizures in the Far East and Malaya have been a result of direct Communist aggression. Our Suez action was deliberate. I am glad that we did it. With most other noble Lords in this House, I supported
440
the policies then, and I still do—though I know that others may not.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am anxious not to intervene too much, but the noble Lord will agree that I usually give way myself.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Certainly.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In point of fact, World War I was started because we declared war on Germany, and that is why our nationals lost their money. World War II was started because we declared war on Germany, and that is why our nationals suffered.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Yes. With respect, that could be argued, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Salisbury will deal with that. Let us stick to what happened at Suez. The fact is that we took action at Suez in order to protect the lives and property of British nationals and to prevent the spread of the Israeli-Egyptian war in the Middle East. To me, it would be a peculiar anomaly if the protection of the lives and property of British citizens was in fact to be at the cost of depriving those British citizens of their lives and property. That is a very serious contradiction.
My Lords, the argument on admission by Her Majesty's Government is, I believe, one which we must face up to. But, of course, the fact that the principle is admitted does not mean that the Government must pay everybody out at once 100 per cent. The noble Viscount took my noble friend Lord Lloyd rather to task when he quoted individual cases. He said that we must not deal with individual cases. The noble Viscount then dealt with about four individual cases himself, including a family which is supposed to have had £80,000 and which might have another £80,000. That seems to me a peculiar instance of arguing from the particular to the general—a practice which the noble Viscount himself had condemned in Lord Lloyd not a quarter of an hour before.
Once someone is declared responsible for debts it does not necessarily mean that all the debtors will be paid in full. What it means is that the responsibility has been admitted; then such resources as are available are distributed fairly and evenly. Of course, there are big firms

441
like I.C.I. and Shell who have large claims, but one could not really put their claims on the same level, even if the principle be admitted—which the Minister denies—as the claims of the individuals, because the Shell business and the I.C.I. business did not depend entirely upon its Egyptian branches. It was only part of a general picture, where, as regards the British nationals, the whole of their livelihood and the whole of their assets were contained in Egypt. I hope the Minister will accept that some of us take the view that if you admit the principle you do not automatically admit the need to pay 100 per cent., which is one of the strongest grounds upon which he asked us to reject that principle.
I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer. I have tried to show very briefly how, in practice, ex gratia loans are not just or right, and I have tried to advance some arguments against Treasury robustness. This is something much bigger than the Treasury. It is a debt of honour by the Government to the men who have worked hard and contributed to our overseas wealth, and who are now suffering as a result of Her Majesty's Government's correct policy. I would appeal to the Government not to be so resistant to accepting this principle in each individual case. We are not ungrateful for too little given too slowly—not at all.
There are two blots, I think (and I speak now as a Government supporter), upon the Government's admirable work in the country. One of those blots is in the course of being removed—I refer to the injustice of the confiscation of private property, the robbery of owners of private property, which was taken over by the central or the local government. That matter is now being put right. The second blot is this treatment of British nationals who were in Egypt. I would appeal to the Government to think again on this matter. It has a much wider moral aspect than even that of giving the immediate help to those who we feel are entitled to it. Something of this Government's integrity of purpose and integrity of conduct is, I believe, bound up in this question. Far more than money stands on this question, and I hope that before the end of this debate the Government will have thought again and will be more resilient than the speech by
442
the Lord President to which we have listened would suggest.
5.9 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, the position is that British subjects have been both expelled from Egypt and have been robbed (I do not use any other word but "robbed") of all their possessions. I would say, incidentally, that our country, or individuals in it, helped the Hungarians when they were in trouble, but there has been nothing of the kind in the way of helping British subjects in Egypt. The claims against the Egyptian Government must be enforced, and, I would say, must be strongly enforced; but I admit that there is a question as to how they are to be enforced so long as we admit the authority of the United Nations.
This affects not only businessmen, but also pensioners of the Egyptian Government, ex-officials, ex-policemen and employees of the Suez Canal Company. Any Egyptian Government assets in this country should be detained for use to compensate these people. It has always been the boast of this country that British assets abroad are safe even in the case of war, and in this case Her Majesty's Government should recognise that a very definite obligation rests on them to compensate these people for what they have lost. We ourselves have preserved foreign assets in this country in war time. Is it no longer the case that British interests, British property and British persons are safe abroad in any circumstances? We ought to preserve British lives and property as always. I would say—and I realise that this is a controversial thing to say—that Egypt is not a civilised country. It has not been a civilised country since very ancient times. It was in those days.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, to which dynasty is the noble and gallant Lord referring when he says that the Egyptians were at one time civilised?
LORD JEFFREYS: They have robbed and expelled British subjects. Egypt would not have dared to do so except under the protection of the United Nations. The Government have made grants of £100,000 through the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society, and so far, I would almost say, so good. They have set up a new Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. But very much heavier spending

443
is necessary to give these British subjects a fresh start, and some of them are too old to make a fresh start.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord used the phrase "£100,000" no doubt by inadvertence. The figure, in fact, is £10 million—£7 million already spent and £10 million when the present scheme is fully in effect.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I can only say that I am very glad to hear from my noble friend that that is the case. The need of these unfortunate British subjects is urgent. In many cases they have little more than what they stand up in. Some time ago we froze, as the expression is, more than £100 million left from the £400 million of so-called war debt, a debt incurred in paying Egypt, who in fact was making vast sums out of the British occupational troops. That debt arose through unnecessary consideration by us; but of it £100 million is available and should be used to compensate some of these expelled Britons.
Prestige is a great thing in the East, and our name is "mud" in the Middle East at present. There is no question about it. It should be made clear to Egypt and to Nasser that it does not pay to be hostile to this country, whether as regards trade, finance or revenue. Success means everything in the East, far more than right or wrong and far more than justice or injustice. There is no question about that, I think, to anybody who knows the East. The Egyptian Government are not a legitimate Government; they are a revolutionary Government. There are many disadvantages and no advantages from membership of the United Nations, which includes many semi-civilised States and which, I would say, is quite discredited in the view of ordinary people. How much, I wonder, would British law be effective if there were no courts, no police and no prisons? No one except Britain takes any notice of the United Nations, if it is inconvenient to do so.
Why should we go on in the United Nations? Because of the United States. The United States are ignorant of the East and they should try to see our point of view and work with us for a change.
444
Had the Suez operation not been started all these dispossessed Britons would still have their homes and assets, so they suffer on account of Government policy and the Government must see that they are not left to suffer at the hands of Egypt. The Government should give the answer that no trade or finance with Nasser or his Government will occur until all claims of loyal, maltreated Britons have been satisfactorily dealt with. The frozen balances should be used for compensation.
Our attitude to Nasser should be hostile, definitely. No frozen sterling should be paid to him or to his Government, but compensation should be paid on these claims. We should act, and act now, and if they do not like our action we should resign from the United Nations. No one except Britain takes any notice of the United Nations. We want to be friends with the United States, but not dependants of the United States, and if they want to be our friends they should try to see our point of view by way of a change. I hope that we shall make a real effort to hurry up with the compensation of these unfortunate Britons who have lost nearly everything they had.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, did I understand my noble friend the Lord President of the Council to say that a sum of £7 million had been given by the Government to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, my Lords, not to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society. I said that £7 million had been spent on the refugees, £3 million by way of resettlement and £4 million under the scheme announced in July, 1957.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: I will not trouble my noble friend any more, but it sounded over here as though the money had been given to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I did not say that, as the OFFICIAL REPORT will show my noble friend. I have been accused of many strange statements this afternoon but I think that this is almost the strangest.
5.20 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I rise warmly to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Lloyd. I want to make that perfectly clear. I do not suppose that there is any doubt about it, but, if there were, that is my principal object in rising this afternoon. While the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was addressing us I took down what I think was almost his first sentence, as to what the policy was. He said it was "to normalise relations with Egypt", and that there had been a good deal of disappointing delay. Did not that let the cat right out of the bag? Of course there has been disappointing delay. Did anybody expect anything else? Negotiating with these people, did you expect to make progress? How are you to normalise relations? I hope that our unfortunate claimants are not going to have their chances prejudiced, or be sacrificed, in this process of normalisation of relations. It seems to me a rather sinister expression, although I may have imputed entirely wrong motives to it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to reassure the noble Lord about that. So far from being prejudiced in any way, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd said, one of the principal reasons on our side why we have been unable to accept everything which was proposed to us was precisely because we are unwilling to prejudice our nationals and their property. I thought my noble friend Lord Lloyd put that very well.
LORD KILLEARN: I thank the noble Viscount for that explanation, and I am glad that my suspicion has been dissipated. This is not the first time that this matter has been before your Lordships. Yesterday I was trying to make a list of the number of times, and I think that this is the fifth or sixth—certainly the fifth—full debate we have had on the subject. There have been three Government statements at different times and innumerable Parliamentary Questions, the first of which I asked on November 28, 1956. So this matter has certainly been ventilated a number of times. I thought at one moment that the noble and learned Viscount suggested that there had been an absence of Parliamentary Questions at a certain time. I am not sure of the timetable, but it is true that there were
446
moments when we did stop asking Parliamentary Questions; and I will explain why. On several occasions I was asked not to ask Questions because it would prejudice the course of the negotiations in Rome; and, naturally, I complied with that request.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but he must get what I said right. What I was referring to was not the absence of Parliamentary Questions, of which, as your Lordships know, there have been a great number. What I said was that in relation to those who had no assets there had been a remarkable absence of Parliamentary criticism.
LORD KILLEARN: I was not sure of which particular period the noble Viscount was speaking. I am probably wrong.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Since the beginning.
LORD KILLEARN: I am certainly not going to try to cover the ground all over again; it has been covered ad infinitum. But surely the fact is as plain as a pikestaff that the Government are running out on their moral obligations. We have these doles from time to time, but, as has been argued, and will be argued again, this is a case sui generis; there is no normal precedent for it. We took the initiative, and by taking the initiative we provoked retaliation which fell on our unfortunate people in Egypt. Those facts are incontrovertible. Nasser retaliated, and the victims of our policy were our own unfortunate nationals. You cannot get away from that, however you argue. So three things seem to me to be undoubted: first, as I have suggested before and I suggest again, this is not a Party matter—or rather, I should say it is an all-Party matter; secondly, it is a matter of national honour; and thirdly, nobody can possibly argue that our own unfortunate people in Egypt were in any shape or form responsible for what happened; they were completely innocent.
My next point is that this has been too long-drawn-out. It started in November, 1956, and here we are in November, 1958, two years almost to the day. During that interval, has it not been a rather sorry spectacle to have the British Government sheltering behind

