Sitting of 11 November 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Conscientious Objectors
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Defence what provision will be made for conscientious objectors in the Armed Forces or among called-up reservists when the tribunals set up under the National Service Acts are disbanded.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The present tribunals will remain in existence for some years. The Government are considering what should be done after that, and I hope to make an announcement in due course.
    Mr. Brockway: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but is he aware, as I am sure he must be, that the present tribunals will disappear with the abolition of National Service and that they are acting as the advisory committees? Will arrangements be made for them to continue as advisory committees for the men in the Forces and for those on the Reserve List?
    Mr. Watkinson: We have a little time in which to consider this. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are quite in sympathy on this, and I would be reluctant to see all this fall to the ground. I will try to make a statement as soon as I can.

    Officers (Retirements and Pensions)
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Defence how many Regular officers of the three Armed Services, including the Indian Armed Services, retired since the end of the war; and how many of these retired before January, 1956.
    Mr. Watkinson: About 33,000, of whom 23,000 retired before January, 1956.
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Defence how many commutations of retired pay have taken place by officers of the three Armed Services, including the Indian Armed Services, since the end of the war; how many of these took place before January, 1956; and what would be the cost today of granting the 1959 pensions increases on the retired pay commuted by officers of the Armed Services.
    Mr. Watkinson: About 20,000, of which about 12,300 took place before January, 1956. Without a great deal of research I could not say what would be the cost of granting the 1959 pensions increases on retired pay which has already been commuted.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large proportion of the officers he has referred to commuted up to nearly half their pay, on which they have received no increase since? Why should these officers be penalised because they did not have a terminal grant at that time and when the Government have made a profit out of it? Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter to see whether something can be done to help these men, who have served their country well?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look most carefully at what my hon. Friend has said, but, of course, one of the risks of commutation is that one does get a lump sum for the relinquishment, so to speak, of the claim. I do not wish to be unsympathetic and will certainly undertake to look at what my hon. Friend has said.

    Pegasus Aircraft
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Defence whether a decision has yet been reached in favour of equipping the Army Air Corps with the Scottish-designed Pegasus aircraft instead of the Canadian Beaver machine; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Watkinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on this subject by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of Aviation on 5th and 9th November.
    Sir T. Moore: In view of the correspondence I have had with my right hon. Friend's predecessor, I know that he appreciates the urgency and importance of this matter. As we are having a conference with the Prime Minister in a few minutes' time. I will not now take the matter further.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Defence whether it is still the Government's policy, as his predecessor stated in reply to Questions by the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) and Newcastle-under-Lyme on 11th February, 1959, to resort to nuclear weapons first in case of an attack with conventional arms on a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, or the Central Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Government's policy remains as stated in the Annual Defence White Papers and in Parliamentary debates.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the fact that criticism of this doctrine has now spread to general officers holding very important posts, who have described this policy as being one of insanity, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the fact that no defence policy can be based on a threat to commit suicide? As this is a threat to initiate nuclear war, involving suicide for the British people, will he not turn his mind to the idea of producing a defence policy?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman should turn his mind to reading the White Paper to see what was actually said. In any case, this is a matter which will be dealt with in Answers to later Questions.
    Mr. Strachey: Does not the new Minister of Defence agree that this is a very serious matter, as his Answer means that he is sticking to paragraph 12 of the 1958 White Paper, which suggests that the very first reaction to a conventional move by the enemy is
    "a massive nuclear bombardment of the sources of power in Russia "
    without any attempt to meet the attack by conventional means? Is the right hon. Gentleman sticking to that quite incredible position?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is always very easy to quote sentences out of their context. The right hon. Gentleman's quotation is part of a sentence of paragraph 12 of the White Paper, which starts by saying
    "In fact, the strategy of N.A.T.O. is based on the frank recognition that …"
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we not committed to the policy adumbrated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Should not the right hon. Gentleman "come clean" about this, for it is better for us to face the facts? Is it not clear that in the event of failure to resist a conventional attack we should use the so-called nuclear deterrent, and obviously, if we do that, it will be very bad for us all.
    Mr. Watkinson: I know that after his long experience in my present office the right hon. Gentleman will not disagree with me when I say that the purpose of the deterrent is to try to stop war by deterring people. Unless the deterrent is such that it does deter, it does not fulfil its purpose.

    Controller of Munitions (Lecture)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Minister of Defence whether it was with his authority that Lieutenant-General Sir John Cowley, Controller of Munitions, said that to bring the nuclear deterrent into play meant committing suicide.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Defence whether he authorised the recent statement by the Controller of Munitions that using the nuclear deterrent meant suicide.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Defence whether he authorised the criticism by the Controller of Munitions of Great Britain's defence policy, as defined in the White Paper of 1958; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Watkinson: This officer's lecture was stated at the beginning to be an expression of his own personal views, put forward to promote discussion in the institution. As such, it was cleared by his own Service. It did not represent the official policy of Her Majesty's Government, and it contained a number of statements which I could not endorse.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Does the Minister of Defence quarrel with the statement in

    379
    that speech that the 1958 Defence White Paper policy of resorting to nuclear weapons first in the case of a conventional attack would mean suicide to this country? Does he disagree with that proposition? Is that still the Government's policy?
    Mr. Watkinson: Again, the difficulty is that the hon. Member ought to read this very long and very interesting lecture. The first part of the sentence which he has quoted reads, "Unless we bring the nuclear deterrent into play we are bound to be beaten".
    Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister take note of the fact that the nuclear obsessions of his predecessor have made quite a number of distinguished Service Chiefs almost mutinous? In those circumstances, will he give an assurance that he will not follow in the discredited footsteps of his predecessor, who is now being disowned to an ever-increasing extent by his own professional advisers?
    Mr. Watkinson: If I may say so, the hon. Member only discredits himself by trying to bring to this very grave matter of peace or war rather slick political arguments which have very little relevance.
    Mr. Rankin: According to the Manchester Guardian—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Guardian"]—
    "Sir John Cowley was stating his personal opinions, but there is no doubt that as a serving officer his remarks must have been approved by the War Office."
    Is that true or is it not? Is it true that this speech may well mark the beginning of the end of Mr. Sandys' defence policy?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member has not quite brought himself up to date on Parliamentary procedure. In reply to the first part of his supplementary question, if he will be kind enough to read my Answer, he will see that I replied to him. As to the second and more general issue, this officer said—and I again ask hon. Members to read the whole lecture, which is very long and very interesting—that he would be extremely disappointed if anybody agreed with him. At least he will not be disappointed in me.
    Mr. Strachey: As one who took the precaution to attend the lecture and to listen to it very carefully, may I ask whether the Minister does not think it significant that this distinguished officer has reached the conclusion that precisely the policy embodied in paragraph 12 of the White Paper is no longer a deterrent because it is not credible even to him?
    Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation, who was my predecessor, in my view took very brave decisions which did a great deal to maintain the peace of the world. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to answer that, and he will have the opportunity to do so when we have a defence debate. As to the other issue about this lecture as a whole, this officer very carefully put several sides to the various arguments, which obviously as a new Minister I wish to examine. I think that after only four weeks I should be extremely unwise to give the House at this stage the benefit of what study I have been able to make.
    Mr. Mason: Irrespective of whether the Minister agrees with the contents of the lecture, does he not think this a dangerous practice? Does he not intend to take some steps to try to stamp out this frankness and these blatant remarks by officers of Her Majesty's Forces who are openly declaring opposition to the Government's defence policy?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not agree with the hon. Member in that. I think that the right drill—and I think that in the future it will be followed—is that statements or lectures Which bear on major defence policies of the Government must be cleared with me.

    Germany (Defence Expenditure)
    Mr. Fernyhonghasked the Minister of Defence by how much defence expenditure will increase as a result of the new status of the forces agreement recently signed between the Federal German Republic and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries with troops in Germany.
    Mr. Watkinson: About £1 million a year.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is the extent of the commitment? Can he further say

    381
    whether, as a result of this new agreement, Britain's forces serving in Germany will not be at less advantage than are the American forces serving in Britain?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that the answer to the second part of the question is that this is true; they will not be at less advantage. The hon. Member asked whether this commitment will increase. My understanding is that this is part of the settlement which arises from the ending of the occupation status, but it brings us the corresponding advantage that West Germany begins to play her own part in bearing some of the cost of N.A.T.O. defence. We have an advantage there.

    Amphibious Forces
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Defence what proposals he has for the provision of modern amphibious forces.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am giving consideration to the future of our amphibious forces, but at present I have no statement to make.
    Mr. Wall: When considering these problems, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of providing landing ships with sufficient speed to keep up with a Commando carrier? Will he also bear in mind that in the past this branch of our defence forces has tended to be rather neglected by the three individual Service Ministries?
    Mr. Watkinson: I would not comment on the second half of the supplementary question at this stage, but I am certainly giving very careful study to this matter because I think that increased mobility in our defence forces is a vital factor which we must try to secure.

    Nuclear Attack (Defence Co-ordination)
    Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Minister of Defence whether his conversations with the Secretary of State for the Home Department to co-ordinate the policies of their respective Departments concerning defence in case of nuclear attack are yet concluded; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Watkinson: Matters of this kind are dealt with by the normal processes of consultation within the Government. I have therefore no statement to make.
    Mr. Silverman: While fully appreciating the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not been very long in his Department, may I ask whether he will not look at the statements made by his predecessor and by the Home Secretary in the House, both in the course of considered policy statements and in reply to Questions? Is he not aware that his predecessor repeatedly declared, in the most categorical terms, that there was no possibility of defending the civil population of this country in the case of nuclear attack and that therefore defence would have to be limited to the airfield—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—whereas the Home Secretary, when he was asked what bearing this statement had on civil policy, said in the House in reply to a Question by me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—that consultations were taking place between his Department and the Ministry of Defence in order to reconcile the obvious conflict between the two Departments, and that when these consultations—
    Mr. Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can you possibly give hon. Members an indication as to how they will have a chance to put their later Questions to Ministers when an hon. Member makes a speech like this?
    Mr. Speaker: I will make this observation to hon. Members. They will all realise that long supplementary questions are very inconsiderate to hon. Members who have Questions following.
    Mr. Silverman: I apologise for the length of this supplementary question, but I think you will see how necessary it was when I say that, at the end of that statement, the Home Secretary promised the House that when the consultations were completed he would make a statement. It was because of that promise that I directed this Question to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman himself, by the possibly justifiable length of his supplementary question, has shown how complicated a matter this is. It is certainly not for me to add to the complications at Question Time.
    Mr. Silverman rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?
    Mr. Silverman: Yes, Sir. The only question that I directed to the Minister was whether he would make a statement. I have not had an answer, except the one to which I directed a supplementary question. It is not an answer to state that the Minister would not want to add to the complications at Question Time. I asked him whether he was ready to make a statement.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is so much experienced in this House that he will know that that is not a point of order for me and, also, that the Minister is under no obligation to answer if he does not want to do so.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence what are the prospects of reducing expenditure both in the nuclear and non-nuclear fields.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Government's proposals for defence expenditure will be laid before Parliament in the normal way. No useful purpose would be served by anticipating the statement.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not true that certain influential voices are urging a cut in expenditure on nuclear arms, only to increase it on non-nuclear weapons? Would the right hon. Gentleman cut both and permit the saving to go to housing and pensions instead?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of what the Government's policy is. Incidentally, it has been stated quite clearly in the Defence White Papers. It is to secure complete disarmament as soon as we can under proper safeguards.
    Mr. Paget: Is the deplorable state of the present equipment of our troops the first instalment in the Government's defence policy?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. and learned Gentleman had better put down a specific question if he wishes for an answer.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is not the Minister making it one of his cardinal duties to reduce the crippling burden of armaments consistent with the safety of the Realm?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite accept that as the duty of the Minister of Defence.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have no statement to make at present.
    Mr. Grimond: While realising that the Minister is new to his office, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind, when he does make up his mind about this, that there is a growing opinion in this House, among Service chiefs and experts that the dependence of the Government on an independent British nuclear deterrent is now neither increasing the safety of the West nor, in fact, is it effective?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is the hon. Gentleman's view. It is not the view of the Government, as set out in successive White Papers. I am certainly not going—nor would this House expect me to go—into these vast and complicated matters after having sat in my seat for only four weeks. I must carefully examine these things, and that I promise to do. When we have our normal defence debates, I shall be perfectly ready to answer all these sorts of Questions in the House.
    Mr. Mellish: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of us would regard him as a first-class humbug if he were to say that we shall not have our own deterrent but shall rely upon the Americans and, thereby, somehow be morally better and decent?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will go with the hon. Gentleman in this matter to the extent of saying that I would be a first-class humbug if I were to stand at this Box and pronounce on all the issues of war and peace and defence at this stage until I have had a proper chance of examining them myself. When I have done that, I will try to take the House into my confidence as much as I possibly can.

  UNITED NATIONS

    Tibet
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the British delegate to the United Nations voted on the motion relating to Chinese action in Tibet.
    Mr. Wadeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why instructions were given to the representative of Her Majesty's Government at the General Assembly of the United Nations to abstain on the vote on the resolution expressing grave concern over the events in Tibet and respect for the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people and for their distinctive cultural and religious life.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): The United Kingdom representative at the United Nations abstained on the resolution on the question of Tibet. But I should like to make it clear that our abstention in no way implied any diminution in our sympathy with the Tibetan people or in our feelings about recent events in Tibet. Speaking in the general debate in the Assembly on 17th September, my right hon. and learned Friend said that we had been greatly grieved to hear accounts of the massive repression by Communist China, of the suppression of national liberties and of ruthless assaults upon the historic life of a sturdy and friendly people.
    We abstained, however, on legal grounds relating to Article 2 (7) of the Charter. Our view is that it is not right for the General Assembly to pass resolutions about human rights in individual states or territories.
    Mr. Brockway: While no one would wish to exacerbate the relations between India and China at this moment, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us desire to see the independence of Tibet realised and the retention of its very distinctive personality?
    Mr. Profumo indicated assent.
    Mr. Wade: Is it not somewhat inconsistent for the British representative to speak in favour of this subject being raised at the United Nations and then to refrain from voting when it is raised? Secondly, is there not some danger that that kind of action may be regarded as a sign of weakness on the part of Britain?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think so. Her Majesty's Government thought that it was right, in view of the grave reports referred to, that the United Nations should be given the opportunity to take cognisance of what has happened in Tibet, and for that reason we voted in favour of the inscription of the item.
    Mr. Longden: Is my hon. Friend aware that many others besides the two hon. Members who have asked these Questions are very puzzled about this abstention, particularly on a resolution moved by two members of the Commonwealth? Would my hon. Friend consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or putting in the Library, a brief statement of the reasons which led his advisers to consider that the affairs of Tibet were essentially a matter of domestic jurisdiction for the People's Republic of China?
    Mr. Profumo: I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

    Laos
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the British delegate to the United Nations to propose, when the report of the Security Council's committee on Laos is discussed, that the provision of arms and military personnel from any foreign territory should be prohibited.
    Mr. Profumo: No, Sir.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I questioned the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on this matter a few days ago he declared that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was to maintain neutrality with Laos? In view of the report of the United Nations' Mission that China and North Vietnam have not been responsible for providing arms, does he not agree that America should also not be providing arms and military personnel to this territory?
    Mr. Profumo: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he quotes from the report of the Sub-Committee, will be very careful to take a broad view of this. The reports which have been read have not been entirely and wholly accurate. There is evidence that there is some help coming from the other side of the border.
    Mr. Brockway: Not military.
    Mr. Profumo: Assistance. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, the acceptance by the Laos Government of American aid has not in any way contravened the Geneva settlement.
    Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that the United Nations Sub-Committee's report has been made available, will my hon. Friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are proposing to make any reply to the Soviet proposal that the Geneva Conference should be reconvened?
    Mr. Profumo: We are in close touch with the Soviet Government and have explained to them that in the present circumstances we are unable to agree with the Soviet suggestion.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that the United States Government are responsible for the whole defence budget of Laos and that Government are no more neutral or independent today than the Government of South Vietnam or Southern Korea?
    Mr. Profumo: The International Commission did not find that the American arm supplies violated the Geneva Agreement. I do not think there is any reason to believe that the supplies going to Laos since the Commission was there are violating the Agreement.

    Security Council Representation (Eastern Europe)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the Government failed to support Poland's candidature to the Security Council, in disregard of the gentlemen's agreement concerning representation of the group of States associated with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the representation of Eastern Europe on the Security Council of the United Nations.
    Mr. Profumo: I have nothing to add to what I said in the reply to the debate on the Gracious Speech on 29th October.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that since that reply it has become more than ever clear that this attitude by Her Majesty's Government tends to cast doubts on the sincerity of the Government's effort to improve relations with the Soviet Union and with Poland and her associates? Is not this an act of hostility towards these countries and the
    388
    violation of a gentleman's agreement? How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile this kind of thing with an attempt to smooth out the tensions and ease the whole situation in Europe?
    Mr. Profumo: There is nothing derogatory to Poland in this at all. Europe, outside the Soviet bloc, is now under-represented and the gentleman's agreement made no provision at all for Asian representation and left Europe under-represented.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that on previous occasions the British Government have supported the Polish candidature and that Turkey has already been twice represented on the Security Council? In view of the fact that the general policy of Her Majesty's Government is to relax tension in Europe and to try to blur the divisions between the two blocs, is not this an admirable occasion for the Government to stick to their previous policy and show the same independence to other countries' direction as is being shown by Canada and Norway?
    Mr. Profumo: I did my best in the debate the other day to explain the position of Her Majesty's Government on this matter. Balloting resumes on 17th November. Meanwhile, I do not think it would be appropriate, nor indeed helpful, to add to what has already been said.
    Mr. Bevan: Does that not put the House of Commons in an absolutely impossible position? First, the Government take an action and then we are told, "We have taken the action and there is nothing we can do now about it. We cannot go into it". Then they say, "We shall not tell you what action we are going to take because this is a delicate situation". Is that not putting the House of Commons in an absolutely impossible, indeed a trivial, situation?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think so. I think the right hon. Member knows that these matters are delicate and difficult. We are not the only party involved in this situation and I do not think it is for me to say what consultations may or may not be taking place in New York at present.

    South-West Africa (Resolutions)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations voted on the resolutions on the subject of South-West Africa; what was the outcome of each resolution; and which delegates voted for and which against.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): In answer to the first and second parts of the Question, seven resolutions were adopted. The United Kingdom delegate voted for one resolution, opposed two, and abstained on four. As the answer to the third part of the Question is very long, I am putting in the Library the texts of the resolutions and the full voting record.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Does not the hon. Member agree that in the light of the Answer he has given us, there is a grave risk of it being thought that this country sides with the Union of South Africa on the racial matters indirectly related to the Question? Will he not have another think about the way in which we should instruct our delegate at the Trusteeship Council, in order to ensure that misapprehension does not arise, especially among the uncommitted nations?
    Mr. Allan: To some extent I agree with what the hon. and learned Member says, but deploring and criticising the racial policy of South Africa does not help towards the solution of this problem, which demands the co-operation of the Union Government. Without their co-operation we shall not achieve a solution of the problem.

  SPAIN (VISAS)
  Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the proposal to abolish visas between Spain and all British territories.
  Mr. Profumo: We have made proposals to the Spanish Government, who have not yet replied.
  Mr. Dodds: Will the Minister bear in mind that, in referring to all British territories in the Question, I include
  390
  Gibraltar? In view of the shabby way in which Spain has treated the Gibraltarians for years, can we have an assurance that in any settlement the Government will not leave out Gibraltar?
  Mr. Profumo: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there could be no question of our concluding a visa abolition agreement which does not also extend to any British Colony which wishes to be associated with it.

  NILE WATERS AGREEMENT
  Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now enter into discussion with all interested nations over the renegotiation of the Nile Waters Agreement.
  Mr. R. Allan: Her Majesty's Government welcome the recent news that the Sudan and the United Arab Republic have reached agreement on their respective shares of the Nile Waters. We hope that this will open the way to general agreement among all the countries interested.
  Mr. Williams: While welcoming both the Agreement to which my hon. Friend referred and his statement, may I ask for some assurance that the Government here will take some initiative in this matter in order to secure the interests of the East African territories?
  Mr. Allan: Yes. We have always said that once the Sudan and the U.A.R. had come to agreement, a conference, whether technical, which is what my hon. Friend favours, or not, is the next step which should be taken.

  GERMANY

    Atomic Weapons and Guided Missiles
    Mr. Shin wellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent United Kingdom representatives in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation agreed to the proposal to provide West Germany with atomic tactical weapons and guided missiles.
    Mr. Profumo: As my right hon. and learned Friend explained in his reply to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on 2nd December, 1958, this was a decision of the North Atlantic

    391
    Council at ministerial level, in which my right hon. and learned Friend of course participated without reserve.
    Mr. Shin well: Is this action wise? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that if this process continues, apart from Soviet Russia, Western Germany will be the strongest military nation in Europe and armed precisely with those weapons which it was originally intended Western Germany should never possess? What has caused this change of front and this partiality to Western Germany all of a sudden?
    Mr. Profumo: There is no partiality to Western Germany. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will know, the German authorities will not have control over the warheads. But we do not consider that in an alliance it is wise or indeed feasible to discriminate against soldiers because of their nationality.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that I am not to be taken in with all this—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A multiplicity of supplementary questions from one individual hon. Member makes it difficult for me.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that if I wish to elucidate further information on this very important topic I am to be prevented from doing so? Is that to be your decision?
    Mr. Speaker: No, but I hope that the ordinary practice of the Chair may be, so far as is possible and convenient, to call for supplementary questions from one side of the House and the other in succession.
    Mr. Osborne: Since this is likely to be the thorniest problem the Ministers will face at the Summit Conference, would it not be wise if there were no further developments until a Summit Conference has been reached?
    Mr. Profumo: We have been associated in this decision with our N.A.T.O. allies and I think we must stand by it. I believe that the House would wish us to do so.
    Mr. Bevan: It is not merely a matter of association with our N.A.T.O. allies, but what action did the British representa-
    392
    tives take at Ministerial level. Did they propose it or support it, or are we to be told that they yielded to the argument on the other side? In the second place, what is the use of telling the House of Commons that we do not discriminate among allies when, in fact, the answer of the hon. Gentleman shows discrimination—he said himself that the warheads would not be in the possession of Western Germany? Is not that a discrimination in itself?
    Mr. Profumo: In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I said that we have participated in this without reserve.
    Mr. Bevan: What does that mean?
    Mr. Profumo: It means exactly what it says. Regarding the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, discrimination is not really there, because they are not in possession of warheads so long as there are no hostilities.
    Mr. Bevan: May I ask the hon. Member please to be frank in his replies? We do not know what he means by "participating without reserve". Did we agree with the proposals, did we make proposals, or did we acquiesce in proposals? Secondly, is not there discrimination already, and why not discriminate earlier by not providing nuclear tactical weapons at all?
    Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained this in considerable detail on 9th April. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look up that explanation.
    Mr. Bevan: Really.
    Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman seems to have given us a new process about this alliance, that is, participation with or without reserve. Can he tell us the difference between the two?
    Mr. Profumo: If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it more legal for me to say "participating", then participating it shall be. I hope I have explained to the House that we are in agreement with the decision which was taken at Ministerial level.
    Mr. Bevan: Then why did not the hon. Gentleman say so?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when there is to be a stop to

    393
    this process? First, it was 12 divisions, and now it is a question of a navy, an air force and tactical weapons. When is a stop coming?
    Mr. Profumo: I have given an answer to the Question on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask any specific question, perhaps he will put it on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why permission to build missiles has been given to West Germany by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council.
    Mr. Profumo: The Western European Union—not the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—has permitted German manufacture of certain missiles for antiaircraft defence, because they are strictly defensive, and their manufacture does not contravene the spirit of the revised Brussels Treaty. It is in the interest of the North Atlantic Alliance that the industrial capacity of the Federal Republic of Germany should be harnessed to the joint armaments efforts of the Allies.
    Mr. Allaun: Is not this the thin end of the wedge? If that kind of missile is now being permitted, how long will it be before other kinds of missiles are permitted? Is it not true that there is a proposal for the removal of the restrictions on warships of over 3.000 tons and submarines of over 350 tons?
    Mr. Profumo: That question is entirely hypothetical, and I am not prepared to answer it.
    Mr. Shinwell: If Western Germany, through the Western European Union, is now to have permission to build missiles, are they to provide their own warheads, or are these missiles to be without warheads? If Germany is not to provide the warheads for these missiles which they are to be permitted to build, who is to provide the warheads?
    Mr. Profumo: The weapons to which I referred in the answer to the Question are not nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is it not a fact that the participation of Western Germany in Western defence is absolutely necessary to Western defence, and is it not desirable that this belated courageous sniping against Germany from hon. Members opposite should now cease?

    Frontiers
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that official statements by General de Gaulle and Mr. Khrushchev have made it clear that the French and Soviet Governments will agree to unifying Germany only on the basis of recognition of Germany's existing frontiers, including her frontiers with Poland and Czechoslovakia, whether, in order to facilitate agreement at a Summit Conference, he will now extend such recognition on behalf on Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Profumo: The final delimitation of the frontier between Germany and Poland cannot be formalised until there is a peace settlement. As regards the frontier between Germany and Czechoslovakia, Her Majesty's Government take the view that no consideration should be given to any changes effected in 1938 or subsequently.
    Mr. Zilliacus: In thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether it means that in the view of the Government it is merely a matter of delimiting the frontier between Poland and Germany, of marking out the frontier posts with any small changes to prevent a farm being divided or something of that sort? Is that the position of the Government, that they rule out any major changes of that frontier?
    Mr. Profumo: I did inform the House of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and I have nothing to add to what I said.
    Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recognition by Germany of the present frontiers of Germany could be a main contribution to peace in Europe? That being so, will his Government do what they can to impress that on our German allies?
    Mr. J. Hynd: Is not the view of Her Majesty's Government that it would be a mistake to try to settle a final peace treaty with Germany from one side by a public declaration and Answers in Parliament? Is it not the case that this could be easily settled by the other side agreeing to a peace treaty where the whole matter could be finally discussed and disposed of?

  MEXICO (CYCLONE DAMAGE)
  Mr. Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what damage has occurred to British citizens and property in the cyclone in the states of Colima, Nayarit and Jalisco in Mexico.
  Mr. R. Allan: No damage affecting British subjects or property has been reported as a result of the cyclone which caused such tragic loss of life and property in Mexico.
  Mr. Smithers: Is my hon. Friend aware that this disaster, in which several hundred people met a terrible death and which is causing great suffering to many thousands, met with widespread sympathy in this country and, I dare say, in this House? Will my hon. Friend see that that is conveyed to the legislators of the States concerned?
  Mr. Allan: Her Majesty's Government formally, and my right hon. and learned Friend personally, expressed sympathy to the Mexican Government. Knowing how well respected my hon. Friend is in Mexico, I have no doubt that his words will be warmly received there.

  PASSPORTS
  Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with officials from other countries regarding reciprocal arrangements for travel without passports; which countries were involved; and what was the result.
  Mr. R. Allan: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made an announcement on this subject on 26th March last. This was that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to negotiate bilateral agreements with member countries of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. Under these nationals of those countries coming to the United Kingdom for short visits may produce an identity card of the standard model recommended by the Tourism Committee of the Organisation in place of a passport. Following this, discussions took place in September with representatives of the Benelux countries with a view to the conclusion of such agreements. A
  396
  draft Exchange of Notes was agreed which the Governments concerned are now considering further.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the Under-Secretary agree that this is very slow and meagre progress? Is it not high time that we got on with the job of sweeping away a very large part of the antiquated system of travel formalities which may have been appropriate to the time when journeys which now take hours took days? Will he take note of the wise remarks made some years ago by the late Ernie Bevin on this subject?
  Mr. Allan: I quite agree, but this is some progress, which is something.

  IRAQ (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advice Her Majesty's Ambassador has given British residents in Iraq in view of the situation in that country; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Profumo: In view, of the general Iraqi restriction on exit permits imposed after the attempt on General Qasim's life, Her Majesty's Ambassador advised British subjects who were planning to make short visits to Iraq to defer their arrival until the exit restrictions had been lifted. These restrictions are now relaxed. Her Majesty's Ambassador's advice therefore no longer applies. No other advice has been given.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to take it from that Answer that the view of the British Government on the situation in Iraq is that it is now normal again?
  Mr. Profumo: No, I think the situation in Iraq is far from normal, but it does mean that these restrictions have been relaxed.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Would my hon. Friend agree that unless British residents and visitors to Iraq receive reasonable treatment the Iraqi Government cannot expect school teachers, scientists, engineers and others to go there and assist in the development of their country?
  Mr. Profumo: What my hon. Friend says is very true.

  EUROPE (ARMS CONTROL AREA)
  Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to organise joint study with the Soviet Government of the possibility of controlling armaments in an agreed area of Europe as proposed in the communiqué signed by the Prime Minister and Mr. Khrushchev last spring.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to proposals for the limitation of armaments in agreed zones in Europe and elsewhere.
  Mr. Profumo: The Western plan for Germany put forward at Geneva in May contained provisions for controlling armaments in an agreed area of Europe. This plan was one of the basic documents of the Geneva Conference. No other joint study is contemplated.
  Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the reference to an arms control zone in the Western proposals at Geneva was strictly dependent on a settlement of a very large number of political problems concerning Germany? Is the hon. Gentleman really trying to pretend to the House that this is what the Prime Minister and Mr. Khrushchev had in mind when they said in their joint communiqué of 3rd March that further studies could usefully be made of the possibility of increasing security by some method of controlling armaments in an agreed area?
  Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member will have to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister if he wants to know what he had in mind when he signed the joint communiqué. It certainly did mean what I said, and this matter was discussed and put forward at Geneva. It was in conformity with the communiqué. I have answered the Question, and we have no further joint study contemplated at the present time.
  Mr. Healey: I put this Question down to the Prime Minister and he himself transferred it. I very much regret that he chose not to answer the Question. Is the Minister of State really telling the
  398
  House that Mr. Khrushchev agreed with the Prime Minister that this was intended when they signed the communiqué together on 3rd March?
  Mr. Profumo: I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would have given an Answer very much on the same lines as I have given to the House. In the context of the agreed area in Europe, we stand upon the Western proposals put forward in Geneva.
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have we now reached the position in which we have to ask each member of the Government what he meant by a policy statement, which means that any member of the Government can have a separate view on policy so that we have to pursue each Minister to find out what is the collective policy of the Government?
  Mr. Speaker: I doubt if that is a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Profumo: With permission, may I explain that I thought the right hon. Member was complaining that the Question had been put to the Prime Minister and transferred to the Foreign Office?
  Mr. Bevan: No, on the contrary.
  Mr. Swingler: Is it not clear that the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister was not put forward as conditional upon a political settlement but as an independent idea, and that a great deal of propaganda was made after the visit of the Prime Minister to Moscow about his being in favour of a thinned out zone, and so on? What has happened to his proposal? Does this mean that the Foreign Office has killed it stone dead or that it is political propaganda?
  Mr. Profumo: Certainly not. The matter was dealt with very fully in the recent foreign affairs debate.
  Mr. Paget: Is not the truth of the matter that neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Prime Minister can answer this question, because nobody—including the Prime Minister—has the least idea what this proposal means? It was produced off the cuff at the last moment and had not been thought out by anybody.
  Mr. Profumo: I should not think that that is the case at all. Anyway, I have answered the Question.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with the French Government concerning a mutual agreement for the suspension of nuclear tests whilst negotiations for an international agreement to stop tests are going on, and pending the calling of a Summit Conference.
  Mr. R. Allan: None, Sir. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are now engaged with the Soviet and United States Governments in negotiating an agreement for stopping nuclear tests under effective controls. As we have already said, we hope that after such an agreement is concluded, other countries will accede to it.
  Mr. Swingler: If Her Majesty's Government have declared in favour of the universal cessation of nuclear tests, what on earth are they doing to encourage the French to go ahead with atomic tests in the Sahara? What is the meaning of this policy? Should not the Government be doing everything possible to dissuade the French from carrying out these tests, thereby incurring hostility, and trying to press on for a universal agreement?
  Mr. Allan: The Government are doing everything in their power to obtain an agreement to which other countries can accede.
  Mr. Bevan: Everybody is very anxious that there should be an agreement between Russia, Great Britain and the United States about the cessation of hydrogen bomb tests, but have the Government no proposals to make concerning the recent statement of President de Gaulle that even if such an agreement is reached France will go ahead with the tests?
  Mr. Allan: That is a hypothetical question, because we have not yet got an agreement. If the agreement were there we would expect other countries, including France, to accede to it.
  Mr. Bevan: Will the Minister please answer the question? France has said, through the mouth of President de Gaulle, that even if an agreement is reached at Geneva France will insist
  400
  upon going ahead with her tests and providing herself with hydrogen weapons. That is not hypothetical; it is a statement of policy. What policy have the Government concerning it?
  Mr. Allan: I was not aware of that statement of President de Gaulle. I was aware that the French Government had stated that they would not stop their tests until the three nuclear Powers renounced their armaments.
  Mr. Bevan: No, that is not the situation. Is the Foreign Office living in complete isolation? Does it not know what is happening? Is it not a fact that President de Gaulle said, at a Press interview yesterday—reports of which were published in all the responsible newspapers this morning—that, even in the event of an agreement being reached at Geneva, France would insist on providing herself with her own hydrogen bomb weapons?
  Mr. Allan: On the contrary—I thought he was saying that if there was proper control he would unhesitatingly accept it.
  Mr. Bevan: No.
  Mr. Osborne: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if we were to try publicly to rebuke President de Gaulle for what he is trying to do we would only make him more obstinate and determined to do it?
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will encourage the Geneva talks and discourage further nuclear weapon preparations elsewhere by giving a lead and stopping all British nuclear tests unilaterally and forthwith.
  Mr. R. Allan: The hon. Gentleman's Question implies that we are still testing. We have carried out no nuclear tests for over a year, and we have stated that we will not resume tests so long as useful discussions go on at Geneva. That is still our position.
  Mr. Allaun: Since the talks are now in their second year and are still without results, does not the Minister feel that if one nation had the courage and the sanity to say, "We are stopping these tests indefinitely", other nations would follow?
  Mr. Allan: What the hon. Member wants can only follw an agreement between the nuclear Powers now meeting at Geneva. If we renounced tests unilaterally now our influence in these discussions would be less, and not more.
  Mr. Wadeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has given to the latest proposals put forward by the representative of the Soviet Government at the conference at Geneva on the discontinuance of nuclear weapon tests.
  Mr. R. Allan: These proposals are now under discussion at the Conference. It would be premature to make further comment at this stage.
  Mr. Wade: For the benefit of the nation, can the Minister say, in as simple language as possible, what stage these negotiations have reached? Does he see any hope of progress? Secondly, would it not be practicable to achieve some firm agreement about overground tests while continuing with the discussions on underground tests, since this is a matter of considerable urgency, having regard lo the probable explosion in the Sahara?
  Mr. Allan: Being a layman myself I have some sympathy with the hon. Member. Briefly and simply, the position we have reached is that a control post may find a squiggle on its machine. It would report that to headquarters. At headquarters one group might say, "This is clearly a nuclear explosion," while another might say, "Nonsense; it is quite obviously an earthquake." Our present purpose is to arrive at some method of reaching agreement as to the definition of these squiggles. This demands discussions involving questions like seismic data, criteria, instrumentation techniques and so on. It is the technical jargon which is confusing the hon. Member. The aim is "quite clear. As for the second part of the supplementary question, we still want to reach a comprehensive agreement rather than make limited agreements at the moment.
  Mr. Bevan: Is the hon. Member aware that there is general gratitude in the House for the clarity of his reply?
  Mr. Bellenger: Would you, Mr. Speaker, do your best to discourage Ministers from giving simple explanations?
  Mr. Speaker: I have enough on my plate without trying to do that.

  ATOMIC TESTS, SAHARA
  Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations was instructed to support the proposals of the French Government on the subject of French atomic tests in the Sahara.
  Mr. Profumo: I presume the hon. Member is referring to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's speech at the United Nations last week. This was not concerned with approval or disapproval of the French plans, but with the more limited question of the possible health hazard.
  Mr. Grimond: Are we to take it from that and previous Answers that we have made no representations to France not to carry out these tests, and have made no suggestions such as that put forward in The Guardian, that we might pool our resources. Are we to understand that if, in future, France does not accede to any agreement reached at Geneva, we would support her or other countries who insisted on testing their bombs?
  Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. That goes much further than the original Question. The position will be clearer to all hon. Members when they read the two speeches made by my right hon. Friend in New York—which will be placed in the Library shortly—the first concerned with the health problems and the second, a speech made yesterday, concerning Her Majesty's Government's present position. We have tabled a new Resolution. My hon. Friend was quite right in the reply he made to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) with regard to President de Gaulle's position. He is reported as having said, yesterday, that if the United Nations succeed in placing atomic weapons under international control France will immediately and unhesitatingly accept the agreement.
  Mr. Healey: This is really very disingenuous. The Minister of State must be aware, even if The Joint Under-Secretary of State is not, that President

  403
  de Gaulle said yesterday in so many words that, even if the three existing nuclear Powers reach agreement at Geneva to discontinue any further tests, France will not accede to such an agreement unless the three existing nuclear Powers give up their present stocks of nuclear weapons, which I understand is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government, the Soviet Union or the United States. Will the Minister of State at least be a little more honest with the House about this?
  Mr. Profumo: I am being perfectly honest. I merely wanted to underline what my hon. Friend had quite correctly said to the right hon. Gentleman, because I did not want the House to be misinformed. Whatever President de Gaulle may have said yesterday, I was asking the House to read the whole of his statement as one. We very much hope that after we have got, if we are able to get it, an agreement at Geneva, in spite of what President de Gaulle has said, the French Government will be prepared to change their mind
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Bevan: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this is the third occasion in my recent memory when you seem to have regarded it as essential that supplementary questions should end at half-past three. This is not the practice of the House. I admit at once that it may be, Sir, that you have concluded that enough supplementary questions have been asked on a particular Question. That is entirely within your discretion, and we submit to it at once, but it does not necessarily follow that supplementary questions themselves stop at half-past three if the House is still anxious to pursue them.
  Mr. Speaker: I am the servant of the House, and I take the Standing Orders of the House as the instructions which the House gives me on how to conduct these matters. Standing Order No. 8 (3) prescribes:
  "No Questions shall be taken after half-past three of the clock, except"
  in the case of something which does not here arise.
  Mr. Bevan: I merely point out, with respect, that that means in practice that
  404
  no additional Question shall be taken after half-past three. It has not in the ruling of past Speakers prevented supplementary questions on a Question started before half-past three.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will know the difficulty. It is desirable to get on with the business at some time. I do not purport to possess any infallibility in these matters. I hope that, the House will bear with me if from time to time the exercise of my discretion does not please it. I shall be trying according to the best of my ability.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Mr. Speaker, what is perplexing us is the quite simple point that it is within the recollection of all of us that your predecessor would, generally speaking, allow supplementaries to continue on a Question which was asked before half-past three. It appears to us that you are deciding differently from him and stopping further supplementaries after half-past three. If you could reassure us that that is not the case, or if you could at any rate clarify the position, we should all be most grateful.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to be unduly rigid, but clearly there must be some limit to the number of supplementary questions that can be asked after the hour prescribed by the Standing Order.
  Captain Pilkington: Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that this afternoon the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had far more than his fair share of supplementary questions?
  Mr. Speaker: I fear that that is another matter with which the House has entrusted me. Who has his fair share of what in this field is, I am afraid, a burden which must rest upon the Chair.
  Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, with great respect, do you consider that I have had my fair share this afternoon? Are you aware that, although I first came to the House 37 years ago—I was away for a little while through no fault of my own—I have never been prevented by any of your predecessors from putting a supplementary question in order to elucidate information?
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that I shall not deny myself any opportunity of hearing

  405
  the right hon. Gentleman ask Questions. I am sure that the House will appreciate, as will the right hon. Gentleman, that if one or more right hon. Gentlemen asks a series of supplementary questions by rapid methods it may be that all the questioning has to come from one side of the House and the other side is left out.
  Mr. Smithers: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case that we have managed to get through only 36 Questions today? Some of us would greatly welcome it if you were more severe on supplementary questions except our own.

BILLS PRESENTED
  JUDICIAL PENSIONS
  Bill to amend the law with respect to the pensions and other benefits attaching to certain high judicial offices, to regulate the age of retirement from such offices, and to increase certain pensions and other benefits granted to or in respect of persons who have held such offices, presented by the Attorney-General; supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Maclay, and the Lord Advocate; read the First time; to be read a Second lime Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
  OFFICES
  Bill to make further and better provisions for health, welfare and safety in offices; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Marsh, supported by Mr. Redhead, Mr. Mulley, Dr. Summerskill, Mr. Wade, Mr. Creech Jones, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Victor Yates, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. George Darling, Mr. Frederick Lee, and Mr. Padley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 11th December, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

  PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS TO MEETINGS)
  Bill to provide for the admission of representatives of the Press to the meetings of certain bodies exercising public functions, presented by Mrs. Thatcher, supported by Sir Lionel Heald, Sir Robert Grimston, Mr. Corfield, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Kirk, and Wing Commander
  406
  Grant-Ferris; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

  FIRST OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to restrict the imprisonment of first offenders in Scotland, presented by Mr. Small, supported by Mr. Douglas Johnston, Mr. William Ross, Mrs. Judith Hart, Mr. Lawson, Mr. W. W. Hamilton, Mr. Millan, Mr. Carmichael, Mr. Bence, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, and Dr. Alan Thompson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 19th February, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  NOISE ABATEMENT
  Bill to make new provisions in respect of the control of noise with a view to its abatement, presented by Mr. Speir, supported by Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Ede, Mr. John Eden, Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett, Mr. Reader Harris, Dame Irene Ward, Mrs. Eirene White, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Mr. Geoffrey Hirst, Wing Commander Bullus, and Mr. Cledwyn Hughes; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th March, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
  CLEAN RIVERS (ESTUARIES AND TIDAL WATERS)
  Bill to amend the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, so as to give to River Boards powers to deal with new outlets and new discharges of trade or sewage effluent into tidal waters or parts of the sea, presented by Mr. Ramsden; supported by Mr. Ede, Sir Lionel Heald, Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Green, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. George Jeger, Mr. Mellish, Mr. John Morrison, Dame Irene Ward, and Mr. Frederick Willey; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 27th November and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

  COMPANIES ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend the Companies Act, 1948, so as to control the solicitation of money from the public; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. P. Browne; supported by Mr. Leather, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Mr. Geoffrey Stevens, Mr. Braine, Mr. A. B. C. Harrison, Mr. David Price, Mr. de Ferranti, Mr. Alan Hopkins, Mr. William Yates, Mr. Nigel Fisher, and

  407
  Mr. du Cann; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th March and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1949 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1949, by extending the franchise to all persons of eighteen years or over, presented by Mr. Emrys Hughes; supported by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Roy Mason, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Swingler, Mr. Driberg, Dr. Alan Thompson, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Marcus Lipton, Mr. Marsh, and Mr. Manuel; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 19th February and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
  ROAD SAFETY
  Bill to amend the law relating to highways and road traffic, including licences, the sale of vehicles, lighting, insurance, and tests for drunkenness; to provide for the appointment of a commissioner for road safety and to define his functions; to provide for a corps of safety enforcement officers; to amend the law relating to compensation for bodily injury, death, and damage to property; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Page; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 5th February and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION)
  Bill to amend the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, relating to the compensation for disturbance; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. W. Yates; supported by Mr. Corfield, Mr. Langford-Holt, and Mr. du Cann; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th March and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

  ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING OF MOTOR CYCLES AND MOPEDS)
  Bill to amend the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 to 1956, relating to motor cycles by defining different classes of motor cycles and to provide for prescribing and varying the ages at which and the conditions subject to which persons may drive motor cycles of each class and may obtain licences for that purpose,
  408
  presented by Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett, supported by Mr. Gresham Cooke, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Arthur Lewis, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Geoffrey Wilson, Mr. Russell, Mr. Frederic Harris, Mr. Prentice, and Mr. Victor Yates; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th March and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION (INVESTMENT OF FUNDS)
  Bill to amend subsection (3) of section twenty-one of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, as regards the investment of funds, presented by Commander Maitland, supported by Lord Balniel, Sir John Barlow, Sir Robert Grimston, Mr. Hornby, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. David Price, Mr. Ramsden, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. William Shepherd, and Mr. Tiley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 11th December and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
  WAGES ARRESTMENT LIMITATION (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to increase the amount of wages excepted from arrestment under the Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act, 1870, presented by Mr. Manuel, supported by Mr. Thomas Fraser, Mr. William Ross, Miss Herbison, Mr. Douglas Johnston, Mr. John Rankin, Mr. Small, Mr. Bence, Mr. W. W. Hamilton, Mr. Lawson, and Mr. Dempsey; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th November and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
  ABANDONMENT OF ANIMALS
  Bill to prohibit the abandonment of animals; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Langford-Holt; supported by Mr. Burden, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Dr. King, and Mr. Russell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th November and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (WIDOWED MOTHERS)
  Bill to provide for the abolition of the earnings rule in relation to widowed mothers, by the amendment of section seventeen of the National Insurance Act, 1946; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. W. Griffiths;

  409
  supported by Mr. Delargy, Mrs. Harriet Slater, Miss Herbison, Mr. Mellish, Mr. A. J. Irvine, Mr. Fitch, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Mapp, and Mr. Finch; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

  ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to make provision with respect to the grant of licences to drive motor vehicles to persons who have held licences to drive such vehicles in Northern Ireland, presented by Mr. Knox Cunningham; supported by Mrs. Elizabeth Braddock, Sir David Campbell, Mr. Currie, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Denzil Freeth, Lieutenant-Colonel Grosvenor, Mrs. McLaughlin, Captain Orr, Mr. William Reid, Mr. Charles Royle, and Mr. Geoffrey Wilson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th March and to be printed. [Bill 31]
  DEATH DUTIES
  Bill to provide that death duty shall not be payable on that portion of an estate which passes on the death of one spouse to the other in those cases where the incomes of husband and wife have up to the time of that death been treated as one for income tax purposes, presented by Mr. Peyton; supported by Colonel Glyn, Mr. Green, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, Mr. Corfield, Mr. Percy Browne, Mr. John Morrison, Mr. Holland-Martin, and Viscount Hinchingbrooke; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 19th February and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

  CRIMINAL INJURIES (COMPENSATION)
  Bill to compensate those injured by certain criminal offences against the person; to provide for their dependants and for the dependants of those killed by criminal acts; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Prentice; supported by Mr. Ede, Mr. Clement Davies, Sir Robert Cary, Mr. Deer, Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett, Dr. King, Mr. Mitchison, Mr. Parker,
  410
  Brigadier Sir John Smyth, and Miss Joan Vickers; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

  MOCK AUCTIONS
  Bill to prohibit certain practices in relation to sales purporting to be sales by auction, presented by Mr. Storey; supported by Mr. John Arbuthnot, Colonel Tufton Beamish, Mr. Gresham Cooke, Mr. George Darling, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Fernyhough, Mr. Sydney Irving, Sir Hugh Linstead, Mr. Marcus Lipton, and Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 11th December and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
  LEASEHOLD TENURE (WALES)
  Bill to make provision for the renewal of long leases of residential property in Wales and Monmouthshire, or for the acquisition of the freehold of such properties by the leaseholders thereof; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Gower; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st April and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
  CORPORATE BODIES' CONTRACTS
  Bill to amend the law governing the making of contracts by or on behalf of bodies corporate; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. du Cann; supported by Mr. Humphrey Atkins, Mr. John Harvey, Major W. W. Hicks Beach, Mr. Elwyn Jones, Mr. Leavey, Mr. Page, Mr. Paget, Mr. Peter Rawlinson, Mr. van Straubenzee, and Mr. Thorpe; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th November and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Redmayne.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty; and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and Part H of the Licensing Act, 1953, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, being expenses which under any Act are to be provided out of such moneys.
  Resolution agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE IN THE CHAIR]
  Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

    Schedule
    3.43 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 7 and 8.
    This Amendment raises the whole question of the law affecting aliens. It affects the rights and liberties of nearly half a million people in this country today; half a million people, some of whom have suffered very great oppression. It is important that this Committee should consider that.
    It has sometimes been said that there are three classes of people within our community. First, there are those who live within the law, and they consist of the main body of citizens. There is a second class, above the law, and it comprises the visiting forces and the diplomats. And in the third class, with which we are most concerned today, are the aliens who, at present, really live without the law.
    I should like to deal for a moment with those above the law; and to ask two questions, because I shall be suggesting later that all of this should be dealt
    412
    with in consolidating legislation. Let me deal first, therefore, with diplomats and with those affected by the Visiting Forces Act. When that Act was introduced we were told that it would be operated only on the basis of reciprocity. We pointed out at the time that under the American Constitution the Americans had no power to provide reciprocity. None the less, we were given that guarantee. On a number of occasions I have asked what America has done about providing that reciprocity, and, indeed, what—
    The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not think that this comes under the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act that we are discussing now.
    Mr. Paget: With respect, Sir Gordon, the position is this. These members of visiting forces are either under the Aliens Act or they are not. Whether they are or they are not depends on the Visiting Forces Act. Surely, when we are dealing with the people who are affected by this legislation—and I shall deal with it very shortly—we are entitled to inquire whether members of visiting forces are aliens to be dealt with by the law which we are being asked to reaffirm for another year or by another law—
    The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly entitled to ask whether they come under the Aliens Act.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. Halsbury's Laws of England says that there is no definition in our law of what an alien is; and, on trial, an alien is a person who satisfies the court that he is not an alien. The presumption being against him that he is one, he must prove that he is not. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see what could not be discussed under this particular Amendment because, under it, everything is the subject of discussion until we have proved that it is not.
    Mr. Paget: Passing over, for a moment, my hon. Friend's remark—which has considerable substance, although it is also amusing—I must ask, and I have given notice to the Under-Secretary of State that I would ask, this question: what is the present position under the Visiting Forces Act? Who comes under it. and who does not? And

    413
    what is happening about the reciprocity that we were then promised as to its operation?
    I come at once to the main body of people who are being dealt with today—the aliens resident in this country. What we are being asked to do is to continue an Act, or rather one Section of an Act, of 1919, which, in its turn, continued an Act that was passed on 4th August, 1914. That is a date of some significance, because before August, 1914, every man, woman and child within the King's dominions was under the common law of England. He had the same rights, and he had the same obligations. He was under one law.
    Without debate—and one can understand this in the emergency of that August afternoon—this great change in our law took place, but it was designed to take place, and it was designed only to take place, as a wartime measure—and as a wartime measure it was stringent in the extreme. Let the Committee consider for a moment its provisions—and these are the precise provisions that we are being asked to continue.
    That Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, provided for prohibiting aliens from landing; for prohibiting them from embarking; for their deportation, and for requiring them to reside in certain places or districts for registration. Finally, and perhaps most significantly of all, Section 1 (1, c), which we are being asked to continue, provided
    "for conferring upon such persons as may be specified in the Order such powers with respect to arrest, detention, search of premises or persons, and otherwise, as may be specified in the Order, and for any other ancillary matters for which it appears expedient to provide with a view to giving full effect to the Order …"
    I do not think that it is possible, in officialised language, to lay down more completely the powers of a police State. Here we are being asked to provide the Government with complete executive powers over half a million people; to imprison them indefinitely without trial, to confine them in ghettoes—to do anything we choose. That is the power which we are being asked to confer upon the Government.
    I say immediately that the best that can be said of this very formidable power is that it has never been exercised to anything like the extent to which the
    414
    Government would be entitled to exercise it. But we have to consider whether Governments should have this sort of complete police power over individuals. Remember, this is World Refugee Year. We have already been told that we are running a police State in Nyasaland. There is a private one here at home as well.
    I now come to the next Act, which is the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. Clause 1 continues the Act of 1914 and that is all that we are immediately concerned with. But before deciding whether we need this temporary legislation, it is perhaps as well to see what is the permanent legislation applicable to aliens, and to aliens alone, which would apply if the Committee were to accept this Amendment. The permanent provisions provide, first, a special offence for any alien who does an act calculated to cause disaffection in the forces. I wonder why it is necessary to have a special offence there. Does it really make any difference, if one takes the example of "Lord Haw Haw," whether he was born in America or in this country? What is the need for a special offence there? Why will not one law do?
    The next provision is this, and it is extremely curious:
    "No alien shall act as master, chief officer, or chief engineer of a British merchant ship "
    unless he has acted in that capacity in a British ship
    "at any time during the war."
    What war? Is that the 1914–18 war? Does the last war apply? If not, why does it not apply? Does it apply to all the very gallant people who came from the territories occupied by Hitler in the last war and helped our Merchant Service? If not, why does it not? Surely this sort of provision needs some consideration.
    Then there is a provision that
    "… no alien shall be appointed to any office or place in the Civil Service…."
    That has been dealt with piecemeal by another Act called the Aliens' Employment Act, which apparently provides that it is all right if they are employed abroad, which had been done illegally for years before 1955, but in this country there has to be a certificate relating either to the individual or to the class of employment. I should like to know what certificates have, in fact, been

    415
    issued. Who are the aliens who are allowed to work here, and why, and in what jobs and why? What about the Post Office? Are there any working there? I do not know whether there are enough home-born people in this country to go into the Post Office.
    I come to the last of the permanent provisions to which I want to refer, to indicate how unsatisfactory and unnecessary is this temporary law. It is the odd provision which makes it an offence for any alien in this country under the age of 45 to have a name. It is provided that
    "An alien shall not for any purpose assume or use or purport to assume or use … after the commencement of this Act … any name other than that by which he was ordinarily known on the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
    That rules out anybody who was born after 1914.
    This sort of legislation requires investigation. I raised these matters for the first time in 1952. At that time the aliens law was comprised in 18 Orders, some of which were quite contradictory to each other, and it was, indeed, almost impossible for the unfortunate alien to discover what were his obligations. The situation has been improved because as a result of that debate in 1952 we got the consolidating Order, and that in the main brought together the regulations covering aliens. But I still do not feel that that is a satisfactory way to do it. One ought to have legislation.
    Let us deal with the main provisions of that Order. I have the Order here, but I do not propose to refer to it in detail. I wish simply to deal with its general scope. The Order provides for three different states of affairs. There is the alien entering; there is the alien while he is here, and there is the means of getting rid of him. Each of those matters require different considerations.
    First, there is the question of entry. People are inclined to look back nostalgically and say how wonderful it was in the good old days, when anybody could travel anywhere without a passport. That is absolute nonsense. We have to control the arrival of people into this country largely because we have made this country such an attractive place to come to. When the ordinary person had no rights at all, save to starve,
    416
    the need to keep him out was not so necessary, but when one has created a Welfare State and standards which we have morally to maintain for the people already here, it becomes necessary to lay down restrictions on the numbers who come and join this society.
    The very fact that we are an advanced community makes it necessary to keep some watch on our gates. But I think it is very important to remember that the reason why we should watch our gates is basically economic. I would not go beyond that. Here I speak entirely for myself, but I would go so far as to say that there should be some control over the entry of people from outside, whether their origin is foreign or Commonwealth. Some liberally-administered restriction and guidance as to the number of people to come in are necessary. As long as we succeed in being a successful nation, we shall always need people to come in.
    4.0 p.m.
    Full employment will always involve the existence of certain jobs which are not chosen by people when they have a free choice of jobs. Unless we have people coming from outside, that sort of job will not be manned within a system of full employment. We have very good reasons to be grateful for many of the people who come here, but I recognise that it is a process which needs some level of control.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: My hon. and learned Friend talks of control of people coming into this country. Surely control already applies to aliens. My hon. and learned Friend's argument would be more logical—although he would be out of order if he put it—if he related the question of control to those from the Commonwealth. I do not wish to go on record as supporting it, but I merely point out that there is already control of aliens.
    The Chairman: As the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) rightly said, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) cannot discuss entry from the Commonwealth on this Amendment.
    Mr. Paget: All I am saying is that control of the entry of aliens without some measure of control of the entry of people other than aliens makes very little

    417
    sense or logic. I am not quite certain what the other control is. We observe that a number of Indians were sent back the other day. Were they sent back as aliens? If not, under what right were they sent back? There is a suggestion that they were sent back because they had no passport. If I arrived here without a passport, could I be refused admittance?
    Mr. Ede: Some people would like to do so.
    Mr. Paget: Where does the necessity for a passport arise under our law for an English citizen?
    Mr. Mellish: My hon. and learned Friend is fairly well known and I have no doubt that with his usual capacity he would "get away with it," but if he arrived at an airport without a passport, I cannot believe that the authorities would say, "It is quite all right, Mr. Paget, if that is your name. Go straight through. We have no questions to ask." I should think that at least they would hold him in some form of quarantine until they had checked his story about a passport. I do not defend passports, but I think that we should be logical about this. If he did not have a passport, I do not think he could come straight in.
    Mr. Paget: I do not dispute that. If I arrive without a passport there is a power to hold me while they ascertain my nationality. If they ascertain that these gentlemen are Indians, do we have to let them in? What happened? What is to happen in future? If Indians, or perhaps any others from the Commonwealth, arrive without passports, have we no right to exclude them other than that of temporarily holding them until we ascertain whether they are citizens of the Commonwealth? I do not know. What does the legislation provide?
    Mr. Hale: If I arrive without a passport I could say that I had a ticket for the reading room of the British Museum, that I am a member of Royal Automobile Club and of the International P.E.N. Club, that I have a ticket for the manuscript department of the British Museum and a student's ticket, that I have a reader's ticket for the Bibliotheque Nationale, in Paris, and have a membership card of the National Book League, and that I am a member
    418
    of the Royal Institute of International Affairs- and that is me. No doubt they would reply, "How pleasant. It is good of you to let us have all this information. Please go straight on. We will mark your baggage straight away with a chalk cross."
    Mr. Paget: My hon. Friends appear to take opposite views. Is there, in fact, a sub rosa arrangement for controlling entry into this country by arranging with Dominion Governments that passports will not be issued except in limited numbers and by arrangement with us? If there is this sort of arrangement, is it legal? I find it difficult to see that it is. If it is legal it means that we can exclude members of the Commonwealth.
    So much for the question of entry, except for two points which I should like to raise. I want to deal, first, with the terms of entry and residence for the man who has ample means, perhaps an American who, very reasonably and naturally, when he can afford it, prefers to live in this country rather than to live in America. By a somewhat peculiar form of egalitarianism we apparently refuse permission to live here to this sort of one-man dollar export. Where is the sense in that? Why should a man who can afford it, and who conveys a benefit to our economy by his presence, be refused on these peculiar inverted egalitarian grounds? It has always struck me as particularly silly.
    Since exclusion can be justified only on the new economic arrangements which exist but which did not exist before, may I put a point which I believe to be very important as a symbol? It used to be part of our law that anybody who was a refugee from political oppression could enter these islands as a right. That ancient provision of our common law, arising from the judgment of Lord Mansfield in the eighteenth century, was enshrined in our statute law in 1907. It is the law of England that any man who is suffering from political oppression has the right to come in. Today, we are being asked yet again to suspend that law. If my Amendment were accepted, the Act of 1907 would again come into operation and there would be that right of the oppressed to come to these islands.
    In these days, when, in larger areas of the world than ever before in its history, opinion is a crime, it is

    419
    important that that principle should be established. I am told, "Of course, executively that is our policy. We do it." My submission is that it is a fundamental principle of liberty that refuge should be enjoyed under the law and not at the will, however good a will it may be, of an executive Minister. It is important as a symbol to the world. In this World Refugee Year, is there not some imagination in making that gesture, if it be no more than a gesture, in re-establishing this ancient and fundamental law of our country, suspended ever since 1919 year by year but none the less part of our law, and in saying again that, as a right, not as something which is granted by an official, refuge will be granted?
    My next question concerns what happens to the alien while he is here. Again, I am, perhaps, talking as a lawyer, but freedom is something enjoyed under the law. If one does not respect the law, one cannot respect freedom. Why should not the alien who is here be under one law with us? The regulations are very trivial indeed. There are all the questions about registration and hotel forms which an alien has to fill up, but which we do not have to fill up if we say no. Whoever looks at them? Where are they collated? Do they all go to one central place?
    What about the matter of reporting to the police? If there is a report here in London, a later report in Liverpool and then, perhaps, a report in Edinburgh, is there machinery for collating all those reports? How is it done? Is it done regularly, occasionally or only in respect of particular persons who want looking after? If a man becomes a charge on us, if he goes to the National Assistance Board, or breaks our laws and is arrested, we have an immediate record of where he is. If he goes to an employment exchange we will have a record in the same way as we have of our own citizens.
    But what is the point in special registration? Is it worth the trouble? If a man comes here under a labour permit for a particular job his registration is automatic through the Ministry of Labour. Such a case is dealt with, but why should not others in this country
    420
    be under the ordinary law of the land? One of the Laws of Exodus which has always attracted me is
    "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among us."
    I do not believe that we should lightly set aside Commandments of God which have so wonderfully withstood the test of time.
    Cannot we bear that in mind in connection with people among us? While they are here, why should they not be under one law? Is not one law good enough for all within these frontiers? It was up to 1914. Is there so much profit in having it different now?
    I now come to the last and, I think, the most important power of all, namely, the power to deport. I think that we would all agree that if a visitor does not behave himself nothing could be more reasonable than that we should have the right to ask him to take himself somewhere else. I do not dispute that. But it becomes a very different question when we are not dealing with a visitor, but with an alien whose home is Britain. We have aliens here who know and have heard no other language but our own, and see no other sights but our English sights and whose children and wives are English. Yet there is this completely arbitrary power to separate that man from his family, to deny them his support, to break his family and his home and to exile him, with a reference to the chief magistrate provided that the Home Secretary does not consider that questions of security arise. This formidable power, which, I believe, should not exist, exists in a completely arbitrary form. I cannot believe that that is right.
    It seems to me that that is very inconsistent with our obligations which we have freely assumed under the Charter of Human Rights. We provide by that Charter that
    "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind as to national or social origin…. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person".
    Yet we provide for arbitrary arrest and indefinite imprisonment. Once the Home Secretary, by a purely executive act, makes a deportation order, if no country will accept the deportee he is held indefinitely in prison and without limitation

    421
    as to time, without any crime alleged against him, at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
    The Charter further provides that
    "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights. …"
    Here we are being asked to take that fundamental right, guaranteed by the Charter, away from half a million people.
    4.15 p.m.
    Finally, the Charter states that
    "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile".
    To the man whose home is here, deportation is precisely exile. How do we reconcile the regulations which we are being asked to put into effect with the obligations which we have undertaken as parties to this declaration in the Charter? I have asked that question before, but have never had an answer to it. The straight answer is that it is wholly inconsistent. It is quite unnecessary, because in performance it is liberal. We should not use powers in this sort of Draconian way. A system of recourse to the courts would really give us no less security or impose on us great inconvenience.
    It is high time that this matter, which affects the lives of half a million people, was reduced to legislation. We need legislation in this matter. We are told, "Legislation would impose a rigidity upon the Home Secretary who would not be able to exercise his humane discretion in the way he does now." That is absolute nonsense. Legislation can give to the Home Secretary all the discretion which regulation can give him. In cases where humane discretion can be exercised it can be given to him by legislation. But, again, we are told "Would it really be an advantage if we were deprived of this annual debate?" I do not think that it would be an advantage but I suggest that legislation would provide an opportunity for the Home Secretary to bring us each year a report on aliens which would be debatable here and would provide a more progressive and informed debate.
    Something else which required annual legislation was the Army Act. Mr. Bing, who is no longer with us, and myself made a big attack one year on the Army Act and held up the House. There was
    422
    then instituted, on, I think, my suggestion, a system of two parallel committees, one a Select Committee of this House and the other a Committee from the War Office. The Select Committee made its suggestions, which were then sent to the War Office, they came back to us and after being discussed were put into the Bill. We had people from the drafting office working on that Committee and by that process we drafted the new Army Act. The Army Act was accepted by the Government without a single Amendment or alteration. The Government took it solid.
    Why not use the same machinery here? There are men of good will and experience here. We will serve on that Select Committee. The Home Office can provide from its experts a parallel Committee which will vet our proposals Clause by Clause and they can be passed backwards and forwards, as was done with the Army Act. It worked beautifully and we could get out an Act which would be a credit to the country instead of having these police regulations which are a discredit to a land which is traditionally the home of liberty.
    Mr. Hale: Do I apply to myself what Henry IV wrote to Crillon after the battle of Arques:
    "Pends-tu, brave Crillon, nous avons vaincu à Arques, et tu n'y étais pas "?
    Mr. Paget: I thank my hon. Friend for his quotation.
    The machinery that I have referred to is the ideal machinery for doing the sort of job which so eminently requires doing.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: As I understand, if the Amendment is carried there will be no control over immigration to this country. I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite want that. It would mean that the gates would be thrown open to every conceivable person; for every crook or spy, or undesirable person to come into this country.
    I am surprised that the Amendment has been proposed by a party which purports to take a great interest in full employment and the conditions of working people, because if there were no controls there would be a flood of people from less happy lands and our

    423
    conditions here would be threatened. I am strongly against the Amendment and hope that it will be thrown out good and hearty.
    I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend should have full control over immigration. The present system operating under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill seems to have two advantages. First, the system is flexible. When dealing with immigration, which is a complicated matter, we must have scope for flexibility. Secondly, there is the advantage that the subject comes up for discussion annually and we can, therefore, review the policy pursued by the Home Office in the previous year.
    On the question of policy, I hope that it will be my right hon. Friend's intention in future to grant asylum to people persecuted for their political beliefs, as we have always done in the past. That is in accordance with our traditions.
    Secondly, I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible in the case of immigrants who have been granted permission to stay permanently to permit their aged parents who live abroad to come here. My right hon. Friend should grant this permission provided that there is no Charge on public funds and that those parents are of decent character.
    Thirdly, there are certain foreigners, men of letters, scientists and others who are self-supporting. They might want to come and live in this country. I hope that they will be allowed to do so, provided once again that they are known to be of good character.
    Against this, each year many people who come here do so under the guise of visiting. When their term is up they endeavour to stay on and seek employment. There are others who come to Britain apparently for educational purposes but who all the time have had at the back of their minds the idea of getting work here. These people have been dishonest from the start and they should be deported. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have no hesitation in deporting them. If he does so deport them he will certainly get support from this quarter.
    We very often hear, sometimes I am sorry to say from hon. Members opposite, criticism of officials over cases about which people are not very pleased. I
    424
    have never had an immigration case brought to my notice by a constituent where there has been injustice or unfairness. I should like to pay tribute to the Home Office officials, the immigration office men, and the police for their skill in handling thousands of cases every year and for doing their job admirably.
    Finally, there are two sets of regulations, one for aliens and one for Commonwealth citizens. Aliens are subject to restrictions. I approve of this dual control and I think it right that Commonwealth citizens should have special facilities for entering. I hope that my right hon. Friend will go further and see that in all air and sea ports Commonwealth citizens receive priority in customs examination, passport control, and everything else, so that they know that they are specially welcome in Britain.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) said that if the Amendment were carried there would be no aliens law. He is quite right, in form, but there is no other way in which we can raise this debate. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) had not put the Amendment down we should not have heard the speeches that we have done. The prime purpose of the Amendment is to have this debate, which we have every year.
    We are all grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for once again raising these great issues of liberty. Anyone who has listened to him today and in previous years must have the feeling that our aliens law is unsatisfactory in many respects, and that we cannot let it go on from year to year in this way.
    The law is unsatisfactory both in form and in substance; in form because we really have an Act in the form of an Order which has never been passed, considered, or criticised by this House. As my hon. and learned Friend explained, it is a Consolidated Order based on the 1919 Act. It has never been debated. It has never been criticised. One reason why we should have the Bill is that we would be able, for the first time, to go bit by bit through the various powers which are conferred in a sort of indirect way by the House on the Government.

    425
    The argument that if we had a Bill we would lose the right to an annual debate is not a good one. It is not a procedural accident that we have an annual debate here. It is because great arbitrary powers are being used, and the House feels that it is right and proper that once a year there should be a discussion on any matter where great arbitrary powers are conferred on the Government.
    If the Bill is introduced it certainly ought to have a provision that it should be current for only a year, so that we could continue having these annual debates. It is certainly right that where arbitrary power is conferred on a Government there should be an annual review by Parliament. Whatever law we pass it will have some arbitrary powers in it which will distinguish it from other types of Acts, and it is, therefore, proper that we should debate it every year.
    Mr. Paget: Of course, it could more conveniently be debated every year if the Home Secretary were required to make a report to the House.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Various conditions could be made, but the right of the House to have a debate could be preserved in a new Bill.
    I think that the terms of this legislation, if, for convenience, I may call it that, as distinct from administration, which I shall come to in a moment, are really extremely arbitrary and illiberal. The whole thing is conceived in fear of aliens. I am talking now of the wording of the Order. Aliens are treated as though they were microbes invading the body politic. There is nothing here in the terms used in the Order, of hospitality or of the ways in which aliens can enrich our society. There are aliens who are microbes, and we should keep them out, but there are aliens who enrich our society and to whom we should be hospitable, but there is no hint of such an attitude in the terms of this Order on which the Government's powers rest.
    We have to divide aliens into two classes. Indeed, the Joint Under-Secretary of State himself said so last year in as many words. He said
    "We can divide the aliens who come into the country into two categories. First, there are those whom we allow to come for various
    426
    sound reasons which are well known and who have permanent residence. There is no trouble about that. They are here, we accept them and we take the responsibility of having accepted them as permanent residents. Secondly, there are all those who come here as temporary residents, for one reason or another."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 1430.]
    I agree that there are these two classes, but in the eyes of the law they are the same. Persons in either seem, as my hon. and learned Friend said, to be "without the law." They can be deported arbitrarily. Although there are these two categories they are treated in the eyes of the law as though there were no difference between them at all and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that we should now distinguish between these two categories of aliens in our law.
    Let me take them separately. First, temporary residents and those who are seeking entry. We must have powers to exclude aliens and remove aliens who come in by a cheat, or who do not keep the rules which are imposed upon their entry. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the reasons for excluding such aliens should be basically economic. We should have the right to find out whether they have means to maintain themselves and to see that they do not take on work without a labour permit. These powers are bound to be arbitrary. We cannot have such powers of picking and choosing between whom we let in without arbitrary powers, including the right to refuse entry and including the right to deport. That is why we must have an annual debate, whatever form this legislation may take, because it would have to include these arbitrary powers about people trying to enter the country.
    I find it a little disturbing that, in these annual debates we have, and which I have been reading again, each time some specific cases are raised. That is one of the merits of the debates, but I wonder sometimes whether the few cases that are trenched up, so to speak, and drawn to the attention of Parliament and which do show harsh and discourteous treatment on occasions, are the only cases which are occurring. I agree that in this matter our officers have a very high standard, but, nevertheless, cases do arise which are drawn to the attention of Parliament and in which those standards are not maintained, and

    427
    I cannot help wondering whether there are not humble and poor people who do not get drawn to our attention, because, on the whole, it is the better known and famous people we hear about. I wonder whether there are humbler people who suffer just as much as the better known ones, I do not say in great numbers of cases, but sometimes, and who do not get to our attention. These can be dealt with only by the most rigid administration and careful control by the Home Office and the best we can do here is to raise the matter in Parliament from time to time.
    It is a fine thing that in this country, once a year, we raise questions of aliens who are without rights in our law and debate them in this House. I doubt whether this happens in any other country in the world, that people without rights are able to have their cases considered in the highest place in the realm.
    I should like to make two points on this question of people seeking entry and temporary residence and that kind of person, and the alien who is turned away at the port or, indeed, who is deported. It seems to me that we should give him the right to decide himself where he wants to go if he has the means to get there, anywhere in the world, instead of putting him aboard a plane or a boat and shooting him back again without giving him any right at all to go somewhere else. It does not seem to me that we have this right to shoot him back if he wants and is able to go somewhere else.
    My hon. and learned Friend mentioned some Indians who recently claimed they were British subjects who had not on them full evidence of that. It seems to me that someone who claims to be a British subject coming to this country always ought to be given some time and some chance to establish that, and ought not to be just shot back again. We ought to give him the right to prove his claim of being a British subject. The status of being a British subject is very important, and anybody who claims it ought to be given reasonable time under supervision to try to establish his claim.
    I am much more concerned with the second class of aliens whom the hon. and learned Gentleman called the permanent residents, whom I would call the settled aliens class. I have in mind people who were admitted and who, after
    428
    some period of residence, a year or two, have been accepted, although subject to deportation. They should become settled aliens and should have certain legal rights, including the right not to be deported from this country. I do not mean the person who is just here temporarily, and who cannot claim all the full rights. It does not seem to me to be enough to say that these people have a right of representation to the Chief Magistrate, which is now granted—since 1956, I think. First of all it is not a right, and secondly it is not an appeal to a court.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman made this clear last year when he said:
    "As a matter of policy, not as of right, such an alien is always given an opportunity of making representations to the Chief Magistrate. That is in no sense a right of appeal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 1429.]
    That right—if that is the right word to use—is not any answer. What I should like to see in this country is that a settled alien whom we have accepted should be allowed to stay, and should not be deportable unless, I agree, he is proved guilty of certain offences in a court of law. He should not be arbitrarily deportable by the Secretary of State.
    I do not see what we should lose if we made this change. The power to deport a settled alien is very rarely used, and when it is used it brings no credit to this country. If the argument is, as it may be, that it is used only in a very few cases and so does not do any harm, then that seems to me a most dangerous and illiberal argument, because it is arbitrary exceptions that undermine liberty. Our liberty as British subjects rests on the fact that there is no exception to the rule of habeas corpus whatever, no matter what argument there may be about security and public order. If there were any exceptions to that our rights would be destroyed. However rarely the Secretary of State's power of deportation is used the fact that it exists and the fact that it may occasionally be used undermines the liberty of every settled alien. The power of the Secretary of State to deport without reason given or to detain for long periods can destroy liberty.
    There is one question which I do not think has ever been mentioned in these

    429
    debates, concerning one class of person. I refer to the man who is deprived of naturalisation and thus can be deported. He reverts to the status of alien. This comes under the provision of this Order. Because of this he can be arbitrarily deported by the Secretary of State. This seems to me to be wrong.
    I think we should take great care before conferring on any alien the right of being a British subject. Once we grant that right, it should be an absolute right. We should not have British subjects of two kinds in this country. A British subject of any kind, whether by birth or by naturalisation, should have inalienable rights and those rights—this basic status—should not be able to be taken away from him.
    Australia recently passed a law—originally it had our law in this respect—saying that anyone who had been naturalised should not be deprived of that status, except on the one condition that he had make a false statement to achieve his naturalisation. Apart from that, in Australia, once he has been granted naturalisation he has all the inalienable rights of a British subject. I think that we should be as liberal as Australia in this matter. Once we grant a man the status of a British subject, we should not be able to reduce him again to the status of an alien.
    We are not voting on this, because we need an aliens law, but we do not want an arbitrary aliens law. We want to be a liberal country that looks a liberal country and we ought radically to overhaul our legislation and, whenever we possibly can, reduce to the greatest possible extent any arbitrary element in our law.
    There is a lot of the arbitrary element in our law regarding aliens. We ought to reduce that as much as we can as a matter of principle. It should be seen and known and spoken to the world that we welcome foreigners who wish to live among us and accept that they should have the right of residing among us in full security—that we are hosts to them as distinct from those whom we chose to keep out and those who are temporarily under the particular provisions which we lay upon them.
    I hope that this will be one of the last occasions on which we debate this Order in this form. I hope that in the next
    430
    Session we shall have properly consolidated legislation bringing in many other matters, as my hon. and learned Friend said, and also a very much more liberal Measure which would change the tone, temper and atmosphere of our aliens law.
    Major H. Legge-Bourke: I think that there is a slight difference of opinion between the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). I had the feeling that the hon. and learned Gentleman would require far more drastic reforms than perhaps would his right hon. Friend.
    I feel that it is worth remembering, when we see the opposite end of all this, what happens in the countries which are still holding the families of people who have been allowed to immigrate into this country and the enormous amount of difficulty that arises when one attempts to assist a man or his family to come from the Iron Curtain countries. I think that we can still say that we can hardly be accused of illiberality. By comparison, I should say that our immigration laws are infinitely superior to the emigration laws of the iron curtain countries, and for that we ought to be deeply grateful.
    I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton for proposing what he is proposing today, because he gives me an opportunity to ask the Government to give attention to one matter which, I think, will become of increasing importance.
    4.45 p.m.
    It is essential that we should never place under the Aliens Order of 1953 or, indeed, under any other Aliens Order those who have been deprived of their British nationality for any reason and who want to come home. In particular, this may arise as the result of what is now happening in Cyprus. Perhaps it is a question of giving a warning rather than asking for immediate steps to be taken, but I want to ask the Government this very seriously. If the result of the present negotiations in Cyprus is such that those at present enjoying British nationality but have the desire to remain in the island of Cyprus should later want to come back to the United Kingdom—yet in the meantime have been