447
Nasser as an excuse for not meeting their obligations? Time after time it has been suggested: "Do not say anything, because you will upset the case." Anybody who has any knowledge of Egypt knew that there was not a hope, and yet time and again we have been told not to upset the talks in Rome. We know what happened. It was, as I have said, a sorry spectacle to see the Government shelter behind Nasser; it was unimpressive, unworthy and unprofitable.
There have been two Government schemes, with an interval of almost precisely a year in between—I think July, 1957, and July, 1958—and both were the result of considerable pressure. If I might use a simile, it was like a dentist extracting molars: they were not willing to come out; they were torn out by the roots—and, if I may say so, they were rotten roots, with a nasty smell about them. Those schemes were insufficient, and, what is more important, unjust. There is no doubt that if we had not pressed, we should not have got even that.
I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time, but I have here, chosen at random, two extracts from letters, and possibly three, reflecting the matter of hardship. The first is dated April 15, 1958, from a widow, and says:
"My own case is a particularly unfortunate one. As a widow, I have left everything I possess in Egypt, have no investments or money here or abroad, and am the sole support of my mother, now in her seventy-fourth year. For the last eighteen months my mother and I have been living on £9 a week relief, granted us by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, but as that was insufficient for even our most simple needs, my engagement and wedding rings had to be sold. When at last this additional sum had gone, I accepted the Government loan of £5,000, hoping to invest it in a small home and in the meanwhile find work with which to support my mother and myself. But at the age of forty-eight, with no previous experience of earning a living, all I can find is a job as a saleslady, or as a waitress if I work from 10.30 a.m. in the morning till 11.30 at night, week-ends included. The alternative is to live on my capital of £5,000, which at my age appears a reckless thing to do.
I believe the majority of refugees from Egypt are pressing the Government to settle their claims over here. My own is only £27,000. I fear that unless I receive it in full, any safe investment would not bring in an income sufficient to live on without hardship. It saddens me to think that after a life of work and devotion to British interests in Egypt,
448
the worth of which our Government recognised to the extent of awarding my husband with a knighthood, his widow should now be faced with such overwhelming anxiety for the future."
That is not a nice letter to receive. As it happens, the second letter is also from a widow and is dated June 29 last. She says:
"It was two years on the 7th June this year that I left Egypt finally to come and take up residence in this country, having completed all the necessary formalities required of me by the Egyptian Government in order to have my capital transferred to Britain. Due to the events which led up to the Suez crisis and since, I still find myself floundering and haplessly wondering if there are such things as British justice or honour left. Who would ever have thought that with a capital of some £36,000 behind me I should two years later find myself in this desperate state of not knowing what to do or what to think, whether to stay in the hope or go and forgo."
I have another letter from a business man, not quite so desperate, but the time being short I will spare your Lordships that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord has in fact advised both these people that they are entitled to £10,000.
LORD KILLEARN: They have both been fully in touch with the British Chamber of Commerce, and I presume all action has been taken.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope the noble Lord has advised them that on those facts they are both entitled to £10,000.
LORD KILLEARN: I think they both know that, but I do not think they particularly want £10,000. Must we really continue with this system of doles?—because that is all it is. I am reminded here of the simile employed by the noble Viscount himself on July 23, when there was a slight divergence of views as to the length of a piece of string. It was he who related the simile of the piece of string as between "substantial" and "limited". May I perhaps suggest that it would not be strange if the claimants, in the light of what we have heard today, should feel that in fact the Government are "stringing them out". I think they would not be surprised at all, because they are being strung out.
To sum up, I have always held, and I hold just as strongly as ever, that a grave injustice has been done. By going

449
on record to-day, this House, the established bulwark of the rights and liberties of the British subject, can, and I hope will, show the public and the world that your Lordships are greatly shocked at the way in which this matter has been handled, and look to Her Majesty's Government to set matters right without further prevarication.
5.34 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I have not spoken in this series of debates before because I had certain doubts. I have had no doubt from the beginning that this country was in honour bound to see that our British nationals in Egypt did not suffer undue loss by the action of the British Government. I do not know whether it would be in order for me, a Back-Bencher, to congratulate the Lord President on a brilliant speech, and it would certainly be out of order, I suppose, if I were to congratulate him on a brilliant Treasury brief. They managed, between them, successfully to get some of us who even know something about this matter pretty confused. But I really think he was going too far (I do not think I am giving the wrong impression) when he conveyed that it was not a question of being morally right or wrong; that the British Government could not accept liability because—and then he made the analogy that in the First World War we declared war on Germany, and in the second war we declared war on Germany.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My noble friend is wrong. I never mentioned the two wars in my speech at all. I did mention them when my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye gave, to my mind, an inaccurate account—he agreed with me that we would not pursue our differences about it—of the origin of those two wars in the course of his speech. I did correct him on what I thought was a matter of fact, but I expressly drew no analogy about it at all. I did not refer to any of the wars.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: And I expressly did not accept the noble Viscount's intervention.
LORD DERWENT: I thought the noble Viscount said the British nationals suffered in the last war and the first war—I think these were his words—because we had declared war.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I stand to be corrected, but I am convinced that there
450
were no such words in my speech at all, and that the only reference to the declaration of war that I made at any stage this afternoon was in an attempt, right or wrong—we agreed to differ about that—to correct what I thought was an inaccurate statement of my noble friend. I think that was the only reference that I made at any time in the afternoon to that subject.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry. I misunderstood the noble Viscount, and I apologise. But, should anyone wish to make that analogy at any time, I want to emphasise that this is a case on its own. This is not a case of action being taken by the British Government in support of a treaty with somebody or other. This is a case where the initiative was taken by the British Government—I think rightly, but that question we are not arguing this afternoon. These British subjects suffered as a direct result of that action, and, whatever the legal position may be—and who am I to argue with the Lord President on the matter, although I am not sure that he has argued the matter at all to-day—there is a clear obligation on this country to see that these people do not suffer too severely.
The reason why I have not spoken before, and the reason why I had doubt in my mind, was that I thought the Government case in the earlier stages of this matter was a strong one; that it might prejudice the negotiations which were then about to take place, and might prejudice their bargaining power. I think that was a perfectly reasonable argument. But after listening to the Lord President to-day, I must say that he has still not convinced me that there is the slightest chance of this particular section of unfortunate people getting anything out of the Egyptian Government, except possibly, in certain cases, their businesses, now worth nothing, thrown back at them. I do not think that that is a matter of which we can wash our hands. Therefore, whatever my noble friend Lord Lloyd decides to do at the end of this debate, I shall support him.
Before I sit down, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack one question, and perhaps, when he comes to reply he will see fit to deal with two other matters. The question is: Can he say how many times in the Treasury minutes since this subject started, the

451
phrase has been used, "It would create a precedent"?—because one has a feeling throughout that there is Treasury resistance owing to the neurosis they have about precedents. I may be wrong, but that is what it appears to be.
The other two things with which I should like the noble and learned Viscount to deal, if he will, is the question of what can be done, or what he thinks could be done, to prevent the Treasury from forcing these people about whom we are talking to spend their capital as income. Suppose a man was given £5,000 or £10,000, and that these negotiations were long drawn out, but that in five years' time there was a settlement and the man was paid in full. Suppose he got £5,000 the first time, and at the settlement is paid £10,000; if he has to repay the £5,000 first, in fact he gets only £5,000. The first £5,000 he will have spent as income. He will have £5,000 capital left, which will again have to be spent as income. Although he has lost his business, he will have spent his capital as income, and he will have no capital left and will be no better off than when he started. It seems to me that if partial payments are going to be made they should be on a much larger proportion of the claim. I am not talking about 100 per cent, claims, but about this frittering away of money. I know the Treasury do not mind individuals spending capital as income—they do it every time death duties are paid. But it is not good business practice, and I think something should be done to overcome this difficulty.
The other point I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will deal with is this. There have been rather disturbing reports in the Press that it is proposed to use part of the blocked balances to finance new trade with Egypt. I do not know whether these reports are true, but they have been widespread. If that is done, in my submission it will be both unfair and unwise. It is unfair because the balances are not enough to meet existing claims, and if there is any claim on those balances it should be for those people who had their money or property stolen: it should not be used to further trade with Egypt. It will be unwise because, if Egypt is to be given a new credit now, before the debts or thefts have been settled, she is going to default on any
452
new credit we give her. However, I hope and trust that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell us that these reports in the Press are untrue.
5.42 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, this is a simple issue and I think it has been put most clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and also by other speakers who followed him. My only excuse for intervening to-day is that I think noble Lords will know that I have consistently fought this battle for two years, both by asking questions of my own and in support of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and others. I believe I am right in saying that no matter, so far as I can remember during the time I have been in this House, has been the subject of so many Questions and Motions over a comparatively short period. I think there can be only one reason for this: that we, all the Back-Benchers on this side, feel very strongly in this matter that the people we are fighting for have not had a square deal. In fact, if we had not got a good case we should be in danger of contravening Standing Order 29 by making taxing speeches; but we think we have got a good case and that is why we are going on. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood him to say that he thought some of us were fighting this case for political reasons and not on its merits.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord said I would correct him if he was wrong, and I think he is wrong.
LORD GIFFORD: That is what I understood him to say, and I assure him that that is not the case.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I accept it absolutely. I never suggested the contrary. I accept it now it is said, and I accepted it before it was said.
LORD GIFFORD: None of us wish to embarrass the Government unduly, but it is fair to say that I, for one, feel so strongly about it that I should be willing to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, into the Division Lobby. What really worries us most is that it seems that throughout the whole of these long, protracted and unfortunate negotiations the Government have been trying to see how little they can do and not really giving