    431
    deprived of their British nationality-can we be assured that we shall not have these people subjected to the Aliens Order?
    Mr. Paget: The hon. and gallant Member will realise that will be for all Cypriots.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I see what the hon. and learned Gentleman means, but I was speaking of those who have been United Kingdom citizens who have settled in Cyprus and who are faced with the choice of whether to remain in the island and surrender their British nationality or, alternatively, to retain their British nationality and not be allowed to live in the island. I do not want those people who have decided to stay on in the island to find themselves in the position that, should they want to come to the United Kingdom again, they would have to go through the procedure to which an alien would be subjected.
    That is the warning which I wish to give to the Government. I realise that this question has not yet materialised because it has not been decided whether Cyprus will remain in the Commonwealth or not. If it does remain in the Commonwealth, then the question does not arise. If it does not remain in the Commonwealth, I do not want to see people who wish to remain in Cyprus having to surrender their British nationality and having to go through the Aliens Order procedure in order to come back to the United Kingdom. I hope that I have made this point clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    There is another matter which I want considered. I have no statistics to give to my hon. and learned Friend, but I want to draw attention to Article 7, paragraph 4, of the 1953 Order. Under that, permission is given to the immigration officers to require a medical examination to take place. I have had great concern expressed to me about the state of health of some of the people coming into the country, and this may be due to the fact that the power of the immigration officers to require a medical examination is permissive and not compulsory. This is particularly causing concern in respect of immigrants from Italy, many of whom appear to be suffering from tuberculosis. I think that it is very important that we should
    432
    not unnecessarily allow the great improvements that we have made in fighting this disease to be undermined under the immigration laws.
    Mr. Paget: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that we have been so successful in the treatment of tuberculosis here that a good many of the facilities are not being used at the moment? Is it not grossly inhuman that we should have unused facilities and should not allow people, who would otherwise die, to make use of them?
    Major Legge-Bourke: I am not suggesting for a moment—and I hope that the Committee will not think that I am trying to suggest—that these facilities should not be made available on reasonable grounds. Nor do I say, if the medical examination proves that there is some disease, that necessarily the person should be debarred from coming into the country. I am saying that it is very important at the moment that if people suffering from one disease or another do come into the country their disease should be detected.
    Mr. Paget: As long as they are not excluded, I entirely agree.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I am not saying that necessarily they should be excluded, but it is important that they should be detected as suffering from a particular disease at the moment of entry and not be allowed to roam at large and to infect other people. As I say, I have no statistics at the moment, but I know that this matter is causing very considerable concern among those responsible for trying to place immigrants in employment, and I ask my hon. and learned Friend to give it his attention.
    Mr. Hale: I do not want to do an injustice to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), because he rose to make a very serious and a very proper point. I hope that he will forgive me for commenting on his first sentence, because it seems a little significant if all we can say in this palladium of liberties is that we are a little bit better than Stalin. It seems to me that our standards are deteriorating and that there is general evidence that that might be true. I know that the remark was made casually and I do no want to exaggerate it, but surely we can go further than that.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I could not agree more. It was certainly not a remark made casually, because I have been endeavouring to re-unite a family some of whom are in my constituency.
    Mr. Hale: Surely we should be better than Stalin, and surely we are. Even so, we have great difficulty in obtaining permission from the Home Office and I have had many cases in Oldham, particularly with men of Polish nationality, where the difficulty of getting relatives over was not due to the difficulty of getting an exit permit from an Iron Curtain country but also an entry permit from the Home Office. To be fair, generally in the end we succeed, but after pressure.
    The only other observation on which I should like to comment was made by an hon. Member opposite who popped up unexpectedly, spoke so briefly and disappeared so soon after he sat down that I have forgotten who he was and therefore I am not able to adopt the proper technical manner of referring to him.
    Mr. George Lawson: I think that my hon. Friend must be referring to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) who apologised to me for the fact that he had to leave and asked that if anybody referred to him I would explain his absence.
    Mr. Hale: No one has accused the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) of leaving without having a reason. He said that the immigration officers were very nice fellows and, of course, they are. Sometimes when we are dealing with cases we may be a little unjust to them, because sometimes they have to deal with a law which no one understands, which no one has defined and which it is almost impossible to apply. Some of the nicest people in the world are Income Tax inspectors and Customs officers, because they are a little sensitive about general public reaction to their posts. Therefore, they are extremely nice and generally most helpful. My wife says that they are so nice that she objects to having to say that she is a regular cigar smoker in order to help me. It seems so unkind. The present Income Tax inspector at Norwood is so helpful that I have now a completely detailed statement of how
    434
    much I am swindled out of and in whose aid I am being swindled. No one could ask for more.
    I should like to correct something I said in a recent debate. I said that if the twelve Apostles had arrived in Liverpool the only one who possibly would have been admitted would have been Judas Iscariot, because he might have had something left of the thirty pieces of silver. Although money seems to have been devalued since then, I find that I am historically wrong. I forgot that Jesus Christ was an enemy alien, under the Enemy Aliens Order. He lived under Tiberius who was an enemy of this country. But the Witenagemot were much more enlightened than the Government of this country in the time of Mussolini and knew their enemies. Therefore, that would not have been possible. I apologise, therefore, for what was a minor historical discrepancy.
    I admired so much what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said and agree with him so much—indeed I think completely—that I need not traverse the same ground, but this debate and this procedure is an abuse of the process of the House of Commons and is really a reflection upon our democracy.
    The point has been made that some of these regulations made in 1920 are now nonsense. But we have never been allowed to discuss or amend them. There is no procedure afforded to us whereby we can bring them under attack. All we are allowed to do, in the very narrow ambit of the Rulings properly made by the Chair in accordance with the rules of the House, is to pass the Second Reading on the nod, because we cannot discuss the contents of the Bill and table an Amendment to remove the enabling Clause which permits the whole of the legislation to be made, but which does not permit us to deal in any detail with quite terrible regulations made by the hard-faced business men constituting the Government of 1920—hard-faced but very unsuccessful business men, particularly in the national sphere.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton has pointed out some of the anomalies, which are quite astonishing. An alien cannot be a mate on a trawler if it sails in foreign

    435
    waters. He can be a director of a large company if it sails in very dirty waters indeed. He cannot be a second lieutenant, but he can be a warrant officer, and anyone who has ever served in the Armed Forces knows that no warrant officer would stand any impudence from a second lieutenant. I have been both and I got the sack from the more important job. An alien cannot be a civil servant. He cannot be a member of a jury. He cannot vote at an election.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Unless he is an Irishman.
    Mr. Hale: I said that he could not be a member of a jury, but he can be a member of a coroner's jury. Why this is, I do not know. An alien can be an Englishman by birth and nationality, but an Englishman cannot be a friendly alien. He must be an enemy alien. On the other hand, a Portuguese civil servant or an officer is entitled to special status. Because we share a common democracy with President Salazar and General de Gaulle and Dr. What's-his-name in Germany, we have a special type of specially admitted immigrant who is entitled to V.I.P. treatment in relation to aliens.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton made one remark very clearly and fairly with which I entirely agree and which I think he knew when he said it would be liable to misrepresentation. He said that we ought to establish a basis on economic ground. I agree, though "economic" is often translated as "financial" and I should have disagreed very much about that, as, I am sure, my hon. and learned Friend would have done.
    It may be very reasonable of us to say to those who come here seeking work that in the interest of the maintenance of full employment and development of our industry we have to apply some reasonable sanctions, but the real trouble is that the one crime that can be committed by an alien in this country is to be poor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) made a very important point that there are no classes of aliens in the Section and that the tourist who comes for a fortnight is an alien, subject to
    436
    exactly the same rules. He has to register and fill in a form and give all the particulars. He must select a reputable inn, which is not so easy now that we have swept the prostitutes under one side of the carpet and they have come out as call girls on the other. Having done that, the alien must not visit a club where other aliens go, because the club can be swept off the register if it is frequented by undesirable aliens, and the definition of an undesirable alien is that a police officer thinks him to be undesirable.
    I, who have been treated as an undesirable alien in at least two British Colonies, one French Colony and for a time in Paris, have a certain feeling about this. It is very easy to become undesirable. The simplest way is to have political opinions that are not shared by the Government of the country. It is quite true. I spent only three days in Morocco and the French Government made a protest. I was hardly there long enough to be detained.
    What is really wicked about the present rule, made under the 1920 Order, is that we have talked about bringing in the seething millions "yearning to breathe free". Indeed, we have days on which we make speeches about democracy and freedom and the right to breathe and the right to vote, but the real case against the alien is that he can be recommended for deportation if he is convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction of any offence in respect of which a sentence of imprisonment could have been imposed—it does not have to be imposed.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State will say that all these cases are considered carefully by the Home Office and that no Order is made until we are satisfied that there is reason for it but, as has been said, year after year we raise cases of real hardship. I recall the one of the Chinese business man who had lived with his wife and family in Liverpool for twenty years, respected, prosperous. He committed an offence.
    The second rule is that if an alien is found wandering without means of support he can be recommended for deportation; in fact, he can be ordered for deportation on that ground alone.

    437
    What does a man do if he is wandering without means of support? We used to say that in the Welfare State he would apply for National Assistance. Yet the third rule is that he can be ordered for deportation if he has received National Assistance on any one occasion within the preceding three months.
    Those are the regulations which we are not allowed to discuss. Those are the provisions that we tell the world are now representative of our standard of British democracy. My hon. and learned Friend was a delegate to the Council of Europe and I took his place when his term of office ceased. Both of us were members of the committee which was engaged in trying to break down customs formalities, to abolish triptyques for cars and to make passports work. As a result of the labours of that committee, improvements were made in Western Europe at every frontier but ours.
    I do not suggest that the Home Office is inhuman. I know that Government Departments go on and on until someone stirs them up. The point of this occasion is to try to stir up the Home Office. Members of the Council of Europe used to ask, "Why is it that Britain used to lead the world in penal reform? Why is it that Britain used to regard the right of asylum as part of its constitution—certainly an unwritten but nevertheless a vital part—and why is it now that the right of asylum has virtually gone?" The tragedy today is that it is not quite true that the right of asylum has gone, but it is true that the right of asylum is administered politically. There is still a right of asylum for the runaway who leaves a Communist country, but there is no right of asylum for the Communist who leaves a dictatorship country. I challenge anyone to deny that.
    It has been said that there are half a million aliens concerned in this matter, many thinking men living here with their relatives, many of them men who have made their contribution to our economy for years. Is it right that we should go on imposing this arbitrary, old-fashioned series of laws, which are never discussed in the House, which are an insult to the man of foreign birth, and which are unfair to our own conceptions of decency and democracy?
    438
    We are now starting on a Parliament in which we know that nothing will be done; we are starting on a Parliament in which some of us wonder what we are here for. We are approaching a time in which democracy is weakening. We look across the Channel and see the foundations of democracy much weaker in most of the countries with which we are allied. What is there now to prevent the Home Office saying that it will introduce a Measure for discussion by the House? What is there to prevent the Government saying, "We have given an undertaking, we will consider the whole question, we will provide opportunities for debate and we will submit our proposals to the House? "
    What reason is there in 1959 for a Measure which was never discussed, which was passed on the nod in 1920, which has been the subject of constant criticism here and abroad and from both sides of the House, continuing merely because someone is too idle to look into it, or merely because someone does not want to face a controversial debate, or merely because Amendments might be tabled and a discussion might follow? Would it not be a step on the road to making the House of Commons a little more of a living entity if we tried to legislate in this matter and, in doing so, if we discussed with our friends in the Council of Europe the possibility of a general liberalisation of measures in that direction?
    Some of the economic arguments have never been true. It still is true in Italy that the poverty of the south does not drive people to the north, because they prefer the sun and the poverty to the industrial régime. It is true that in the Colonies poverty in the Caribbean is driving people here. As my hon. and learned Friend said, most of them are doing useful jobs, perhaps not terribly well-paid jobs, making a sensible and useful contribution to our economy. The wrong thing is that the poverty should be allowed to exist which drives them here, and maybe for us that problem is to find a colonial policy which would remove the necessity for people coming here to jobs that are not highly remunerative in our eyes but are still valuable in theirs.
    In the main has not the time come? I know that sometimes, when we have been in the House for some years and

    439
    have raised this question so often, we feel that it is becoming almost a mechanical process, almost a repetitive act. Indeed, it is becoming almost one of those annual formalities at the commencement of a new Parliament like the formal movement of the Outlawries Bill. Yet it is still one of the great human problems we must discuss.
    My hon. and learned Friend said that we are discussing it in World Refugee Year. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely mentioned tuberculosis. It is only fair to the Home Secretary to say that in one small but courageous gesture he admitted a colony of refugees who had at least one tuberculosis sufferer in each family. They went to the small voluntary settlement in Lanark. It is not the kind of thing we need boast too much about, but we can admire the spirit of the people who organised that settlement and the sacrifice of those who run it. Indeed, some of the refugee organisations are a model of their kind. What is important, what is significant, is the number of people who have been deeply moved by that gesture. I am not referring to the people who have criticised it but to those who have said, "Well it is not much, but thank God we have done it. At least it is worth while. At least this is an example."
    In World Refugee Year, when the number of refugees is increasing in the world, when in Tunisia and Morocco new problems are arising, is it not the opportunity for the Joint Under-Secretary of State to make a gesture which would cost the country nothing in money but which might gain it a great deal of prestige? Cannot we say, "We realise that these old and antiquated regulations were born in war and developed in a spirit of hatred at a time when we had suffered and when the minds of hon. Members of the House of Commons were full of the memories of the carnage and destruction of a four-year war. Now we are in a time of peace"—indeed, in such a period of peace that we do not need to have a Foreign Secretary—" and we have reached the point at which we should reconsider this matter"? There is ample time to do it, so would it not be possible for the Joint Under-Secretary of State to rise and say that today? If he did, he would have a much greater stature than he has shown so far.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I should like to add a few brief words to the very moving pleas which have been made by my hon. Friends who have so ably put our Amendment to the Committee. I do so partly because I feel, like them, that this is a totally unsatisfactory way of discussing our aliens legislation. Is it not time that we were given an opportunity to discuss legislation which can stand on its own feet and to treat the subject in the way it deserves?
    I support my hon. Friends because I believe that our present aliens legislation is not only illiberal and antiquated but utterly unrealistic. Every year that goes by the methods of travel, the kind of people who travel and, of course, the speed at which they travel change dramatically, and what may have made sense two or three years ago does not make sense any more. I could go from London this evening and be in Athens, Stockholm, Helsinki, Moscow or, indeed, Pekin in a matter of hours. Anyone who travels frequently on the Continent of Europe and comes here is painfully reminded every time he reaches this country just how badly our arrangements compare with those abroad, particularly in Western Europe. Are we not in danger in this field, as in many others, of being left behind by Continental countries?
    I speak with, perhaps, some personal feelings on the subject because, like other hon. Members, I am married to an alien. My wife was a Swede when I married her. We discussed whether she should change her passport to a British one. I saw no particular reason—I hope that during our lifetime we shall find questions of nationality mattering very much less than they do now—why she should do so. Consequently, every time I come into the country with her and every time we go out of it I am reminded very vividly of what happens to other aliens, although I am bound to say that the regulations do not appear to be applied always as they should be applied in the case of my wife.
    First, I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary to say a few words about the effectiveness of the regulations now in force. I was shocked and horrified by the very brief speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), which my hon. Friend

    441
    the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) mentioned. The hon. Gentleman used the old cliché about our having to have these regulations because of crooks and spies. Does the Joint Under-Secretary really ask the House to believe that a spy, a smuggler or any other criminal would not have a perfectly respectable-looking passport and would not know the answers to all the questions that he was asked at the frontiers, such as the name of his father, and, in some cases, the name of his maternal grandmother, his religion and so on? Is not a crook or spy in present conditions perfectly able to satisfy the immediate requirements of the most complicated frontier system that any country can organise?
    Is not the effect of the regulations simply to hinder and hamper the ordinary innocent traveller and to create an enormous mound of bureaucratic paper which may or may not be sorted and checked from time to time? I very much doubt whether it is checked. I say that because I was responsible for bringing to this country a party of four aliens who are now working in Scotland. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will not penalise them if I mention their case. Through ignorance, they did not comply with the registration rules and did not register with the police for a year. They came here on a labour permit. Apparently, no one checked up on them. When they were suddenly made aware of the fact that they should have registered with the police the necessary steps were immediately taken. I may be partly to blame for what happened. This is the kind of thing which makes one wonder about the regulations.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is married to an American citizen, and he tells me that every so often she has to go to the police and register. She has a grey alien's card. My wife, a Swede, does not have an alien's card and has never been to the police since she came to live permanently in this country. Perhaps she should have done. The point is that the regulations do not appear to be operating in a very efficient way. Neither I nor she knows exactly what her legal position is as an alien married to a British subject.
    442
    5.15 p.m.
    I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to tell the Committee whether the Home Office and the police are really hampered in dealing with bad cases affecting Commonwealth citizens or aliens from the Irish Republic who do not have to comply with the aliens regulations, as against citizens from foreign countries. Is it really an enormous help to the police and other authorities to have all the forms filled in and all the other requirements which are imposed upon foreigners, as against Commonwealth nationals? If there is really a strong case for applying these measures to aliens from foreign countries, is there not then, logically speaking, a case for applying them to Commonwealth citizens as well?
    I am not urging the extension of what I consider to be illiberal measures, but I cannot see the sense of applying to a Scandinavian, a German or a Belgian a whole set of complicated regulations which it is not necessary to apply to an Indian, a Cypriot or a West Indian, who may, very likely, be a man of a lower standard of living and, through no fault of his own, at a lower stage of development. Is the distinction between foreigners and Commonwealth citizens valid, and what effect does it have on the various requirements for controlling their movements and so on here?
    What is the position regarding citizens of the Irish Republic? I have just heard an hon. Member say that they are not aliens. They are not British citizens. What are they? Perhaps it is just as well that we should not pursue this matter too minutely, because they are in an extraordinary position. However, does not the fact that we are apparently enabled to allow, with no ill effects—at all events, no ill effects have ever been mentioned in the House—many thousands of citizens of a foreign country to enjoy all the rights that we have, including voting in our elections, without any difficulty, cast some doubt on the necessity for the measures which we apply against other categories of aliens?
    I want now to say a word about the forms which aliens are required to fill up. These are a scourge to travellers, particularly on the Continent of Europe, who may cross four or five frontiers in a matter of hours, and each time they

    443
    cross a frontier they have to fill in a form. Usually the questions are slightly different and the forms slightly differently arranged. Will the Joint Under-Secretary explain exactly what happens to the alien's card which my wife fills up every time she comes to this country, where it goes and whether it is collated? Evidently nothing happens to it, because she takes no further action except to fill in another one next time she comes into the country. There must be a great stack of my wife's alien's cards in Scotland Yard or somewhere else.
    If this ludicrous form-filling has to continue for some years to come, cannot some steps be taken to standardise the forms that we require with those required by other European police systems? It has been found possible in the case of motor cars, by international negotiation, to devise a set of answers covering all the questions that can possibly be asked at any frontier in the world—no matter how ludicrous the questions are—and all these answers are included on one piece of paper. A number of copies of the document—a triptyque—is then made, and when the traveller crosses a frontier he has simply to tear a page off, date it and sign it. That procedure is most convenient.
    If this form-filling has to continue at every European frontier, could we not adopt some procedure of that kind and allow travellers to carry a book of coupons giving all the possible answers so that, when required, they could tear out a page, date it and sign it and give it to the frontier officer? How much simpler the lives of immigration officers would be if they could get the right answers in the right place in a language which all could understand. Confusion very often arises through people not understanding the language in which they are required to fill in a whole series of different forms at every frontier that they cross.
    But that is second best. What we should really like to see is the necessity for form-filling and for passports and visas swept away altogether. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary was in the House earlier this afternoon when I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress had been made with negotiations for developing pass-
    444
    port-free travel between Britain and certain European countries. His Answer was a very depressing one. As I understood it, he said that this only applied to a few O.E.E.C. countries, that the proposal was first made in March, that there was a meeting in September and that no decision had yet been taken.
    At a time when in most of Western Europe passport-free travel is an established fact—and the police systems of those countries seem to be able to operate perfectly satisfactorily despite it—is it not time that we got on with the job of giving British citizens the same right as so many European citizens have of travelling round Europe without these ridiculous formalities?
    I want now to turn to the question of people who come to work in this country. I think it fair to remind the House—I do not know how many thousands there are of them, but there is quite a number—that these people are all doing jobs in Britain which British subjects do not want to do. That is the only basis of which they are allowed into the country. The Under-Secretary knows very well that to get a labour permit a person has to satisfy the authorities that he is doing a job for which no British citizen is available. There are some thousands of such people in agriculture and forestry and they are doing jobs which our people will not do, and are making a very valuable contribution to the economy of the country. Here, again, is there no possibility of some relaxation?
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) referred to the fact that, of course, their cases are very well tied up because they have to have a labour permit. But, of course, as well as a labour permit they are subject to all the other regulations with which any other alien entering the country Has to put up. Despite the fact that they have a labour permit for a specified employment and for a year at a time, nevertheless they have to register with the police in the same way as an alien who is not doing a useful job. Is there not a case for some relaxation there?
    I want to say a word in further comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. He referred to the swindlers, I think he called them, who come here claiming that they are coming as visitors and then, once they are in the country, change their argument and apply

    445
    to stay on in a different capacity. I quite understand that this must irritate Home Office officials and others concerned very much indeed. But sometimes the circumstances of an alien do change.
    I beg the Under-Secretary and his Ministerial colleagues to consider as sympathetically as they can cases of foreign students coming to Britain to study. I have in mind a case at the moment and, although I am not going to try to insert it into the debate, it is a typical case of a student who came to this country in a perfectly bona fide way. He wanted to improve his English and then to take a course which would give him a technical qualification. It is clearly a good thing both for him and us that he should do this.
    This young man asked to be admitted as a student and was allowed to come here as such. After he had been here a number of months he found it much more difficult than he had anticipated to make ends meet. At the same time, his father at home became ill and was unable to make him the allowance which he originally proposed to make. This boy came to me one day and said, "Can you ask the Home Office to ask the Ministry of Labour to allow me to do a little work in order to supplement my allowance so that I may be able to continue my studies?"
    This is not a case of an alien who originally came to this country because he wanted to work here, but of one whose circumstances had changed since he arrived in the country to study. When he came to see me I said that it was going to be very difficult indeed to put the matter up to the Home Office, because one thing about which the Home Office never seems to be persuaded is when someone comes into the country on one understanding and then tries to alter it. But there are cases which are perfectly genuine as far as students and young people are concerned who want to spend a short time either in an educational establishment or in order to see the British way of life. The Home Office ought to feel very glad to make it easy for them. Even from a narrow, propaganda point of view, every month that a person of that kind stays in the country is worth a great deal to us.
    The main idea I am trying to put before the Under-Secretary is that the
    446
    world is growing very small very rapidly and that Europe, whatever our views about political integration or about the Inner Six and Outer Seven and all the rest of it, is becoming one part of the world inhabited by Europeans, and that frontiers are becoming less important. This is something which European Governments have understood much more realistically than we have.
    I consider that our present arrangements are not only antiquated but are entirely unrealistic, and I hope that this debate may make the Government and some hon. Members opposite consider very seriously whether it is not time to overhaul the whole system. It is a disappointing fact that we have had only two speeches from the back benches opposite, one of which can only be described as a thoroughly reactionary speech. The other speech was that of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) in which he urged caution rather than liberality.
    I am sure that there must be many hon. Members opposite who feel as we do, that it is time a drastic change was made.
    Mr. Barnett Janner: I rise to endorse, to some extent, some of the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and also, perhaps, to bring a somewhat different note into the debate. It ought, perhaps, to be clearly understood that this Amendment is the only way in which the matters discussed today can possibly be dealt with in the Chamber in view of the Standing Orders of the House as they are at present.
    I think that every hon. Member should know—most of us probably do—that we can in no way move Amendments to the regulations themselves. We cannot amend the Acts with which we are dealing except by an Amendment to repeal the Act as a whole. Consequently, whatever points have to be put can only be put by means of an Amendment asking for the deletion of the whole Act.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I think that the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that when the Home Office Vote comes up for debate there is nothing to prevent this subject being raised in Committee of Supply.
    Mr. Janner: We can only debate the fundamental points involved in the regulations themselves, by today's methods.
    I wish to emphasise the fact that there is an occasion this year, in particular, for the Government to show more liberality than they have done in the past. I am not saying for one moment that we lag behind many other countries in this matter, and I would not even suggest that our officials who deal with this peculiar, intangible set of provisions are not, in the main, sympathetic and well-intentioned persons who do their duty in a humane way. But there are, of course, cases in which a few are bound to be influenced by prejudices which they themselves may have, or who may misinterpret the real desire for a liberal outlook which prevails, or should prevail, in the country. I am quite certain that no one in this Committee would suggest that every alien who seeks admission should be entitled to be admitted into the country. But I do say that we must realise that the basis on which we sometimes discuss this subject is an entirely wrong one.
    5.30 p.m.
    I think that, generally, our approach to the question of the admission of aliens is wrong. Those countries which have been liberal over this matter have not suffered in consequence, and neither did this country when Hugenots and other people, including Jewish people, were admitted. On the contrary. Only a short time ago, when he was opening the World Refugee Year here, sponsored in the first instance by our own country, the Prime Minister pointed out that the generous admission of refugees from Nazi oppression into this country, the majority of whom were German and Austrian Jews, had proved of great benefit to Britain, not only in the field of scientific research, but also the development of new industries and trades. Work had been provided for many British people in areas of the country where unemployment at the time was a grave menace.
    Those are not my words, but I entirely agree with them. I am paraphrasing what was said by the Prime Minister in a speech in which he intended to display to the world that we were realistic in our outlook on the matter of admitting
    448
    aliens. I am proud, we can all be proud, of the fact that we have taken the lead in sponsoring the World Refugee Year. We set up national and local committees to collect funds, but I do not think that that is enough. It is true that the Government have promised special financial contributions and I hope that during the year the contributions will increase. They have also agreed to accept a small number of handicapped refugees who hitherto have not been admitted to any country because of their precarious state of health.
    But the situation is still serious for those refugees left in Europe and in China. It is serious that, so many years after the war, they are still confined in refugee camps, and there is no hope for them unless we—if I may venture to put it in this way—take a realistic lead in the matter. I believe that we are prepared to do that. There are such camps in Austria, Germany, Italy and Greece. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel it right to say that the Government will consider adopting as liberal an outlook as that of Sweden. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) referred to Sweden in a different sense, but I think that he may be proud to be married to a lady who has come from that country which, according to the size of its population, has and is taking such a lead in dealing with this situation.
    I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary to be a humane man. I feel that I should pay him that tribute. I believe that his colleague is also a humane man. I wish him to realise that it only needs the Home Office and the Government to make it clear that it is not generally detrimental to a country when aliens are admitted, and that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the alien. If he clarified the position he would have the country behind him. Does he think it unreasonable that victims of persecution, whether political or religious, who have been given asylum here should ask that their near ones and dear ones may be allowed to come and join them?
    I know that we shall be told that aged parents are now allowed to join their children. But there are other almost equally deserving cases involving men and women scattered all over the world

    449
    who have no home but some of whose relatives may have settled in our country. Surely there is no reason why they should not come, particularly if their relatives here are in a position and prepared to support them, or when they themselves are in a position to support themselves, and where no difficulty will be created in any sphere of employment.
    Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman will say that he will carry through the measure of good will which he announced last year and enable those families to be united. The position for many of them is serious. I know perhaps as well as any hon. Member of the seriousness of this matter, because for many years I have been connected with the Jewish Board of Deputies and our movement has had thousands of cases to deal with. I know what is happening to so many of my co-religionists throughout the world. I know that there are men and women in this country who are anxious to look after their own relatives -ind ensure that they would never become a burden on the State. These people are prepared to give an undertaking that their relatives will not avail themselves of the facilities provided by the Welfare State, such as the National Health Service. But their relatives, in some cases, have been refused entry into this country because they happen to be under a certain age. or because they are not parents, although they may be foster parents or brothers or sisters of the applicants. But because they are not parents they do not come within the regulations which allow relatives to enter.
    It has been suggested by, I think, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) that some people come to this country originally for a specific period and then ask to remain permanently. There may be some who come with the intention of trying to stay permanently, and I understand his view. I will go further than did my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, who referred to the case of a student. I think that it is a tribute to our country that a person who genuinely came in intending to return to his own land, after he has lived here a year or two, should find that the ideas and ideals of our country are such that he is anxious to remain and perhaps eventually to become a citizen.
    450
    Why not look at this matter from that point of view?
    The Joint Under-Secretary knows that when these cases are examined he will find many persons who could be of great value to the country, who, after their student days, for example, having qualified highly in the scientific world, could become educationists or teachers and help in many spheres. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there are many potential scholars among the students who come to this country who might be of great assistance in important activities where there is a shortage of personnel.
    Apart from lending a generous hand, is it not worth our while, rather than sending away a student who has come here and qualified with high degrees, to try to persuade him to stay, without interfering in any way with the employment and other facilities that are open to our own citizens? I would not for a moment advocate that in a sphere in which there was unemployment, an alien should be asked or allowed to come, except under exceptional circumstances, to take up work of that nature. But the person with brains, with capital, or with experience, or the person who can bring foreign currency into this country because of his business connections in other parts of the world, could easily be allowed to come in with great advantage to our country.
    I make this appeal because I consider it to be a reasonable one. I believe that if our immigration officers and officials were given this type of lead, they would be enabled to carry out their duties all the more easily. My hon. Friends are right when they suggest that a Bill could be introduced to deal with the problem as a whole.
    Nobody wants competition that would adversely affect the employment prospects of a British subject. What we do want is a humane approach to this matter and, all circumstances being properly considered, to bring in those people—like the Huguenots and the Nazi victims. They can help us, as their predecessors did in South Wales and in other areas, to provide work for those who have been deprived of their work by such tragedies as the closing of pits or mills.
    Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: There has been complaint from hon. Members opposite that the speeches from this side of the Committee have been too few and too short. I cannot speak at all without getting their gratitude, at least for making the speeches from this side less few, but in spite of the other half of their complaint I shall do my best to be even shorter than any of my predecessors from this side.
    I shall make that ambition the easier by omitting to answer the speeches that have been made from the benches opposite, almost all of which—I mean this in no disrespect; in the circumstances of our procedure and of their purposes perhaps it was necessary—have been of the nature of Second Reading speeches for a Bill which has not yet been drafted. To answer a case of that sort would not be of any great value.
    I wish to make only one point. I am not certain whether either of my predecessors from this side of the Committee made quite clear what they feel about what seems to be the main question of the afternoon's debate. I want to make clear that there is at least one person on this side who is in the awkward squad on what seems to me to be the main question, that is to say, that I dislike delegated legislation, I dislike temporary legislation and I dislike legislation which is done to meet a war situation.
    5.45 p.m.
    What we are being asked to do today is, in a particular respect, to continue legislation which has all those three bad qualities. A habit has grown up on the Treasury Bench—I have said this before, but it was three or four years ago—of thinking that with every year that passes the objection gets less, as if precedents and prescription were a help in this connection, but of course they are not. All the objections to delegated, temporary, wartime legislation when it has been in existence for only one or two years, get greater when it has been in existence for three years, four years, and so on. Now this practice has gone on for a generation and a half.
    I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, who, I understand, will wind up for the Administration, will, if I may say it without being what is called provocative, have a better case than his predecessors,
    452
    or even himself, have often had in the past. I hope also that part of his case now will be to say that the Government are convinced that delegated, temporary, war-time legislation in any matter, except where it is demonstrably and absolutely indispensable that it should continue, ought not to continue longer than for what has now become 36 years.
    I do not share the anticipatory nostalgia which several hon. Members opposite have had for the speeches they made this year and last year and the proviso which they put into all their arguments that, of course, we must find some way of doing all this again every year. I see the point, and I think there is something to be said for it, but I do not share their uncritical nostalgia for our having this debate, or something very like it, every year. What I do share—
    Mr. Paget rose—
    Sir K. Pickthorn: No. I sat and listened to every word from the hon. and learned Member. I heard a great deal from him and I do not want to hear any more. In any event, this is my last sentence. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will assure us that he agrees with hon. Members opposite and with me on what seems to be the main point that this sort of thing ought not to go on any longer.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Without wishing to embark upon an orgy of nostalgia—
    Sir K. Pickthorn: The hon. Member has not been here.
    Mr. Silverman: I have, most of the time.
    Sir K. Pickthorn: The hon. Member would have embarked upon it; he would have been swimming in it all the time.
    Mr. Silverman: In any case, nostalgia is about the past, not about the present.
    Without wishing to embark upon an orgy of nostalgia, it is true that we have had an annual debate on this subject for very many years. Indeed, the only advantage that I can think of in dealing with our aliens legislation in this way, by continuing it, as it were, from year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts, is that it provides us with

    453
    a special opportunity, in addition to the debates on the Home Office Estimates, and so on, for reviewing the Government's aliens policy.
    That, however, is not the real purpose of the discussion. The reason why we have had these debates year by year all these years is the fundamental objection which we have, and which, I am glad to know, the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) shares, to the principle on which we are handling these matters.
    There are two aspects of this question. One is what one may think of the actual administrative handling of aliens questions. I am in full sympathy with all those who have pleaded with the Government for a more liberal aliens policy than they have ever displayed. But that is not the essential thing. The essential thing is the thing of which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) gave so brilliant an exposition in his opening speech, namely, the fundamentally wrong principle of having one section of people living under our law, within our territory, who have by law no protection whatever against administrative tyranny.
    I do not say that there is any administrative tyranny. I think that there may occasionally be cases when decisions are taken which are more harsh than they need be. There are many cases where great generosity is shown. The objection is that we do not have one law for the home-born and for the stranger living with us.
    There is no reason in the world why all the powers which the Home Secretary exercises arbitrarily should not be exercised equally or more effectively if, in each case, there were for the alien as there is for the citizen some appeal to third party judgment. If an alien is to be expelled, or, indeed, if he is not to be admitted, or if any other measure is to be taken against him, there is no reason at all in principle why the accusations which are made against him should not be made in open court, proved in the ordinary way and answered by him, if he can answer them, in the ordinary way. The United States of America has clone this for very many years. There is no insuperable difficulty about it. Obviously, in principle, it is better that things should be done in that way.
    454
    I expect that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will say that it does not matter very much because out of all the hundreds of thousands of aliens who live amongst us or who have lived amongst us for so many years there are but very few cases in which the Home Secretary has exercised the powers to which objection is taken and that he has always done so with restraint and only in the most obvious and unanswerable cases. It may well be that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say that. I think that there is a large measure of truth in it. But it does not amount to a defence at all. The fewer the occasions on which one needs these powers, the weaker is the case for having them. If there were more cases, then, obviously, the argument in favour of having an open hearing, an open trial, with some kind of third party judgment and some kind of appeal would be greater.
    It is very difficult to see why, after all these years, the Home Office clings so obstinately to these arbitrary powers. Not very many nations have them now. We do not really need them. It does not do our name in the world any good to have people say that aliens are more harshly and arbitrarily treated in a liberal country like ours than they are in many other countries whose contributions to liberal progress in the world are so much less than ours. So much for the principle.
    I come now to the administration of it. Those of us who have had a good deal to do with these questions and with individual cases would probably agree that a wide gulf is fixed between the attitude of the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State personally in individual cases when their personal assistance is sought by hon. Members and the way in which cases are treated by the officials who are often left to administer matters themselves. It is of the nature of this kind of legislation that there is no opportunity for third party judgment or appeal the only remedy is in the House of Commons.
    That, of course, is a partial and an unsatisfactory remedy, first, because it can arise only in the very limited class in which an individual case comes within the knowledge of a Member of Parliament who feels moved to take it up. There must be very many cases similar

    455
    to those which hon. Members have taken up which nobody has ever taken up because no hon. Member has ever heard of them. This is of the nature of this kind of administration.
    Now and again there is a sensational case involving, perhaps, some alien would-be immigrant with a famous name or an international reputation for one thing or another. A decision is taken about him. The newspapers get hold of it, and then a Member of Parliament raises the matter in the House. There is a discussion here and pressure from outside. Perhaps, in the end, a different decision is reached. But, in the very nature of the case, this can happen only in exceptional circumstances of that kind. The man with an international reputation stands in far less need of protection and help than does the humble person who has no international reputation, no influential friends, and, perhaps, very slender means. His case is never taken up. No one knows how many such cases there may be.
    As I think we all know, when cases are taken up the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary look at them with great care and sympathy and, in the end, they do the right thing. Sometimes I have been lost in respectful admiration when I have watched the hon. and learned Gentleman, in correspondence with some hon. Members of the House, struggling between his genuine desire to do the right thing, on the one hand, and the duty which he feels to be loyal to his officials on the other. Sometimes there is quite visible between the lines of his letters a conflict within his own mind about how far he can overthrow an official who has, perhaps, come to a wrong conclusion. In the end—one does not always need to press hard, but sometimes one does—a decision is reached which is, perhaps, the right one.
    All these matters ought not to be left to be dealt with in this way. Let us suppose that there is a case which an hon. Member takes up and then, after the fullest investigation, the Home Secretary decides that he cannot help. The hon. Member who has taken up the matter is still not satisfied. The Home Secretary, it is true, remains answerable to the House of Commons for what he does.
    456
    6.0 p.m.
    How can we implement that accountability? We can only do it by a vote against the Home Secretary, the Joint Under-Secretary or the other Minister concerned. But then there comes the question of collective Government responsibility. If the matter comes to a Division in the House of Commons, people who vote in one Lobby or the other are voting at the same time on two quite different questions. One is whether they wish to pass a vote of censure on the Government, knowing that if the vote were carried against them the whole Government must resign, and not wishing to do any such thing, and, on the other hand, voting for and against the particular decision on which the debate arose. It is an impossible position, and it means that in the long run the Minister can never be effectively challenged in the House of Commons.
    I want to conclude, because I do not want to prolong the debate in which, I think, most of the points have already been made very adequately. I, too, want to add my appeal to the Joint Under-Secretary. I dare say that he cannot give us a positive or constructive answer this afternoon. Ultimately, the decision, as one realises, must be the decision, in the first place, of the Home Secretary himself, and, beyond that, it is of so fundamental and far-reaching a nature that one would not expect it to be offered to the House of Commons in new legislation except after a considered Government decision.
    But my appeal is to the Government through the hon. and learned Gentleman. First, we say to him that these powers are in their nature distasteful. They are manifestly not necessary. They add nothing to the effective control of undesirable aliens or undesirable immigration. These powers, remaining as they are and renewed year by year, are an offence against the whole spirit of a Constitution which is based upon equality of rights and equality before the law. If all that is admitted, and I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that none of it can be seriously disputed, what case is left for retaining these powers? Why should we not then, so long after the original Aliens Order, abandon these proscriptive powers, these delegated powers, these arbitrary, unappealable powers, and put in their place something much

    457
    more in accordance with the spirit of our law and with the spirit of our democratic Constitution?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): First, I should like to say that we are grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for raising this matter by putting down an Amendment to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and thereby enabling us to have this valuable annual debate. I am grateful, also, to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, and especially to the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), for the temperate way in which they have pressed their case, on which I well know most of them feel strongly, because this is a matter on which strong opinions can rightly be held.
    I think that it is agreed that this country, like all other countries, must have some control over the immigration of foreigners. Indeed, the debate has proceeded on that assumption. We have had this control not since 1914, as the hon. and learned Member suggested, but, in fact, since 1905. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that he was quite accurate legally in saying that up to 1914 all aliens in this country had always been subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Unfortunately we know quite well that in the past there have been some very unpleasant discriminatory laws against a certain section of the community from time to time. Quite apart from that, this country, like many others, has had various laws which have appeared to discriminate against aliens, and of course, our own laws with regard to elections are an obvious example.
    We have had this control since 1905, but the present Aliens Order of 1953 derives its authority from Section (1) of the 1919 Act, which provided that for one year the power conferred by the 1914 Act to make Orders in Council in time of war or emergency should be exercisable at any time. In form, therefore, our powers are temporary, although, to my mind, it is unthinkable that they should be brought to an end. Having an annual debate, whether as the result of this temporary legislation or as a result of permanent legislation, has
    458
    the advantage that the Government can be asked to explain how these powers are being used, and can benefit, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) suggested, from the criticisms and suggestions put forward by the House.
    I would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and others, who have suggested that if we have permanent legislation, there should be annual renewal or the opportunity for annual debate, that it is a fairly rare thing for our permanent legislation to contain such provisions. When we do go to the trouble of permanent legislation, we often have to be prepared to accept the fact that it is there for a number of years anyway, and there may not be enough parliamentary time for annual debate.
    Further, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked, as others have done, whether we would end this system and introduce permanent legislation. What I have to say is that the Government are not unmindful of the views, which are in no way inherently unreasonable, which have been expressed on this aspect of the matter, but, like their predecessors, they are unable to regard the need for the permanent aliens legislation as an urgent one at present. The case for permanent control of aliens is conceded in principle, and the matter will be attended to at a convenient time, but I cannot give an undertaking at the moment as to when that time will be.
    I will have a statement to make later in my remarks, however, which concerns the point about which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton felt most strongly of all, namely, the control exercised over aliens once they have been admitted to this country. I will deal with that later.
    I hope that it may be of use to the Committee if I broadly summarise our present immigration policy, which, although it is flexible, has been evolved with much thought and patience during the past generation or so, and, of course, in recent years, has frequently been influenced by what has been said in the annual debate. I propose to describe this policy in broad terms, and without going into all the exceptions and refinements which obscure the main picture and make a description rather difficult.

    459
    The first point to bear in mind is that ours cannot be a country of free immigration. In a closely-populated island of 50 million people we have our own problems of overcrowding, with all the housing, travelling and employment difficulties which arise. Owing to our free and democratic way of life, our tradition of hospitality, our Welfare State and our high standard of living, many foreigners would like to come and live here permanently. It is unthinkable for us to accept all of them, but I should like to say, in passing, that this Order which we have is not, in our opinion, contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will refer to Article 29 of that Declaration, I think that he may be in agreement with me. Of course, we accept all those who want to come here for a short visit of up to three months, provided that they will not be a charge on public funds and are not undesirables.
    For longer visits, many of which lead to permanent residence, we receive seven main categories of aliens. The first of these is the refugees. In spite of what has been said by some hon. Members, this country can claim to have a proud record of giving hospitality to refugees since the war. We have admitted no fewer than a quarter of a million, including as recently as 1956, only three years ago, 14,000 from Hungary.
    In this connection, it is right to mention political asylum, because it has been suggested in the debate that that has become a political matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear in last year's debate on Perez-Selles, the Spaniard, that there is no question of there being political considerations when deciding whether asylum should be granted. So long as it is proved that the person concerned would suffer in life or limb or liberty for political reasons on his return, then he has what we still regard as a claim to political asylum, and my right hon. Friend administers the law in that spirit.
    The second category of those who come for longer visits is the foreign workers with Ministry of Labour permits. The third is the foreigners of independent means adequate to support
    460
    them while they are here. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton was under a delusion about them. They are able to come and my right hon. Friend mentioned that in last year's debate as an exception to our policy of admission.
    Fourthly, there are students who come here and about whom the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) spoke. Students can remain here while diligently pursuing their studies, but what they cannot do is remain here indefinitely after several times failing the examinations in which they came to qualify. A number of them do that and, having done so, sometimes feel too ashamed to return to their own countries. They then switch—if that is the right word—the reason for their remaining and hope to take up employment, even though they do not have a Ministry of Labour permit.
    Fifthly, there are the wives and dependent children of people already here, including the members of visiting armed forces. Sixthly, there is the elderly parent scheme, and, seventhly, the distressed relative scheme. I shall have something to say about those two in greater detail later.
    We do not admit people who are undesirable, for example, mental cases, people suffering from various diseases, spies, or bad characters, and we have to exclude those who have no valid passport enabling them to be returned, if necessary, to the countries from which they have come—unless they establish a case for political asylum, which is the exception to that rule.
    We use the power to deport undesirables. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was quite right to say that it is not a power which is exercised on a very large scale. Deportation is not one of our major industries, but, nevertheless, every country which has an immigration control has found it necessary to have a power of deportation. We will bear in mind what the hon. Member said about safeguarding the rights of the individual in the exercise of this power.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Of course, there must be a power to control immigration and aliens and that must include the power to deport in suitable cases. I am

    461
    not objecting to that. What I was pleading for, especially in the case of long residence, for some years, was that such a power should not be arbitrarily exercised in the sense of leaving the deportee without any appeal to any kind of third-party judgment. That seems to me to be the main point.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Renton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I hope that I can reassure him by reminding him that since 1956 any person who has been here for two years, which is not a very long period, and is not being deported on the recommendation of a court can appeal to the Chief Magistrate. It is also right for me to point out that in every single case—although there have not been many—in which the Chief Magistrate has said that he did not think the man ought to be deported, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not deported him.
    Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: On what grounds does the Chief Magistrate allow the appeal? Is this a case of substituting his discretion for that of the Home Secretary, or does he simply see that the formalities of deportation are all in order?
    Mr. Renton: This is not a statutory right and it is not a formal appeal—although I used that word. The Chief Magistrate is placed in the position of someone able to advise the Home Secretary having considered the representations which the alien concerned may have made—and having considered them in the broadest way, not merely regarding technicalities.
    Mr. Ede: At what stage in the proceedings does this reference to the Chief Magistrate take place? Has the Home Secretary signed the deportation order at that stage, or does he say to the Chief Magistrate, in effect, "Subject to any advice which you may tender, and which appeals to me, I propose to deport "? Or has the deportation order actually been made?
    Mr. Renton: I think that I am right in saying that the deportation order has actually been made, but the person on whom it is served is automatically informed of his right to make representations to the Chief Magistrate. If he is,
    462
    so to speak, successful in making those representations, the deportation order is then rescinded. I think that that is the procedure, but I will make sure about it and get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman. There would be very little difference between that and a conditional deportation order subject to confirmation if the Chief Magistrate did not sympathise. From the point of view of procedure, there is not very much in it, but I will find out and let the right hon. Gentleman know.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for reminding me of this power. The power remains a purely advisory power invoked on the initiative of the deportee and without any binding or judicial effect, so that, as has been made clear, it is not a right of appeal.
    Mr. Renton: That is so. Although there is what one might call an opportunity for an appeal against a deportation order, it is not a right. It is something which has been conceded by the Home Secretary so that he may be quite sure about the exercise of his power in the individual case. In substance, justice is done and appears to be done in this matter.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is it possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us how very wide terms, which are matters of opinion, like "undesirable" and "bad character", are interpreted? Presumably, there must be some rule of thumb to guide immigration officers about what constitutes an undesirable alien or bad character. Presumably, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot go into details of the exact instructions which are given, but can he tell us whether there is a rule of thumb and how the definition is worked out?
    Mr. Renton: There are, of course, detailed instructions which it would not be right for me to give to the Committee, and security considerations are involved as well. The Aliens Order itself gives some guidance. If the hon. Member will be so good as to refer to it, I think that he will find some guidance given in paragraph 4 of the Order. I shall not read it to the Committee, because he can refer to it.
    So that the Committee may understand how the policy to which I have referred

    463
    in very broad outline is being administered, I shall give some facts and figures, which, I hope, may be of interest. In the calendar year which ended on 31st December last nearly 10 million people, British as well as alien, passed through out ports. Of those about 1,300,000 were foreign arrivals. Those numbers, of course, are rising all the time with increased travelling and this year the number of foreigners may well exceed 1½ million.
    Of the foreigners who came here and were admitted last year, 780,000 were tourists or holidaymakers or other short-term visitors and 185,000 were businessmen on short visits. Of the remainder, 150,000 were foreigners resident here, but returning from absences abroad, while a further 100,000 were passengers who were only here because they were in transit and, after a brief change of aeroplane or ship, moved on.
    That leaves about 100,000 others who were newcomers and were admitted to this country for an initial stay of longer than three months. One of the two biggest groups within this total of 100,000 are the holders of Ministry of Labour permits who, with their wives and children, accounted for about 40,000. A very large part of the remainder were either students or young foreigners coming here to learn the language under au pair arrangements, whose numbers have been increasing in recent years.
    Of those aliens in the total of nearly 1½ million who came to our ports in the twelve months ended 30th September this year—I move now to further detailed statistics for which I have material available—only 2,743 were refused leave to land. That is, less than one in 500 of the total number who applied to land. In the principal categories among those who were refused to land were, first, 558 who, strictly speaking were in transit, who were allowed to go further after remaining here for a short time. I have to mention them and include them in the major figure, because that is how the statistics deal with them.
    Mr. Janner rose—
    Mr. Renton: This will be a little difficult for me to explain and for the Committee to follow these figures. They are most important and go to the root of the discussion. I therefore hope that
    464
    I shall be allowed to give them without interruption.
    The next category of those aliens refused leave to land was 803 who were turned back because they intended to come here more or less permanently to work here, but did not have valid Ministry of Labour permit; 111 were stowaways; 356 had insufficient means to support themselves during their proposed stay here, and, of course, had no one able to support them; 80 had no valid travel document or had no visa in circumstances in which visas are required. Also, 67 were undesirable on medical grounds and 72 were intending students who for one reason or another were ineligible. They had not managed to get a place in a university or other training place. There were 46 seamen and 228 were classed as undesirables in the various ways in which that classification can arise.
    Now we come to what we may call the hard core of heartbreak cases, about which we have heard quite a lot this afternoon. They were the 300 people—and only 300 out of 1½ million—who came here ostensibly for short visits, but were refused because, clearly, they intended to remain permanently and were not eligible to do so, or had no valid reason for doing so.
    So much for the figures relating to those who landed during the twelve months ended 30th September this year. Their numbers have to be considered in the light of the numbers of aliens who were already here and still remain. As I said earlier, since the war this country has absorbed a quarter of a million refugees. A proportion of them have died or acquired British nationality by naturalisation or have gone abroad and for those reasons they are now outside the scope of the Aliens Order.
    At present, we have about 400,000 aliens registered with the police and they have been here for more than three months. I am very sorry to burden the Committee with so many figures, but they are significant because they indicate clearly that our aliens policy is being administered in a liberal and generous manner. The most significant figure of all is that of 2,743 refused leave to land. As I have shown, a small proportion of those cases must have caused disappointment to the foreigners concerned and to their friends

    465
    and sponsors. I suggest that our immigration service to some extent can be tested by the way in which those cases are handled.
    I am sure that the Committee will wish to join with me and with several hon. Members who have spoken in paying tribute to the considerate and humane, as well as efficient, way in which our immigration officers do their difficult work. For every case raised in this House, or which becomes sensational in on way or another, there are hundreds of others which are handled so well and so tactfully that no more is heard about them. The same is true of our Aliens Office, in Princeton House, Holborn, where no fewer than 100,000 people called last year and had their cases dealt with, most of them satisfactorily.
    Now I want to say a further word about the policy itself. The Committee will recollect that last year my right hon. Friend announced two extensions of policy which otherwise had remained unchanged for some time. First, he decided that foreigners of independent means adequate to support them here should be admitted for permanent residence if there is no risk of their competing for employment with British labour.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I apologise that I have not been present all the time during the debate, but I had to attend a meeting. I know of a particular case in which an American alleges that he has been refused entry although he is able to support himself and wants to come here for a year or eighteen months to do what he describes as research. If he is able to support himself, as I understand he is, he must be under a misapprehension because, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, presumably this American is eligible to come in without any question.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Renton: I hope that the hon. Member will let me have particulars of that case. I would very much like to look into it. There are already a number of Americans who are engaged in research here, helping us as well as, no doubt, interesting themselves, and we welcome them. But there are sometimes circumstances which prevent their
    466
    coming. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars I will look into the case to which he has referred.
    I now turn to the extension of the scheme, which my right hon. Friend made last year, for admitting elderly parents whose children, or one of whose children, was already here. He said that where a son or daughter permanently resident in this country wished to care for a widowed mother, an elderly widowed father, or parents who are an old couple living together, and was in a position to do so without a charge upon public funds, he would consider any application for permission as sympathetically as possible.
    Mr. Janner: Can the hon. and learned Member say whether, in the same way as he has treated those of independent means who come here, he will allow relatives who are not so elderly to come in? In some cases the age limit is a rather heavy burden. Will the Home Secretary consider such applications, and perhaps allow such people to join their families in this country?
    Mr. Renton: I hope that the hon. Member will not press me to make a snap decision. I will carefully consider what he has said, as I will consider all the speeches which have been made, to see whether any detailed explanation is required. But I must not give undertakings in the middle of a debate. AH I wish to say about these two concessions is that they have been liberally administered, and that we have found that they have been appreciated.
    Our policy remains flexible. Necessarily, we have to leave a good deal to the exercise of discretion on the part of immigration officers and our aliens department, within the framework of the policy laid down. Outside the parent and child relationship—as to which we assume that there is generally a case for allowing them to come together in our country—we think it best that each case of family relationships, involving cousins, uncles and aunts, and so on, should be considered on its merits, but with a bias towards the mitigation of hardship or distress.
    I now want to deal with some of the more detailed matters which have been raised. I have spoken for some time. but perhaps the Committee will bear with me.
    Mr. Ede: We have suspended the Standing Order.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton asked about the application of the Visiting Forces Act. I would invite his attention to paragraph 24 (3) of the Order. He will find that the visiting forces of a good many N.A.T.O. countries, including the United States, are exempt from the operation of the Order. Indeed, I think that only the Greek, Turkish and West German forces have to be considered apart from those mentioned in the Order. The hon. and learned Member asked me about reciprocity. I hope that I shall not be out of order in saying that reciprocity is part of the agreement attached to the N.A.T.O. Treaty and that according to our understanding it is working satisfactorily.
    I should point out that the wives and families of members of visiting forces are not regarded in the same way as members of those forces themselves. Wives and families are subject to the Aliens Order, but once it is established that the person wishing to come in is a wife or dependent child of, for example, an American soldier stationed here, there is no doubt about his or her being allowed in.
    Mr. Paget: Can the hon. and learned Member tell us the name of the American Act granting reciprocity, and when it was passed?
    Mr. Renton: Not without notice, but I will get in touch with the hon. and learned Member on the matter.
    The hon. and learned Member also asked about people arriving from India with forged passports, whose cases have attracted a good deal of attention recently. I answered some Questions about them last week. The hon. and learned Member asked why those Indians were sent back, and under what power. I must, again, refer him to the Aliens Order. He will find, in paragraph 7, that every adult landing here must produce a valid passport or other document establishing his identity and nationality. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who courteously informed me that he would not be able to be here for the whole debate, intrigued us all by the array of documents of identity which
    468
    he produced from his pocket on the spur of the moment.
    Although the passport is the best evidence of one's identity and nationality it is not the only evidence. Various other travel documents are officially recognised. Provided there can be documentary proof of identity as well as of nationality I understand that this paragraph of the Order can be complied with, because it refers to "passport or other document."
    Mr. S. Silverman rose—
    Mr. Renton: I am sorry, but I must get on. I am trying to deal with this point, which is not a very easy one. I have given way a great deal, and I must now press on.
    In interpreting paragraph 7 of the Aliens Order it is material to bear in mind that Section 1 (4) of the 1914 Act provides that the onus of proof whether or not a person is an alien, and, indeed, of his nationality, lies upon that person. Therefore, anyone who fails to prove that he is a British subject or Commonwealth citizen is liable to be dealt with under the Order as an alien. That was the position of the people who recently came from India. They had no valid documents of identity and nationality. The Office of the Indian High Commissioner, whose assistance was invoked, could not say that they were Indians, and they therefore fell to be dealt with as aliens of unknown nationality and were returned to the country from which they had come and which in this case was willing to accept them back, namely, India.
    The hon. and learned Member asked what would have happened if they had proved that they were Commonwealth citizens. As I said in answer to a Question last week, they would have had the right to stay here.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: The point is not quite clear. Is not the fact that India was prepared to take them back at least a very considerable beginning towards evidence supporting the view that they were Indians, in which case they would have been Commonwealth citizens and the results which the hon. and learned Member described would have flowed from that fact?
    Mr. Renton: No. It was entirely a matter for the Indian Government. The

    469
    High Commissioner here accepted that there was no proof that they were Commonwealth citizens, and she had no proof that they were Indians. The question whether India was prepared to take them back was one for her and her Government.
    The hon. and learned Member for Northampton, the right hon. Member for Smethwick and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne have criticised some of the detailed provisions of the Aliens Order, especially those in paragraphs 13 to 19, dealing with registration. I was asked why it was still necessary for foreigners who had been documented on their way in, and would be documented on their way out, to register with the police from time to time while they were staying here in hotels or lodging houses. I am somewhat paraphrasing the point, but I think that I have accurately represented it.
    Hon. Members will be glad to know that we have initiated a thorough study of the whole system of registration, notification to the police, and so on, as laid down in the Order. This is quite a major exercise, because other Government Departments are interested and concerned. So, too, are all the police forces in the country. We are anxious that the implications of any change in the present provisions can be fully assessed. The comments made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and by other hon. Members will be fully considered before any decision is taken about altering any of the provisions. That is all I can say about this at present, but we are anxious to ensure that people are not put to any greater trouble than is necessary to ensure effective control.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major LeggeBourke) raised two points. First, he asked what will happen to people who are now citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies resident in Cyprus when Cyprus has independence. That is a nationality point, and it would be quite wrong for me in a debate on aliens control to anticipate the legislation which might have to come. Secondly, my hon. and gallant Friend raised the question of people coming here who were suffering from various illnesses which they might spread. He was interrupted, and it was pointed out to him that sometimes people
    470
    should be welcomed here so that they could receive treatment which we have the opportunity to give.
    It is right to mention what we have done in connection with the World Refugee Year. The United Kingdom Committee for the World Refugee Year proposed, in a letter in July of this year, that this country should admit 200 refugees from Europe as part of our contribution towards the activities of the Year. The Committee suggested that there should be, first, 50 people described as "difficult to resettle", but not necessarily ill, and, secondly, 150 others consisting of single people suffering from tuberculosis or other illness who could be cured and then settled here, and also families with at least one sick person other than the breadwinner needing treatment. We have accepted that proposal, and we have done so on the understanding that the primary purpose is to assist the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in his Camp Clearance Programme in Europe. A team has gone out to help the High Commissioner choose the people to come.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I think that my hon. and learned Friend has missed the principal points which I tried to make. I was not asking him to give any ruling about the nationality of people now living in Cyprus. I was asking him, first, to give me an assurance that anybody who has to change his nationality and return here will not be put through the rigmarole of the Aliens Order, 1953. Secondly, I asked him if he would give an assurance that the whole question whether someone should be subjected to a medical examination would be examined again, not with a view to keeping them out, but to ensuring that, if they are suffering from a disease, it is known from the moment they enter the country.
    Mr. Renton: With the vast number of people—10 million altogether, including 1½ million who are foreigners—coming through our controls, it is impossible to arrange that there shall be a medical examination in every case, but there is power in the Order for a medical examination to be held. Sometimes that examination results in a person being classified as undesirable. For example, he may have venereal disease. In another case there may be good reason for letting the person in, although he is

    471
    not healthy and strong. In that case the facilities of the National Health Service are available to him. I will ascertain the extent to which the facilities of the Health Service are drawn to the attention of those people and whether they can be put in touch with hospital authorities. I will consult my hon. Friend at the Ministry of Health about that.
    6.45 p.m.
    The right hon. Member for Smethwick, who has also apologised for being unable to attend the rest of the debate, said that we should provide an opportunity for people who come from one country to whom we refuse leave to land to go to yet another country. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is sometimes done, but there must be willingness on the part of the third Power to receive the person concerned. It is no good trying to send a person to a country which will not have him. The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that we should take great care to give those people who are unable to prove Commonwealth citizenship the chance to prove it, because that is what they claim to have when they come here. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we go to very great lengths in that respect. We wish to acknowledge the help given to us by the High Commissioners and the colonial authorities.
    I think that I have dealt with nearly all the points of detail raised in the debate. Those which I have, through pressure or inadvertence, overlooked I will give attention to in the course of the next week or so and will contact the hon. Gentlemen concerned.
    To conclude, travel between countries is increasing rapidly every year leading, we hope, to better understanding between the peoples of the world. Our country is a magnet to millions of foreigners, who have a genuine desire either to come here to see how we manage to achieve so much as well as we do, or to share our lives with us, our lives being very often so much happier than theirs. We should like to help them all within reason, but our first duty is to our own people—the duty to protect their standards of work and comfort. We also have a duty to-
    472
    wards the people of the Commonwealth which must come before our desire to help aliens.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is determined to see that our aliens policy strikes the right balance between those motives and is administered as humanely as possible. We are grateful to the Committee for the constructive help which the debate has given, which will enable us to administer the Aliens Order in an even more enlightened way between now and what will no doubt be our next annual debate.
    Mr. Ede: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman intend to make any reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn)? This is the first time that I have ever agreed with the whole of a speech by the hon. Member for Carlton and I hope that it will be a long time before I so embarrass him again; but I think that he is entitled to a reply.
    Mr. Renton: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), mainly because this gives me an opportunity of apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) for not having mentioned his speech. I realise that he feels very strongly, but this point was made in earlier speeches. I dealt with the plea for permanent legislation fairly fully, although I happened to do so in reply to those earlier speeches.
    Mr. Paget: We have had a profoundly unsatisfactory reply. I do not say that because I wish to criticise the hon. and learned Gentleman personally. It is an unsatisfactory reply because it is a profoundly unsatisfactory situation. The Under-Secretary made no case at all for continuing indefinitely this process of illiberal temporary legislation and not proceeding to introduce legislation that would make the foreigners—this large body of people—human beings under the law instead of people who exist only under an arbitrary Order.
    The manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with the question of the Indians illustrates as well as anything could why it is that we should have some proper legislation. He said that this was justified because paragraph 7 of the Order imposes the obligation on these people, whether or not they are

    473
    aliens, to produce passports, and gives the immigration officer the right to exclude them, whether they be aliens or not, if they do not produce passports or other documents.
    If that is the case, the Order is plainly ultra vires. It is an Order made under powers, which we are renewing, given under the Act of 1914, which enacted that
    "His Majesty may … by Order in Council impose restrictions on aliens…."
    On aliens—and on nobody else. Section 1(1) of the 1914 Act also contains powers
    "(a) for prohibiting aliens from landing in the United Kingdom …"
    The Act gives the Government no power whatever to impose any restriction on anyone who is not an alien, and if this Order, which on the face of it it does, deals with people who are not aliens, it is plainly ultra vires. When the Government rely on an Order that is now shown to be without any power at all I advance that as a fairly good reason for their reconsidering this matter and getting it on to a properly-thought-out basis.
    The next matter I raised was reciprocity. The Under-Secretary of State says that he cannot do these things without notice. He has had notice of two years' standing—and has also had notice of some days' standing—of this question. I say quite boldly that there is no reciprocity here, and that we are in the undignified position that we once imposed on Egypt and China of granting consular jurisdiction because we are forced to accept that our law is not good enough for our visitors. And we are in that position without any reciprocity of any sort, kind or description, although we were assured that we would have it—
    Mr. Renton: What I would have required notice of was the precise American Statute to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. He very kindly gave notice that he would, in general, raise the question of reciprocity.
    Mr. Paget: I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to produce it. If he produces that Statute, I will eat it.
    Now, I should like to deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarkable statement that these regulations are
    474
    in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which we are parties. He quoted Article 29 as the Article on which he relied. That Article says:
    "1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
    2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
    3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
    What on earth that Article has to do with it, I do not know. Let the Committee consider the case I posed and which is not challenged. It is the case of a man who has come to this country as a baby, who has known no other country, who has seen no other country, who has heard no other language, who has married here, whose children are English, and whose wife is English. Without doubt, that man, on the arbitrary decision of the Secretary of State, can be taken away, can be exiled, have his family broken up and his means of providing for them taken from him. And if no other country is prepared to accept him, he can be imprisoned indefinitely, without trial or appeal, at the will of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Let us see what the Declaration of Human Rights has to say about that sort of thing. Article 2 says that everyone is entitled to these rights and freedoms without regard to nationality or status. Article 7 states:
    "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."
    All are entitled to equal protection
    Article 8 says:
    "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals …"
    These we totally deny.
    Article 9 says:
    "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
    Every one of those acts we are providing for.

    475
    Article 10 states
    "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal …"
    It is quite futile to say that these regulations are in accordance with the Declaration of Human Rights. They are, of course, in flagrant breach of them. I do not for one moment say that in the performance of the regulations the greatest regard is not had to duty and that sort of thing, but that is not what the Declaration of Human Rights is about. It is not a declaration as to whether an Executive in its discretion shall behave liberally, but a declaration of rights, and it is these rights that, in an utterly arbitrary manner, we are removing. Let us at least recognise what we are doing.
    In a sense, the Government reply has shown—and, I think, of necessity because of the unsatisfactoriness of the whole situation—so little understanding of what we are complaining about, and what even the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) is complaining about, that we regard this as profoundly unsatisfactory. It must be understood that if, next year, we are not offered permanent legislation and a proper scheme for putting this matter in order we shall certainly not be content with a reply from the Joint Under-Secretary of State. We shall expect the Secretary of State to come here next year to explain the situation if he has not done better in the meantime. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 15 and 16.
    This is our annual occasion to scrutinise the operation of this annual Act of Parliament and, as has been said on previous occasions, this is one of the Acts within this general group which we do not wish to see permanent. Indeed, the sooner it can be ended altogether the better.
    May I begin as usual by making what has now become the annual grumble that this Act of Parliament relating to exemptions to Scottish schoolchildren for the potato harvest should be discussed
    476
    at this time of the year. This is the very time of the year when the potato harvest has just finished and when it is impossible to get an adequate picture of exactly how many children have been exempted and what the conditions have been. Yet we are put in the position of granting the Government power to continue doing this next year. It would be more desirable if at least a month or two elapsed and if this matter could be discussed in the early part of the year instead of at present.
    As far as one can ascertain the facts, it seems as though there is a continued run-down in the number of school exemptions that are being demanded by the Secretary of State from a number of local authorities. According to the figures which I have, ten years ago, in 1949, there were as many as 47,000 exemptions required in that immediate post-war period. By 1957 it had come down to 22,000. In 1958 16,000 children went into the fields, and I am informed that this year the figure probably runs at under 11,000—about 10,800.
    Of course, we welcome these fairly substantial reductions which have been taking place during the last few years. But I say to the Minister that although we welcome these reductions, we shall not be satisfied until this method of harvesting Scottish potatoes has been brought to an end, and until the great damage that has been done to the education of a group of Scottish children who ought to be in school is brought to an end as well.
    One of the problems in reducing the number of children who get exemptions from school in order to go to the potato harvest is that each year with each reduction the inequality of the burden of this form of child labour becomes greater as between one area and another. Today only one of the four cities of Scotland—and that is the city which I have the honour to represent, Dundee—provides its annual quota of children from its schools, and mainly junior secondary schools, to go to the potato fields. The other three cities, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh, do not provide their quota, unless the situation has changed.
    One finds great discrepancies between one county and another in the kind of contribution that they are expected to

    477
    make. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) catches the eye of the Chair he will be able to explain in more detail what this means in terms of educational sacrifice in the County of Fife. For this reason, one should feel no sort of complacency, even though the figures are diminishing. Because they have come down I think there is a danger that people tend to sit back. Hon. Members who have been accustomed to speak in these debates in previous years no longer feel compelled to speak because their local authorities are no longer concerned, and it is left to fewer of us each year to raise these questions. Of course, I make honourable exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan).
    The real danger is that people feel that problems become less acute because the numbers involved are fewer. But very often those who are left tend to become forgotten. I hope the Minister will assure us that there is no question of the children in Dundee, Fife and other authorities who are making this contribution being forgotten by the Scottish Education Department.
    We also face the question whether, even with the existing reduction, it might not have been possible to reduce the figures still further in the recent harvest. It still strikes me as very strange that at a time when the Scottish unemployment figures are running at more than 80,000 people it should still be necessary to recruit the labour of 10,000 children from the Scottish schools. This is in addition to those children who go into the potato fields in the ordinary way during special school holidays. These are merely the exemptions. It seems puzzling that the Ministry of Labour and the Scottish Office cannot between them get more people from the lists of unemployed to go out and do this job. I know the kind of arguments that are always used. I know the kind of miraculous subtraction sums done by expert committees who look at the lists of unemployed. Nevertheless, I am still puzzled. I feel sure that if there were a greater will, it would be possible to get more recruits from that source.
    I do not always understand the way in which the Ministry of Labour operates in these matters. A personal case was recently brought to my attention of a
    478
    young woman in my constituency who had been very ill and had been looking for a job after her illness. Within a week of going to the employment exchange after her bad illness she refused a job in a hospital, never having worked in a hospital before, and was promptly disallowed unemployment benefit. Yet we have these large numbers of people at the labour exchanges, some of them having been there for a long time, and it seems to be administratively impossible to obtain any reasonable quota of people from them. I hope the Minister will have a fresh look at that problem.
    There is a good deal in the argument that if one wishes to seek adult labour one should not seek it mainly in the ranks of the present unemployed but that one should encourage people who are not in normal employment to go out and help. I was recently in a town in a rural area, with a pretty high standard of living, with more than its fair share of television sets, refrigerators and that sort of thing. I found that a number of the housewives there went into the potato fields to augment their household incomes. I would add that these potato fields were organised in a modern manner and the housewives could earn a reasonable income without undue hardship. I am sure that if the farmers generally were to modernise their methods and bring them up to the level of the best, they could recruit a great deal more adult labour than they have done so far.
    Then there is the question of mechanical aids for harvesting, the machines that may be substituted for child labour in the potato fields. Some of us suspect that over the years the farming community has been much too slow in adopting machines or in pressing for the development of suitable machines, simply because they have felt the Government would make the labour force of young children available to them.
    I was particularly interested to notice that only a month or so ago the Potato Marketing Board ran a demonstration of mechanical potato harvesters very near my own constituency. The Board was kind enough to send me an invitation, but, unfortunately, because of certain political events taking place at about that time, I was prevented from going. Otherwise, I should certainly have been

    479
    there I must, therefore, rely on various reports of this demonstration which I have received. I hope that the Committee will be given a first-hand impression of it before we finish discussing the matter tonight.
    I was struck by the words of the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board, Mr. J. E. Rennie, who himself attended the demonstration. He said:
    "The potato harvester is ten years behind the combine harvester, but I feel that by the end of the 1960s k may be very nearly the universal method of potato harvesting."
    I hope that that will be so. But I hope very much that the practice of sending children out to the potato fields will cease before the end of the 1960's.
    One of the people able to attend the demonstration was Sir Garnet Wilson who, eight years ago, I think, was chairman of one of the official committees set up to look into the problem. He is, of course, a very noted and distinguished person in Scottish education. When he investigated the matter, as chairman of that official committee, Sir Garnet Wilson made a recommendation, turned down by the Government, that it should provide a prize on a fairly handsome scale to promote the invention of a satisfactory mechanical potato harvester. Therefore, I imagine, he looked at the nine machines on view at this demonstration with particular interest. This is what he said:
    "A number of farmers are seeing the writing on the wall. They foresee children being no longer available, and they are taking precautions by purchasing harvesters."
    This is all very good, and, so far as it goes, we welcome it. But we are bound to ask why on earth they have not begun to do it before. Does this not prove the point which we have repeatedly made from these benches that it is the slowness of the Government to move in the matter and their unwillingness to give a real push behind the development of a mechanical harvester that has allowed farmers to go on feeling that it would be a good deal cheaper for them to continue to have children from the classrooms than it would to keep up with the mechanical inventions of the times?
    I am not qualified to offer any opinion on the efficiency of the machines which were on view. The price range was quite wide, from £125 to £800, and, with
    480
    the general development of mechanisation in agriculture at the moment, I should not have thought that it was impracticable for farmers to move very quickly towards the mechanisation of potato harvesting.
    I hope that the Government will show us tonight that they are prepared to do everything they can to accelerate the process. I hope that they took due note of the fact that, among the visitors attending this interesting demonstration, which I so much regret I could not visit, there were some visitors from the Soviet Union. Indeed, there was the chief of the Soviet Union special bureau on potato machinery. He also commented on what he saw, saying:
    "A considerable part of our crops in the Soviet Union are worked by machines, but they are much more complicated than those we see here."
    Not very long ago, it was customary in this country to regard the Soviet Union as a rather backward, peasant country. Now that the Russians have succeeded in photographing the back side of the moon and sending the photographs back to us, and now that we have Soviet visitors attending our agricultural demonstrations and telling us, "You are making progress but, really, your machines are not anything like so complicated as those we have", we had better remember that there is some danger that Scotland may, in due course, come to be regarded by the Soviet Union as a rather backward, peasant country unless we get a move on.
    7.15 p.m.
    I have one point to put to the Minister in connection with the recent potato harvest. I have here Circular No. 417 about arrangements for the potato harvest which the Scottish Education Department sent to the local authorities in the summer. In that circular, the Scottish Education Department makes this comment:
    "In certain areas, some farmers have in the past offered higher rates of wages than others, and this practice, which is greatly to be deplored, has caused discontent among children receiving the lower rate".
    I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is smiling at that, but I hope that he and other Members of the Committee are aware that what is being described here in rather elegant officialese is a black

    481
    market in child labour which has been going on in Scotland, in various places, including my own constituency, during recent years. It is a kind of auction in child labour which is socially undesirable.
    I want an assurance from the Minister that he has no evidence from the recent potato harvest that any farmers have still engaged in this thoroughly objectionable practice. As he knows, we had something of a major scandal about it in Dundee. He was good enough to take action about it and, I hope, to stop it. I hope he can assure us that in Dundee and elsewhere the farmers are playing the game and have not been making this serious problem even more serious in some of its consequences by engaging in that sort of auction for the labour of school children.
    The Minister who is to reply, I understand, is the Minister primarily responsible for education in Scotland and not the Minister responsible for agriculture. I will conclude by reminding him that this is one of the most irritating education problems in Scotland today. The children who go off on these exemptions—I am not speaking now about potato holidays—are principally children from the junior secondary schools or, if they come from senior secondary schools, they are children of 14 and 15, who are to leave their senior secondary schools, in most cases, within the next year or so. They are just those children for whom the last year of their education is most valuable.
    It really will not be possible in Scotland to tackle adequately the very important matter of the junior secondary school so long as this annual exemption for potato picking goes on. The children who go out into the potato fields come, in the main, from the poorer families or—let us face it—from the families who attach less importance to education and who feel, perhaps, that it is more important to have a little more extra household income than to have their children receive a proper education.
    Every school teacher in Scotland with experience of the problem will say that it is really impossible, in most cases, ever to get the children back into normal education routine when they return from the potato harvest. They have had a whiff of the freedom of working life and
    482
    they resent coming back to normal school discipline. Not only that. They have had earnings which, even by modern standards, are fairly attractive to them, and they have become accustomed to spending a lot of money on smoking in the freedom of the potato fields or in the evenings on entertainments. Two or three weeks later, when they return to the schools, they find they no longer have this unexpected pocket money. All sorts of problems are created—petty pilfering, an increase in juvenile delinquency, and so forth.
    But I emphasise the education problem. We want to ensure that as many of our young people as possible stay on at school at least for a full three years in secondary school. In Scotland we lag behind England in the number of children attaining this elementary educational qualification. One of the obstacles to reaching this goal—goodness knows, it is a modest goal—is the annual roundup of children to go off and earn a bit of money in the potato fields.
    I should have said that the fact that steady reductions have been made in the numbers brings its own dangers of complacency. I should have thought that it also brought an opportunity, if the Government were prepared to rise to it. I should have thought that, now that the figures have been brought down from nearly 50,000 to round about 10,000, there would be the opportunity, if the will were there, to say to the farmers, "Next year will definitely be the last in which you can enjoy these educational exemptions. After the Bill has been passed through the House it will not be brought forward again, and by the potato harvest of 1961 you must have made arrangements to manage without taking children from the schools."
    It may be that in order to do this we might have to extend the idea of potato holidays for a certain time. For my part, I think that potato holidays are a great deal less damaging educationally than the practice of taking from schools which continue to remain open a certain proportion of their children. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs will disagree with me here, but I should have thought that it would have been far better to let the Fife local authority deal with this problem itself in the light of its own circumstances