453
as generously as they can. We have been put off for a long time, quite rightly I think at first, because it was said that talks with Egypt were going on and that we ought not to embarrass them. But the days of that are past. The other thing which worries me is that the Treasury and the Government seem terrified of precedent. I believe the circumstances of this particular affair are quite unlike anything that has happened before and I do not believe they are likely to happen again in the future. For this reason what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, called the neurosis of precedent ought not to be taken very carefully into account on this occasion.
I hope the Government will make a change in policy and accept responsibility for the unfortunate plight in which these people find themselves. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said that the Egyptian Government accept responsibility. We have no intention of absolving the Egyptian Government, but we feel that whatever happens these people should be helped by the British Government, while of course the Government will still continue to fight the Egyptian Government by every means in their power. I believe that at one time it appeared that there was a possibility of a settlement with the Egyptian Government, but I have it on very good authority that immediately this seemed likely all the people who were on the hand-waggon, looting—I think that is not too strong a word—these businesses all over Egypt, came to the Government and said, "You cannot do that. My sister is earning £1,000 a year; our family have moved into this house ", and under pressure the Egyptian Government drew back.
If there should be any doubt whether any equitable settlement will ever be reached, I think we might turn our eyes to what happened with the French. An agreement was signed with the French. One French lady went back to Egypt with the assurance that she would be able to claim back her property. What happened? She tried to get back into her house and a levy of £2,000 key money was made upon her. The French Principal of the Lycée went back. What happened to her? She was told, "Our plans for this school are made two years ahead. You had better go back and come back and see how things are in
454
two years' time." Another French subject was told that she could not occupy her business unless she got a particular type of visa to go into that part of the country. She appealed, in accordance with the rules of the agreement, to the Conseil d'Etat, which is a sort of Egypttian Privy Council, and she was upheld. She was told to take her passport to a certain Ministry to get a visa. Not only did she not get the visa but her passport was taken away as well. That is what is happening and that is what would happen to these British subjects about whom we are talking to-day.
I should like to say one brief word about the blocked sterling accounts, in which I understand there is absolutely no change. People cannot touch this capital even though it is in this country; the only thing they are getting is a maintenance allowance. Only to-clay the most extraordinary case came to my notice. A certain British subject who had a business in Egypt was called up as a senior officer in the R.A.F.V.R. at the time of Suez. He was immediately sent to Cyprus and his pay was paid into his account at. Barclay's D.C.O. in London. When he came back from active service and tried to get his pay for his gallant service to this country he was told, "Oh no, your pay has been put into a blocked account and you cannot touch it." It was only later, when he went and lived in Switzerland for a time, that he could even get his R.A.F. pay.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Does the noble Lord mean he has got it now or he has not got it?
LORD GIFFORD: He has got it now. Incidentally, as a resident of Egypt he was told that the law was that he was liable to the death penalty for fighting against Egypt at that time.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, I want to be fair to the Government. There is no doubt that the measures that they have taken have been most helpful to small people; but they have done little or nothing for those who used to own medium or large businesses. I need hardly remind your Lordships of a certain passage in Her Majesty's gracious Speech, which stated that legislation would be introduced so that people who had their lands expropriated for any reason would be compensated at the proper market value. I think that the same principle

455
should be applied to these nationals. I would conclude by saying that I do not believe that something like fifteen speakers to-day can all be wrong. We believe that we are fighting for a just cause, and we will continue to fight.
5.51 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this debate because two years before what has come to be known as the Suez incident I was on two occasions in Cairo on business and got to know a great many of the business people in that City. Those are the people who have come out with virtually nothing. I can give your Lordships two instances. The first one concerns a gentleman who worked his way up into a high position in a bank in Cairo and had been there for most of his life. Rightly or wrongly when he retired from the bank he had faith in the future of the British in Egypt and, together with his sons, he put a great deal of his money (he had some assets over here) into a large importing business, mainly goods coming from this country. After the Suez crisis he came out as quickly as he could. He had had many friends among the Egyptians in Cairo, and I understand that not long ago he went back. The whole of his business has been completely and utterly sold up. That is the fact, and there is nothing of that business to recover. Even if it were given back to him now, obviously it would be of no value. Naturally, having retired from the bank, he is well over sixty years of age. My second instance—
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, may I intervene? I am rather interested in these individual cases. There may be individual cases of hardship, and possibly the scheme ought to be stretched to embrace them. Does the noble Lord know whether this gentleman has actually come under this scheme, and what he has got out of it?
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I do not know what he has actually got out of it: I am giving these cases in principle. He could qualify, I quite agree.
The other case of which I know has come under the scheme and has received a certain amount. This was a man of over seventy years of age who was receiving a good salary as a club secretary.
456
Literally, he got out with his life through a back window. I had a letter from him before the Government's loan was announced. He was living in a little back street in Paris, his wife going out to teach English, and his letter concluded with the words "Yours squalidly." I agree that he has now received a certain amount, but he is living in reduced circumstances somewhere in the south of France.
There are many such people who have lost a great deal of their money, and I think the fundamental fact, the fact which must be of paramount importance, is this: whether we were right or wrong to embark on the Suez incident, one thing that is absolutely certain is that those people could not possibly be to blame. There is that paramount and indisputable fact. I would ask the Lord Chancellor if he would consider giving us some idea how long Her Majesty's Government will take the view that they can negotiate with Nasser over this question. There must be some time limit, for these people cannot go on waiting. Most of them are living on capital and we all know that that cannot last for ever. Therefore, it is important that we have some idea of what is to happen in regard to these people. First of all, we want to know whether the principle is accepted that full compensation will be paid; and secondly, we want to know about the principle that full compensation will be paid after a certain time. I and my noble friends here do not for one single minute believe that Nasser has the slightest intention of paying a single shilling. You can keep on saying, "I do not repudiate the debt." We do not want him to say that; what we want him to do is to hand out the money. I will most willingly, if my noble friend wishes, follow him into the Lobby on this question.
5.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I realise that what I am going to say will be slightly out of line with the general trend of the debate this afternoon, so I crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments. Ever since the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, first brought before your Lordships the question of the 1956 victims, I have endeavoured to associate with it the somewhat similar problem of the 171 British officials who were thrown out of

457
Egypt in 1951. In this I have not altogether succeeded. Her Majesty's Government have always recognised that their problem stands very much in its own right; but they have considered that it was not altogether on all fours with the present one—indeed, the method they have just adopted in dealing with it is not similar to that which they are applying to the 1956 victims. So I shall this afternoon treat this matter as entirely separate and it shall not prejudice what I think on the 1956 problem.
It must have given your Lordships and a great number of other people, a considerable amount of pleasure to see what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, announced on October 30 last, that Her Majesty's Government were going to allocate £100,000 on loan to those officials, who now number only about 155. I know that this decision was the result of full and frank discussion between the Association of Former British Officials of the Egyptian Government and various Government Departments, and I feel sure that it will give great satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government have now at last agreed on these loans—it was, in fact, the course which these officials suggested to Her Majesty's Government a considerable length of time before ever the 1956 crisis arose. I realise that that is somewhat irrelevant, but I feel that, as I have raised it on similar debates in the past, it would be improper for me not to take this opportunity of congratulating Her Majesty's Government on what I consider to be a most generous application of the funds to these officials.
On the main point of to-day's debate, I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could possibly answer a question which arises out of the speech of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord President. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has asked the House to be patient once more and has said that payment of full compensation to refugees who had assets would also naturally involve payment of compensation to owners of assets in Egypt who were not refugees. As this seems to be at any rate a new point, and one of considerable importance, I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount could give me and the House any information about the proportions of the assets owned by
458
refugees and non-refugees, since this would seem to have considerable bearing on the subject.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to recall to your Lordships that I spoke on this matter two years ago, and had I then been told that I should again be speaking on this same subject now in an effort to get justice for these British nationals expelled from Egypt I should hardly have believed it. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has wholly astounded me by saying, as I understood him to say, that if the British Government intervene in a country for the avowed purpose of protecting British lives and property they are not necessarily under an obligation to pay compensation for the loss of that property. To me that appears to be saying that a British Government can break their word. I have no doubt that when history comes to be written our intervention in Egypt will get full marks, in spite of the fact that it was so tragically brought to an end by the Americans and Her Majesty's Opposition; but if Her Majesty's Government do not honour their word to these British nationals—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I must make it absolutely clear beyond the peradventure of a doubt that whether we ought to compensate these persons or not is obviously what we are discussing. Obviously, however, there has never been any promise. That was the burden of the song of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. We have never broken a pledge. Had we made a pledge we should have kept it.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his statement, but I understood that morally the British Government had made a pledge and that if we intervened to protect property and that property was destroyed we were therefore responsible for compensation for the destruction of that property. That would appear to me to be a logical conclusion. We have heard that during the last two years about £10 million has been paid out in compensation in respect of total claims of about £40 million. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, pointed

459
out that out of 13,000 refugees the majority have been compensated and there was only a total of about 600 now owed the balance of this £30 million. Am I then to understand that we are to have one principle for the poor and one for the rich? If so, I can really express nothing but disgust. It appears to me extremely unfair.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Viscount if he does not wish to be interrupted, but at the moment I cannot see exactly to which part of my speech he is referring.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I understood the noble and learned Viscount to say, in his speech, that if a man had a claim of say £200,000 he would have had £10,000 in any case, and that even if that did not provide the standard to which he had been accustomed, he ought to be satisfied.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, no. I was discussing the merits of the loans scheme and I said that if a man had had £20,000 or upwards he had either received or was entitled to receive under the extension the sum of £10,000 as a loan under the loans scheme and that I thought the receipt of £10,000 could not be criticised as ungenerous. But I was not speaking about compensation in relation to that at all. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that the loans scheme was one thing and compensation was another.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is not the point that where a man is owed a large sum of money, if we are going to pay him in dribs and drabs we are going to force him to spend his capital as income? As my noble friend Lord Lloyd has pointed out, if we give a man £5,000 and he invests that sum it is going to bring him in only an agricultural worker's wage. I cannot understand why Her Majesty's Government has this grudging attitude. It is extraordinary to me. I cannot understand the trust of Her Majesty's Government in President Nasser, because surely he will put in a counter claim—maybe for £500 million. He may say £1,000 million. I understand he is a man of no great principle. Perhaps that is
460
an understatement. But of course I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount that we ought not to touch the blocked sterling balances of Egypt, because if we do so the Afro-Asian group of nations will have their confidence in us as bankers shaken and may retract out of the sterling area. I am sorry that that has been the only point on which I can agree with the noble and learned Viscount. Does he expect a fairy godmother to descend upon Her Majesty's Government to pay these claims?—because I can assure him that President Nasser will not do so. To me the extraordinary part is that as we have a Goverrnment of extremely honourable men, I can only presume it is the human adding machines in the Treasury who are responsible—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, let me say to my noble friend quite frankly what I have now said twice: what is said to your Lordships by me is said upon my own responsibility. I am not going to pretend that those in the Civil Service who are advising me are responsible for a single word or syllable of what I utter in this House. What I utter in this House is said as a Member of Parliament. It is well known, of course, that Ministers get advice and help from the Civil Service, but I will not have it said that the Civil Service is responsible for what I say in Parliament. I am responsible.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I presume that the noble Viscount is speaking for the Government. I did not quite understand what he just said.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Of course I am. That is known. My friend behind said that this was a brilliant Treasury brief. What I say I stand by myself, and there is no other principle of ministerial responsibility. I think it would be contemptible for a Minister to say that civil servants were responsible for what he uttered in Parliament. If there is something wrong in what I say, I am to blame.
LORD KILLEARN: Quite right. But that is as a member of the Government. The noble Viscount is not a private individual sitting on the Front Bench.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was speaking as a member of the Government, and so will the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor be. I was only making it plain that I shall not try to