    483
    and in the knowledge that it will have to face its own electors on this matter and no longer to impose on it the obligation to release children who are carrying on their normal work.
    This is why we have raised this issue tonight. I wish to ask the Minister to take this opportunity to lay down a very definite time limit on the continuation of this form of child labour from the schools of Scotland.
    Sir James Duncan: It is two years now since I troubled the Committee on this subject which arises annually. If we were in America, I think that I would request that the speech that I made on 21st November, 1957, should be put in the Congressional Record, because I propose, in broad outline, to repeat, with alterations to suit the progress of events, the speech which I made then.
    If we do not get child labour for the potato harvest in Angus, Perthshire and Fife, potatoes will not be grown. That is one of the facts which we must face, whether we like it or not. In this part of Scotland, we export seed potatoes to the English and to dozens of other countries, such as South Africa, Israel and Cyprus. It is a very valuable trade, not only because of its extra earnings in foreign currency, but also because of its help to the English, who cannot grow seed potatoes for themselves to produce the potatoes for the consumer in Britain. It is therefore essential in the interests of the consuming public in Britain as a whole that potatoes for seed should be grown where they are being grown in this part of Scotland.
    I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) that if we could get the potato crop lifted by mechanical means we should not ask for child labour. The real question is: can this be done? The fact that machines are now being used on certain farms shows that the inventors and the developers of inventions have been at work. I think that the hon. Member was a little unfair to the farmers when he said that we were too slow in pressing on with these developments. We were not. If the hon. Member had attended the demonstration in my constituency, which is just outside his constituency, after the
    484
    election on 14th October, he would have seen the immense interest which farmers take in these demonstrations. As the hon. Member was not there and as it may be of interest to other hon. Members, I should like to say a few words about it.
    There were nine machines at the demonstration, but we must exclude one—the one which cost £125—because it was not a proper harvester at all. The average price of the machines was between £600 and £800. To me, that is the sort of price which farmers who want to lift potatoes by machinery are prepared to pay. I should like to congratulate the inventors on being able to devise a machine at that sort of cost. The machines were fairly light, which is an essential requirement. Here again, I congratulate the developers of these machines. Our main difficulty was in deciding whether these machines would do the job in all weathers and on all soils.
    The demonstration in 1957 was not a satisfactory demonstration. It was an exhibition of what machines do on a perfect day, in perfect soil with no stones or hills. This year's demonstration, which was organised by the Potato Marketing Board, was, in this respect, a great advance because the demonstration took place in a stony field, and I think that it can be said that the stone problem has now been solved. I think that I can say that every one of the machines dealt pretty adequately with the stones, some better than others Unfortunately, however, the demonstration was during a period of very dry weather, when the potatoes came out of the ground very easily, and there was no mud or dirt to cling to them. What has not yet been proved is whether these machines will work in wet weather or on very wet soil.
    The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked whether this would be the last year of child labour. I wish that it were, and I think that the average farmer wishes that it were, but until these machines have been tried out in all weathers, many farmers will not spend £600 or £800 on them. If the weather is wet at digging time, the machine will not be of any use and then, in very difficult circumstances, the farmers will have to get labour of some kind. I think, therefore, that we must still wait

    485
    a year or two before we get the perfect machine.
    I will not mention names, but there was one machine which was mounted entirely on rubber, which I thought was the nearest approach to solving the problem. If it can be developed to work La wet, foul weather, with the potatoes covered in mud, and at the same time eliminate the stones, I believe that we shall be very near to solving the problem.
    7.30 p.m.
    This machine is being very heavily ordered. When I made inquiries about buying one myself, the salesman said, "We are not asking people to buy any, because we are hopelessly over-sold already". That is an argument in favour of the farmers who, whenever they see something that will do the job, are ordering it at such a rate that a firm cannot expect to fulfil the orders next year, and many of us, including myself, may well be disappointed if we want a machine which we think would do the job.
    I am saying all this because I want hon. Members to appreciate that we do not want this Act continued any more than they do. I think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East overstated the effects on the children of going out to the potato fields. He talked about juvenile delinquency and the fact that the children had money in their pockets. It may be so in certain cases in his constituency, but my experience is that the mothers of these children are pretty hot on getting the money out of them when they get home, because they want to clothe them and buy them new boots for the winter. I think that this idea that juvenile delinquency results because the children get £1 or 25s. in their pockets for harvest work, which they do sometimes, is rather exaggerated and is unfair to the general run of children.
    Whilst I do not agree with the hon. Member about juvenile delinquency, I agree with him about the education argument; but there are some counter-attractions and advantages. The children go out in the open air, normally in fairly decent weather—they do not work in bad weather—and they get money which will help to clothe them in the winter. I do not propose to argue against the edu-
    486
    cation point at all, but there is something to be said on the plus side, because the children set themselves up for the winter in health and in clothing. That is something to be set against the admitted difficulties over education.
    I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment to a Division, because we are all on his side. The hon. Member is a little more impatient than we are, but I counsel him and his hon. Friends to be a little more patient. We are all after the same thing, which is to get a 100 per cent. mechanised harvesting. The Royal Highland Society and the Potato Marketing Board are anxious to achieve that.
    There were 4,000 farmers at this latest demonstration. Everybody is keen to find the machine and if we can get the right machine this Act can be dropped once more. I would end with one short story. There were nine machines operating and each had l½ acres to do. Not one finished in the hours allowed, but alongside a pair of machines there was a body of bairns and they finished the 1½ acres in a day. Until we get a fast machine—as fast as the children—the problem remains. We must see to it that the machines are not only 100 per cent. efficient but as quick at the job as the children. I hope and believe that in the next few years, thanks to the inventiveness of the agricultural engineering industry and the speed with which inventions are developed, the answer will be found and we shall be able to dispense with this Act in future years.
    Mr. Harry Gourlay: As a new Member I make no apology for intervening in the debate, because I am a member of an authority which is possibly the most affected by the Bill. It may be a coincidence that in the debate I follow the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) because I unsuccessfully opposed him in 1955, and I hope that I shall be successful in opposing his views today. I do not agree that if there are no children to gather them no potatoes will be planted. As long as there is a profitable market farmers obviously will plant and grow potatoes.
    As the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows, we operate in Fife a rather rigid scheme of exemption for potato gathering in close co-operation

    487
    with the farmers. As a result, we have reduced to a large extent the number of school children who undertake potato gathering, and because of this rigid scheme we have been able to delay the start of potato gathering by children to the last possible moment and thereby compel farmers in Fife to recruit as much adult labour as possible. This is largely responsible for the great reduction in the number of children employed last year. I do not know the figures for this year.
    It is significant that there has been a fairly large increase in the number of young unemployed people in Fife. Most of them have been engaged in potato harvesting this year, and since the harvest has been gathered in there has been a considerable increase in the number of school leavers and young people at present unemployed in the county. The rigid scheme of exemption resulted, as I have said, in a considerable reduction in the number of children who undertook potato gathering, and, more important, a considerable reduction in the number of school days lost. Despite the effectiveness of the scheme, however, there is still an unwarrantable interference with the education of children in Fife, and not only with the education of those who actually gather the potatoes but also of those children who are left in school.
    I intervene in the debate because of the tremendous feeling and the strong representations which have been made to the Fife Education Committee in the past year. As the Joint Under-Secretary may know, representatives of the Committee have been on more than one occasion to St. Andrew's House to plead with him to curtail the number of exemptions allowed. In addition, many representations have been made from town councils throughout the length and breadth of the county. As Scottish Members know, there are more burghs in Fife than in any other county of Scotland and, therefore, the number of representations that have been made can be well imagined. Strong representations have also been made by the teachers' organisation, the Educational Institute of Scotland.
    I have been in an anomalous position in the past two years, as chairman of the committee responsible for this matter
    488
    in Fife, in having to defend the Government's position to some extent because some members of the committee did not wish to put into effect the Minister's representations to allow children willy-nilly to leave school. As a result of the rigid control in the Fife scheme, we were able to reduce the bad effect on children in schools.
    There are many adverse effects on children who go potato gathering, and I should like to spotlight one or two of them. Despite the conditions laid down in the circular issued by the Department, referring to the provision of hot meals and of sanitary arrangements, we have had cases of young adolescent girls mixing with adult labour in the fields and being provided with the most primitive sanitary conditions. As the Joint Under-Secretary will agree, it is almost impossible in harvesting to ensure that adequate sanitary conditions can he. provided.
    Again, many farmers, instead of providing the meals required of them by the circular, offer bribes to the children by saying that if they do not take a hot meal they can have a 1s. or 1s. 6d. thereby getting round the terms of the circular. Reference has been made to the difficulty that children experience in getting accustomed after harvest time to normal school discipline, but one of the worst features is that, in mixing in the fields with adult labour, they sometimes do not hear the choicest language. Many of the teachers in Fife report that the most foul language is repeated by the children who have been potato gathering. That is the negation of education.
    In addition, there is gross interference with the class work, because while the children from various classes in the different departments in the school are actually gathering potatoes the children left in the class are more or less marking time, and a valuable period of two or three weeks is lost to the education of the children in the county.
    As I say, Fife county has possibly more children engaged in the gathering of potatoes than any other county in Scotland. We regret this eating into of education time because the minimum number of attendances Fife requires is 406 per year. With the extended curriculum in the schools today, that is the minimum number of attendances

    489
    required for children to obtain the higher level certificate in senior education. The education of those leaving at the age of 15 should not be cut into more than absolutely necessary.
    It seems to me that the success of the Government's policy in Scotland in creating a high level of unemployment makes it unnecessary to continue the Act. The fact that there is plenty of adult labour available means that there is no need for the exploitation of child labour in the gathering of potatoes.
    Mr. William Hannan: I think and hope that the Committee will agree that it is most fitting that this matter should have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), whose city is the one of the four cities in Scotland most concerned in this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), and that they should have taken a leading part in the debate on the Amendment. It is true, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State will claim, that we are making progress in this matter. As has already been mentioned by my hon. Friends, in 1949, 47,000 exemptions were given to children to participate in this work, and in 1955, 45,000, until last year there were fewer than 18,000, and, as my hon. Friend has said, probably today the number is about 10,000.
    My interest in this debate is to show there are others in Scotland concerned about this matter as well as hon. Members from the areas immediately concerned. I have never myself accepted the view that because one represents a city constituency all things happening in the counties and agricultural areas should not receive one's attention. I think it is a good maxim that one ought to take that interest. We learned during the war that apparently it is only in wartime that the city dweller becomes concerned with food production. However, my concern is because of the education problem and the injury which has been perpetrated to many children—I do not care whether they are in Dundee, Fife, or elsewhere—by the Act.
    I think, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, that some farmers—not all, but some—are due severe criticism because of their inaction in this matter. When the Act was passed, in
    490
    1947, it was done under great duress by my right hon. and hon. Friends who were faced with a greater problem than the community has been since, and it was because education authorities in those days insisted that if there was to be a stigma in the using of children in this way it was much better, from their point of view, as they insisted, that it should be the responsibility of Ministers and not of education authorities. Since that day there have been changes and, of course, the numbers have been coming down.
    7.45 p.m.
    I thought I detected in the remarks of the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), with many of which I profoundly agree, a little inconsistency. I think I am right in thinking—it is within the recollection of the Committee—that the hon. Member said that potato harvesters are not satisfied that the machine will be effective in very heavy weather, in wet weather, and he went on to say that the children were not used in wet weather. It seems to me that his argument falls down, for if the machines cannot be used and the children cannot be used I should much prefer that the machines should be kept for the dry weather, and not that children should be used.
    Sir J. Duncan: I am sorry if I was misunderstood. What I said, or meant to say, was that the children were not used when it was raining. They are used when the ground is wet. The machines cannot be used when the ground is wet, whether it is raining or not.
    Mr. Hannan: I had not finished. I was about to say that what the hon. Member was really saying was that children can be used in worse weather than the machines can. That is true, is it not?
    Of course, this strengthens the argument for acceptance of the proposition that this Act should be done away with. I admit at once I am not an expert in agricultural matters. I have not all the knowledge in the world about agriculture, but I have a right, as one who is interested in these matters, to exchange confidences and words with those who are in the industry. I am told that, contrary to the assertion which is made, if the children were not used the potatoes

    491
    would still be ingathered, and that if the farming community were told, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East suggested, that in two or three years' time this Act would come to an end, and that the farming community had in that time to find alternative labour, they would do it.
    Moreover, I am told that adult labour is certainly more efficient than child labour. But, of course, the farmers would have to pay a greater amount of money in wages for adult labour than they are paying for child labour. This is the information that I have. It will not be denied, I hope, that there are farmers in Scotland—at least one—paying adult wages and employing only adult labour for ingathering potatoes and making a success of it. If that is the case, then it is for others to do likewise.
    What I think the hon. Member for South Angus omitted was one of the most important points. The Rose Committee, which has been referred to, referred to damage which was being done to education and pointed out quite firmly that there were good social and moral reasons why the employment of children in the potato fields should be ended. It is bad for children to find adult farmers bidding for their services in front of the children. In that way they gain a wrong impression of the value of their services to the community. The unfortunate acquisitiveness in society is at the moment on the upsurge and has been given impetus by the recent election.
    The Government should clearly consider the effect of the continuation of this Act on the children's education, particularly when the Joint Under-Secretary of State recognises that committees have been appointed in past years to consider the status of the junior secondary school and the effect on children putting in their time in the junior secondary school from the time they pass the so-called 12-plus examination, with for those leaving at 15 apparently no social purpose at the end, but only marking time, and with the teachers marking time, till that period is over.
    We have to give them a different view, a different aim and a different purpose in life. One of the things that would make a contribution to that and help in the educational field would be
    492
    for the Government to accept the Amendment, or, at least, to give an assurance to Scotland tonight that this Act will end in two or three years' time. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will go a little further and tell us what contribution these 10,000 children make. What does it mean in tonnage of potatoes? Can he give us any idea of the contributions that they are making in the overall labour employed? It would be very interesting to know that and it would, I hope, show that it was not worth while going on with this business.
    Mr. M. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), who moved the Amendment, said he feared that there might be only a small number of people taking part in the debate, and that encouraged me to do something which I might not otherwise have done as a representative of an English constituency, to take part in the debate.
    I do not pretend to know Scotland at all well, although it is the country of roy ancestors, but I do know something about education. I am quite sure that at the present time it is extremely important to get children, particularly those whose minds are not the very quickest, to take education seriously and to understand what it means and its increasing importance in the modern world. I do not believe that we shall ever get a child to take education seriously if he sees that the attitude of the adult world is that education is a sort of frill that can be thrown off when one feels that one has something important to do, or because one cannot get the right machines or recruit the adult labour or get the potatoes in without taking away a number of 13-and 14-year-olds every year from their education. If that is the adult attitude to education, we cannot get children to respect it.
    I understand from what one of my hon. Friends said that in the great majority of cases the children who do this work are those who would leave school at the age of 15. That is what one would expect, because one will not find very many whose parents have ambitious hopes for the future of their children's education. They will be like some of the children that we find in England in what we call the second grade modern schools. I think that it is

    493
    a very dangerous development if we start thinking that some of the children have only second-class minds, that education will not mean much to them any way, and that we can afford to interrupt it. In my judgment, for a child to leave school at 15 is a considerable handicap if it is to grow up in this modern world and try to make a success of life. For children who are going to do that, a very serious objection is that they should have their education further interrupted.
    Whenever we consider child labour, the question which one ought to ask oneself is, should I be content for it to happen to my child? I do not believe that any parent who understands what the modern world is like would be content for it to happen to his children. I do not believe that any hon. Member would be content to allow it to happen to his children. We ought to realise that if we allow this to happen to children we are incurring a grave social cost. In the balance sheet of agriculture, in addition to any money payments, this is running up a debit with society in that it is interrupting the education of those children and making it more difficult for them to be trained and educated in the way required in this modern world.
    We have heard about the cost of the machines and the cost and difficulty of recruiting adult labour. If we have any respect at all for the conditions in which children ought to work, child labour ought to be at least as expensive as adult labour. If we are to comply with the regulations which my hon. Friend quoted and see that proper provision is made for the feeding of the children, for their moral and physical welfare, and for the general conditions in which they work, we shall be lucky if we find at the end of the day that it has not cost a good deal more than adult labour. If we get it cheaper, it will be by not properly observing the conditions that should be observed in the middle of the twentieth century when child labour is employed.
    This Act was passed twelve years ago in. a general mood of gloom on both sides of the House. That was in 1947, two years after the war, and the community might be excused in those conditions for feeling that anything concerned with food should have a very high priority. We are not in that posi-
    494
    tion today. It ought now to be possible to put a term to the operation of this Act because I think that all the history of child labour in any form proves that as long as it is allowed there will always be someone to prove that it is absolutely necessary and that economically the country would be ruined without it.
    A distinguished economist, Nassau Senior, proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the whole of England's export trade would be ruined if we cut down the hours that children were allowed to work in factories from ten to nine. As long as we allow child labour, someone will always say that it is absolutely necessary. I admit that perhaps we cannot cut it off immediately, but I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the suggestion made by one of my hon. Friends that the Government should be in a position to say that after, perhaps, two years this will not be allowed any more. I think that once it was clearly known that it was coming to an end it would be quite surprising how some of the difficulties in dealing with the potato harvest quoted today would melt away. It would become perfectly clear that ways other than the using of child labour fourteen years after the war would have to be found.
    Mr. A. V. Hilton: I rise to make a brief intervention in the debate, because I represent a constituency which grows many hundreds, running into thousands, of acres of potatoes in Norfolk. Soon after the war, we had a similar position in Norfolk and the same argument was put forward, namely, that if we did not allow children time off to pick potatoes we should not be able to grow them because they would never be harvested. I was amazed to hear an hon. Member opposite advance a similar veiled threat in this discussion a few moments ago.
    8.0 p.m.
    In the eyes of some people, we in Norfolk are regarded as rather backward and we always look to Scotland as giving a lead in educational matters. I am astonished to know that this sort of practice still persists there. I am proud to say that we in Norfolk, although some people consider us to be backward, left this idea behind us years ago.

    495
    At the time, the same arguments as we have heard today in favour of the employment of children were advanced by the farmers in Norfolk. Many of them are Scots who have come south and are now among the best farmers, not only in Norfolk, but in the country. They opposed us when we wanted to stop our youngsters having time off from school for this purpose, but when we said that the practice must stop, they realised that they had to find alternative methods.
    We have heard about the new harvesting machines which are on the market. I agree that not all of them are satisfactory all the time, but most of them are satisfactory for the majority of the time. To repeat my main point briefly, we in Norfolk at one time had this same practice, but we decided to put a stop to it. I am sure that what we in Norfolk did about ten years ago, our friends in Scotland can do now in these enlightened days of 1959. Therefore, I support my hon. Friends from Scotland in this matter.
    Mr. John Mackie: As a farmer and a Scot, I rise to defend myself against some of the remarks which have been made about this subject. My first point is that child labour for the gathering of potatoes is not cheap labour. Anybody who is under the impression that it is cheap simply does not know what he is talking about. It is very expensive labour.
    I do not think that it ever did any child any harm physically. I gathered potatoes from the age of 8 until I was 15 and nobody would say that it has done me any harm. Educationally, however, it does harm the children. It is a bad thing and we should do all in our power to get this practice done away with. It is easy labour. In other words, it is on tap and farmers will use it if it is available. But it is not cheap labour, and it does not do the children any harm. I make those two points first.
    As I have been quoted obliquely by some of my hon. Friends, I would like to correct them in some ways about the cost of using adult labour and to explain how we farmers could help by better organising the adult labour. Most of the gangs in which the school children
    496
    are used are mixed gangs of adults, male and female, and children, with the result that the gangs must work at the speed of the children. In consequence, the adult labour is to a great extent wasted.
    Since 1946, I made up my mind to do away with all child labour for the gathering of potatoes and I have used nothing but adult labour. I have organised it in such a way that the adults earn big pay for the job. It costs me just a little less than if I were using the children. One might almost say that it costs the same, but it is done with fewer people who earn bigger money.
    Scotland is now down to a potato acreage not much bigger than she had before the war. Before the war, we got our potatoes up without this legislation. The reason that we do not do so now is that we do not have the same amount of adult labour as before the war. The explanation is that, in many ways, people are better off. Therefore, bigger wages are needed and the work must be organised so as to give the people bigger wages if we are to use them. That is what I and a number of other farmers have done. We have organised our adult labour better and made better use of it. We no longer have mixed gangs, we pay our people piece-work rates and the job is organised in that way. We farmers could help to make fuller use of the adult labour that is available and make less use of the children.
    I agree with what the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said about the machines that are on the way and the fact that farmers are as enthusiastic as they can be when they come. That is something which I am bound to say, because I am chairman of the committee which is responsible for spending the Government money to help in the research work for this job. I cannot agree, therefore, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) that there is not enthusiasm for the job.
    I disagree also with my hon. Friend about the Soviet machine. I have seen it in the Soviet Union. All the ideas that have been put forward about potato gathering have been built into one huge machine, which is almost the length of this Chamber, but the Russians admitted to me that so far they had never had it in the field. Our machines, which have been built to suit our small

    497
    farms, have come on very well in the last few years and I think that within the time mentioned by the chairman of the Potato Board, we will see this problem solved.
    We have had the employment of school children for potato gathering since 1947 and I am afraid that we farmers have become accustomed to it. I agree that the practice should be done away with as soon as possible, but I ask for adequate warning to be given to enable farmers to reorganise themselves to do without this labour, which, I am sure, nobody on either side of the Committee desires.
    Mr. William Ross: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. East (Mr. Mackie) has informed the Committee that what we on this side have been saying for a long lime is quite practical and that if the farmers like properly to use the adult labour which is available and to study the economics and proper organisation of the job, they not only can lift the potato harvest, but they can do it more cheaply and leave the children at school. That is the case we have been making year after year. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) wants to make his maiden speech, I shall be glad to sit down, but he should not make his maiden speech while seated in his place.
    What we are asking, very temperately, tonight is that if, because of inadequate preparation or inadequate warning of our Amendment, the Government cannot see their way to accept it now, the least they should do is to say that this practice of employing school children for the potato harvest will end next year, the year after or, probably, in a couple of years' time. That is a reasonable proposition.
    This is the miracle-working Government. Only yesterday they told us that they would solve Scotland's unemployment in seven years. They have been tinkering with these matters without solving them for the whole of their eight years of office since 1951. How therefore, can we be confident that they can solve the question of not making our bag of chips dependent upon children who are deprived of their education by going into the fields? My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East says that it
    498
    never did him any harm. It is all very well for him to talk about what he did. When I was a boy, I used to deliver milk, not because I liked doing so. I do not suppose that it did me any harm, but I would not send my own two children out to do it. Which is the more important, the education and well-being of the children in the care of their teachers in school or the picking of the potato harvest? Let it be remembered that while the harvest was due for collection there were 80,000 people unemployed in Scotland.
    The employment of school children for the harvest affects the education not only of those who gather the potatoes. What about the children who are left? If he has had any contact at all with teachers—the Committee knows that I was myself a schoolmaster—the Joint Under-Secretary will know only too well that if six people go out of a class for a fortnight, education stops for a fortnight, not for the six, but for the whole class. When those who have been absent come back they have to be brought up to the standard of the rest. There is a disturbance of education not only for the children directly affected but also for those who are being educated alongside them, and it is not merely a question of the 18,000 but also of all who should have been educated with them at the same time.
    Things are bad enough in our junior secondary schools in the last year, since children who know they are to leave at the age of 16 are unsettled and it is difficult to organise a three-year course. To have this disturbed further by the will of the Secretary of State superimposed upon that of the local authorities, and to be asked to accept it tamely here year after year, is too much.
    Then there is the question of the schools in the areas. I am sure the Joint Under-Secretary will agree with me that discipline is not always best maintained amongst the wandering gangs of potato pickers. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East referred to boys and girls gathering potatoes with adults. With all due respect, that is not always best for the children and there have been times when they have got out of hand. My hon. Friend should realise this in view of the amount of damage done and in view of the number of complaints from headmasters.

    499
    What happens is that the lorry picks them up, takes them to the fields and probably takes them to a school, to which they do not belong, where they get school milk. Has my hon. Friend no knowledge of the lack of discipline amongst these children? Does he remember a case in Aberdeen last year where a schoolmaster had occasion to discipline certain children who had been picking potatoes? The schoolmaster, exercising his right, talked to them. Half an hour later they were out in the street in the lorry and they shouted things at him. Like a good Scottish schoolmaster, he thought it was time to take action and, when he did so, he was summoned before a court and technically he was guilty of common assault.
    How does the Minister think that the staffs in schools affected in this way feel about such a thing? How does he think the parents feel about it? This is not doing education any good from the point of view of the children, of their curricula or of the staff. I hope sincerely that the Minister will give us a better answer tonight than he has done in the past. I have the feeling that so long as the children are available and the Government are prepared to allow exemptions, so long will the farmers say that they cannot do without them. I hope that the Minister will change his mind about this and put the education of the children and the discipline in the schools first. 8.15 p.m.
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak. I shall not be long. This debate brings back my old Ayr County Council days, because in the Labour group on that council we had decided and completely harmonious views about this matter. One of the most distasteful things that we had to do each year was to deal with the question of granting exemption to children so that our potatoes should be harvested. This always aroused a strong, sometimes bitter, controversy in the county council, and then when the matter was remitted for the exemptions to be made by the local education committee, again this distasteful task confronted us.
    I shall deal with the point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), because I paid
    500
    considerable attention to the matter when I was a member of that committee, and also as convenor of two schools in Ross and Ardrossan. I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), who has come from Scotland to represent an English constituency, will pay some heed to my point.
    We found that parents who were seeking the necessary documents for the exemption of their children were from the lowest income groups. At the time I was convinced that children going out into the potato harvesting field were hardly suitably clad to do the job because they wore the flimsiest of clothing. So I tried to get clothing issued which would be suitable for the inclement weather which can be experienced during potato harvesting. During the actual lifting the rain often stops, but there can be bitter winds in the bleak harvest field and I was not at all sure that this was the best place for our children.
    I was buttressed in this opinion by the headmaster, who was utterly opposed to the practice. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, he said that when these children returned after three weeks, he had the alternative of taking the entire class back three weeks and starting over again, or of starting a new class for those who had been exempted for the potato harvesting. He said that because of the shortage of teachers he could not follow either course, and he maintained that until the end of the school life of that junior school at 15 years of age those children did not get any further education because they were trailing behind the class all the time, not being able to take in the education because of the period they had missed.
    If we recognised that, in the main, it is the poorer homes from which the children are being recruited, we should have a better idea of how harmful is this practice. Just along the road from the junior secondary school of which I was convenor there was the Ardrossan Academy. No children from the Academy were recruited and they were much better clad. They would in many instances be better suited physically to do the work, and they would be of a higher age group; but they were not asked. I believe that the main cause

    501
    for the requests for exemption was economic difficulties in the home through unemployment, long terms of sickness, and so on.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock elicited from the Minister of Labour last week the fact that there were more than 6,000 unemployed in Ayrshire. Is the Ayr County Education Committee, confronted with those figures, going to permit the use of child labour when more suitable labour could easily be recruited from the employment exchanges?
    I think that we have now gone far enough in this matter. It is appalling to think that education committees which are appointed for the specific purpose of securing the best education they can for the children under their control are being turned into potato harvesting exemption committees. I agree that the potatoes must be lifted, but it is appalling that we should be asking education committees to help in this distasteful fashion. I am sure that they would all be very relieved if the Government could take the burden from them. It has been there far too long. If such notice were given, I am sure that alternative methods for harvesting potatoes would be undertaken by the farming community.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton): The question has been asked once again, and answered in different directions, whether allowing children to be away from school for potato harvesting does them any harm. I have no doubt at all about it. Of course, it harms the children. I am sure that it does no harm to a great many children of farmers and farming folk, but I know that it does a great deal of harm to children from the housing schemes and towns and villages who are not accustomed to working in the countryside, and they are probably children from poor homes who are having the poorest education opportunities. It must do them harm to be taken away from school for three weeks.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members have said, it does great harm to the other children in the schools from which children are drawn for potato harvesting. I do not think the Joint Under-Secretary will deny that it does some harm, at least educationally, to
    502
    such children. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) is right when he says that it does consequential harm to children, particularly town children, to have this three weeks of freedom from school books, lessons and discipline. Surely, the Joint Under-Secretary will, in any case, say that he wants to end this system of recruiting children at the earliest possible moment and he wants to see the work undertaken by adults and mechanical harvesters used in it.
    I think it is not inappropriate to consider for a moment the origin of the 1947 Act. The 1945 Act discontinued the practice of exempting children from school attendance for the purpose of engaging in gainful employment. The 1945 Act raised the school-leaving age to 15 and provided that from the date at which the leaving age was raised it would not be permissible for education authorities to exempt school children for work.
    Before the war potato harvesting was undertaken by school children and by adult workers, mostly Irish. The school leaving age was raised in the spring of 1947. Then we all got a shock to discover that, although we had used very large numbers of children for this purpose in 1946, we could not use any children at all in 1947. Incidentally, there was a difference between the Scottish Act and the English Act. The Scottish Act was far too tightly drawn to allow any children at all to be used for this purpose, and so we had to bring in another Act of Parliament.
    The Act was intended to deal with a situation very different from that which exists today. In the first place, the Secretary of State gave directions to the farmers about the potato acreage which they could plant. He had the job of procuring food supplies for the nation and he had to give directions to the farmers about the potato acreage. Thereby, as I think the Committee would agree, he had a responsibility for securing that the potatoes were harvested, and so he had to help the farmers obtain the labour.
    Incidentally, as the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) knows very well, shortly after 1947—it was 1948 or 1949, but probably 1948—the farmers of Angus were very anxious that the directions should be discontinued. I was an Under-Secretary of State at the time, and

    503
    they told me that I was asking them to put far too large an acreage under potatoes and that all sorts of diseases were occurring because we were compelling them to plant too big an acreage. I learnt a lot about the eelworm pest among potatoes at that time. As a result of the agitation, we discontinued the directions. However, the following year the Angus farmers planted 1,500 acres more with potatoes than they had done when they were given directions.
    There is another great difference in the situation. Then, a very large number of children had to be recruited for the job, and we had to have city children in very large numbers. I had the duty at the time of explaining to the education authorities in Scotland the responsibility of the Secretary of State not only for education, but for agriculture. Some members of education authorities very properly told me that the Secretary of State might be responsible for both education and agriculture but they were responsible only for education and they did not see why they should incur the odium of granting exemptions to children to pick the potatoes which the Secretary of State had directed should be grown.
    8.30 p.m.
    It was in those circumstances that I undertook at that time that a Minister would assume responsibility for deciding how many children could be exempted, thus relieving education committees of the odium of making that decision. The position is very different now. We used to take thousands of children from the cities and billet them in the potato growing areas. That billeting has been discontinued. The number of children needed for this job has been reduced to a very small proportion of our school children.
    Despite what was said by the hon. Member for South Angus, and even by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), I have never been satisfied that farmers have done enough to get machines to do this job, or to get improved machines. I remember making a speech drawing the attention of the hon. Member for South Angus to the number of spin diggers still in operation in Angus because the farmers there would not invest in the kind of machines which I had seen being used by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East on
    504
    his farm. If my hon. Friend had continued to use spin diggers, which have now been used for twenty years, he would not have got the good results which he obtained from adult labour. I have no doubt that the fanners who are most dependent on children for potato harvesting are the farmers who are still using spin diggers.
    Sir J. Duncan: We all had to use them last year.
    Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend did not use them last year. The farmers who are most dependent on school children for potato harvesting are the least progressive farmers. The most progressive farmers are those who do without the children. It is those progressive farmers who have reduced the number of children required from 50,000 to 10,000. It is not the most progressive but the least progressive farmers who need those 10,000.
    If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) suggested, we were to discontinue this legislation from an early date, if we were to permit the children to be employed on the potato harvest of 1960 but not 1961, I have no doubt that we would harvest all the potato crop in 1961 without children. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to say that this legislation will not be continued for another year and that we shall not see it appear in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of next year.
    My hon. Friends have made a generous offer. They have said that they will not press the Amendment to a Division tonight, and they have not asked that the children should not be available in 1960. They have asked that this should be the last time that this provision should appear. It should be remembered that when we introduced this legislation in 1947, we asked that it should be continued for only three years. We thought that in three years we would be able to do without the services of school children—at least, we thought that it was important that we should do without them at the earliest possible date.
    In 1947, farmers told me that if only they could get a potato harvester costing between £600 and £800, they would gladly do without the children. There

    505
    has been a great change in the value of money since then, and if they were willing to spend £600 to £800 in 1947, they should be willing to spend between £1,200 and £1,400 now. However, although their incomes have risen tremendously since 1947, farmers are not willing to spend any more on a potato harvester today than they were prepared to spend in 1947. In view of the change in the value of money, that means that they are prepared to spend only half what they were prepared to pay twelve years ago. I do not want to make it necessary for farmers to indulge in gross extravagance in the purchase of mechanical harvesters, but I certainly deny the hon. Member for South Angus the right to stick to his figure of £600 over a period of twelve years.
    I should like to make one other point to the Under-Secretary. If he cannot say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East that this will be the last year of renewal of the Act let him say that he will not continue it without having an inquiry by an independent committee. I call his attention to the fact that before a Labour Government continued this Act we set up an independent Committee to inquire into this business so that we might have an objective examination of the position. Objective people would be able to consider the educational as well as the agricultural aspect and could examine the availability of adult labour to undertake the work and the practicability of getting mechanical harvesters in the future.
    That Committee examined all those things and came to the view—I think it was in the year 1950—that we should need the services of children for another year or two, but that did not mean for another ten years. I cannot remember exactly what the Report said, and I wish I had remembered to look at it beforehand, but it certainly did not say that we should need them for another ten years. We needed them in the meantime and we got them in the meantime, but we ought not to do this any longer.
    If the Under-Secretary says that this Act will not be written into the Bill next year, he will be giving the farmers warning now, in November, 1959, that they will not have the school children in October, 1961. They will have two years' warning and I think that is fair.
    506
    If he cannot give that assurance, I hope that at the very least he will say that before he asks Parliament to continue this Act again he will have the whole matter examined by an independent committee.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): We have had a very temperate and illuminating debate tonight. As was said by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), whom we are so glad has joined our debate today, it is now twelve years since the Labour Government brought in the Act of 1947 providing for the exemption of children over 13 from school attendance for potato lifting in Scotland. There has always been anxiety over the interruption of the children's education and that we all understand. We well understand, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) said, that anxiety is apt to grow because of the growing inequalities between different districts. That is a point which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M, Thomson) also raised.
    We all understand these anxieties and we do the best we can to reduce them to the lowest possible levels. The hon. Member for Norfolk, S.W. (Mr. Hilton) said that his area had got rid of the practice of employing children on potato lifting years ago. That is true, but we ought to be quite certain that we are comparing like with like in these things. Circumstances are not entirely alike in his part of the world and in Scotland. Incidentally, when I was dealing with the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, I attended a demonstration of potato lifting machinery in his part of the world. The point is that in England farmers can be reasonably sure of a much longer lifting period; and the acreage is not proportionately so great as in Scotland. They also have a larger agricultural casual labour force.
    I also understand the anxiety about possible differential treatment between junior secondary schools and senior secondary schools. It is very difficult to make proper comparisons in this matter, because the comprehensive schools also count as senior secondary schools. I can tell the Committee that of the total number of exemptions granted this year, which the hon. Member for Dundee, East correctly stated as being 10,858, junior

    507
    secondary schools accounted for 8,172 and senior secondary schools for 2,686, which is roughly 25 per cent. The figure has been running at about that rate for some time. So far as I know, there were none from grant-aided schools, because the cities in which such schools are mainly situated are now no longer contributing to potato lifting. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is aware that children do not now go from Glasgow to lift potatoes.
    We were very glad to welcome the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) to the debate. I listened with admiration to his maiden speech. I recall attending a demonstration on his farm of his methods of potato lifting and organising adult labour, when I was most hospitably received. In passing, I want to pay tribute to the work that he has done as chairman of the committee that has been advising the Department of Agriculture on agricultural machinery. He laid stress upon the fact that adequate warning should be given to farmers. We have always undertaken to give at least a year's warning before the present scheme is ended.
    As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, this is almost an annual event, and it is right to ensure that we are not continuing the Act unnecessarily. It is some years now since we began deliberately to reduce the exemptions, year by year. We have already made considerable progress with the reduction of the number of children exempted from school to assist in potato picking. This year, as I have said, about 10,800 exempted children were employed, which is about two-thirds of the number employed last year, and only one-quarter of the number employed in the peak year of 1949. The acreage under potatoes has decreased considerably since then, but in the last two years the curve has more or less flattened out. In fact, there has been a slight increase.
    Admittedly, this year's exemptions were somewhat lower than we might have expected. They numbered nearly 12,000, but we were lucky with the weather and the harvest. In any case, there would have been a considerable reduction in comparison with the 16,234 exemptions granted last year. There have been reductions in every education authority
    508
    area and nine counties—including Ayrshire—in which children exempted last year were not called upon to provide any this year.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) gave a most interesting account of the demonstration held at Tealing this year. I join in the tribute he paid to both designers and developers.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the hon. Gentleman complete the statistical picture and tell us how the 10,000 is broken up between the authorities? Can he give us an estimate of the number of children who go into the potato fields in potato holidays, as distinct from being exempted from attending school?
    Mr. Macpherson: I would give the hon. Member a very long list. Many education authorities provide children for the work. Perhaps he will allow me to give one or two examples, which have been particularly mentioned in the debate. In Fife, 5,494 exemptions were granted in 1958, but in 1959 the number was reduced to 3,182.
    The number of days for which exemptions per child were granted was also reduced. That represents very considerable progress. In Lanarkshire there was a reduction in the number of exemptions granted from 1,048 in 1958 to 327 in 1959. We are running it down. I have not the figure here of the number who work during the special school holidays—some schools have four terms—but I shall be glad to provide the hon. Gentleman with that figure.
    8.45 p.m.
    Although no machine has yet been developed which is capable of performing under all the wide variations of climate and soil experienced in Scotland, there has been a considerable advance over the last few years in both the efficiency and reliability of potato harvesting machines. That has been shown at annual demonstrations. There is now a fair selection of adequate harvesters available, at least for the more easily worked land, and more models are now going into production, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East knows.
    It is reasonable to assume that this progress will be maintained and that,