461
shelter behind criticisms of what are called "the human adding machines in the Treasury", who are, in fact, extremely honourable men, doing a duty to the Government and to the country. If Ministers are to be blamed for what they say in Parliament it is the Ministers themselves who are to blame and not civil servants.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I quite agree that the men in the Treasury are of the highest standing, and of course it is their duty to keep a tight hold on the purse strings—I understand all that. But perhaps I may be excused if I refer back to my childhood, because I have something in common with these Egyptian refugees, as I have been a refugee. I have had my home blazing about me—I am thinking, of the Irish Rebellion—and it was the only home I then knew. The British Government had told us to disband oar guards, and that if we disbanded them we should have full protection and compensation. Well, we got neither; and within a week of the guards going the place was burnt. So your Lordships will, I think, excuse me if I feel rather strongly on this point. Obviously, my father did not embarrass the British Government by pursuing any claim; but the facts are there.
I have rather strayed from my point, but I implore the Government not to let these people down, because it does leave a nasty taste in their mouths. No doubt we can wriggle out of it by law, but surely moral responsibility and duty go far higher than the law. Let the Government settle these accounts, and I am sure that by so doing they will gain in stature and add to the prestige of this country. They will gain by it far more than the few million pounds spent by the Exchequer.
6.14 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but there are just a few words that I should like to say in support of my noble friend Lord Lloyd. As it happens, I spent some five years of my life, off and on, a good long time ago now, in Egypt. It is true that I was a soldier, but I got to know quite a number of our businessmen there who were in all walks of business, and I had quite a number of Egyptian friends. And I can tell your Lordships, from what I heard during
462
that time, that the Egyptians had a very great respect for the integrity and the fair dealing of their British friends in business. I think that this ought to be said, because long before the Suez crisis was ever heard of our businessmen out there, and of course in many other parts of the world, were serving their country. It is true that they were serving themselves, but they were at the same time serving their country and upholding its prestige. They were in very truth part of our team of Empire builders, bringing out the innate prestige and honesty and fair dealing of our nation.
I do not know that I have much more to say. I am no lawyer and I have no understanding, I am afraid, of the usages and customs of international banking. I realise that, from a Government point of view, the Government are batting on a very difficult wicket, rather a sticky wicket. But I hope, after all I have heard to-day and after all that has been said in answer to so many Questions in this House during the past year or so, that when the extension of the present system of which the Lord President spoke comes to pass, we shall see a far more generous effort on the part of the Government to help these people than we have seen up to date.
6.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, the reason why I rise is because, as chairman of the British Red Cross, I was closely concerned with this problem in its earliest stages, and I have followed it since. I have listened to the debate, frankly, in a state of considerable confusion. I think, if I may say so, that the House is in a very unhappy frame of mind. There are two issues, as I see it. One issue is whether or not, when a Government declare war, they are responsible for the nationals who come, as a consequence of that step, to be damaged. A good deal of the discussion in dealing with the Egyptians has dealt with that issue and the thoughts that flow from it. I cannot accept that. The Suez issue seemed to me to be very much on a par with other issues that have taken place in war, and I cannot accept the idea that the Government have full responsibility for full compensation. If we thought that they have full responsibility, then I should find it very difficult to ascertain where we should draw the

463
line on the measure of compensation: whether it should be full compensation, 80 per cent., or 70 per cent.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Salisbury is to follow me, because I am sure that he has views on one matter on which I have some fear. I should be glad, if it is decided to go into the Lobby—though I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Lloyd will not so decide—if it could be made quite clear what is the issue on which we are voting. Are we going to be committed in this House to the idea of full Government responsibility, or are we dealing, as I now propose to deal, with the issues that have faced me in another capacity, on the question of the hard cases?
I admit, as I think all of us admit, that we have a debt, whether it be of honour or of practice, to look after our own nationals. I could not follow the Lord President when he was dealing with this subject. It seems to me that it is our business to look after our nationals, and if, as a consequence of the payments that we have had to make, we can make the people who are really responsible for the troubles that have occurred meet those debts, that is a proper thing. But I do not think that the people who have been damaged can wait on diplomacy, and there, with great respect to my old colleagues, I feel the Government has not been very wise.
I remember the question that the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, put as to what was going to happen to these refugees, and the House may or may not remember that the reply that was given by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was that the Government would provide some funds for the Anglo-Egyptian Society to deal with these issues. I then got up and protested that this was not a matter for charity; this was a matter in which the Government should act itself. I am very glad to say that, I believe as a result of the intervention of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister, a different attitude was taken. But I think that the trouble is—and it is the thing which has been worrying us, and is what is probably worrying Members of your Lordships' House now—that the Government have proceeded in a rather niggardly manner. They have given a little, and they have then given a little
464
more. There have been two plans at an interval of twelve months—all the time improving. It is the old story of "He gives twice who gives quickly", and I believe it would have been possible to get a very much better settlement and would certainly have made Members of this House very much happier if the Government had been just a little quicker.
I do not know what is going to happen now. I think a clear impression has been given to Her Majesty's Government by noble Lords here that they are not quite happy about the position. It is not enough to say that the poorest people have been dealt with, because the instances that the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, gave, and the instances that came to me this morning, show that same of the people in what is called the lowest income brackets (except that "there ain't any income")—those widows and professional people who have come over here perforce from Egypt—are really finding things rather difficult. I was glad to hear the Lord President say that he would be pleased to look at those instances. I am sure that they arise not from a failure of good intentions on the part of the Government but as a result of some failure of administration.
I wonder whether I may make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government to take on the burden that I think belongs to them—not to wait until Nasser, on whom none of us really can rely, has decided what perforce he will give to us, but to say that they are going to settle this matter? I do not mean by that to give the Egyptian plutocrats that were mentioned by the Lord President still more money to spend, but at any rate to make a reasonable position in which they will say to the people concerned, "This is as far as we are going to go", whether it is 70 per cent. or whether it is 80 per cent. of the amount of the claims that they are making. Let us have at any rate finality in the matter. I appeal, if I may respectfully do so, to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to see whether he cannot promise us that the Government will at any rate consider bringing this matter to an end; in the words of my noble friend Lord Derwent, "calling it a day" on some figure. Then we shall wish them the best of luck in getting that figure out of Nasser. But at any rate do not let people continue to hope that more and more might come if

465
more and more pressure were brought on to the Government; because that, indeed, is an undignified position.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before my noble friend Lord Salisbury speaks there is one correction which I must make. Unfortunately, I read out to your Lordships what I said was an Answer made by the Foreign Secretary to a Question in another place. I find to my considerable dismay that the Question to which it was an Answer was deferred. I can only apologise to your Lordships for the difficult position in which I find myself, and I hope sincerely that it will not be held too much against me.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, might I ask a question? It might be helpful. We have heard a lot about claims. Has any attempt been made to ascertain whether these claims which are being made are completely accurate?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know, but perhaps that question was addressed to me. The answer is that the loan scheme is paid out on the claims unverified. The claims relate to assets in Egypt at the time of the events of 1956, and it was not thought just or indeed practicable to try to verify those claims. It may be that if we did it would lead to very great inequality, because some people who did riot happen to have the evidence to support their claims would lose heavily. Moreover, we are putting these claims forward to the Egyptian Government, and we are bound, as honest negotiators, to put them forward as accurate claims. It would not therefore be appropriate for us to assume the rôle of investigator and to scale the claim down. Therefore, our practice has been to treat the claims at their face value, and the scale on which the loans have been allowed has been on the claim registered by the person himself. I hope that that makes the position plain.
6.29 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it falls to me, I think, to say the last word on behalf of the supporters of this Motion which has been proposed by Lord Lloyd—a Motion which to some of us, at any rate, as I think the debate has made clear, is of considerable importance. I will try to be as short as I can, but I think I can say what I have to say at no very great length, especially after
466
all that has passed in the debate to which we have all listened this afternoon.
In my experience there is always a tendency on this question—perhaps on every question in this House—to bring in wider issues, and in this case that includes precedents for compensation in the case of war, of which we have heard something, and similar topics. That tendency, I think, was notable (I hope I am not misrepresenting him) in the speech of the Lord President himself, who raised several points which were no doubt of very great interest but which were, if I may say so, of an extremely complicated character. Indeed they were so complicated that at one time I quite thought that the noble Viscount was speaking for the Egyptian Government rather than for the British Government. But I would say that the approach of most of us to this problem is much simpler than his. We are not concerned with precedents of doubtful relevance to this particular problem which we believe is in some respects sui generis. We are concerned with two things, and with two things alone—the actions of the Government that was in power two years ago, of which I was a member, and what was said by our spokesmen at that time relative to the position of British nationals in Egypt whose situation was inevitably endangered by our action. For it is not merely the general proposition that we have to consider; it is what was actually said in this particular instance to Parliament and to the nation.
It is almost exactly two years ago since British and French troops landed at Port Said to call a halt to the conflict between Egyptians and Israelis, a conflict which we at any rate believed might spread and involve the whole of the Middle East. As we all know, there have been extremely strong differences of view, both at the time and since, as to whether we were right or wrong in the action we took. Personally I continue to believe that we were right, but I do not want to confuse the issue of this debate by embarking on that very controversial topic. I mention it only because I think that it is important that we in this House at the present time should recognise that it was our landings at Port Said, and not the seizure of the Canal by President Nasser, that led to the expulsion of British nationals and the sequestration of their

467
properties. That gives us, I feel, with other noble Lords, a special responsibility for those people. The noble Viscount the Lord President attempted to argue that there was an exact analogy between this case and that of the First and the Second World Wars, where we did not compensate.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, my Lords, I did not indeed. The noble Marquess has fallen into the same error as the noble Lord. He will find that in the whole course of my speech, so far as I know, there is no reference to the First or the Second World War.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not see why the noble Viscount made his remark at all if it did not have relevance to the present debate.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It was relevant to what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye was saying.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Viscount will admit that there is no relevance between the two cases, I shall be grateful.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, what one must do when talking about the First and the Second World Wars and their relevance to this particular issue is to have another debate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, whatever the noble Viscount feels to-day, at any rate the Government of that day were not unconscious of the responsibility which we were then incurring, because at the time of the landings—to be exact, on October 31, 1956—the Foreign Secretary, speaking on behalf of the whole Government, made a special reference to the position of the British community in Egypt. He said that one of our main objects in landing was (to use his own words) "to protect British lives and interests". That statement of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was binding, perhaps most of all, on those of us in the Cabinet responsible for the decision to land, and I readily accept that responsibility. But also I feel that it bound to a lesser degree the country as a whole, on whose behalf the Government acknowledged responsibility for these British nationals.
468
Of course, I fully recognise—and if I did not recognise it my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would probably point it out—that different interpretations can be put by different people on the words of the Foreign Secretary. That, of course, is clearly true. But, to my mind, it meant, broadly speaking at any rate, one thing: that the Government regarded it as an obligation to do all in their power to see that the British community did not suffer as the result of events in Egypt; that they regarded that as a solemn duty. Nor can I feel (and I think other noble Lords who have spoken agree with me) that we were absolved from that declared duty by the fact that—whether our general policy was right or wrong—as an immediate result of our action the British community in Egypt were driven from their homes and virtually ruined. On the contrary, to my mind our responsibility towards them is all the greater than it was before.
Indeed, I think that that was also the view of the Government and seems to have been confirmed by the even more categoric statement made by the Minister of Labour in another place on January 28, 1957, two or three months after the British nationals had been expelled. He said:
"I should like to assure the honourable and learned Member "—
that was a Member of another place who had asked a question—
"the House and the country that there is no subject about which we are more anxious at present than to see that full justice is done to all these people who have been driven out of Egypt."
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said that there was never a pledge on this subject. That seems to me pretty near a pledge. I shared strongly the view which the Minister of Labour expressed; and in view of his quotation of some remarks which I made, I think in this House on the very eve of my resignation—I believe it was the day before I resigned—I am sure that the noble Viscount the Lord President will not mind my reminding him that I brought this question of proper reparation to the expelled nationals more than once to the notice of my colleagues while still in the Government, and I have continued to urge it ever since.
I wish very much that I could feel that the policy of ex gratia loans was an

469
adequate implementation of the declarations of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Labour, but I simply cannot. The noble Viscount threw great emphasis, and I think rightly, on the valuable work done by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board in dealing with the immediate difficulties of those who had been expelled, and I entirely agree with him that that Board did very important work. I do riot think that the proposal for ex gratia loans for these unhappy people was unjustifiable as a temporary measure—it was possibly the best that could be done in the circumstances, for many of these people had arrived in this country entirely destitute and something had to be done immediately to give them the means of life. But though ex gratia loans may be all right as a purely temporary measure, it is surely no equitable basis for a long-term policy to implement the assurances given on behalf of the Government.
For this reason, so far from reaffirming obligations, the clear purpose of the use of this phrase "ex gratia loans", is to repudiate an obligation. When one says to a man, "I will give you an ex gratia loan", what in effect you say to him is, "I have no obligation to lend you a penny but out of the kindness of my heart I will make you a loan." To say that, in any case, is a fairly smug attitude to take up, and, if the noble Viscount will forgive my saying so, I did think that he was very smug this afternoon. But when that is said to people whom you have just ruined as the result of actions you have taken, to my mind an attitude of that kind becomes definitely repellant.
The noble Viscount the Lord President was at great pains to explain that the latest offer of the Government was a significant advance on earlier ones that had been made. No doubt that is perfectly true in some respects, though I must say that it has taken a great deal of prodding to get the Government to the point they have now reached. The position of the poorer claimants is, I think, to some extent safeguarded by the allocation to them of 70 per cent. of their claims. That is clearly right, because the need of the poorer claimants is obviously the most immediate and the greatest.
470
But, even so, as has already been pointed out by other noble Lords who have spoken, there are considerable shortcomings in these new proposals. I do not want to go into details about this; they have already been described by many other noble Peers who have spoken. But all of them, I think, have one thing in common: they are what I might call typical examples of the practical application of the ex gratia mentality; the mentality which says, "I do not owe you anything; you must just take what I choose to make available to you and be thankful for it." The Lord President calls that generous—he said that the treatment was very generous. I do not call it generous at all, and I feel that it is far from the fulfilment of the specific undertaking given by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Labour to the British community in Egypt months before. I simply cannot understand why the Government do not appreciate the wide difference between ex gratia loans and absolute personal property. In fact, there is all the difference in the world. I have tried to cut my remarks as short as I can, but I hope that I have at any rate said enough to make it clear to the House, if not, I fear, to the Government, that ex gratia loans cannot lake the place of compensation as a permanent policy.
The noble Earl, Lord Woolton, who has just spoken, expressed the fear that, if the principle of compensation were once admitted, all the great public companies with interests in Egypt—Barclays Bank, the Shell Company and all these other great corporations—would expect to be given compensation in full, and the sum involved would be absolutely astronomical and beyond the power of any Government to pay. He asked me what was my view about that. I can give him only a personal view, and it is this. In my view, the admission of the principle of compensation does not necessarily mean that 100 per cent. compensation must be given to everyone. That must be, as I see it, a matter for discussion and negotiation between all the parties concerned.
Companies such as Barclays Bank and the Shell Company, to which I have already referred, have obviously not suffered to nearly the same extent as these other people we have been discussing; and, so far as I know, the value of their

471
shares has not significantly fallen as the result of the events at Port Said. I hardly feel that they would press for their full pound of flesh if it meant absolute ruin for the others. But, at any rate, I cannot believe that an argument, which is really one, if I may say so, of pure expediency, is an adequate reason for refusing "full justice", to use the Minister of Labour's words, to those who so desperately need it.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess will agree that, while I had this doubt and I asked for his view of it, I did not suggest that anything should be withheld from those who were desperately in need of it because grants were now going to be made to the Shell Company.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The point I want to make is this. I am pleading for the principle of compensation. If it is said that compensation cannot be granted because of the immense claims by these vast corporations, that would mean that the claimants for whom I am really pleading would suffer as a result. That is the argument I was trying to develop, and I believe it to be a valid one.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who I understand is to reply, may admit all this; he may concede that ex gratia loans are suitable only as a temporary expedient. But he may urge, as the Lord President has also urged, that it is surely too soon for us to abandon hope of a satisfactory settlement with Nasser. The Lord President feels that a settlement may still be reached, and he hopes that we shall feel that it may still be reached. The Government may still harbour hopes of such an agreement, but I must confess that most of us are getting more and more sceptical. Every time we have raised this subject during the last nine months or a year we have been told, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that agreement is just round the corner. But it never comes, and I am beginning to believe that it never will. That is one respect, if I may say so to the Lord President, in which I have profoundly altered my view.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope that my noble friend is not suggesting that
472
I said this afternoon that agreement was just round the corner. On the contrary, I thought I said, and I think shall be found to have said, that since July my view has altered, too. That, if your Lordships will remember, I said when I explained that the reason for the delay between the promise in July and the implementation in October was precisely that reason: that without making any speculation as to what would happen, my view had become less favourable about that between July and September.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is the point of my argument. Moreover, if this projected settlement, as is most likely, was to be based on the desequestration of the properties and other belongings of the claimants, it is, frankly, not going to be much use to them. Most of these businesses, as has been said already, have been ruined, and the others are probably worth very little. In any case, it is unrealistic to suppose that at any rate elderly people, who are among the large number of the claimants, will be able to go back and settle in Egypt after all that has happened; of course they cannot. I cannot believe, therefore, that it is fair to the claimants to pin all our hopes on an agreement with Nasser. It is not only Nasser but we ourselves who must now do something to remove the present injustices.
Alternatively, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack may suggest that it is too soon to plump for compensation as the only alternative to ex gratia loans; and he may indicate that there are still other alternatives that might be explored. I am very ready to admit that there may be other alternatives to ex gratia loans—all things are possible in this world. All I can say is that after two years the Treasury—and I hope the Lord President will allow me to say this, because I mean the Ministers and not the officials—have not found an alternative; and I do not believe they have even tried to find one. I am pretty sure that, if they get away with it this time, they will just sit back with a sigh of relief and say no more; and the claimants will just get older and older and more despairing. Years ago, when I was an Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, there was a case which constantly came to our notice, and there was an enormous file about it. It was a case of

473
a Sheikh in the Persian Gulf who had a claim against His Majesty's Government (as it was in those days) over an assurance which had been given to him in 1914. That claim went on and on; it was bandied to and fro, year after year, and eventually (I have been making inquiries about it) compensation was given in either 1940 or 1941. Unfortunately, my Lords, the Sheikh had died in 1936. I do not want that to happen to these claimants.
There is only one thing that is likely to budge the Treasury, and that is a clear and strong expression of Parliamentary and public feeling; and the time to give that expression, I submit, is now. That is exactly why those of us who have been concerned with this particular Motion have brought it to-day, and that is why we are asking your Lordships to support it. And, my Lords, I do not think there has been very much doubt about the views that have been expressed this afternoon. Let us make no mistake about what this Motion means: there is no concealment about it. It means that we ask the Government to discard the basis of ex gratia loans and accept the principle of compensation unless or until some other basis is found which will be satisfactory to the claimants, after consultation with the claimants—and in this case I mean real consultation and not the sort of consultation that has gone on until now.
I hope very much that the Lord Chancellor will be able to say that the Government will accept that principle. If he does—if the Government do accept it—I am quite certain that it will be welcomed by everybody, inside and outside this House, who values the reputation of our country. But if the Government feel they cannot accept it, or will not accept it, we shall have no option, sadly, but without doubt or hesitation, if a Division is called, to go into the Lobby in support of the Motion. For I am profoundly convinced that this is a matter in which my own personal honour, the honour of this House and the honour of our country are engaged.
6.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before I was called away to a meeting, I listened to a great part of this debate, and especially to the speech of the noble Viscount, the
474
Lord President, and I have listened to several other speeches since I returned to the Chamber. In my approach to this matter I find myself nearer to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, than to some of the others to which I have listened. The noble Marquess, who has just spoken with his usual clarity as to his own position (and I quite appreciate the final sentences of his speech, when he said that he feels his own personal honour is engaged in this matter) seems to underline his speech with a conviction that we are committed to full compensation. I hope that I am not misinterpreting him. I seem to read into what I heard from him to-night that he is in favour of full compensation as the principle to be observed in this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said, "compensation as the principle" and not "full compensation as the principle". I made that clear, I think, in my speech.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: I must say that I felt considerable sympathy with some of the citations made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, this afternoon. Those of us who have been in Government, and who may be in Government in the near future, need to step quite warily in dealing with points of the kind that were raised by the noble Viscount—and they are important. But the people we on this side are concerned about are those who have suffered poverty, distress and hardship—as was clearly indicated by the noble Marquess—as a result of the action taken by our Government. I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, that up to, at any rate, quite recently, the actions by the Government appear to have been stage by stage, little by little, giving Members of your Lordships' House the impression that they have been niggardly in dealing with this present need.
It would seem to me, reading the last Progress Report I have been able to get by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, that, even at the present time, some of the steps still to be taken to deal with this matter continue to depend, to a large extent, upon voluntary organisations. Whilst I think the Government are perfectly entitled in such matters to take all the voluntary help offered to them in organising relief, and perhaps to make