    509
    provided that other circumstances such as the weather are not abnormal, we can continue to run down the scheme at about the present rate. Therefore we are now able to foresee the abolition of the exemption scheme within a reasonable time with a minimum disturbance to the farming industry.
    Perhaps I might remind the Committee of what the hon. Member for Dundee, East said last year
    "If he"—
    that is, me—
    "could tell us that this reduction of, roughly, 5,000 a year is to continue, we could then see an end of the practice within three or four years."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November. 1958; Vol. 595, c. 1464.]
    The Government recognise, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East said, that farmers need notice in advance to enable them to plan for the changed circumstances. With so much depending on the weather and the number of machines now being put on the market, it is felt that it would not be reasonable to give less than three years' notice of the discontinuance of the scheme. We feel that we are now in a position to do so.
    Accordingly, I can tell the Committee that we propose to seek the approval of Parliament to the re-enactment of this Measure now and for the next two years—that is, for the next three harvests—but not after the 1962 harvest. After 1962. it will still be open to education authorities, as it is at present through the system of staggered holidays practised in Perth, Angus and Kincardine, to arrange their school terms so as to allow school children to take part in potato harvesting during their holidays.
    As I said in last year's debate to the hon. Member for Dundee East that is a matter entirely for the local authorities to decide. It is for them, rather than for him or for me, to decide which is the best way of dealing with this, but I have no reason to suppose that those authorities which at present grant separate holidays will discontinue the arrangement after the termination of the exemption scheme if they consider that to continue it would be in the best interests of the agriculture of the area and would not affect education to any serious extent.
    With that assurance and the certainty of the ending of the scheme within a
    510
    measurable time, running down from the notified exemptions of roughly 12,000 at the rate of about 5,000 a year over the next three years, we hope to end the scheme in 1962. On that understanding, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for replying so precisely. It makes us feel that the debate has been well worth while. He will understand, however, that my hon. Friends and I are rather disappointed that he has not been able to set an earlier date. I proposed a continuance of the scheme for one more year, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) suggested that two further years might be reasonable. The Minister has suggested three years. That is a little longer than we would have expected, but I must say that we are very happy indeed—at long last, and after many years of debate—to have got the Government to commit themselves to a final date for finishing the scheme.
    Therefore, in the light of the Minister's statement, for which we are grateful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Albert Evans: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 40 to 48.
    This part of the Schedule relates to the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, which applies to England and Wales but not to Scotland for which there is a separate Act. The Act was to continue in force until 31st December, 1947, but since that year the Government of the day have found it necessary to ask for it to be continued from year to year.
    During the immediate post-war years, following the loss of housing accommodation by enemy action and the then lack of building, there were probably very good reasons for the Act to be continued in order to protect those people who had to live in furnished accommodation. However, judging by the statements of Government spokesmen over the last three or four years, one would have thought that the housing problem was largely solved and that it would be unnecessary now to continue this Measure.
    During the lifetime of the last Government, we were told repeatedly by the

    511
    Minister of Housing and Local Government, and categorically by the present Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor, that the housing problem would be—I think the expression was "in equation". One wonders, therefore, why the Government should again ask for a continuation. If the Government's claim were true, it would be no longer necessary for large numbers of people to continue to occupy this type of accommodation, as they could get vacant accommodation and furnish it for themselves. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to explain why, in the opinion of the Government, this Act should continue.
    Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will give the Committee the up-to-date facts and figures relating to the working of the Act and of the tribunals. We are able to get some figures from the annual reports of the Ministry, but they are out-of-date by the time we come to consider the renewal of this Act. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us up-to-date information about the number of tribunals and the amount of work which they are now doing.
    So far as I can make out, there has been a considerable run-down in the number of rent tribunals. I believe that in 1953 there were 65 and that in 1957 the number had dropped to 60. The last figure that I have was given to the House a year ago by the then Parliamentary Secretary. It was for November, 1958, when we were told the number of tribunals was 48. We know that the Government have been following a policy of reducing the number of tribunals and that they have amalgamated tribunals in order to achieve this reduction. I should be glad if the Minister could tell us whether that policy has been carried any further, whether there have been more reductions and, if so, exactly in what parts of the country those reductions have taken place.
    As to the number of cases that the tribunals are handling, the report of the Ministry gives us the precise figures as at the end of 1958, almost a year ago. We see from the annual report of the Ministry that a year ago the number of cases being dealt with by the tribunals was near enough the same number as were handled in the previous year.
    512
    Between 1957 and 1958 there appeared to be no sharp decline in the general level of work undertaken by the tribunals. It would be interesting if the Parliamentary Secretary could give the figure, say, for the period up to the end of the third quarter of this year, and, on the basis of that figure, give some estimate of the total number of cases that the tribunals are likely to handle in this current year. If the Parliamentary Secretary, either now or in correspondence, could give figures relating to the various areas of the country, it would be useful in our consideration of the Act. Of course, I am particularly interested in the Islington tribunal which covers a large part of North London.
    I wish to refer to a particular aspect of the work of the tribunals. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with the change in the work performed by the tribunals arising from the passing of the Rent Act in 1957. Before the passing of that Act it was not obligatory on a landlord of furnished accommodation to give his tenant a rent book, but there was one hopeful aspect of the Rent Act which laid down that the landlord of furnished accommodation was obliged to give his tenant a rent book. We had agitated for this for some time, and the Government inserted that provision in the Rent Act which did, apparently, make the decisions of rent tribunals enforceable.
    9.0 p.m.
    Prior to that provision in the Rent Act, it had been found almost impossible to enforce the decisions of rent tribunals. The enforcing authority is, of course, the local authority. Only the local authority can take action in the courts to enforce the decision of a rent tribunal. Before the 1957 Act, local authorities had no reliable evidence about the evasion of decisions by rent tribunals and it was very difficult for them to take offenders to court.
    We thought that, following that new provision requiring every landlord of furnished accommodation to provide the tenant with a rent book, matters would be very much easier. I regret that I have no reliable or comprehensive information about the situation since. Here again, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could help us about what has

    513
    happened since the provision of a rent book to the tenant of furnished accommodation has been compulsory. My information is rather sketchy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us something more factual and comprehensive about how the decisions of rent tribunals are now being enforced.
    My impression is that, although some landlords are providing rent books to their tenants, they are not, in many cases, even where they provide rent books, inserting the necessary information which can enable a local authority to trace who the landlord is and thus be able to enforce the decision of a tribunal if the landlord has failed to comply. Apparently, landlords in certain cases fail to insert their own names and addresses, and local authorities are again put in a difficulty.
    I hope that I have not asked too much of the Parliamentary Secretary. I have asked for information on several matters. I am sure that he will do his best, but, if it happens that he is not suitably informed at the moment to give us an answer, I hope he will send the information through the post to me and to other hon. Members.
    Mr. Janner: In this case, as in the case of a previous Amendment, it is quite obvious that the purpose of raising the matter is not to dispense with the particular Act but to elicit information and, perhaps, to offer certain criticisms of the Act itself.
    Before I go further, I should like to compliment the Government on their choice of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. If I may say so, they have, in their difficulties, chosen someone who, I am quite sure, will be able to help them out and, I hope, will be able to assist us in finding some remedy for the difficulties and tangled problems which have arisen as a consequence of the removal of the Rent Restriction Acts by the Rent Act of 1957.
    It will be interesting to see the reaction of the Government to my hon. Friend's proposals. If they say, as I assume they will say, that they must retain the Act, I am afraid that that will be an admission by them that my hon. Friend's contentions are correct. For example, my hon. Friend referred to retention of rent tribunals, which we have always felt were a necessary asset in the protection
    514
    of tenants. I suppose that their retention will be advocated by the Government, and perhaps they will use that as a stepping stone towards increasing the powers of tribunals. I think that the tribunals have played a remarkably useful part in giving security to tenants, and I felt it a shame that the Government would not accept the principle of tribunals fixing rents for houses generally, thus retaining a roof over the heads of many people. That is a matter m respect of which the Parliamentary Secretary faces a difficult task.
    It is obvious today that there is still a great need for a check to be kept upon the rents charged by some landlords. We on this side have never contended—and it is worth while to point this out again and again—that we have a complaint against all landlords. What we have always said is that there are some landlords whose activities should be carefully watched, and if it is found that their activities are wrong they should be curtailed.
    I do not think it would be fair of me to ask in a maiden speech from the Dispatch Box for a lot of replies, but I should like to know what steps are taken to make the public acquainted with the provisions of the Act so that if they are affected they may have recourse to the tribunals. Our great difficulty always was that, in spite of the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts, many people did not know their rights. As a matter of fact, it will be remembered that time after time emphasis was placed on the fact that there was in the Rent Restriction Acts a provision that local authorities should ensure that the rights of tenants under the legislation were know to the tenants themselves. If tenants had exercised their rights under the Acts which have been destroyed by the Government vast sums of money which had been overpaid would have been recovered.
    We are now placed in the difficult position of being without the protection afforded by the Rent Restriction Acts. It may be that one day the ends will be tied together when a Labour Government is in office, but it will be a difficult job after years of tangled conditions in respect of the rights of tenants I should like to know what is done to publicise the fact that tenants who are being overcharged have a remedy. I do not know whether

    515
    the Parliamentary Secretary has had an opportunity to get that information. If we cannot have it now, I hope that we shall have it at some time, but it is important that tenants should know their rights so that they may take advantage of the remedy available to them in respect of excessive charges.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I should like, first, to thank the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) for his courtesy to me personally. Both he and the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) have asked a number of questions which I will try to answer. First, however—and I think that I speak for both sides of the Committee—I would like to pay a tribute to the chairmen and members of the rent tribunals, which are the subject of this discussion. Hon. Members, on both sides, know of the care, impartiality and diligence with which they discharge their duties and it is proper for us here to acknowledge their services.
    I will now try to address myself to the questions which I have been asked. First, of course, despite the great progress made under this Government, there is still a housing problem in the large centres of population. The two hon. Members who have spoken will know that the rent tribunals no longer deal with all furnished accommodation, but only with furnished accommodation of a rateable value falling below the value at which decontrol has occurred. This is also of great help in securing just that mobility of labour which, as we heard in yesterday's debate, the country has always had and must continue to make possible for the population. So much for the need for the tribunals.
    On the more detailed questions, my predecessor last year said that there were then 48 tribunals, but he announced the intention to reduce the number by one. That reduction has occurred. The work of the Colchester tribunal has now been divided between the neighbouring tribunals of Norwich and Southend. Thus, the number of tribunals, which last year was 48, has now fallen to 47. The number of cases, too, has fallen slightly, from 4,800 in the year ended June, 1958, to 4,633 in the year ended June, 1959. I
    516
    do not have with me detailed figures for Islington, but I will, if I may, send them to the hon. Member for Islington, Southwest as soon as I can.
    The hon. Member asked about rent books. He is quite right. The Rent Act provided that it should be an offence for a landlord not to supply a rent book and not to give certain information in that rent book. I cannot, at this short notice, give the hon. Member statistics about prosecutions. My impression is that there have been very few. Again, I will find out this information and send it to the hon. Member, unless he likes to put down a Question.
    Concerning publicity, to which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West referred, I should have thought that there was ample local publicity in local newspapers. Certainly, bodies such as the Citizens' Advice Bureau are well informed about the work of rent tribunals. I will, however, look into this question and consider whether anything more might be necessary.
    There is one question that I was not asked, but I am sure that it will interest the Committee to know that, while the estimate of cost for 1959–60 was £93,000, we are this year combining service to the public in maintaining the number of tribunals with service to the taxpayer by reducing the cost and we expect the cost to fall by £2,000 to about £91,000. I hope that I have now covered all the questions I was asked and that I have managed to satisfy the hon. Members who asked them.
    Mr. A. Evans: In view of the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I thank for the attention which he has given to my questions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 50 and 51.
    So far today we have been discussing matters that have been raised every year for a number of years, but it is some time since we had a discussion on the issues that are raised in this Amendment. Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953, re-enacted the war-time legislation which dealt with licensing problems in what are described as war damaged areas. The unwelcome visitations of

    517
    enemy aircraft destroyed a number of licensed houses, wrecked others, and also, unfortunately, destroyed and wrecked the houses of their customers.
    In the schemes for rebuilding the towns and cities where this damage occurred the Coalition Government enacted the legislation which is now Part II of the consolidating Licensing Act, 1953. It provided for what were called licensing planning committees half the members of which consisted of members of the local planning authorities and half of members of the local licensing bench, presided over by chairmen appointed by the Secretary of State. A chairman had a casting vote in the event of an equality of votes. He had no first vote, but if the two sides divided equally he was then given a casting vote.
    I do not think we have had any report on the progress which these committees have made with the task which was committed to them. I think it is about time that we heard what the view of the Department and of the Secretary of State is about the way in which these duties have been discharged and the results which the committees have managed to achieve.
    During the time that I was responsible for the administration of the law my chief difficulty was to find suitable chairmen, and I should like to know what is the present position of the chairmanship of these committees. Chairmen were apt to take on the job and then, after a very short experience, ask to be relieved of what they had undertaken. Of course, it is very desirable in a service like this that the chairmanship of a committee should be reasonably continuous so that a settled policy can be arranged.
    One of the difficulties which troubled the committees in their earliest days was the problem of the house which had been so completely destroyed, or nearly completely destroyed, as to be unusable, and the possible effect of the lack of use on the continued existence of the licence for the premises and site. There was a special clause in the law, which still remains as a Section of the Act, dealing with the provision of temporary licences. Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State in a position to say how many of these temporary licences have now become permanent through the re-erection of the
    518
    house which was destroyed or by the removal of the licence to some other site?
    I see my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) here. He will recollect that in South Shields there was one house which apparently disappeared in the market place, but which in some remarkable way, with no licence ever being granted for rebuilding or for the use of materials, mysteriously during successive nights managed to get back into a condition of affairs in which liquid refreshment could be comfortably consumed on the premises, and no question of a temporary licence therefore arose in that case. There were other cases where, for one reason or another, temporary licences had to be granted, and I should like to know how far those provisions still remain in working order in the areas in which the temporary licences were granted.
    I think that the licensing planning provision, by and large, has worked well, and in the lay-out of rebuilt towns which in some cases, as in the case of my own constituency, now include an added area to deal with housing estates, the distribution of licences in proportion to the population has been considerably improved by this method of dealing with the matter. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any consideration has been given to the extension of some similar provision with regard to the large housing estates which have been built on the surroundings of the old towns where the population which used to be in the centre of the town has been moved out and the requirement for licences in the old part of the town has decreased.
    One of the difficulties in the areas not subject to licensing planning has been the fact that in a very large number of cases the new populations have been inadequately served in the grant of licences in their area. Of course, if we take the whole of an urban district or borough and take all the old licences and add them in and then divide the population by the number of licences granted, it is very difficult to say from the average that new licences are required.
    As chairman of a licensing bench I was faced with a similar problem that arises from the amalgamation of breweries whereby houses very close to one another and formerly in the hands of two brewers.

    519
    now belong to one brewer, owing to the amalgamation, and where with the reduction in the general consumption of alcoholic liquor it is very doubtful whether the continuance of both can be justified. We had two cases where there were four houses, two pairs which now belong to the same brewers, and where there was not a sufficient trade for one of the licensees to be a full-time licensee. He had another employment from which he expected to get his living and run the pub as a sideline.
    It seems to me that it might be helpful if, in view of the success that, I think, has attended the work of the licensing planning committees and in view of the large shift in population that has now taken place in practically every technical urban district in the country, this principle could be introduced into some amending law which would enable licensing justices to consider every area as a whole and, possibly, in conjunction with the town planning committee, do something to see that the distribution of licences is more in accordance with real modern needs than the actual facts at the moment show to be the case.
    This is the first time that we have had a discussion on this Measure. As far as I know, it appears to be working well and I think that the general acceptance of the principle by the people in the licensing and planning areas should encourage the Minister to consider whether the general application of this principle over a wider area than that over which it at present operates might not be to the general advantage.
    I realise that to ask for detailed statistics of this matter this year would be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman. I should be grateful for such statistics as he can produce, and I hope that he will not apologise to the Committee for giving the figures to us. I trust that if we have a similar discussion next year we shall be able to have a general survey of the situation which will enable the right hon. Gentleman to give a fully detailed reply.
    Finally, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is likely that any of these licensing and planning areas will be regarded in the near future as having fulfilled the purposes for which this peculiar arrangement was set up.
    520
    If so. what provisions will be made for the future licensing of houses in any areas which may be removed from control under this part of the Licensing Act?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I am a little diffident in answering the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) because if anybody in the Committee has expert knowledge of this subject it is the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ede: I have expert knowledge only of the outside of these houses.
    Mr. Vosper: Indeed, I found when studying the papers in connection with the Act that one of the amending Acts, now consolidated, is known to the Home Office as the "Ede Amendment Act". As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this matter results from the Licensing Planning Act, 1945, which has been consolidated in the Licensing Act, 1953. He has quite correctly explained the purpose of this machinery, which is to co-ordinate the functions of licensing justices and local planning authorities in the redistribution of licensed premises in war-damaged areas.
    Those last words are important. The original Act of 1945 was, of course, due to expire in 1951, but experience showed that there was a continuing need, and arrangements have been made for it to continue in force on an annual basis under Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. I say that because no doubt in 1945 il was thought that this purpose could be achieved in a shorter period of time than has proved to be the case.
    The arrangements—and I say this for the record—are that the Home Secretary was able to constitute an area where there was extensive war damage as a licensing planning area, and in each of those areas a licensing planning committee was set up composed, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, of equal numbers of representatives chosen by the licensing justices and by the local planning authority, the chairmen being appointed by the Home Secretary. I am advised that in recent years, at any rate, there has been no difficulty in finding chairmen for these committees. I can

    521
    only assume, therefore, that possibly the work of the committees has been somewhat easier and there has been less of a tendency to change chairmen.
    Provision was also made for the inclusion in these areas of overspill or reception areas to which a substantial transfer of population from the licensing planning area was expected. The function of these joint committees is to secure after full consultation, that the number, nature and distribution of licensed premises accord with local requirements, having regard in particular to actual or proposed redevelopment. All this is familiar to the right hon. Member for South Shields, but it is just as well to place on record the existing machinery.
    9.30 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me two things apart from the difficulty of finding chairmen. In the first place he asked me to give a progress report of work done under the Act, and he was right in suggesting that it has not been debated in this Committee in recent years. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that much of the information is kept by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I have been able to obtain some statistics from him.
    Originally 33 licensing planning areas were set up under the Act. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Act provides that after consultation with the licensing planning committee my right hon. Friend can revoke his designation of an area as a licensing planning area if satisfied that there is no longer any need for special licensing planning machinery in that area. In fact during the last five years there have been five such revocation orders made. In the first eight years of the Act no revocation orders were made. It may interest the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members to know that these are in Wallasey, Birkenhead, Bath, Lowestoft and Exeter, the last named being made only three months ago. That leaves us with 28 areas, and in addition there are the 11 overspill areas in the neighbourhood of London and 10 in the provinces which are associated with main areas.
    During the last three years my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and
    522
    Local Government has received 150 proposals for the removal of licences, of which 143 have been confirmed, 2 refused and 5 are at present under consideration. During the same period 67 licences have, by agreement, been surrendered or extinguished in licensing planning areas. I have no information about the number of licences granted for temporary premises. The committees can authorise these without reference to the Minister, but presumably some of the removals I have mentioned have replaced temporary licences. It may interest the right hon. Gentleman to know that in South Shields in the past three years 10 removals have been applied for and confirmed and 4 licences have been surrendered or extinguished.
    There is no doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the machinery has worked well and will obviously continue to do so in the foreseeable future. As I said at the beginning of my speech, no doubt fourteen years ago, when the Act was introduced into the House, it was expected that it would have come to an end by now. The fact is that redevelopment has been a more involved and lengthy process than was then envisaged, and in most of the remaining 28 areas there remains a considerable amount of work to be done. During this period it seems essential that this joint effort, for that is what it is, between the planning authority and the licensing justices should continue in force.
    On the other hand, the machinery was always envisaged as being of a temporary nature. Hence the reason for the debate on this Measure, and I should think that in some areas the time has come when we should examine carefully how much longer the need will continue. This is in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point as to whether my right hon. Friend has need to look at some of the areas. Five Orders have been revoked and the time has come when I think consideration should be given to some of the others.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that this machinery should be extended to those areas being redeveloped on account of demolition, slum clearance or other development of city and town centres, or—at least, I understood it to be his suggestion—development not associated with extensive war damage.

    523
    I can understand this approach, because in many towns today, particularly the one I represent, the work of peacetime development is overtaking war damage work, and it seems at first sight somewhat illogical that these joint committees should apply only to what is in effect a diminishing problem, that of war damage, and not to the growing problem which faces us today in general redevelopment.
    Having had intimation that the right hon. Gentleman would raise the point, I have given a little thought to it, and I would say that if we are to accept his suggestion, it would be a matter not for temporary legislation but for some permanent legislation on another occasion, because we should be increasing and extending the work of what was originally purely a post-war and temporary Measure, for licensing planning is at present confined to areas which have suffered war damage. The number of areas is limited, and my right hon. Friend cannot designate further areas under the Act as it now stands. On the contrary, as time passes, and for reasons which I have put forward, I think that more and more revocation Orders are likely to be made.
    On the other hand, the areas which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind are much more numerous and, presumably, will increase during the next few years. If we are to apply licensing planning to these areas, it would mean extending it over a substantial and, I think, increasing part of the country. It would mean that in these areas the licensing laws would thus become different for a considerable time from those in the rest of the country under Part I of the Licensing Act, 1953.
    I think this is a matter which affects not only licensing justices but local authority associations, such as the one of which I think the right hon. Gentleman remains President. It is open to these bodies to express their views upon the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and no doubt his words will come to their attention. For my part, and for that of my right hon. Friend, I intend to examine particularly the need for the existence of joint committees in those areas where I would have thought war damage was a thing of the past. At the same time, following the right hon.
    524
    Gentleman's suggestion, I shall be interested to see any representations along the lines the right hon. Gentleman has indicated tonight.
    During the lifetime of this Parliament, although not in this Session, there will be opportunity for examining the provisions of the licensing laws, and no doubt any desirable change could be undertaken on that occasion.
    I think that the right hon. Gentleman has performed a useful service tonight in raising this subject, which, I think, needs to be ventilated, and it will give my right hon. Friend a chance to examine some of the original areas under the present legislation and those interested in the subject a chance to express their views upon the possible extension which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
    Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy and lucidity of his reply to the remarks which I made, and I particularly welcome what he said at the end, that when the licensing legislation that we are promised is brought before us in this Parliament consideration of the points which have been raised tonight will not be lost sight of. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  MARSHALL SCHOLARSHIPS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the number of Marshall scholarships which may be provided in each year, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under section one of the Marshall Aid Commemoration Act, 1953, which is attributable to the said Act of the present Session.
  Resolution agreed to.

  MARSHALL SCHOLARSHIPS BILL
  Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  FOREIGN SERVICE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law as to the superannuation benefits which may be granted to or in respect of certain members of Her Majesty's foreign service, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys so provided which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session—

  (a) amending the limits on the amount which may be granted under section two of the Foreign Service Act, 1943, by way of special increase of the superannuation benefits of a member of Her Majesty's foreign service of a grade not lower than that of second secretary whose employment in that service is terminated before the retiring age; or

  (b) extending to a person who is or when last a civil servant was such a member of Her Majesty's foreign service as aforesaid the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section thirty-four of the Superannuation Act, 1949, with respect to the benefits which may be granted to or in respect of a person whose employment as a civil servant is terminated at his request after he has attained the age of fifty years but before the retiring age.

  Resolution agreed to.

  IMPORT DUTIES
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Import Duties (General) (No. 9) Order, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 1591), dated 11th September 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th September, in the last Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Erroll.]
  9.41 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I rise only to assuage any anxiety by saying that I have carefully read the Order and found it unobjectionable. I do not wish to provoke the Treasury Bench into making any explanation of it.
  Question put and agreed to.

  ESTIMATES
  Select Committee appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination:
  To consist of Thirty-six Members:
  Mr. Bidgood, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Robert Carr, Mr. Gresham Cooke, Mr. Beresford Craddock, Mr. Harold Davies, Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. Robert Edwards, Sir Eric Errington, Mr. Glover, Colonel Glyn, Mr. Goodhart, Mr. Green, Mr. Grey, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Hornby, Mr. Kershaw, Commander Maitland, Major Sir Frank Markham, Mr. Roy Mason, Mr. McCann, Mr. MacColl, Mr. Mellish, Mr. Mulley, Sir Godfrey Nicholson, Mr. Norman Pannell, Mr. Peel, Mr. Randall, Mr. Joseph Slater, Mr. Speir, Sir Spencer Summers, Mr. Leslie Thomas, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Turton, Mr. Wilkins, and Mr. Woof:
  Seven to be the Quorum:
  Power to send for persons, papers, and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:
  Power to appoint Sub-Committees and refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:
  Three to be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:
  Every such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers, and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to adjourn from place to place:
  Power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee.—[Mr. Legh.]

  CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
  Lords Message [10th November] relating to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills (including Bills for Consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills, and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Legh.]
  Lords message considered accordingly.
  Select Committee of Six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills, (including Bills for Consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under

  527
  the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session, together with the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the Act:
  Mr. Philip Bell, Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Janner, Sir Hugh Linstead, Mr. Oliver, and Mr. John Rankin:
  Power to send for persons, papers, and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:
  Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Legh.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

  SMOKE CONTROL AREAS (FIREPLACES)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10th November]:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) Order, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 1207), dated 10th July 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, in the last Parliament, be annulled.
  Question again proposed.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. William BIyton: When this debate was adjourned last night the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was in possession of the House. I can only assume that he did not expect the debate to be resumed until 10 o'clock tonight. Obviously, that is the reason for his absence.
  I wish to support the Minister on this Order. I support him because I feel that it is a contribution to the coal industry in its present plight. I gathered from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) that he wants local authorities to have full power of determination and discrimination and he urged the use of a Swedish fireplace which, he said, burns smokelessly. I must put it on record that we of the National Union of Mineworkers disagree on the question of powers to local authorities to discriminate between the use of coal fires and oil.
  If the Minister were to bring forward an Order to exempt this from the provisions of the Clean Air Act, I should
  528
  support him so long as it did not mean the use of wood waste, as my hon. Friend said it would. I have seen this furnace, which is a good one, but that is not the question before us tonight. Anything that can be done to help the coal industry has my blessing. I hope that if this appliance, which seems to be the basis of the case which was made, is any good, the Minister will bring the proposal for its use before the House, so long as it fulfils the desired requirements under the Clean Air Act.
  If this Order is annulled these appliances will be subject to local authority sanction. As the House is aware, since February this year I have been pressing for fair play for the coal industry as against the use of oil-burning furnaces under the Act. What my hon. Friends are asking is that coal should not be left at a great disadvantage with oil under this Act, because, while the Order might affect coal, as I shall show later, it would leave oil furnaces exempt from the provisions of the Act and coal furnaces would be subject to the sanction of local authorities. That would be the result of this Prayer and it is a situation with which I cannot agree.
  If coal is to be competitive with oil, it must have an equal chance with oil in the domestic field under the Clean Air Act. Under an Order made in 1957, under Section 11 of the Clean Air Act, general exemption was granted to oil-burning appliances in smoke control areas, but individual exemption had to be obtained from local authorities for coal-burning appliances even though they were capable of being worked smokelessly. I have always argued that this places the coal industry at a great disadvantage in competition with oil. The Economist of 25th July this year commented that over a period when so many other elements had been compelling industrial consumers to switch to oil this discrimination had given the coal industry a legitimate "grouse". It said that efficient modern equipment burns one fuel as smokelessly as the other.
  In April, 1958, the Coal Board made representations to the Minister of Power asking that exemptions should be granted, by order, in respect of furnaces fired by mechanical stokers in the smoke-controlled areas. In February of this year, in a debate on fuel and power

  529
  policy, which I initiated, I asked for an Order to be presented to Parliament granting exemption to furnaces fired by mechanical stokers, and I again raised this subject in May of this year, when I referred to correspondence between the National Union of Mineworkers and the Minister. In that debate I expressed my delight that the discrimination against coal seemed likely to be removed.
  The whole question has been thoroughly examined by officials of the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Housing, in consultation with interested bodies. I believe that it was finally agreed in principle that general exemptions should be granted to coal-burning appliances fired by mechanical stokers, other than those which burnt pulverised fuel, if these were installed on or after 31st December, 1956. The exemptions were conditional upon their proper installation and maintenance, and upon the use of a suitable fuel.
  An Order to this effect was laid before the House on 15th July, and the Ministry of Housing issued a circular, No. 44/59, asking local authorities to give individual exemptions in favour of appliances installed before this date if they were capable of working as smokelessly as those exempted by the Order. The circular also drew attention to the fact that pulverised fuel furnaces were capable of almost smokeless operation. The Coal Board undertook to make available supplies of coal for these appliances.
  I would emphasise that the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers attach considerable importance to the Order. In July of this year there was a publicity campaign in the national Press following the Order then made. Attention was drawn to the new freedom given to install mechanically stoked coal-burning equipment. This campaign pointed out that the Order, by increasing the long-term demand for bituminous coal, would mean more work for those connected with the production and distribution of coal. A leaflet was issued by the Coal Board and circulated to many interested bodies and persons, such as architects and industrial concerns, and this leaflet has had a good effect.
  In the "Revised Plan for Coal", which we cannot argue tonight, reference is made to the exemptions being granted
  530
  by the Order. Assumptions have been made, in the plan for future demands for coal, concerning the advantages which are expected to be derived through the exemptions embodied in the Order. While I believe that the "Revised Plan for Coal" is too optimistic in relation to the future consumption of coal, unless the Government underwrite the plan to ensure consumption of 200 million tons, nevertheless, in this important field of consumption, the Board is entitled to have fair play with its chief competitor—oil.
  Reports from consumers since the Order was made leave no doubt that the campaign by the Board in drawing attention to the exemption of the mechanical stokers has been effective in dissuading many of those who contemplated converting to oil. To annul the Order would be unreasonable and would force the coal industry into a position of inequality with oil in the smoke controlled areas. It would throw out of balance the National Coal Board's "Revised Plan for Coal" by unnecessarily reducing demand. The future for coal is bad enough without making it worse. The Order is a little help in the difficult future coal faces, and therefore I support it.
  It is now being slowly recognised that coal, properly used in efficient appliances, does not produce smoke and that for many purposes it is better value than oil. If the annulment motion is carried, it will inflict disabilities on coal furnaces compared with oil. It will reduce the demand for coal still further, and I emphasise that it will upset the balance of the "Revised Plan for Coal" about which we will say much more at some other time.
  The Order is of great value to us and, whatever may be the value of the appliance advocated by my hon. Friends last night and the freedom they want for local authorities, it must not be at the expense of the livelihood of men in the coal industry. The annulment of the Order would do great harm to them.
  Nothing which has been said in the debate justifies us in supporting the Prayer. The Order is of some help to us in the industry in sustaining a market for our fuel. There are difficulties ahead, and these will be further aggravated if the annulment is carried.

  531
  The National Union of Mineworkers supports the Order. So does the National Coal Board. There have been months of agitation to get the Order and I therefore ask the House to support the Minister.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. John Hynd: My intervention will be brief. Indeed, it would have been nonexistent had it not been for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). I am sure that my hon. Friend and those who feel like him will not accuse me, or those of my hon. Friends who are calling for the annulment of the Order, of wishing in any way to prejudice the already difficult position of the coal industry and the workers in that industry.
  The whole of my hon. Friend's speech was devoted to emphasising that an efficient mechanical stoker can eliminate smoke altogether, because he has just said that it has been established that, properly used, the burning of coal in proper conditions need not result in the emission of smoke. My hon. Friend's argument was that mechanical stokers, if introduced, will eliminate smoke.
  The terms of the Order seem to deny that assertion, although I am in no position to say which is correct. The Order says that certain fireplaces can be exempted from the ordinary conditions relating to smokeless areas provided that the fireplaces are
  "… so installed, maintained and operated as to minimise the emission of smoke."
  The Order, therefore, does not call for something that will prevent the emission of smoke.
  We could no doubt have an interesting debate on the issues of how far it is necessary to accept smoke conditions or minimised smokeless zones in the interest of maintaining the consumption of coal, or how far it is desirable, in the interest of the elimination of smoke, to restrict the prospects of the coal industry, but, with all due respect to my hon. Friend, neither his speech nor the Order is addressed to those issues.
  What my hon. Friend is saying about the support of the Board and of the Union for such measures to be taken in smokeless zones—by the use of
  532
  mechanical stokers or whatever it may be—as would ensure that coal shall be used to the maximum so long as it does not infringe the essential purpose of the Act, has really nothing much to do with the Order. The Order does not extend that protection to the coal industry. By the Order, the Government give a blanket decision affecting all local authorities and all smokeless zone experiments irrespective of local conditions.
  Even without this Order—and this is the main point of my hon. Friends and myself—that protection still exists, because it must be accepted that any reasonable local authority that is sufficiently concerned about smokeless air to set about experimenting with a smokeless zone, will realise that, where the installation of mechanical stokers of any kind—or any other kind of appliance—enables those furnaces to operate to the maximum efficiency, with coal or with other fuel, and, at the same time, prevents or minimises the emission of smoke, it should go ahead.
  Local authorities already have the powers, and the Ministry has already circulated those authorities which intend to introduce smokeless zones, advising them of the possibility and the desirability of carrying on their experiments whilst maintaining the minimum emission of smoke by the installation of this kind of appliance.
  I would say, therefore, that this is not an attack on either the Coal Board or the coal industry. Withdrawal of the Order would in no way reduce the effect of the Minister's advice to local authorities. We are therefore entitled to assume that local authorities have sufficient sense of responsibility in these matters. We must also accept the fact that what might be applicable to the conditions in one area might not be so suitable to the conditions of another.
  Our argument is that the withdrawal of the Order would simply mean that local authorities—advised as they have been by the Minister, and conscious of their responsibilities both to their own citizens in regard to clean air and to the coal industry in the national interest-would still have power and authority to carry out the provisions of the Order, but would, at the same time, be in a position to adapt, modify or extend those

  533
  provisions within the terms of the Minister's advice and the provisions of the Act without being tied hand and foot, if I may so put it, to the man at Whitehall before starting their experiments.
  It is for that reason that, in spite of what my hon. Friend says—though in full sympathy with most of his case—I suggest that the main argument for the withdrawal of the Order is not destroyed, and I support the demand for its withdrawal.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I have a special reason for wanting to say a few words on this Order. I represent the Metropolitan Borough of Fulham which burns more coal than any other Metropolitan borough, and I hope this will recommend Fulham to those of my hon. Friends who are concerned for the coal mining areas. It is also a borough which has been eager to use its powers under the Clean Air Act and it has made use of them, so I hope that will recommend Fulham to the Minister.
  The anxieties that a borough in that position feels about this Order are these. First, it appears from the terms of the Order and from what one knows about the matter in general that these fireplaces will emit a certain amount of smoke. As I understand it, the Minister, in order to make the Order, has to be satisfied that they do not emit a substantial quantity of smoke. What we are worried about is this. In an area where a good deal of coal is burned and where there may be a number of undertakings in which fireplaces of this kind are or will be installed, will the total effect of that be that there will be so much smoke about that people in the neighbourhood will wonder whether there has been any point in making a clean air Order at all?
  The second anxiety is that this Order must, by its nature, make a distinction between the treatment of industrial undertakings and of the ordinary householder in the matter of clean air. When the borough I represent made its first Order affecting an area in the centre of the borough, there was a certain amount of local anxiety because the clean air Order involves the householders in the neighbourhood taking a certain amount of trouble and puts them to a certain amount of expense, though if the local
  534
  authority uses its powers fully and wisely that expense can be kept down to a minimum. The question was naturally asked by a number of householders, "Are we going to be put to expense and trouble, while various industrial undertakings in the borough are able to go on doing as they like?" If the impression were created that that is how the Clean Air Act will work, it would make it very difficult indeed for local authorities.
  I read in a newspaper recently of a case where a person in a certain locality collected a very considerable following and embarrassed his local council greatly by carrying out an agitation against clean air Orders simply by stirring up feeling among the domestic householders. I hope that boroughs that have had the courage and foresight to make brisk use of their powers under the Clean Air Act will not find that they are put in a difficult position by the public being able to say "You put us householders to this trouble and expense and now it is not really going to clean the air at all."
  The third anxiety is that mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), and that is the apparent invasion of local freedom and judgment which seems to be involved in the Order. If these exemptions are necessary and there are good common-sense grounds for them, could it not be expected that local authorities would have made the exemptions as they are empowered to do?
  I am surprised at the Minister introducing an Order of this kind. Some time ago when we were discussing the Local Government Act he was a passionate enthusiast for increasing the number of issues on which local authorities would be able to decide for themselves. Indeed, in some cases we seem to be prepared to entrust to local judgment matters which on grounds of national welfare ought really to have been decided as matters of national policy. Now, apparently, he is making a matter of national policy something on which a local authority could reasonably be expected to make a good judgment for itself.
  I do not pretend to the technical knowledge about the use of coal, the nature of furnaces and so forth which is possessed by all my hon. Friends who have