475
some grants to those bodies for the expenses of the organisation, I do not think they ought to shed any part of the actual responsibility for the relief that has to be given.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Viscount is wrong about that. I do not think we have tried to do that. The funds of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board are entirely (I speak subject to correction) provided by the Government. Nor is the Board, in the sense in which the noble Viscount is referring to it, a voluntary organisation.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am always open to look at the matter again and to study the words of the noble Viscount. I will get the facts quite clarified in my own mind, in case there is any possibility of the matter coming up again. At any rate, if he accepts the principle which I am quite sure was behind the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, that in regard to these cases of hardship the sole responsibility is that of the Government, then he will have made a great impression on me in my approach to the whole problem.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I speak again subject to correction. I do not think we are far apart here. I think I am right in saying that there is, in relation to the public money which has been spent, a small fund which was raised from the public. That fund is being administered, unless I am mistaken, by the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society. It runs into £70,000, or something of that order. The relief about which we are talking, and have been talking all the afternoon, is administered by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board; and the £10 million are Government funds. There is no other source that I am aware of for that channel, which is the only substantial channel, than Government funds.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged.
The other matter in which I have been greatly interested all the way through is the position of the former officials of the Egyptian Government who were dismissed, in my view illegally, in view of their ordinary basis of contract with the Egyptian Government, in 1951. I have received from time to time the case of the Association which looks after, and still
476
looks after, their interests. I have been profoundly interested to try to get their case met. Unfortunately, I was not in the Chamber just now when the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, made a speech in which he made reference to that matter. But if what was said has been given to me correctly, it was that since the last date of their appeal to Members of this House, which was issued at the end of July of this year, something like £800,000 has been allocated.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: £100,000.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is a different matter. Something like £60,000 has been set aside for assistance to the 166 persons who were involved, plus the expenses of the Association between 1951 and the present date in trying to help and deal with the matter. If that is so, I approach that particular section of the problem with a modified view. I am not at all sure, unless one could see the details and allocation of the £100,000, whether it is sufficient, or whether it covers every class of case which I should imagine would be likely to arise. For example, what about the families, if there are any, of the people who have died in this long waiting period of nearly seven years while trying to get some decent recognition of their claim?
A good deal of reference has been made in the course of the debates we have had to Government responsibility in relation to the landing of our troops in Port Said. But, of course, there is not the slightest doubt that the action of the Egyptian Government in 1951 was due to what they regarded as British troops' destruction of the Egyptian village of Kafr-el-Abdu. Therefore it seems to me that a claim has been due to be made by the British Government in that matter. It has taken almost seven years to get to the situation which was announced recently—I am told about October 30; I did not know about it; I had no information from the Association—and I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has told the House to-night.
The other thing I want to say is this. I am glad that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has corrected me with regard to the degree of compensation, that he does not claim full compensation. But I must say that, when it comes to putting pressure upon the Government, and the

477
taxpayers as a whole, to pay compensation to any considerable extent to very large property or financial interests in Egypt, we should have much more hesitation than we should have had before that became clear to me to-day in going into the Lobby in support of the Motion. That is a very big difference. I gathered from the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord President, that in the case of some of these direct claims on behalf of financial and property interests some loans have been made. I do not say that they are big ones, but some loans have been made in cases of property and financial interests.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount is not very specific. Business assets rank for loans. They would normally be limited to private companies. Shares in public companies also rank for loans. In the one instance I gave of one family interest, those sums which I gave have certainly been advanced or will be shortly advanced.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER or HILLSBOROUGH: I can quite see there is a good case, where you are continuing to negotiate with the nation which has been responsible for these claims arising, that the people who are concerned up to any reasonable extent should be assisted by way of loan, and that the matter can be finally adjusted when a final settlement has been reached with the country with whom you are negotiating. But I certainly have a good deal more hesitation now than I should have had before it became clear to me that there were such large corporation and other claims in this matter in going into the Lobby in support of this Motion.
However, I am bound to say that I was very much moved by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton. I think he had a general case of great power. He made the same kind of reservations that I have in my mind. If, on the basis of the expression of dissatisfaction of the House at the way in which this matter has been drawn out, and the slowness which has seemed to continue in bringing to an end the feeling of loss and hardship to people who really need assistance, he and I see it from the same point of view, I shall be inclined to say to my colleagues "I think we ought to vote for the Motion". I have been perfectly frank
478
with the House. I was quite convinced, when the Motion was put on the Paper, that this was something we ought to vote for. But I want to be quite clear what we are voting for. If it is to express our dissatisfaction with the niggardly manner in which this matter has been dealt with, and to say we want the people in actual need to be relieved as quickly as possible, I must vote for the Motion. But if it means accepting the general principle of compensation for much wider and heavier claims for matters which still, of necessity, must remain in negotiation with the Egyptian Government, that puts another face upon it.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, since I evidently was not clear, I am bound to say that I should find it impossible to vote for this Motion because of the implications behind it. That is why I made the appeal to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to deal with the hardship issue, which seems to me the one that is disturbing us more than this question of precedent.
7.5 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything on this subject, because we from this side approached this civil war that is going on on the other side quite objectively, and we felt we should like to hear the case that has been made. I am bound to say that, having heard the case on both sides, I personally feel considerable sympathy with the case that was put by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord President. I think there is an issue of principle involved: namely, as to whether or not the Government have an obligation, moral or legal, to compensate fully those who have suffered as a result of our intervention. I realise that the noble Marquess says now that he is not asking for full compensation, but practically every speaker who supported the Motion has asked for it, and I feel that the logical implication of the case that has been made must be full compensation. If it means only partial compensation, frankly I do not understand the case that has been made at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is this difference, if I may explain it. In the case of an ex gratia loan it is not absolute property; it may remain with a man or it may not. If it is compensation it should be his own property:

479
he is given back in compensation for what he has lost. To my mind there is a great difference between the two.
THE EARL OF HOME: May I intervene, because it is an important point? I think the noble Marquess is really saying that if we accept the Motion we include the very large companies, Shell and the others, in the compensation. He is not limiting it to the small claims.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think you are committed to do more than accept the principle of compensation, and then it would be a matter for discussion. But if you do not accept the principle of compensation, really in effect what you are doing is keeping these people still on charity. I do not think, in view of the obligations the Government have undertaken, that that is right or proper.
LORD SILKIN: I really do not understand the noble Marquess at all. He is saying that there is a moral case, and it seems to me that if there is a moral case it must be a case for full compensation. I cannot see that it can be anything less, except as a compromise. I want to say a word about compromise. The conclusion I have come to from the whole of the debate is that both the logic of what is being claimed and, in fact, the statements made by most of the speakers in support of the Motion are in favour of full compensation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's point myself, and he probably does, because he knows much more about the law than I do. Can a man leave an ex gratia loan to his successors? Can a man put in his will, "To my dear wife I bequeath my ex gratia loan of £7,500"? If it is compensation it is money he can leave to his successors. There is a complete difference between the two conceptions.
LORD SILKIN: Obviously, if it is a loan it is a liability against the estate. The man does not bequeath the liability; the liability is there, but so is his claim, and the liability is set off against the claim. The difficulty I find is in accepting the full implications of the case that has been made, that the Government have complete liability for the effect of the
480
landing. On the other hand, they have a moral obligation of some kind. I think one of the difficulties that confront most of us is that the Government have been extremely slow and niggardly in their approach to this question. They have had to be prodded all along the line, although I think to-day that if the Government carry out the terms of their latest offer it is not unreasonable and, I would say, not ungenerous. It is a great pity that this was not offered at the outset and coupled with an offer to deal specially with particularly hard cases. I have listened to some of the hard cases that have been quoted here and I must say at the end of the day that one has asked what is being done about these hard cases and in every case I find they have been met. They may not have been met to the full extent some noble Lords would have liked, but they have been met. No doubt they have been met on a compromise basis, but they have been met, and there is no longer the hardship.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We do not accept that they have been met. To say to a man, "I give you £10,000", when he has lost perhaps ten times as much as that, is not giving him full justice; and when this has to be used as capital, or should be used as capital, and not as income, leaving him an income which is lower than practically any industrial worker gets at the present time, that does not seem to us to be a case that has been met with justice.
LORD SILKIN: I was referring to the hard cases that have been quoted—the cases that were put forward to wither our hearts, and so on. Those were the cases I was referring to, and I say that those cases of hardship have been met and that hardship is no longer there.
LORD LLOYD: Might I ask the noble Lord a question? Does he consider that a man who has worked all his life and has saved, say, £20,000, because he gets only £10,000 back and has to live on £5 a week for the rest of his life, is a case of hardship or not?
LORD SILKIN: I would say that the hardship has been met if he has been given £10,000. It is hard luck to lose £20,000. Nobody wants to lose £20,000. But, really, is he not expected to do something—to work, perhaps?
LORD KILLEARN: If he is 65 years old he cannot work very well, can he? We are not all so vigorous as the noble Lord.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to go too far in defence of Her Majesty's Government; that is not my function. I cannot see that a man who has had £10,000 is suffering hardship—and those were the cases that were quoted to us. He is considerably worse off than he was, but he is no longer suffering hardship. I feel that having heard both sides it is the sort of case upon which one would compromise. I do not accept that there is complete liability—there is certainly no legal liability; and I would not accept that there is a moral obligation to make good the loss that has been sustained. On the other hand, there is the hardship which has been caused, and I think it has been met to a considerable degree. I listened to the statement of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord President, that if other cases of hardship are quoted to the Government they will not close their minds to giving further assistance.
I must say that there is one respect in which I agree with noble Lords who have supported this Motion, namely, that I have very little confidence—probably no more than they have—in the ultimate outcome of the conversations with Nasser, and it seems that it would be desirable to try to make a settlement once and for all on this matter and not to make it dependent on the outcome of what most of us fully believe to be negotiations which are not going to result in any satisfaction. It is true that in my own experience as a lawyer I have often met people who do not deny liability, but that is a very different thing from getting them to pay up. I am quite sure that Nasser is not denying liability; but that is a very long way from getting any settlement with him which will result in a payment. Therefore I would suggest that it might be desirable to get a settlement in these matters, once and for all.
But I would certainly not base such a settlement on the principle of liability or full compensation. Probably in the net result the noble Marquess and I are not far part. It may be that if a figure has to be arrived at we shall not quarrel very much on it. But there is a big difference in the approach one has to
482
make to the principle of whether there is an obligation on the Government or not. I should certainly deprecate any acceptance of a legal responsibility. For those reasons, I certainly would not feel justified in supporting the Motion.
7.16 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the debate this afternoon has taken an unusual and rather difficult turn, because we were brought here to discuss a perfectly clear Motion:
"To draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the continuing distress of British nationals expelled from Egypt."
That was a perfectly definite Motion. But my noble friend Lord Salisbury has, of course, put an entirely different complexion on it and is asking us, by our vote, as I understand it, to say that the Government should bring to an end the stage of advances by loan, which is all that they have been asked to do up to now by everybody, and accept a position of compensation. The noble Marquess shakes his head. I have not seen in the papers any requests. Certainly the Society put forward a scheme for loans which are not very much greater than the ones which are being given under our scheme. It was that scheme that we considered, and on it we modelled the scheme which we now put forward.
It is true that in his speech to-day the noble Marquess and a number of other noble Lords have said this. But to-day, as I understand it, is the first time that the definite break has been made from the old principle of the procedure into the new. It is difficult to know what one does in a situation like that. While I should be the last to compare my noble friend Lord Salisbury, with Humpty Dumpty, on this occasion he is definitely saying "Words have not their ordinary meaning; they mean what I think they ought to mean, and that is the Resolution on which you ought to vote". That is a most difficult situation and I feel that I ought first to deal with the point which your Lordships were asked to consider—namely, the question: Is there now continuing distress?
Noble Lords have said, "We quite agree with your basic figures; there is no dispute about those". I hope that your Lordships will not be angry with me if I