  535
  spoken. I have tried to put the point of view of a borough in which a great deal of coal is burned, a borough which is trying to keep its air as clean as it can. We have not yet heard the Minister. It may be that he can say something which will genuinely remove these anxieties. I urge upon him that it is very necessary to remove them, if the facts make it possible for him to do so, so that he may have the hearty cooperation of local authorities in carrying out the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: The Minister will no doubt know that when the Clean Air Act went through the House of Commons it seemed to many local authorities, particularly those in mining districts, that it went through with a great deal of haste, especially since very few smokeless fuels would, apparently, be available when smokeless zones were created. We remember, also, that, within a few months after the introduction of the Act, the Minister was forced to bring in an Order allowing mechanical stokers to be used in smokeless zones, because it appeared that coal was to be a fuel not to be used any longer and, therefore, even the many large establishments which could use mechanical stokers were not to be allowed to use that type of fuel because they had not even a mechanical stoker. However, the Minister relented on that.
  There is now this further Order, dealing with the type of fireplace to be used and how it shall be maintained, and requiring that it shall not emit more than a certain amount of smoke. From my point of view, there are certain objections, though I would not take my objections to the extent of wishing to prevent the Order going through.
  First, I wish the Minister seriously to consider sending out a directive to all local authorities, if he intends to press forward quickly with the establishment of smokeless zones, asking them to give sufficient notice to the Coal Board marketing departments so that they can have the necessary quantity of smokeless fuels available, particularly in mining areas. As hon. Members will know, although the mining areas provide the coal, they do not often prepare the right type of smokeless fuel. These processes, or the pilot plants for them, are usually
  536
  in operation many miles from the Midland coalfields. It is, therefore, necessary for the appropriate type of smokeless fuel to be readily available if a smokeless zone is to be created.
  Coal ought to be given its chance, even in the smokeless fuel form, to compete fairly with oil, gas and electricity. Every time a smokeless zone is declared, with all the requirements about what type of fireplace or stove shall be used, what type of fuel should be burnt, and so forth, every consumer of fuel in the area immediately thinks that coal is a banned fuel. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Minister to make sure that local authorities give sufficient notice to the Coal Board's marketing departments so that they may make sure that the right fuels are readily available.
  I come now to a more serious problem, particularly from the point of view of mining constituencies such as mine. In all mining areas, miners have a free, or virtually free, allocation of coal for use in their homes. I shall not labour the point, but it is absolutely necessary for the Minister to recognise it. I ask him to imagine the difficulties facing local authorities in mining areas when preparing notices dealing with the type of fireplace which must be installed where coal is the main fuel in thousands of households. The local authorities will have a tremendous task before them if the change is to take place. The Minister must do something about that. Miners receive coal as part of their wages. This is a practice which has been recognised for many years and it cannot be discontinued. The Minister should ask local authorities urgently to try to come to an agreement with the National Union of Mineworkers so that miners who receive concessionary coal can be allowed a smokeless fuel instead to the saving of the districts concerned.
  My constituency is as urgently in need of clean air as any other area. Areas like mine are blackened by the chimneys of different industries and the mining industries. I ask the Minister to consult with local authorities to see whether they can urge the National Union of Mineworkers to come to an agreement whereby the miners will receive smokeless fuels so that it will not be necessary for them to make this terrific transformation in the type of fireplaces in their homes for which he is asking in this Order.
  10.16 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am always glad when the House wishes to debate the crucially important subject of clean air, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) for having raised it and given me the opportunity of explaining to the House the reasonable grounds on which the Government felt it right to make the Order.
  I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), who joined with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in supporting the Government. My hon. Friend made an apology to me last night, because, having reserved the lime from 10 o'clock to 11.30 to be present and to take part in the debate, the debate came on late, as hon. Members know, and it was not possible for him to clear himself from other engagements in order to continue his speech, which, as the House knows, he would certainly have wished to do had he been able.
  The Government are determined to see that the Clean Air Act is a success. I can hardly agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that the Bill went through with inadequate discussion. However, that was before my time. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brightside described me or the Act as insipid.
  Mr. Winterbottom: I was talking about escape clauses in the Act and about the exemptions which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes, thus making the whole of the policy on clean air insipid.
  Mr. Brooke: With respect, I do not agree with the hon. Member, but we both have our points of view.
  As I have said, I and the Government are determined to make the Act a success. We intend that rapid progress should be made in establishing smoke control areas in cities and towns in those parts of the country which are most badly affected by air pollution.
  If I may digress to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley about miners' coal, that is a matter which hardly falls within the scope of the
  538
  Order, but I can assure him that it is a subject in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has been interesting himself. There are very difficult problems to be solved, as I am sure the hon. Member will be the first to realise, but I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend. We have discussed the matter at meetings of the Clean Air Council and I hope that a satisfactory solution may in due course be found.
  In that context, I should like to pay tribute in the House to the work of the Clean Air Council, a statutory body which was set up by the Act and which meets regularly under my chairmanship. It is widely representative of all those concerned from one angle or another with the task of removing pollution from the air, and I, for my part, gain great benefit from being able to discuss these matters with the Council.
  As I say, we intend rapid progress to be made in establishing smoke control areas. That was why I sent out a circular to local authorities ten months ago asking for faster progress and requesting them to prepare and submit five-year programmes to me. But if smoke control areas are to be set up quickly and successfully, there must be smokless fuels for the small domestic fireplaces and stoves. There is no other way at present of reducing smoke from the ordinary domestic fireplace and the like, except by burning a solid smokeless fuel, unless the householder goes over to gas or electricity.
  The supply of solid smokeless fuels is limited, although it is a great deal larger than many people allege. It is, however, limited when compared with our total use of fuel. For that reason, it would be generally impracticable to require smokeless fuels that are badly needed for the small domestic fireplaces to be used in industrial boilers and furnaces. There would not be enough solid smokeless fuel. Indeed, the progress of smoke-controlled areas would be held up. Therefore, the industrial boilers and furnaces must continue to use either coal or oil, but whichever they do, they must use it with as little smoke as possible.
  I think that it is generally accepted that furnaces which are properly designed for burning oil and are properly installed and maintained can be used

  539
  with very little smoke, not wholly without any haze of smoke at all, but emitting very little smoke. That was why it was thought right to exempt these oilfired furnaces on suitable conditions in the previous Order of 1957.
  Now, however, we come to the point that, not all, but many of the mechanically-fired coal furnaces can also be used with very little smoke. It was suggested by some hon. Members that the Government were introducing this Order so that the coal industry might be given some artificial help. I say here and now that this is not a case of bending backwards to try to help the coal industry out of its difficulties. It is rather a case of the Government seeking to be absolutely fair to the coal industry. It would be clearly inequitable to treat mechanically-fired coal-burning furnaces which could burn virtually smokelessly in a different manner from the way in which the Government had already said, and Parliament had approved, that oil-burning furnaces should be treated.
  The question which exercised us in the Government was how to be sure that exemption by a general order was given only to those mechanically-fired coal furnaces which were virtually smokeless. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), in his brief speech last night, had time to refer to the chain grate stoker. I think that it is generally accepted that, when correctly operated, a chain grate stoker can be used almost without smoke. It can also use a wide range of fuels and it responds well to changes in operating conditions. But the advice that I received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power was that in addition to the chain grate stoker, other types of mechanical stoker could also be used and operated virtually without smoke, provided that they used the right fuel and were correctly operated.
  There would be considerable disadvantage in discriminating between different types of stoker in the matter of exemptions, for it might have meant that a stoker could not be used in those circumstances where it was the right stoker to use and, perhaps, where no other type would suffice. Therefore, it did not seem right to discriminate between one modern type of stoker and another. All
  540
  the same, the feeling must prevail that general exemption for all classes of mechanical stoker, regardless of age or obsolescence, would be going too far. It is common knowledge that many of the older types create an amount of smoke which clearly would not be tolerable in a smoke-controlled area. That is known to local authorities. It is certainly known to the Government. The solution we adopted, therefore, was to limit the general exemption in this Order which is being prayed against tonight to mechanically fired furnaces which were installed on or after 31st December, 1956. That was the first appointed day under the Clean Air Act.
  As the House knows, the Act requires that new furnaces should so far as practicable be capable of smokeless operation, and also that these new furnaces must, when installed, be notified to the local authorities; but the older furnaces, those which were installed before 1957, are not exempt by the Order, and in their case full control remains with the local authorities, subject to the advice which I ventured to give local authorities in that Circular 44 of 1959 to which reference was made a minute or two ago.
  The advice I gave was that if these installations are capable of being used virtually without smoke then the local authorities ought to exempt them in their smoke control orders. If they are not capable of being used smokelessly or virtually smokelessly then the local authority ought to discuss with the owner the possibility of improvements to bring them up to a standard which might be exempted.
  In all cases, the House will see, exemption granted under this Order or under smoke control orders will be conditional. It will not be absolute. It will be necessary still to instal and maintain and operate a furnace so as to minimise the emission of smoke. It will also be a condition of exemption that the right type of fuel in the case of a mechanical stoker should be used.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley I should like to say that the National Coal Board has agreed to take steps to see that the right fuel is available for mechanically fired furnaces in smoke control areas. I keep in very close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of

  541
  Power on these matters, and I know that he is in equally close touch with the Coal Board.
  The hon. Member for Fulham repeated—
  Mr. Mason: Why make the Coal Board responsible? As the local authorities are themselves responsible for declaring smokeless zones, would it not be better for them to give information on what areas are to be made smokeless and also which smokeless fuel is required? To give the Coal Board the chance to compete with these other fuels the responsibility should be put on the local authorities themselves, who are declaring their control zones, to send notice to the Board. I ask the Minister to consider sending a directive on these lines.
  Mr. Brooke: I must confess I had not heard of any difficulty about this. From the hon. Member's speech it rather sounds as though local authorities declare a smoke control area on a day and that the next Monday it becomes operative. That is not, of course, the case. What the local authority has to do is submit proposals to me, and then it has to make an order, and then that order has to be confirmed by me, after it has been advertised, and after, if necessary, a public inquiry has been held to hear any objections.
  It certainly has not come to my notice that the Coal Board's marketing people were kept in doubt up to the last moment whether there was a likelihood of a smoke control area being formed. I will certainly look into it, and if the hon. Member has any specific information to give me about difficulties arising here I will certainly do my best to clear them up.
  Mr. Winterbottom: If we are to make the local authorities sorts of merchants to direct that a particular type of fuel is to be used according to the type of mechanical stoker, ought we not to realise that, having taken by exemption order certain boilers or furnaces or fireplaces, call them what we will, outside the scope of the local authorities, we shall encourage very little interest from the local authorities in trying to merchant the type of fuel which is necessary?
  Mr. Brooke: I may have misunderstood the hon. Member, but I do not
  542
  think that it is exactly a matter of the local authority trying to merchant the necessary type of fuel. The hon. Member for Barnsley was concerned that the National Coal Board should have ample notice of where a smoke control order was likely to come into force so that the coal industry should have as good an opportunity as any other industry to sell its wares in that area.
  Mr. Winterbottom: If a given industrial concern has installed, under the Order, one of the exempted types of furnaces, it is the business of that firm to see to the type of fuel which it will have to burn in that furnace. It is the business of the firm, as it is that of the householder, under the Act to see to the type of fuel required in the smoke control area.
  Mr. Brooke: I entirely agree. It will be up to the firm to get the fuel required I thought that the hon. Member for Barnsley was raising a wider question, going beyond the needs of one firm.
  The hon. Member for Fulham indicated three possible criticisms. He is very anxious, as the Government are, that we should carry public opinion with us, as well as expert opinion. One or two of his criticisms have already been mentioned by hon. Members who spoke last night. If I may take them as he raised them, one was that the Order would give too wide a cover to all types of mechanical stoker. There might not be much smoke from any one of them but collectively there would be too much and the local authority might not be able to control it. But, as I pointed out earlier, the local authority can act if any of these exempted premises are being operated in such a way that they produce more than a minimum amount of smoke.
  All these are designed to be virtually smokeless. Nobody is producing or trying to install a coal-burning furnace that is of a smoky character now. Indeed, that is one of the things which the Act effectually prevents. Therefore, if any furnace is markedly producing smoke that might build up with smoke from others into a smoky atmosphere, the local authority can take action against that one.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Fulham raised the objection that householders and industry were to be treated

  543
  differently. The point here is that if one is to try to have both those classes of consumer on absolute parity, one may again bring the clean air movement to an end, because there is not sufficient solid smokeless fuel for all the domestic consumers who will want it and also for all the industrialists who may need to use it. Therefore, one has to strike the right balance and try to achieve a result which will be fair to everybody and at the same time enable the clean air movement to go forward.
  Modern industrial furnaces can be used to burn coal or oil with very little smoke. As I have explained, it would be impracticable to require them to burn wholly smokeless fuels. It does not seem possible to avoid that kind of distinction or discrimination between the industrial and the domestic consumer. We must also, of course, bear in mind that the domestic consumer is free to burn oil in a domestic heating boiler that he may have and that oil cannot be burnt wholly without smoke, and, certainly, it is possible to operate modern mechanically-fired coal appliances with as little smoke as with an efficient oil-burner.
  Mr. Winterbottom: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that oil for domestic purposes falls into the category of one of the authorised fuels, and that if smoke is emitted as a result of the use of an authorised fuel there can be no prosecution. Surely it is fair to say to the right hon. Gentleman that we must compare like with like, bituminous coal with bituminous coal, and the use of bituminous coal by a domestic user in a smoke control area can result in a prosecution. When there is exemption in respect of fuels which are best fitted for the boilers in question and discrimination in that the industrialist is allowed to use bituminous coal in an exempted furnace, there can be no prosecution. So, to determine the difference between the domestic consumer and the industrialist, we must compare like with like.
  Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. Gentleman is straining at a gnat, even if he is not swallowing bituminous coal. The truth is that oil-burning furnaces are exempt. But oil cannot be burnt without creating any haze at all, and
  544
  there are modern mechanically-fired coal-burning installations which, if properly operated, will create as little smoke as oil does. There the two are in equality. I quite agree that one may take small points and say that the industrial user is not being treated in exactly the same way as the domestic consumer, but if one presses that to the end of the argument, then the point at which we shall arrive is that we have to slow down the making of smoke control orders and the extending of smoke control areas because the solid smokeless fuel will have to be burnt in industrial furnaces and will not, therefore, be available for the extra domestic fireplaces where we so badly need it.
  The third point of the hon. Member—he thought he could have a crack at me about it—was that this was taking away from the local authorities' exercise of discretion. I am always sorry to do that—nobody more so than myself. The difficulty about the exercise of local discretion in a matter of this character is that it creates uncertainty. Some industrial undertakings have up to now not always been sure that if they put in a mechanical stoker their local authority might not refuse exemption when it established a smoke control area in the neighbourhood, and what would then happen. Were they to chance their arm and hope that they would not be prosecuted for occasional unavoidable smoke, or should they take the stoker out again and use some other fuel?
  One could foresee considerable practical difficulties arising in that way, and the Order which I am asking the House to agree to creates certainty for the future in the case of the modern properly operated mechanical stoker while it still—I put this to the hon. Member for Fulham—leaves local authorities with a substantial measure of discretion about older installations.
  The hon. Member for Brightside, if I may come back to his speech of last night, referred to the Swedish Escomb apparatus, and he questioned whether the Government were doing sufficient by way of studying the principles on which that apparatus was based or carrying out sufficient research to see whether the ideas embodied therein could be applied more widely in this country.

  545
  I would like to tell the hon. Gentleman that officials of my Department and of cither Government Departments have inspected the experimental stove, which, I think he knows, is a Swedish stove. It appears to us that it has possibilities. It also appears that to realise those possibilities a good deal of development work may be required to be done. This is a stove which works on the downdraught principle. I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware that there are systems in this country—one of them, indeed, is incomporated in the Ductair Unit mentioned in this Order—which work on just the same principle.
  When the hon. Gentleman questions whether the Government have shown enough initiative in these matters, I would like him to note that the British Standards Institution, at the request of the Government, set up a committee to prepare standards; for small domestic appliances that would be capable of burning coal with substantial smoke reduction. I greatly hope that that committee will successfully complete its work, and then we may be able to give guidance on its findings.
  Mr. Winterbottom: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As soon as the findings of the committee are available, will they be available to Members of the House who are interested in this problem? It is imperative that we should know just exactly what the Government are doing in this respect so far as domestic appliances are concerned.
  Mr. Brooke: I will certainly do my best to keep hon. Members who are interested in touch, and if there is any news which I think would be of interest to them I will make sure that the hon. Member for Brightside and other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken an active interest in this question are informed. Of course, as regards development work on larger industrial type installations, the manufacturers of the equipment are constantly and continuously engaged in trying to improve the efficiency and smoklessness of their equipment. The British Coal Utilisation Research Association is also engaged in seeking to develop a new type of miniature chain grate mechanical stoker of high efficiency for use in small furnaces.
  546
  There are just one or two other questions. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) asked why the two small appliances had been exempted in this Order and whether there was to be a long list in future Orders. In both cases the manufacturers applied for exemption on the ground that these appliances were nearly smokeless. We examined them, the claim seemed to be well established and that was why they were exempted. It is possible that other applications for the exemption of various types of appliances will come along, and if they do will examine them and judge them by their design and by their performance.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: The point I was really making was that it was most unusual in an Order of this sort to describe an appliance simply by mentioning a particular stove manufactured by a particular manufacturer. I wondered whether there were reasons why particular specifications were not put down, because one can imagine a manufacturer changing the design of a stove, and, from that point of view, the public would not know whether it was a stove embodied in the Order.
  Mr. Brooke: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and he will appreciate that we are feeling our way in this matter. These are two appliances for which the manufacturers claimed that they were entitled to exemption, and, having examined them, we came to the conclusion that their claims were justified. It may be that we can deal with this matter in a more generalised way in future, but it did not seem to us to be right, when there were these two appliances on the market and clearly distinctive, that they should have exemption withheld from them just because they were the only two.
  I am sorry that my speech has been so long, but I have tried to deal with the points as they have been raised, both last night and tonight. There seems to the Government to be a strong case that exemption should be given for many mechanically fired furnaces from a complete ban on smoke in smoke-controlled areas. The question is which mechanical stokers should be exempt and whether they should be exempted by the Government or by the local authorities.

  547
  On the second question, it seemed to the Government that a greater degree of certainty was required. It is for that reason that we have, perhaps, slightly impaired the discretion of the local authorities. Of course, we discussed the matter with the local authority associations beforehand. On the other question, it appeared to us that a distinction should be drawn between the modern mechanically fired furnace which was installed nowadays and the many older furnaces which exist and which certainly do not have the same claim to general exemption.
  As I said, we are feeling our way in these matters. With the help of Parliament, the Government are engaged in
  548
  a great campaign to remove the pollution which has been the curse of the air of this country for one hundred years or more. As the Minister responsible, I do not claim for one moment that we shall never make a mistake or that we shall always get it right first time. This is pioneering work, but in the circumstances and because of the need for certainty in this matter and because it seemed to the Government that we should make every effort to seek to treat coal and oil on an equal basis here, we have come forward with this Order and I trust that in the circumstances the House will feel that I have justified it.
  Question put and negatived.

  LONDON-YORKSHIRE MOTORWAY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]
  10.48 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I should like to crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, for having very little voice because of a bad cold. I hope that I shall be forgiven on that account.
  Tonight, I raise a matter of great importance to the country as a whole as well as to Yorkshire, in which my constituency lies—the extension of the Birmingham motorway, or M.1, as it is called, through Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Yorkshire. If that were under construction today, as I claim it should be, there would have been no need for the Questions, petitions, Motions and Adjournment debates which we have had on this matter.
  The first signpost—to use a rather inappropriate term for a non-existent road—in this sad story appears to be in November, 1957, when the then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) answered a Question, which, to save time, I will not read out, saying:
  "I am very anxious to get on with it, but … there is great difficulty in Leicestershire over the line …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 936.]
  That strikes me as interesting, because, as we all know now but certainly did not know then, the Leicestershire County Council approved the line for which the Minister asked and a formal letter confirmed that. That might have been known to be on the way, if not actually available to the Minister at the time.
  We never had a statement on that. In fact, after that there is a great gap and I cannot find any reference to the read at all. There was not even what is called a "planted" Question to give the Minister an opportunity to make a statement. That strikes me as odd because six months later, on 14th May, 1958, the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, in reply to a Question, said:
  550
  "The proposed line is still not decided … and we are awaiting the further views of the County Council."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1958; Vol. 588, c. 407.]
  Of course, that was not on the same line, but another line altogether.
  A further Question came on 4th February, 1959, and the then Minister stated that
  "The difficulties … have not yet been resolved "
  and went on to indicate that they were so great that we should:
  "examine going ahead with the Yorkshire section independently…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 375.]
  By that time this was all a bit too much for the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), for I see that on 16th February he asked why the Minister had not approved an alternative route approved by the county council on 30th December, 1958, and the Minister replied that he had great difficulties.
  Further Questions followed in a steady stream, with all sorts of brands of "stone-walling" Answers and, on 17th March, there was a full debate on the roads programme. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) made a speech which took up three columns of HANSARD. In that speech he stated that he was disturbed that the Minister in opening the debate had not referred to this matter, but when the Parliamentary Secretary replied, half an hour later, he did not say a single word on the subject in his 3,000-word speech.
  The great day, if I may so refer to it, arrived when the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, got the Adjournment and, if he will forgive me saying so, presented the case exceedingly well. The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
  "the northern section of the London-Yorkshire Motorway has never had a firm place in my right hon. Friend's five main projects, although it has been much talked about."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1959; Vol. 603, c. 778.]
  What did the Minister mean way back in February when he said
  "We must go ahead with the northern section."?
  I know that he was referring to the extended third part each time, but I suggest that there was order, counter-order and, in the event, disorder. The same sorry tale went on, and from time to time I could not get a clear picture. On being

  551
  pressed strongly at Question Time, on 8th July, by, among others, the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, who asked:
  "When does he propose to take some step to expedite its construction? "
  the then Minister answered:
  "The hon. Member should address his questions to the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1959; Vol. 608, c. 1357.]
  I took the strongest exception to that and I hope that it will be realised that I have written to the right hon. Gentleman telling him what I was going to say tonight, in addition to telling the Parliamentary Secretary who is now concerned.
  What was anyone to get from all this? What was one to get from the meeting which took place at which about 30 to 40 Yorkshiremen were present in the conference room downstairs? It was the same thing all down the line, possibly by omission rather than by attention, but the inference was that the nigger in the woodpile was the local authorities in Leicestershire, whereas the real nigger in the woodpile was the Minister of Transport.
  Letters of all sorts flowed. One was to the Yorkshire Post, of 20th July, 1959, to fit in with the Minister's visit to the Yorkshire region, when I put a whole range of questions knowing that someone would give it to him to read to improve his journey to Yorkshire. I gathered that that was done. I paid tribute to him for all he had done generally to get things moving, but criticised him on this subject. That caused considerable trouble—not for me, but for a number of people.
  The council wrote me a letter, which I did not solicit, stating that its attention had been drawn to my comments, and that it had instructed the town clerk to bring to my notice certain facts. The town clerk said:
  "My Council believes that if the true facts were before you you would be convinced that the delay which unfortunately occurred in fixing the line of the road through Leicestershire, was not due to any act or default of the Leicester County Council …"
  That is absolutely true. Whatever the difficulties may have been, I should like to know why instructions have only recently been given for the Derbyshire section of the road.
  552
  As time is short, I must jump forward and put my next point. I agree that for the construction of this motorway as far as Birmingham we would all pay tribute to the contractors. They assembled about £5 million worth of plant and were all ready to go forward with the work if there had not been this unholy mess-up, with all this vacillation between one line and another. The equipment has now been dissipated, to a great extent. Some is still penned up and awaiting use, but some other has been used on the Maidenhead by-pass and for similar projects.
  It is no good trying to get an industry geared up to do this work unless the programme can go forward all the time, without hold-ups and bottlenecks. I cannot praise the civil engineering industry highly enough. Given the opportunity it has made it quite clear that it can easily work at double the present rate of progress.
  I am aware of the state of the roads programme when the Conservative Government first took office. It obviously had not been touched by the party opposite. There may have been reasons for that. At any rate, a good deal has been done to get things going. But even now the average rate of expenditure per vehicle is only £20 7s. 1d. as compared with £20 6s. 5d. exactly a quarter of a century ago. That is a difference of only 8d., whereas at modern prices the figure should now be about £55. So we must not congratulate ourselves too soon.
  We have only to read the excellent debate which occurred in the other place, a few days ago, to appreciate what we are up against, and how ill we can afford the mistakes which have been made. We can also appreciate the lack of forward-thinking in strategic road planning. There are 8,500,000 vehicles on the roads today, and before this Parliament ends the figure will have risen to 12 million. What do the Government intend to do to match that increase? A year-by-year programme for financing is no good. We must have a much longer-term object than that. The programme must be backed with adequate powers, which will greatly streamline the present requirements, which involve about three years. I see that in the other place four years

  553
  was mentioned, but I think that three years would be more accurate—or is it four years?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)indicated assent.
  Mr. Hirst: Then that is all the more shocking. I am not blaming my hon. Friend, but it is even worse than I thought.
  The programme must be stepped up. I hope that I shall not hear too much poppycock in reply. I hope we shall not hear the stuff with which Lord Chesham, in the debate in another place, ended his speech. He said
  "… we cannot bulldoze our way through the rights of the citizen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; Vol. 219, c. 414.]
  Four blinking years! Those are the tactics of the turtle and not the bulldozer.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. Barnett Janner: I am grateful to the hon Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) for affording me a few minutes to say a few words to supplement what he said. I endorse practically all he said. It has been a terrific struggle. Many Questions have been put by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly by myself, over a very long period concerning this road, and evasive replies have continually been given. Those replies have excited the anger of a large number of people, especially in and around my constituency.
  The Minister must be aware that not only in 1957, but even in 1956—and, indeed, for some years before that—there was some pressure about the need of this road; that the Leicester County Council had been doing all it possibly could to help the Government of the time to put a plan into effect. I know that not only the county, but Leicester itself, part of which I have the honour to represent, has been urging all the time for something effective to be done.
  I would like to refer to a leading article that appeared in the Leicester Evening Mail as far back as 6th February, 1959, which, I think, fairly covers the points that the hon. Gentleman and I
  554
  wished to bring home this evening. That article said:
  "At the height of the Save Charnwood petition controversy—concerned only with the Forest route early last year—"
  this was written in 1959, but it refers to 1958, of course:
  "he declared bluntly"—
  that is, the Minister
  "that if Leicestershire did not make its mind up over where it wanted the motorway to go, he might have to spend his money elsewhere. Subsequently, when he received the petition he told Leicestershire to hurry up and produce an agreed line. This they did—last September. While the unanimous Leicestershire scheme was settling into the Whitehall pigeon holes, he was quoted as saying at a Ministry Press conference that Leicestershire delays were holding up the road."
  They ask and I ask what the difficulties are.
  That this road should have been held up for so long is very serious not only for us in Leicester but also for the country as a whole. I am glad to hear, as I am sure will be the hon. Member for Shipley, that, at long last, something is to be done, but I would ask the Minister not to delay any longer; that when the plans that have been in the hands of the Government for a long time have been approved he will take the other steps as speedily as possible so that the road may be constructed and so satisfy the considerable needs of Leicester, Leicestershire, Yorkshire and the other places concerned.
  11.3 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Despite the handicap, which he admitted in the opening of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has laid about him quite considerably, and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not refute each of the allegations he made. In the rather short time left to me I should like to tell the House the plain, unvarnished story of what has happened to the northern section of the London to Yorkshire motorway.
  The House will know that the intention is to build this motorway in three parts, the first section being from London to Birmingham; the second, from Crick, near Northampton—that is the Birmingham end of the first section—up to the Doncaster by-pass, and the third being

  555
  a spur road running between Sheffield and Rotherham to Leeds. The controversy has raged round the section between Crick and the Doncaster by-pass, and that section runs through Leicestershire.
  Before I go to the story of what has been happening, I have two observations to make. I want to make it absolutely clear that my right hon. Friend who was at that time responsible—who is now the Minister of Defence—and his Department, have been obliged throughout to follow the procedure laid down by Parliament in the Special Roads Act, 1949. The intention of that Act was to safeguard a number of rights—the individuals' property rights, the interests of local authorities and local communities, preservation of amenities, and agricultural interests, to mention only a few.
  The procedure which is imposed upon us in cutting the line of a motorway and getting it constructed falls into a number of stages, and there are a whole series of opportunities for objectors to be heard and to have their views ventilated. As I said in interrupting my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, when he said it took about three years, it can take four years.
  Mr. Janner: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Hay: It is not the fault of the Minister, or the Ministry. If the fault lies anywhere it is with Parliament, for having produced the machinery we have to work.
  Mr. Janner: The machinery has not been started.
  Mr. Hay: The hon. Member is more or less right, we are still only at the first stage of this long procedure, I regret to say. It has been all the way through our hope that we would be able to obtain agreement upon the provisional line of this motorway. It has taken a long time, I agree, but I believe there are, at last, reasonable hopes of agreement, and that the succeeding stages will go through as quickly as possible.
  The story began in 1951, when consulting engineers appointed by the Ministry were instructed to survey the whole of the route from London to Yorkshire, and for the section north of
  556
  Leicester they proposed a route to go through Charnwood Forest. Shortly, I understand that north-west of Leicester there is a ridge of three hills, now covered by Charnwood Forest, a well-known beauty spot. To the east of the forest, between Leicester itself and Loughborough, is the Soar Valley, an area of fine agricultural land. When they heard that there was a possibility of a motorway through Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire County Council protested to the consulting engineers, who then proposed an alternative route through the Soar Valley, which would skirt to the north of Leicester and southwest of Loughborough.
  This had a number of advantages, engineering in particular, avoiding hilly country, which is rocky in some places and marshy in others, and would have been closer to Leicester and Loughborough. Our intention with the motorways is to try to get them as near the main centres of population as we can.
  In 1955, the new motorway programme was announced, and the agricultural objections to the Soar Valley line, the second thoughts of the consultants, were strongly pressed. Negotiations then began, and they took a very long time, with the object of trying to get general agreement on the Soar Valley line.
  In 1957, it became apparent that we were just not going to get agreement on the line at all, because the agricultural objections were so strong. We asked whether our consultants would again explore the possibility of the route through Charnwood Forest, to which the county council had objected in 1951. This was done, and in December, 1957, the county council told us it was prepared to accept a line through the forest. But when this became known there was an immediate outcry from the many people who see in the forest a natural playground and a place to go to at weekends. I expect that is the organisation referred to in the Press cutting which the hon. Member for Leicester, Northwest (Mr. Janner) read out—the Friends of Charnwood.
  In March, 1958, a deputation of protest was brought to see the then Minister, now my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. As a result, since we had been arguing for three or four years almost on these different lines, my right

  557
  hon. Friend said bluntly to Leicestershire County Council: "Will you please talk to all these people and see whether you can yourselves, within the county, bring into contact all the various interests and suggest a route which will be acceptable to all of them?" That decision has been the subject of criticism—the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West criticised it just now—but I claim, and I ask the House to agree, that my right hon. Friend had every justification for taking that line at that moment.
  When trying to carry through a big engineering undertaking of this nature, there is little point in advertising a line and forcing through with the rest of the statutory procedure when one knows that one is foredoomed to the most violent objection, because built into the whole of this procedure under the Statute is a whole series of opportunities for objection, including, where the highway authority itself—the county council-objects, the opportunity of claiming the special parliamentary procedure, with which some of us are acquainted, and which can delay a matter of this kind for two, or even three, years, and this in the middle of this long series of procedures through which we have to go. That was in March, 1958.
  Whatever may be the criticism of my right hon. Friend's decision, the plain fact is that it worked, because by September, 1958, the county council had come to more or less agreement with everyone and came back to us and suggested a compromise line going through the forest, not the same line as the consultants originally thought of in 1951, but a line, nevertheless, through the forest which up to that time had been almost universally attacked.
  It was a line which contained a number of drawbacks from our point of view. Not only had it some engineering difficulties, but it would require a good deal of excavation and blasting of rock and it would have involved higher gradients for traffic using it. The House knows that our intention with the motorways is to try to keep the gradients as flat as possible, particularly for the heavy vehicles. It would, incidentally, have been more costly than the rather longer route through the Soar Valley.
  558
  Accordingly, my right hon. Friend at that time instructed that a general review of the whole situation, a re-examination of all these lines, should take place and a last attempt be made to get agreement on one or other of them, if possible upon the Soar Valley line, which we still believed was the right one. It became apparent, however, that the county council's compromise line through the forest, despite all these engineering, traffic and, from our viewpoint, financial disadvantages, was, and is, the only line on which one can be reasonably certain that there will be the minimum of opposition.
  Accordingly, my right hon. Friend, at the meeting to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley referred, informed a number of Yorkshire Members of Parliament last July that he would accept, at last, this county council compromise line, although, frankly, we did not like it. We would still prefer to have the Soar Valley line.
  That, as shortly and as clearly as I can put it, is the story of what has been happening and why it has been so difficult to get agreement. The present position is that the consulting engineers are now going into the detailed preparation for the fixing of the provisional fine of the road between Crick and Doncaster, including the Leicestershire portion. We hope that by the end of this month, we shall have their detailed plans. Thereafter, we must proceed to the next stage in the process, the stage of publishing a scheme. When this scheme, with all its attached plans, defining the road in great detail, is published, there will be every opportunity for everyone who objects to those to bring forward his objections, to claim a public inquiry and to go through the whole machinery of objection, which could slow us up. I hope, therefore—and I address these remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Leicester, Northwest—that all those who can help to get this project through now will do their best.
  I have tried honestly to outline what our troubles have been in trying to get a line provisionally drawn. Now that we have got fairly close to agreement, I hope that we can go on and proceed as quickly as possible. There have, of course, been criticisms in the House—my hon. Friend the Member for

  559
  Shipley has mentioned them again tonight—of the delay and the muddles. In recounting to the House the story of this matter, I have tried to deal with those as I went along.
  I ask the House, however, to accept this. As early as 1956, it was quite clear that our obligation to follow the statutory procedures, together with the volume of conflicting objections to the various proposed lines, would make it quite impossible for us to keep to our original plan of completing the whole London—Yorkshire motorway as the first major motorway project in the country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley I and the present Minister deplore the fact that by circumstances we have been forced to ask the contractors who have done this great job on the London to Birmingham section to disperse their equipment and their team. I regret it.
  Mr. Hirst: The responsibility for drawing this line is not the county council's. It is the Minister's. He cannot back out of it.
  Mr. Hay: I have tried to explain this as clearly as I could. I would ask my hon. Friend to look at HANSARD tomorrow morning and at the explanation I have given.
  Mr. Hirst: It is a fact.
  Mr. Hay: I have tried to make it clear that what throughout we sought to do was to get agreement on a line. Frankly, what the present Minister of Defence did, and my predecessor did, was to try to bring these parties together on the ground in Leicestershire, and when eventually, we said to the county council, "You take over, you try to get agreement", it worked, and it worked in two or three months.
  Mr. Hirst: And put the road back years.
  Mr. Hay: Up to that time we had all been unable to agree. I think that Yorkshire Members and the people in
  560
  Yorkshire generally have been very disappointed at the delay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can understand.
  Mr. Janner: And in Leicestershire, too.
  Mr. Hay: I am glad to hear, in Leicestershire as well.
  I hope that some additional action my right hon. Friend took will have been of some help. When it became clear we were to be delayed on the motorway he gave orders for the modernisation of the Great North Road, the A.1, to be proceeded with apace, and that involves dualling of the carriageway on the road between London and Newcastle, a total length of 168 miles. This is going very well. Sixty miles of new dual carriageway on the Great North Road have already been done and 60 more are under construction.
  I think that the story shows that delay is inseparable from this process of consultation and reconciliation which is forced upon us by the Act of Parliament under which we have to work. It is not for me—as you, Mr. Speaker, would remind me if I tried to do so—to forecast any future legislation which my right hon. Friend may want to bring to the House on this matter. All I can say is that is the line of policy we have followed up to now, not to ride roughshod over many interests. I have not been involved in this before, I come to the matter with a fresh mind, but I cannot see how more could have been done or done more quickly. It is very easy for the critics to snipe and criticise, but very often it is the critics who are the very first to talk of land grabs and dictation if we proceed too quickly—
  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 past Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Nuclear Weapons (Defence Expenditure)
  Nuclear Weapons (Defence Expenditure)
  FRANCE (ATOMIC WEAPONS)
  FRANCE (ATOMIC WEAPONS)
  WESTERN GERMANY (AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION)
  WESTERN GERMANY (AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION)
EMPLOYMENT
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
BRITISH ARMY
  General Court Martial, India (Mr. Sandford)
  General Court Martial, India (Mr. Sandford)
  Guided Missiles
  Guided Missiles
POST OFFICE
  New Office, Longbenton Estate
  New Office, Longbenton Estate
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Solihull (Trunk Calls)
  Solihull (Trunk Calls)
  New Exchange, Kilmarnock
  New Exchange, Kilmarnock
  Feltham and Hounslow
  Feltham and Hounslow
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Line Definition and Colour Television
  Line Definition and Colour Television
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Thor Rockets
  Thor Rockets
  Hospital and Medical Facilities, Aden
  Hospital and Medical Facilities, Aden
SHIPPING
  Flags of Convenience
  Flags of Convenience
TRANSPORT
  C-Licensed Transport
  C-Licensed Transport
  Speed Limit
  Speed Limit
  London (Rush-Hour Traffic)
  London (Rush-Hour Traffic)
ROADS
  A5 and A45 (Accidents)
  A5 and A45 (Accidents)
  London—Birmingham Motorway
  London—Birmingham Motorway
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Principal and Senior Probation Officers (Salaries)
  Principal and Senior Probation Officers (Salaries)
  Office Workers (Gowers Committee's Report)
  Office Workers (Gowers Committee's Report)
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Drainage Rates
  Drainage Rates
  Private Woodland (Forestry Commission Plants)
  Private Woodland (Forestry Commission Plants)
SWAZULAND, BASUTOLAND AND BECHUANALAND
  Scholarship Awards
  Scholarship Awards
SWAZILAND
  Unlawful Assemblies (Draft Proclamation)
  Unlawful Assemblies (Draft Proclamation)
BECHUANALAND
  Bushmen
  Bushmen
SCOTLAND
  Caldwell House and Woodlands
  Caldwell House and Woodlands
HOSPITALS
  Mentally Handicapped Children, Essex (Accommodation)
  Mentally Handicapped Children, Essex (Accommodation)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter

THE DUKE OF FIFE
James George Alexander Bannerman, Duke of Fife and Earl of Macduff, having succeeded to those Titles on the death of Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra Victoria Alberta Edwina Louise, Duchess of Fife and Countess Macduff, by virtue of a special remainder contained in a Patent of the Sixty-Third Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH
Arthur Harold, Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

ATOMIC TESTS AND SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
2.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can indicate the policy to be advocated at the United Nations in respect of the atomic tests in the Sahara and the choice of a member of the Security Council, and whether they adhere to the understanding arrived at some years ago as to the geographical distribution to be observed.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, as regards nuclear tests, our
498
policy has been outlined in a speech by the Minister of State at the General Assembly yesterday, and in the draft resolution which the United Kingdom and Italian delegations have tabled. This expresses the hope that France will associate herself with the agreement being negotiated at Geneva for the ending of nuclear tests and requests her to take full account of the views expressed in the debate.
As regards the second part of the Question, one of the main considerations that underlay the gentlemen's agreements of 1946 with regard to the Security Council was the achievement of a fair balance of geographical representation in the six non-permanent seats. Since the pattern was agreed in 1946, however, the number of eligible countries has increased from 46 to 77—an increase of two-thirds. Europe outside the Soviet bloc is now under-represented, and the gentlemen's agreements of 1946 made no provision at all for Asian representation. Yet the Soviet bloc continues to oppose any expansion of the Security Council. Her Majesty's Government believe that informal agreements can be valuable in promoting orderly elections, but that such agreements must be realistic. The understanding of 1946 is not now realistic because of the two-thirds increase in the number of countries eligible for membership of the Security Council. It is the Soviet bloc countries which bear responsibility for this situation. While it lasts these countries cannot, therefore, justify a claim to occupy automatically one of the non-permanent seats.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his lengthy reply. As regards the first question, do the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government think, in the light of the interview with General de Gaulle reported in the Press to-day, that there is the least use, even with the assistance of the Italians, in pursuing this resolution that they have put down? And as regards Poland, does the noble Earl's Answer amount to this: that inasmuch as the proportion of European members of the United Nations is smaller now, that justifies the substitution of one European nation—namely, Turkey—for another European nation, namely Poland, and satisfies the Charter of the United Nations and the understanding of 1946?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as to the first of the noble Viscount's supplementary questions, I should not like to comment on General de Gaulle's statement of yesterday until I have seen it in full. So far we have had only the Press accounts. But our objective, as the noble Viscount realises—and I believe the House would support this—is to stop all tests by all countries: and that is what we want to concentrate on at the present time.
So far as the second supplementary question is concerned, on the question of a vote as between Turkey and Poland, I cannot say how this will be resolved, but I feel that until there is agreement to enlarge the membership of the Security Council we are always in danger of getting these wrangles as between one country and another.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But the Agreement was made long ago and the point of the noble Earl's answer is really this: that the Russians will not accept an alteration to the Charter until China is admitted to the United Nations—and in that they are perfectly right.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, that is extending the scope of the Question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Earl say, with respect to one matter which has recently been before the United Nations, what is the evidence that Her Majesty's Government have been able to obtain which leads them to express the view that the tests in the Sahara will not be of any serious injury to the nations which are protesting?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, there are two things: first of all, there is the account which was given at the United Nations by M. Moch, which I believe went a long way to reassuring people that this test would be made as safe as is conceivably possible. Secondly, there is a wide amount of experience available to us now as a result of our own tests and tests undertaken by the Americans, some of which, for instance, have taken place under 100 miles from populated areas.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, leaving aside what is a subsidiary question—the question of fall-out—does the noble Earl, who must have read the
500
lengthy account in The Times to-day of what was said by General de Gaulle, not think that we are making ourselves very foolish in proposing a resolution to which he will not agree?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should make myself very foolish if I commented on General de Gaulle's statement without having seen it in full.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Noble Lords say "Hear, hear!", but they have not read it.