483
remind your Lordships of what they are. There were 7,000 to 8,000 refugees. Of these, 6,250 remained in this country and 1,500 were helped in order to emigrate. Then with regard to those who are left, 4,000 were resettled, and 500 have not yet been resettled but have every chance of being. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said, in his speech, "I am concerned with the remaining one-third—the 2,600 left after that figure." What about the remaining 2,600? Approximately 1,500 of these, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord President has said, are those who have assets of up to £2,000. I would ask the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to look at the position clearly. I am sure he will because he always tries to do so—indeed I do not think I am doing much more than echoing his words. They are being paid, on a 70 per cent. basis, the loans of which we have heard. That advance (if I may use a neutral word) is on their own unverified claim. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, appreciates that that is the position. I hope nobody will think I am imputing anything wrong, but, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, it has not been possible to verify these claims, and the loans are based on an unverified estimate of the claimant's loss.
No interest has been charged upon the loan. The noble and learned Viscount Lord Hailsham has said, and I repeat, that no return of the loan will be asked for until something is forthcoming from Egypt. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is right in saying that it is a loan; but it is a loan of a very generous character when it is made on an unverified claim, and without interest, with no repayment unless there is something forthcoming from Egypt. I hope that that is a fair point. Believe me, the last things I want to make to your Lordships tonight are debating points—I want your Lordships to look at the actualities. There are 1,460—nearly 1,500—out of the one-third mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, as those for whom he was expressly concerned. I think, again, that that does something to answer the point which the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition has mentioned before—namely, is this matter really dealing with the small man? That has always been the position. That is not the result
484
of the extension of the scheme. That 70 per cent. has been covered by the old scheme and the new.
Let us take the next category. We return to the 1,160 whose claims are over £2,000. If your Lordships will forgive me, I would remind you that of those in the next "slice", those with claims of from £2,000 to £5,000, no one up to now has received less than £1,500 under the loans scheme—again, on the same conditions that I have just mentioned. Those whose claims total from £3,000 to £5,000 have received £2,000; and with the increases through this extension there will still be the lowest limit of £1,500, which, after all, is 75 per cent. of £2,000; while those with claims of £4,000 and over will receive £2,500—that is 62 per cent.—on the same conditions. Again I ask your Lordships to remember the conditions. These are unverified claims. No interest is charged, and there will be no repayment unless something is forthcoming from Egypt. Of the 7,800 with whom we started, that leaves 620 with claims of over £5,000, of whom I believe 200 have claims of over £20,000.
My noble and learned friend referred to one case where a family group has a claim for between £10 million and £20 million. It is true that at the moment they are getting £80,000 under the old and £80,000 under the new arrangements, but I do not think my noble friend Lord Lloyd would describe that as continuing distress.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, but the Lord President, having accused me of taking one case to suit my point, has entirely misled the House on this matter. There is a case of one family of millionaires. That is the only one, and that is the one which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is taking now. It is really misleading their Lordships to suggest that what we are fighting for is a family of millionaires. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is a lawyer and he is entitled to take these points if he wants to do so; but it is Satan rebuking sin. I have known of only one case involving millionaires, where the claim is between £15 million and £16 million.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I resent the suggestion that I misled the House. I said that it was an extreme case, and I mean what I said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my point is still right. What I was challenging the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd upon—and he has refused my challenge—was to say that £160,000, even to a millionaire, is "continuing distress". The noble Lord must remember the point—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this continued interruption makes it very difficult. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has interrupted almost every speaker this afternoon—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And I really feel—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have always had courtesy from the House until now, and I think it only shows the weakness of the noble and learned Viscount that he should have stooped to that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am quite prepared to listen to the noble Marquess. I am sorry if I have urged that he should not interrupt, but he has interrupted quite a lot this afternoon. If he wants to interrupt again I am quite prepared to listen to what he has to say. Would the noble Marquess like me to give way?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, it is too late now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The point I was making was that one really comes to a point where we approach the ridiculous if we are going to apply the phrase "continuing distress" to a matter of that kind; and the same applies to the broad position at that range. That is the first point.
I want now just to remind your Lordships that, apart from the improvements which I have mentioned in regard to the amounts, several modifications were made in order to remove anomalies and inequities. In addition, Her Majesty's Government announced that they would make £100,000 available for loans to the British officials whom my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has mentioned and with regard to whom, I think one may say, after his speech, there has been
486
a reasonable and general satisfaction. Apart from that, the point that has been made by the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is that there is some essential difference between the ex gratia loans and the advances which should not continue at this time. I have tried to deal with the first point: the nature of the claims. I should like to say a word on the other aspect, and that is the effect which that is likely to have on the future position in Egypt.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, asked me whether I would deal with the proportions of assets belonging to residents who had been expelled and to other people. I cannot give him an exact figure. I should think, if anything, that the proportion of the others, apart from those who were expelled, is slightly higher, although it is probably a fairly evenly-balanced matter and therefore it is quite a serious consideration. The position with regard to that is that we are dealing with two sets of property, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, indicated. There is the property that has been nationalised and the property that has been sequestrated. I do not think noble Lords have really appreciated the responsibility which lies upon us with regard to the sequestrated property.
In the case of the nationalised property it is a question of getting compensation and getting the figure that will ultimately be agreed; but in the case of the sequestrated property it is a question of the return of the property and, of course, the payment of any revenue that has come from the property in the intervening years. To take the simple case—that is, not money used for business but money in a bank account—there will be the interest on that account. If it is property in land, there will be the rents that come in from the land, less the sequestration charge, which, I suppose, would not be high—perhaps 10 per cent., even if it were a very high charge. As my noble and learned friend the Lord President said, these are considerable sums, and the question is: are we to risk the chance of both classes losing that property? That is the point. I hope I have made it clear to the House that this is not a question of collecting money: this is a question of property which is being kept by the sequestrator in trust for other people.

487
It seems to me that this is a question which requires very serious consideration. We are asked to say to-day, and to vote on this Motion on the basis of saying, "We are finished with that idea. We are finished with the line of action which may lead to a return of that property, and we are now going to take the line that we should give up all hope of these people getting the return of their own property, whatever position they are in and whatever their industrial responsibilities are", and to assume, as the noble Marquess would have us do, aresponsibility for it. I think that this is something which we should not be asked to do without consideration, and we should certainly not be asked to do that on a Motion which does not mention the fact, and on the speech expressing a great protagonist's point of view coming late in the debate. I hope that the noble Marquess will not hold it against me too long that I resented his interruption. If he does, I am sorry. I should, after twenty-five years, always give way on being interrupted, and I hope that the noble Marquess will not hold it against me for too long.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lo-d Chancellor is a very old friend of mine, and of course this shall be forgotten entirely.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry. I did not hear what the noble Marquess said.
THE EARL OF HOME: He said that it would be forgotten.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very glad and I hope that we may argue out this point with all our old gusto and old friendship. But the point I am putting to the noble Marquess now (and I am very anxious that he should consider it) is that it is a really serious position if we are to be asked to-day to change from the position of these loans which are mentioned to a position of compensation.
I should like just to test the matter in one other way. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has left the Chamber for the moment, because I tried—and again I am not making a debating point—to put in words the principle which Lord Balfour of Inchrye said
488
existed. As I understand it, his principle fell into two parts. The first was that if you intervene to stop a war that is threatening the safety of your nationals you have a special responsibility which does not apply in the ordinary case. My Lords, what it is quite clear was undisputed two years ago was that General Amar was heading a force towards the Israeli border and stated that, if it had not been for our landings, he would have continued his invasion. I am not going to argue the point at the moment; I am taking that as being the admitted situation. But what difference does it make whether you intervene in order to save your nationals from, in your belief, a war, and a spreading war, or from any other form of actions such as those that have been mentioned?
I now take the second part of the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye; that is, that the responsibility of a Government is for the property of individuals, however extensive the individuals' property may be, but not for the property of corporations who also function somewhere else. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord said that Imperial Chemical Industries are not entirely dependent on their functioning in Cairo. That is a very odd principle, and it shows—and this is the point I am making to-night—how dangerous it is to depart from the words of a Motion and to read into it something which we cannot really discover at this time.
My Lords, that brings me to the attitude which I feel with regard to this Motion. It is this: had we been asked to vote on the Motion as it stands on the Order Paper, I should not have desired to vote against it; nor should I have advised your Lordships to vote against it, because the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is quite entitled to his view as to what is "distress", even though I may not share it. I do not think there is distress. I think we have shown now that there is not really distress in any sense, and we are asked to consider only that third of the refugees. But the last thing I want to do (especially after his magnanimity) is to give Lord Salisbury the slightest impression that I am trying to evade the issue which he has raised. Lord Salisbury has said, as I understand it, that he wants the vote to-night to be a vote that

489
ex gratia loans should stop and that compensation should be substituted for them. My Lords, that I cannot accept. I feel that the only honourable course is to vote against it in that case, because I do not believe that we have come to the position when we can, in the interests of all concerned, risk the chance of their regaining their property by abandoning the ex gratia loan foundation and going on to the other one.
Now, my Lords, that is the position, and if the noble Marquess desires the vote in the sense that he indicated then I feel that the answer to it is that I ought to vote against it. I hope he will not think that I am trying to replace the difficulty on to his shoulders. I am not: I am trying to answer his point. I want to make it quite clear—one always has to say what one will do and get rid of the hypothetical and the conditional—that if nothing further is said I shall assume that the noble Marquess wishes this Resolution to contain what he has said—namely, abandoning loans and going on to compensation—and I shall vote against it and will advise my friends to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, but it is not my Motion; it is Lord Lloyd's Motion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, but I think that there is not only such a geographical proximity between Lord Lloyd and the noble Marquess but obviously such a community of souls on this matter that I was not wrong in interpreting the noble Marquess's intervention in the debate as a true construction of what was wanted by the Resolution; and, as I say, unless that is changed (because I must give a definite view) I shall feel bound to vote against the Resolution and to ask my friends to do so, because this is a Resolution requesting us to move from our present basis of loans to the basis of compensation.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Might I raise a question?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have not heard any further comment after the noble and learned Viscount's reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, upon
490
what is the effect of the grant made to the 1951 cases. I have just made a rough calculation, and the average amount, after nearly seven years, is about £106 to professors, lecturers, teachers, nurses, and all professional people. It seems to me almost ludicrous. Might I ask whether that has been finally accepted by their associations as enough?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount who leads the Opposition will remember that there was a considerable amount of negotiation on this point with the Egyptian Government. I especially do not want to go into that history at the moment, but I would remind the noble Viscount—and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will correct me if I am wrong—of the different position of these claims. They were not claims for a liquidated sum; they were claims in the nature of damages for wrongful dismissal and for being prevented from being able to earn. Therefore, they were claims that would sound in damages, and there was a considerable discussion as to how much they should be, and a great difference of opinion—I mean a difference of opinion not only between the different parties but between the different people who were concerned with it. As I say, if the noble Viscount will take it from me I would rather not go into the details of the history at the moment However, I think I can say this with fairness: that the sum of £100,000 that has been offered to-day is as much as we should have been likely to get out of the Egyptian Government at the end of the previous period, unless there had been a great change from their last point of view.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If the noble and learned Viscount will forgive my saying so, I do not think the associations will accept that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will remember that what I said was that that was what they would have been likely to get out of the Egyptian Government in the view that they were taking at the time. I am not for a moment suggesting that they did not think they should have got more. Of course they did. But we have given a figure which, in the circumstances, and after the history of the negotiations, is one that

491
at any rate has given some satisfaction, and that is the basis of the figure. I do not think I can help the noble Viscount much further on that point.
LORD LAYTON: Might I ask for the guidance of the noble and learned Viscount? I do not consider—and I think the same applies to many of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches—that there is no continuing distress. I believe that there is continuing distress among many of the refugees from Egypt, and I want to say that very strongly to the Government, because I do not think they have handled the situation very well. But I do not want to express a categorical opinion as to whether all ex gratia payments should stop and as to whether there should be (and, if so, to what degree) compensation. I therefore ask whether the noble and learned Viscount can give me some guidance as to which way I should vote.
LORD LLOYD: Might I say a word to your Lordships as to what I wish to ask your Lordships to vote for? Perhaps that might be simpler. After all, it happens to be my Motion and not the Motion of the noble Marquess. What I am suggesting to your Lordships is this. I drew my Motion in wide terms on purpose. If I may say so, it is perhaps a little naîve of the noble and learned Viscount to plead that he does not know what we have in our minds. We have had discussions about this with the Government—I do not think there is any secret about this—for two years, and they must have some idea of what we have in our minds. I drew my Motion in wide terms for a particular purpose. It was because I wished to give Her Majesty's Government, of which I am a supporter, every opportunity of coming forward with some further constructive offer in this matter which would save me the trouble of having to register an opinion against them in this House. I drew it widely on purpose because I felt that there was always the danger, if one drew it too narrowly, of putting the Government in a position from which they could not withdraw.
What I am asking your Lordships to vote on, in my view and in the view of my noble friends, is whether compensation is the right and full solution.
492
Suppose the Government had come forward with a scheme—just promises after two years are not good enough and the Government had plenty of notice—a practical scheme for a final settlement (because we do not believe there is going to be any settlement with Nasser) to give these people some security in their lives, we would accept it and consider it and I would withdraw my Motion; but there is no scheme before us. I ask your Lordships to say that we are profoundly dissatisfied with the handling of this matter by the Government, that we do not consider that these people so far have had a square deal, and that we feel that something more should be done to deal more satisfactorily and more generously with them. That is what my Motion means, and if I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, it will save my winding up.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if I may make a long-stop—a very unenviable position and one I have not been in for a long time—I would say that my noble friend Lord Lloyd has said that he had put down his Motion in wide terms; but if he looks at it, he will find that it is extremely narrow. It is confined to the fact that distress is continuing among British nationals. If that is the Motion, like my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor I am perfectly willing to accept it as it is on the Paper. I am perfectly willing to look again at the scheme before the House—the noble Lord said that there was no scheme before us, but of course there is a scheme—to see, if there are cases of distress, whether that scheme could be stretched to embrace them. But we are now being asked to vote on a Motion which does not contain any of the words which my noble friends, Lord Lloyd and Lord Salisbury, have used about the principle and general purpose of compensation.
I do not believe that we ought to vote on this matter to-night as a House. I am going to suggest to my noble friend Lord Lloyd and to the noble Marquess that we should not do so. As I understand it, the general proposition put forward is that if, as a result of an act of foreign policy which was considered by the Government of the day to be in the national interest, damage is done to the property of British nationals, it is an absolute obligation (I am not saying a

493
100 per cent. Obligation) on the Government of the day to compensate. That is a proposition about which I should want to think a lot and about which I should be bound to advise all noble Lords to think a great deal more before your Lordships accepted it as part of a Motion. Because it leads on to this. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Marquess have talked about the principle. I am a little chary of principles. I want to examine them. I want to think a little more about the principle that has been put forward.
As I understand it, if we apply the principle that we are bound to compensate, then all have to be in it; but the noble Marquess is not saying that. He is saying that we should compensate people who have assets in Egypt and are suffering hardship, but should leave out the banks and Shell and the big companies, or, if we do not leave them out, at least have discussions on how far they should be compensated. The principle then becomes at best half a principle, or perhaps less than half a principle. I suggest to your Lordships that what the community does accept in a case such as this is an obligation, and the Government would accept it on behalf of the community, to try to help people who suffer because of the country's interests and to assist them to avoid hardship. The best way to help is to induce the Egyptians to settle. The second best way is to advance money against the claims of those people who have assets.
All I am saying is that if, within the terms of this Motion, which I am bound to repeat is narrowly drawn, we are going to be asked to accept this general proposition of compensation and this principle, which does not seem to me to be a principle, then I would say to my noble friends that we really ought to be given more time to think it over. We should like to think about the proposition and we ought to think about the full implications of the proposals they are trying to embrace. The Motion names none of these things. I am perfectly willing to take back this scheme to my colleagues to look at it again and, if we find cases of hardship, to see whether the scheme can be stretched to embrace them. But, like my noble and learned friend, I could not advise your Lordships' House to accept these general
494
propositions without much further thought. Therefore I would ask my noble friend Lord Lloyd not to put the House into a position in which your Lordships have to take a decision on this great issue, because if he insists and does so I shall have to suggest to your Lordships that the Motion has ceased to be the Motion on the Order Paper altogether and is something much wider, and that we should have to reject it for the time being so as to think about the great principles which are raised.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said. I do not agree that my Motion is narrowly drawn. It draws attention to the distress of the people and moves for Papers. That is the conventional way of saying that we are dissatisfied with the situation of these people and that we want something done. I have always understood that that was the convention we used in your Lordships' House, and therefore I should have thought that it was widely, and not narrowly, drawn. The noble Earl says that he will take this scheme back for consideration. I thought that we had made it plain to the Government that this scheme in principle and essence is something which we do not feel is acceptable, because we do not believe that there are any prospects of settlement. The noble Earl has held out no firm proposition of any kind to meet us for the future.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, may I make just one more attempt to see whether my noble friend will understand the difficulty in which he is putting the House. He has put down one Motion and we find another one. There is an essential difference.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl. I said that these people are in distress, and I moved for Papers, which means that I am distressed about it and want the Government to do something about it. We are being slightly legalistic, because noble Lords know perfectly well that we have not been satisfied with the scheme from the word "Go". I put down the Motion in this way to give the Government an opportunity of making some further advance, which it might have been possible for us to accept. We all want to compromise, but we have had nothing

495
constructive from the Government this afternoon. We have had the same old scheme and no departure from the principle at all. Therefore I do not think that I can delay things any further. We feel that this is a matter of honour for ourselves and our country, and I would ask your Lordships to express your view on this matter in the Lobby.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, in that case surely it is necessary to give an explanation for voting. We must vote on the words that appear on the Order Paper. I feel that I cannot vote against those words because I entirely agree with them. I do not wish to abstain because, if I do that, the impression is that we do not feel the sense of those words. Therefore, I only wish to record that I shall vote for the Motion on the Paper in the sense I mentioned just now.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I must say that the noble Lord is putting the House into an intolerable position. Noble Lords should not put down Motions and then alter the words. However, if the noble Lord must do it, I have given him every chance to alter it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is not my Motion, and I do not want to intervene. But may I say this? The House knows perfectly well what it is voting on. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he could not vote for
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.
it; the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, as I understood, said that he could not vote for it. They know exactly what is in our minds. They know why the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, put down this Motion, and they know what he hopes to get. They know that this is the alternative to the negative reply that we have had from the Government, I do not think the noble Earl the Leader of the House can say that the House is being asked to vote on something but that they do not know what.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, there are so many explanations going on that I think the House might put up with another one. It is this. I was convinced, when I saw this Motion on the Paper, that it was one that I should vote for. But I am bound to say that, having listened to the speeches in this debate, I should want to know more about the claims, where they go and how they would commit us on certain principles. On that basis, while I certainly will not help the Government, because I think they have been niggardly all along, I shall still go on working to relieve the distress, so far as I can, but I will certainly not vote for the Motion.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS

Salisbury, M.

Auckland, L.

Killearn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Kindersley, L.

Albemarle, E.

Deramore, L.

Layton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Derwent, L.

Lloyd, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Digby, L.

Newall, L.

Gifford, L. [Teller.]

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gage, V.

Grenfell, L.

Sandys, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Hampton, L.

Teviot, L. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Perth, E.

Dynevor, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Lansdowne M.

Selkirk, E.

Hawke, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Merrivale, L.

Bathurst, E.

Woolton, E.

Merthyr, L.

Dundee, E.

Mills, L.

Gosford, E.

Aberdare, L.

Sandford, L.

Home, E.

Airedale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Morley, E.

Amwell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.