THE MONETARY SYSTEM
3.4 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE rose to call attention to the report of the Committee on the Working of the Monetary System (Cmnd. 827); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name to call attention to the Report of the Committee on the Working of the Monetary System, and to move for Papers. Those of your Lordships who, like myself, have read all through the 340 pages of the Radcliffe Report will be acutely conscious of the monumental character of the Report itself. Certainly we shall agree not only that it contains an immense amount of information but that immense care has been taken in its compilation; and therefore I am quite sure that, in whatever part of the House we sit, we shall express our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, and to his eminent colleagues for what they have done in preparing for us this volume of evidence and the findings which enable us to deal with this extremely intricate question.
Now, having said that, I should like to say that, for my part—probably like some other noble Lords who are present and who have also read the Report—I put it down, after reading it, with a certain amount of disappointment; disappointment so far as I am concerned, not because I found myself in any opposition to the findings of its signatories, but owing to the fact that, at the end, I was not quite sure of precisely what the Report intended its findings to convey. In order to put the issue into hard outline I will put two questions. The first is this: do the Committee consider

501
that the monetary policy pursued in the 1950s was reasonably successful? Secondly, do the Committee consider that if we in this country are confronted by similar emergencies in the 1960s, we should be well advised to follow policies similar to those we adopted in the 1950s? To that question I confess that the intelligent inquirer will be hard put to find a specific answer from reading the pages of the Radcliffe Report. So I will put down one further question with a view of clarifying the questions to which my alleged reasonable inquirer will wish to know the answer.
I believe the Committee would agree that the total cost of the monetary methods employed during the 1950s was very considerable, including the cost to the Exchequer, the cost inflicted upon private individuals, and the injury to the body politic and the productive output of the country as a whole. Now in view of that, are the Committee of opinion, in the light of experience, that in any further future emergency of the economy much of the cost might be avoided by a better choice of instruments? My Lords, to that supplementary question, equally with the previous questions that I have put, I do not find that the Committee have supplied a categorical answer. Nevertheless, I am satisfied from reading the Report as a whole, its facts and its recommendations, that the Committee would be inclined to give a definite affirmative reply. And it is because I am fully satisfied of that fact, and because I believe that the facts which the Committee have elucidated in the course of their inquiry indicate that conclusion, that I believe that the findings of this Report, when they are fully studied and digested, will prove of the greatest value to inquirers on financial matters in this country.
That, my Lords, brings me to consider the Report and its recommendations in detail. In the early chapters of their Report the Committee state in great detail the outlines of the monetary scene, and they point out, I think perfectly correctly, that a great number of changes have taken place in the years of the earlier part of the century, at a time when banking policy and changes in bank rate were quite common; and that in the intervening years, when bank rate remained stationary, the alteration in the monetary outlook of the country as a
502
whole has become entirely different from what it was a quarter of a century ago. I will quote one or two examples which are given in the bulk of the Report. First of all, the National Debt has very greatly changed in volume; then we have inaugurated the system of Treasury Bills; we have giant concerns which are capable of finding on their own immense sums of capital resources; we have had the formation of national industries of a very large character and with vast accumulation of reserves; and, in addition to that, we have to-day sources of credit which were quite unknown in the old days 25 or 20 or so years ago. In consequence of all that, the problem which faces the monetary authorities at the present time is essentially different from what it was in those days long ago. Summing up their attitude towards the monetary problems of to-day the Committee, in paragraph 312, page 107, use these words:
"… it is the liquidity position as a whole upon which the monetary authorities must act."
That is, of course, an entirely changed position from what it was in the years 20 or 30 years ago, when the monetary system was comparatively simply thought of, as it was in those days.
Turning to what is claimed for the bank rate policy as a controller of the disequilibrium in the internal situation of the economy, I would direct your Lordships' attention to paragraph 472 of the Report, on page 167, and I propose to read to your Lordships the relevant part of that paragraph. This is what the Committee, after very great deliberation, definitely said:
"We are driven to the conclusion that the more conventional instruments have failed to keep the system in smooth balance, but that every now and again the mounting pressure of demand has in one way or another (generally via the exchange situation) driven the Government to take action, and that the quick results then required have been mainly concentrated on the hire purchase front and on investment in the public sector which could be cut by administrative decision. The light engineering industries have been frustrated in their planning, and the public corporations have had almost equally disheartening experience. That these two should be the 'residuary legatees' for real resources when sharp adjustments were called for is not a comforting thought."
Then the Committee wind up the paragraph with these words:
"It is far removed from the smooth and widespread adjustment sometimes claimed as

503
the virtue of monetary action; this is no gentle hand on the steering wheel that keeps a well-driven car in its right place on the road."
I think your Lordships will agree that that is quite a strong statement on behalf of the Committee. Dealing with the efficiency of bank rate policy in regard to external disequilibrium, the Report says, in paragraph 439, on page 152, these words:
"Traditionally the major impact of a change in short-term interest rates was upon movements of international short-term capital."
Omitting now quite a large number of lines, I come to the end of the paragraph, which states:
"So far as this old automatic effect is concerned, a jump in short-term rates seems on past evidence to have lost much of its power to effect any real immediate improvement in Britain's international balance sheet."
And in order to be fair, I quote the final sentence:
"It is not yet clear whether the power will revive as exchange markets take on a more settled appearance."
I come now to a very important paragraph, 695, at the foot of page 253. This is a particularly interesting paragraph because it displays the attitude not only of the Committee but apparently to some extent of the Bank of England itself. I gather, though the paragraph is not entirely conclusive, that the Committee were impressed with the view that the international effort bringing about a change in bank rate was psychological rather than actual. The Report says, in fact:
"… we have had little evidence of actual movements of funds in response to changes in short-term rates, or of other measurable effects on the exchanges."
Now, my Lords, let me try to press home the point which the Committee are making in those comments. They are pointing out that the actual effect of an increase in the bank rate on outside resources is very little in itself. The only real effect is a psychological one; in other words, it is raising a flag and suggesting that all will be well with matters; it is not a measurable effect—something actually achieved. That seems to me a matter of very considerable importance. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that, taking those two effects together—first of all, the effect on internal equilibrium; and, secondly, the effect on external equi-
504
librium—the Committee go a very long way to suggest that it is the bank rate itself, and not the policy which it envisages, which really is the powerful factor, if powerful factor there actually is, in bringing about any change in the situation.
I do not want to take too long over these matters, and I have dealt with what seem to me the main features of the Radcliffe Report on this vital question of monetary mechanism. I have shown, in the paragraphs that I have quoted (I could extend my inquiry to a great number of other paragraphs, but I do not intend to waste your Lordships' time by so doing), that it is quite clear from the Radcliffe Report, both from the facts and from the recommendations, that the Radcliffe Committee are extremely doubtful whether the monetary methods that have been used during the 'fifties of this century (which, as I have already said, have cost so much to the private individual, to the Exchequer, and to the public weal) have really been justified in the result, bearing in mind the immense expense and injury they have done to the economy.
My Lords, I propose to leave that matter. No doubt other Members on all sides of the House will enlarge on those fundamental matters. I propose, in the concluding remarks of my speech, to refer only to one or two important but comparatively subsidiary questions. I will take, first of all, a very important statement by the Radcliffe Committee on the relationship between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England. The first question is a theoretical one, though a very important theoretical one, and one which the Radcliffe Committee stress in some detail in different parts of the Report: It is the question of who, in the last resort, shall have the final word. Shall it be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or shall it be the Bank of England? It think those of your Lordships who have read the Report will agree with me that the Radcliffe Committee come down quite specifically in favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they do this in two main particulars. In the first place, they say that, irrespective of the Bank of England Act, from time immemorial it has been and must be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who makes the final decision, because the whole economy of

505
the country rests in his hands; and though the Bank of England naturally has a great deal of expert knowledge, and though the Bank of England must necessarily advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer in great detail, nevertheless, in the final resort, the decision must be that of the Chancellor—and I think your Lordships will realise that that must inevitably be so. But the Radcliffe Report goes even further than that and says specifically in one place (I have not the actual quotation; I do not want to keep on wearying your Lordships with quotations) that even in matters which the Bank has hitherto considered belonged to its own precise prerogative, in the last resort the Chancellor must have the final word.
In reference to that, there is a later paragraph in the course of the Report which is of sonic considerable importance. The Radcliffe Report makes the suggestion that, in order to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Treasury Committee should be appointed, with various persons on it, to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and that suggestion seems to me, broadly, along sensible lines. I should not like to commit myself as to the precise terms or suggestions which the Radcliffe Report proposes, but it must be perfectly clear to Members of your Lordships' House, and to Members in another place, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in a position to stand up, if I may so put it, to the Governor of the Bank of England entirely on his own legs. He must have expert advice that will enable him to some extent to be a match for even the august personage of the Governor of the Bank of England.
I have thought this matter out very considerably, because, as your Lordships know, I was at one time Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I am fully acquainted with proceedings in the Treasury. The real question is: where two individuals are confronting one another, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England, whose view will ultimately prevail? It is not simply a matter of who has the right or ho has the theoretical responsibility. Quite clearly, when two individuals of that kind are discussing things the man who has the greater financial knowledge will be able
506
to exercise a special influence on the other party. And it is my experience over a very long period of years that it is not the person who has the function that necessarily secures the victory of the day; it is a question of who is the person with the greatest expert knowledge. Certain Chancellors of the Exchequer seem to me to possess powers—I will not mention any names—which enable them to stand up to the Bank of England and pull their own oar, whereas other Chancellors of the Exchequer have been largely the mouthpieces of the Bank of England. That must necessarily be so. But in so far as the proposal of the Radcliffe Committee, that we should get this special expert body of people in the Treasury to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a workable proposition, it seems to me the most important proposition that could have been made.
There is one other matter which the Radcliffe Committee put forward and which again I think is worthy of full consideration. Your Lordships will remember that some year or two back a tribunal sitting on the Bank of England went into the question of part-time directors of the Bank. I think that everybody who knew the men concerned had not the least doubt that those who were involved in the inquiry acted with the utmost bona fides and to the greatest of their ability, but it was brought home in certain cases that they had a divided responsibility. As directors of the Bank of England, they had to be told all the facts leading up to this question of the bank rate, and in their private capacities as merchant bankers, or whatever they might have been, they were confronted on the same day with decisions that affected their own businesses and the interests of a large number of people from a fiduciary point of view. It was felt by some people that this divided responsibility was too great a burden for them to be called upon to bear. And the Radcliffe Committee, as I understand their proposal, suggest that in order to deal with that situation the part-time directors of the Bank of England should give an opinion, as any person might give an opinion, but that they should not have any final responsibility for decisions regarding the bank rate. They should not be placed in the rather invidious position of double responsibility in which they have been placed

507
up to now. I think that that is an admirable suggestion, and I hope that your Lordships will take the view of the Radcliffe Committee on this point.
I propose to deal with only one further question, a comparatively small one. In years gone by, there was what was called the Local Loans Board. Whereas important municipalities preferred to issue their own loans, generally of a considerable amount, running certainly into hundreds of thousands of pounds, and possibly into millions, for the smaller municipal authorities it was more expedient that they should be classed together and should be enabled to draw their funds from a common pool, the Local Loans Fund, from which they were entitled to draw in order to carry out their municipal obligations. A little while back—I forget how many years ago—that was all changed. The smaller local authorities were forced to come into the market and float their comparatively small loans, and only when they failed to get the loans they required was it suggested that they should be had from the Local Loans Fund—I forget what it was called precisely. I was always against that step, for it seemed to me to be a retrograde one, and I am very glad that the Radcliffe Committee have now come down in favour of reversing that procedure, which has been in existence for only a few years and which I do not think has worked very well.
In these remarks, first of all on the major issue of the policy of using monetary means like the bank rate and other similar instruments, I have dealt with the larger issue of the Radcliffe Report. I nave concluded by taking two or three special cases, and though there are several other important issues raised by the Report, I do not propose to try the patience of your Lordships further today. I would only say that it is an exceedingly difficult subject, and I am greatly indebted to your Lordships for so kindly listening to what I have been trying to say. I hope that those of my colleagues who are to take part in this debate will be able to draw on the indulgence of your Lordships, as I have drawn, in dealing with this very interesting, very intricate and very carefully thought out Report. I beg to move for Papers.
3.36 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships for the first time, I must ask your indulgence, not only for my inexperience but also because of the great intrinsic difficulty of the subject under debate. The Report we have to discuss is a long and highly technical document. Hardly anything that one says about it in a short time can possibly be true. Moreover, one is bound to be controversial. It is hard to think of a less suitable subject for a maiden speech. Yet the Report deals with matters with which from time to time I have been concerned, and I should feel something of a coward if I let the occasion pass without attempting some contribution.
Before plunging into detail, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in an expression of general gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, and his talented colleagues. The comments which have appeared since the Report was first published have not all been wholly favourable and I have the impression that for months, and perhaps for years to come, professional economists will be arguing about some of the contents. All this is surely quite healthy, but it would be a great pity if it should seem to show any lack of appreciation of the immense and splendid labours which lie behind this Report or of the great addition to knowledge which it has made.
If only for its descriptive sections and for its figures, it would take its place as one of the most important documents of this century on the subject with which it deals. And its indications of how more reliable knowledge is to be obtained in future are likely to begin a new epoch in the history of financial statistics. It is because it is so authoritative in these connections that if one argues with it elsewhere, one must argue, as the Germans say, "with the hat in the hand". Yet the subject is appallingly complicated and it would be futile to pretend that differences of opinion do not persist even after all these labours.
Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me for a short time, if I try to sort out a little of my own rather mixed reactions in this respect. To begin with matters of agreement, I would single out for special welcome the emphasis which

509
the Committee lay upon the importance of debt management in the context of monetary policy. I am not sure that I understand all that they say in this respect, but I am sure that the focus of attention is right and highly important. This is no totally new discovery. I am sure that the authorities of the Bank of England have long been acutely aware of the limitations imposed on their management of the market by the abnormal size of the short-term debt, and in recent years there have been important articles from Mr. Manning Dacey, Mr. King and Professor Sayers who have opened our eyes to the significance of the Treasury Bill in this connection. But it is fair to say that until recently public, and even professional, discussion has been all too apt to ignore these complications and to talk as if control of the credit base were wholly within the competence of the Bank regardless of the form of public debt. It cannot be sufficiently emphasised that in the last analysis it may be the volume of Treasury Bills which is the governing factor in the supply of money; and it is a great step forward to have this recognised by a public Committee.
Secondly, I count it a considerable gain that we now have acknowledged in a unanimous document the fundamental truth that the appropriateness of interest rates is not a matter of absolute height, but rather of relation to a particular situation: that is to say, the structure of interest rates may be too high, in that in some way or other it restrains spending when more spending is called for; or it may be too low, in that it stimulates spending when some restraint is in order. The Committee leave us in no doubt that, in their judgment, at certain times in the last few years interest rates have been too low and that this may have made the restraint of inflation more difficult than otherwise would have been the case. My Lords, I think that this is most important. All this, in my judgment, is very much to the good.
My doubts begin with the more detailed analysis and its consequences for policy. To begin with, there is this curious repudiation of some alleged over-emphasis somewhere on the supply of money which occurs like a leitmotiv throughout the argument as though some
510
peculiarly discreditable connection were being repudiated. I am not at all sure that I have got to the bottom of this, any more than that I always understand the precise meaning of the Committee's substitute notion—the so-called liquidity of the system as a whole. But, speaking as one who still finds the influence of money supply a useful central guiding concept, perhaps I might say two things conducive to mutual understanding. First, I do not know a single economist since the 17th century who has argued that the supply of money is the only factor determining the volume of spending and the level of employment and prices. I confess that I find it hard to imagine the frame of mind in which this can be conceived to be possible. The reason why in discussions of policy the supply of money has been high-lighted, so to speak, is not because it is thought to be the sole influence operative, but because, rightly or wrongly, it is believed to be one of the influences which can be controlled.
But to argue thus—and this is my second point—is not to argue that the control of money supply in this sense should be the only control applied. I will not say that there have never been economists who have thought that monetary policy in this sense could do everything: for there have been some, chiefly, I believe, abroad. But I will say that I doubt whether in recent years there have been many such. I think that most of us have felt, at least during the ardours and endurances of the post-war period, that a more eclectic policy was essential, and that in such a situation to eschew fiscal measures was as unwise as to eschew control by the supply of money and interest rates. My own view is that the Committee would have done much better to base their own argument on this conception. If only they could have overcome their repugnance to starting from the idea of the credit base as the centre of the picture, they could have shown, on the one hand, how an abnormal composition of Government debt impairs control by the Bank of England, and, on the other, how perverse effects, on the fringes can effect its influence; and I think they could have said all they wanted to say about debt and liquidity without running into some of the ambiguities which I think experience already shows tend to make

511
their argument at this stage rather difficult to follow. But all this, perhaps, concerns technicalities without much bearing on practical action.
My chief worry about the Report concerns its diagnosis of the effects of monetary policy, and I confess that at this point I find it very difficult to follow. They examine in some detail a good deal of evidence regarding the effects of particular interest rates upon various sectors of the economy. They acknowledge a variety of influences and reactions, and it is not at all easy to make up one's mind how much importance they attach to each. They discover cases where interest rates have had some influence; and they elaborate some arguments showing how this influence is to be conceived. But in the last analysis I do not doubt—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence—that the drift of their argument is to suggest that monetary policy is much less capable than has recently been thought of making its contribution to the general stability of the economy. They believe in monetary Policy, but they do not believe in it very much.
I confess that I find this attitude both perplexing and unconvincing. I am not in the least surprised to find that the cross-examination of witnesses whose main business experience has been acquired in a period of brisk inflation should yield ambiguous conclusions. Very often since the war the rise of prices has been such as to reduce what may be called the real, as distinct from the nominal, rate of interest to something more like a negative than a positive percentage. If prices rise 4 per cent., a borrower of £100 who returns £104 at the end of the year is paying zero real interest; if they rise more than that, as they frequently have, then the real rate is negative. At such times I should not expect small fumblings in the neighbourhood of 4 per cent. to have great effect all round: and I certainly should not be surprised to find many businessmen who paid little attention to such things. Indeed, to me, the remarkable thing about the evidence quoted is not that some of the witnesses said they paid no regard to the rate of interest, but that some of them said that they did.
512
What surprises me in this context is that the Committee should have attached such considerable weight to this kind of evidence. Surely, before getting down to questions of this degree of detail, the prime desideratum was to establish whether the broad run of economic history confirmed or refuted the view that a lax money supply and relatively low interest rates are associated with inflation and that a curb on money supply and a sufficient rise in interest rates is capable of bringing such conditions to an end.
Here, surely, there is a wealth of evidence from different times and from different places. It is true that relatively low interest rates and easy money do not always generate expansion, although I think it can be said that when inflation does take place these conditions are always present. But it is also true—and this is the relevant point in this connection—that inflation has always yielded to determined applications of the reverse policy. Are we really to suppose that in recent years it has been just a succession of lucky accidents that all over the world where inflation has been checked and reasonable control of aggregate demand has been re-established, there control of money supply and manipulations of interest rates have been practised and have been regarded as essential ingredients of policy? Think, for instance, of the German stabilisation. I think it is quite reasonable to say that we do not always know in detail how these influences have operated. But I do not think it reasonable to proceed as if the brute fact of their operation were still an open question. I will not say that the Committee go as far as this—that would not be fair. But I think that what they say, and still more what they do not say, will give encouragement to those who do.
I fancy that there is already some evidence of this in the reception of this part of the Report up to date. The chief praise has come from those who hardly believe in monetary policy at all. I would suggest another test—the probable reactions of the central bankers. Central bankers, as we all know, are a modest, sensitive race of beings who are apt to resent suggestions that they can do a great deal for the economy, especially if they fear that their best efforts are likely to be upset by Government borrowing

513
policy. But I wonder how many central bankers would endorse the degree of scepticism regarding the instruments at their disposal which seems to emerge from the deliberations of the Committee. I will not say that the Committee have actually thrown the baby out with the bath water in this respect, but I do suggest that the poor child is left perched very precariously on the side of the bath.
This brings me back to our own experience in recent years. On this, as it seems to me, the Committee do not draw all the morals that they could. They think that greater recourse might have been had to the use of interest rates, and they are inclined to attribute the inflation of 1954–55 partly at least to some laxity in this respect. But this does not preclude some doubts when it comes to positive claims of what might have been done in this connection. And when they come to the episode of 1957, they show a considerable reserve. I must say that to me this history seems to have a much less equivocal significance. To me, the inflation of 1954–55 is a good example of what happens where monetary policy is insufficiently firm and when the policy of public finance is working in the opposite direction. And the events of 1957 seem to show pretty conclusively what can be done when it is really strongly applied. I do not wish to attribute the turn in our fortunes solely to what was then done in the monetary sphere, but I do believe, very firmly, that not only the dramatic ending of the crisis but also a good deal of the easement which has come since was due to the policy then pursued. I do not think that the present expansionist policies—of which, may I say, I completely approve—would have been possible if it had not been for the courage and imagination of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in bringing the inflation to a halt.
Finally, may I say one word about the relations between the Bank of England and the Treasury? This is a very difficult but a very important subject. I have no doubt at all that in the modern age, with our changed conceptions of policy, there can be no place for complete independence of the Bank of England. Nor have I any doubt that the relations between the Treasury and the Bank must be those of continuous and intimate co-operation. The idea of relations between two sovereign States
514
is entirely inappropriate. I daresay that there has been, and possibly still is, much to learn on both sides. But I cannot say that I am enamoured of the solutions suggested by Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues. I am somewhat sceptical of the formal Committee which is suggested, and I am still more distrustful of the proposal which puts upon the unfortunate Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day the humble functions of the Deputy Governor, namely, that of announcing changes in the rate of discount.
Of course, if the Committee's attitude to interest rates is to be interpreted as implying that there should be changes only once in a blue moon, all this has greater plausibility and consistency. A change from 4 to 3½ per cent. in such conditions would be, of course, an event of tremendous moment. But if, as many of us still believe, the needs both of internal and of external stability demand a more flexible and continuous policy, then a procedure of this sort, in my judgment, would be a move in the wrong direction. In any event, I think we should remember that in the Bank of England and its traditions, with all its faults and occasional intractability, we have an asset of great importance in international relations; and that while it is desirable that its habits and organisations should adapt themselves to change, it is undesirable that its strength and standing should be impaired. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will hesitate long before he takes any step which, to the outside world, might seem to imply any weakening of his confidence and trust in the Bank of England. There are plenty of other ways of bringing about whatever changes may be thought to be desirable.
4.0 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sure that any members of the public who supposed that this House is mainly composed of illiterate backwoodsmen can hardly still think so, after listening to the speeches of this afternoon. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, whom I am sure the House would wish to hear at this point, for allowing me to speak in front of them as I have to fulfil an engagement elsewhere

515
which will compel me, I am afraid, to miss most of the later speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has more than once shown great moral courage, if I may say so, in taking an unpopular view of financial matters, and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, would salute the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, with his special authority as his old Director—he having been for so long Director of the London School of Economics, where the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has been such a distinguished professor over a great period. I, as a part-time assistant lecturer for a few months at the London School of Economics under the auspices of the noble Lord, hesitate to add my bouquets to those bestowed by the greater financial authorities who will follow me, but I cannot fail to be grateful to him for allowing me to assist him even for that short time.
My mind goes back further to the time when he advised me on book reading at New College, Oxford. I remember going to him as a young, first-year student and asking for vacation reading on economics. He gave me a list. I cannot remember what they were now, but no doubt they were Knowles' Industrial and Commercial Revolutions, Henderson's Supply and Demand, or books of that kind. The noble Lord thought I was rather downcast. He said, "Don't you like the look of them?" I, trying to say something bright, offered the opinion that they were rather dull, and he said, "Don't you like dull things?" I said, "No, not very much," and he looked at me in a rather damaging way and said, "You surprise me. I should have thought you would have enjoyed them." That was a very healthy experience for a first-year student, and my devotion and allegiance to the noble Lord has never wavered from that moment onwards. Certainly, owing him many kindnesses over many years I feel that not the least is the fact that this afternoon he has given us a speech which will be read wherever economics are going to be studied, and that means all over the world. I am sure that wherever people read the Radcliffe Report they will want to know what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said about it, and they will not be disappointed in what they have heard this afternoon.
516
If I am asked whether I agree with him, I would reply that one must not disagree too much with maiden speakers, and therefore I will not say very much now. I was interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, seemed to be agreed on one central point. I think that it was put into words by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who opened in his usual very cogent fashion, would accept that rendering of the Report. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said that the Committee believe in monetary policy but they do not believe in it very much; and that, I think, is what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, discovered in their Report. Therefore, in dealing with this very elusive document, we at any rate reach some point of initial agreement. I think we may take that as a starting point they believe in monetary policy but they do not believe in it very much.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, deplores this, and although he wrapped it up in his usual courteous way, he thinks that this is a rotten Report. I do not consider that that is putting it too strongly. He shakes his head, but I am in the recollection of the House and I do not think anyone will disagree with that interpretation—the collection of figures is monumental, the labours past all praise; but when it comes to conclusions they are slightly ridiculous. I think one read that into the speech of the noble Lord. I am simply offering a reaction to a speech which the whole House heard. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, taking that one sentence which I have used from the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, thinks, on the whole, that the Report makes pretty good sense. It is simply a matter of opinion between two very learned Lords, but at any rate they seem to agree about what is the main gist of the message of the Radcliffe Report. I join with all those who have paid and will pay their tribute to the Report for its immense collection of information, and I also salute what they have achieved in several spheres—in particular their demand for much better information and many of their other recommendations, which are altogether excellent.
But let me just point to what I think are some of the limitations of the Report, not from the angle of the noble

517
Lord, Lord Robbins, but more in a fashion to supplement what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. If I am not inflicting on noble Lords a piece of knowledge known to all, I would say that there are some very helpful articles about the Report in the October number of the Banker. Among those articles I suppose nothing is more helpful than an article from the pen of Sir Oscar Hobson, I suppose the most distinguished of financial journalists in this country or any other, who I am bound to say shares a good deal of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, about the Report. On pages 616 and 617 Sir Oscar Hobson summarises the Report in a passage which he calls "Radcliffe—in One Page"; and if any noble Lords after this debate feel that they have not quite got the hang of the thing, I suggest that they look at the article, and particularly the passage called "Radcliffe—in One Page".
Perhaps I may quote two sentences which are drawn from the Report but which are picked out by Sir Oscar Hobson, as I think they give a balance.
"Our conclusions on rate of interest policy are … that while there can be no reliance on this weapon as a major short-term stabiliser of demand, the authorities should think of rates of interest—and particularly long rates—as relevant to the domestic economic situation …"
Then they go on to quote this sentence, which I do not think was used by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, though it may have escaped me. They say:
"… we envisage the use of monetary measures as not in ordinary times playing other than a subordinate part in guiding the development of the economy …"
That is saying what was said in other words by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and I think probably accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I do not say that the Radcliffe Report is infallible; I am merely saying that this is what the conclusion appears to be.
Accepting that point of view, that the monetary weapon is to be subordinate, I find a difficulty about the Report in trying to discover how the Committee think the monetary weapon should be used. Let us assume that it is subordinate, but, let us also assume that it is in some sense necessary. We cannot, perhaps—I am not sure I am capable and would not have the temerity in front of the noble
518
Lord, Lord Robbins, and the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence—try to go into the theory too deeply. But I think it is fair to say that the Radcliffe Report debunks what might be called the orthodox view of monetary policy, without putting very much in its place. I do not object to its belittling monetary policy, but it leaves a gap, and I think we are bound to ask ourselves what any Government would do if they had to accept the Report in its entirety.
It is quite true that the Report declines to estimate the respective weight that might be placed on the three main instruments of economic policy: the direct or physical controls, import licences, building licences or what you will; secondly, fiscal measures, particularly the Budget; and thirdly, monetary measures, of which, of course, the use or manipulation of interest rates is only one part. The Committee leave it open to the Government of the day to say how much emphasis is to be placed on each of those three factors. I think probably my own colleagues would place less importance on the third, the monetary policy, than perhaps the general run of noble Lords opposite, but I do not think anyone would place no emphasis at all on monetary policy. Therefore one is bound to ask how would this third weapon be used at all, whether in a big way or small.
When we come down to that we can, I suppose, consider monetary policies under four very general headings—I assure the House that I shall not dwell on any of them very long. May I take the example of where the object is to restrict the use of the credit of money and not to expand it, although one can, of course, take illustrations from either case. But we have seen this system of restricting credit in recent years when we have been tackling inflation.
In regard to monetary policies, we may think of direct requests of some kind or another from the authorities, be it the Government, the Treasury, or the Bank of England; or we may think of steps which are taken by the authorities, such as what is called open-market policy, which actually reduces the capacity of the banks to lend. I must not go outside the banking system: there is the difficulty of restricting the lending of the commercial banks while

519
leaving other institutions free to lend outside. Or, again, some instructions or guidance may be given to the banks regarding their reserve requirements: it is possible to vary what is considered the proper liquidity ratio either below or above 30 per cent., or as you will; but they can be given the guidance that they may not have a higher or lower reserve ratio than hitherto. That is something I have advocated in this House before now, and I am glad to see that the Report is somewhat more favourable to varying liquidity ratios than many of us expected. Another way is to vary interest rates—either the short interest rates or the long interest rates. I hope that the experts present will agree that we can place all monetary measures under these four headings.
Of course, it would be absurd to under-estimate, or to try to summarise in a sentence or two, all that the Report has to tell us, and all the help that it has to give us in regard to all these ways of expanding or restricting credit. But with regard to liquidity ratios I should like to quote a sentence from the September number of the Banker, which, referring to the Report, says:
"Its meaning is especially hard to discern"—
and that is saying quite a lot—
"against the introduction of variable liquidity flowers as normal regulators."
Putting it quite crudely, the Report contemplates various emergency situations and various emergency powers. But I think it would be true to say that, for normal purposes, leaving out emergencies, it concentrates on or selects interest rates as superior to all other forms of monetary action.
Still within the framework of monetary action, and leaving out physical controls and the use of the Budget, but within the monetary field, it concentrates on interest rates. Within that still more limited field of interest rates it concentrates on long-term interest rates as distinct from the use of the bank rate, the short-term manœuvres with the bank rate which I suppose the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, had particularly in mind. Here perhaps I might quote an extremely effective article by Professor Ballog in the Manchester Guardian of, I think, October 26, where he points out that this use of the long-term interest rate,
520
which is their, so to speak, specially chosen remedy, is apparently
"for long term use only. It has therefore nothing to offer for the main problem which worries Governments—how to deal with normal short-term"
problems which arise. That issue is really left to us. I am glad that I am now carrying the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, with me to some extent. I think it is fair to say, therefore, that they leave a vacuum at the heart of the financial problem. That is my own criticism of the Radcliffe Report. They do not give the kind of guidance which a Government might reasonably expect in dealing with the normal short-term problems that arise. I hope, therefore, that I have to that extent conciliated the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, while taking my stand firmly on the major question. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has left us, though not, I hope, through disagreement with anything that I have been saying.
My Lords, I feel sure that I can close without offering my own thoughts further as to how this gap should be filled. But perhaps I may just say this, returning to a wider question, a most delicate question, but one, I suppose, with which few people would conceive themselves fitted to deal in the particular way in which I feel that I have some qualifications. There is no doubt that all this excellent work by the Committee, whether we agree or not with their conclusions, will not be wasted. It will help to enlighten the public about what the City does. In that sense, therefore, it will, I think, help to bring down that wall of misunderstanding which exists between the City and the general public.
If I may say so, the tension or misunderstanding is most acute as between the City and my own Party, the Labour Party. There is in that misunderstanding, in that estrangement, at once a rational and an irrational factor. I think it is not very likely that the average City director will ever vote Labour. I think it is also just as unlikely that the average miner will ever vote Conservative. When I pleaded on an earlier occasion for a better understanding between the City and the Labour Party somebody said to me that it was like asking a member of the Society of Jesus to become a paid-up member of the Ethical Church. Well,

521
there are, of course, these barriers which I think to some extent are permanent. The point of view of the average business man, politically speaking, is never likely to be that of the average member of my Party. Therefore I think we must expect some difference to remain.
But there is also an irrational factor, and here I should lack moral courage if I did not make myself remarkably plain. Taking it from the point of view of my own Party, there is no doubt that it is widely suspected—it may be wrongly: but it is suspected—as a general view, that, to put it crudely, there is too much easy money made in the City. To give an example, I spoke in many constituencies—I should think in over 25 during the Election campaign—for the Labour Party. I suppose it never occurred to any chairman when I was speaking, to introduce me as the chairman of a bank. I think it would have been felt that that would have struck a jarring note. I think that is so; I believe there is that suspicion on that side. I think it is right to say, therefore, as a Labour man who has been chairman of a bank for five years, that that suspicion can be over-done.
I am coming to the other side. Take the City. I recall a story, told me, think, by Dr. Hugh Dalton, of Ernie Bevin when somebody asked him, after his first meeting with Stalin, what he thought of Stalin. Ernie Bevin said, "He was not so bad; he was just a working chap like you and me, trying to make his way in the world." That is a charitable, but I daresay a justified estimate. That is, I think, how it is necessary to look at those who earn their living in the City. They are really a great section of the British public. They have the faults and virtues of the British public; and as we are all Britishers in one way or another, I think we must realise that we have these faults and virtues. I believe that it would be well if my own Party came to that particular point of view, while always differing from the policies which are likely to be most popular in the City.
On the other side, we must face the fact that the suspicion of the Labour Party is also very pronounced. One cannot work in the City, as I have done for five years, without realising the depth of the prejudice and how unreasonable it
522
is in the extent to which it is carried. If I may speak frankly—and I am speaking frankly, for we are in public life and these things matter—it is very obvious, it is well known, that if any Conservative Member of Parliament falls out of office he does not find it difficult to be padded out with a lucrative seat in a board room. That, I am afraid, is only too obvious to every member of the Labour Party. But, Labour ex-Ministers are not accommodated in that way. Now that is a basic factor, something which everybody notices.
The prejudice is there, and although there is the rational factor, there is also the irrational prejudice. I put it from both points of view. I am putting it as fairly as I can, and I speak, I suppose, as very few people can speak—there are some, including Members of your Lordships' House—from both sides. But if noble Lords opposite suppose that this prejudice towards the City which we feel in the Labour Party is a one-sided affair, they are very much mistaken. The suspicion is mutual. There are faults on both sides. It is not for me this afternoon, when I am trying to place this point before the House, to say who is more at fault, but these things should be said because there are very few who are in a position to say them. These rational differences are natural. They will continue; they are unlikely to pass. But the irrational prejudice is something that could be rid of; and the sooner it is got rid of, the better, because it can be of no help to our country to which we are all so greatly attached.
I have added those thoughts to our discussion of the Radcliffe Report. It is, in its own way, a great document. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, will forgive me for treating him as an opponent in the Report. I know that what he said at the beginning of his speech was entirely genuine. This is an historic document. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence should have raised this subject this afternoon, for no one is better qualified than he is to debate these matters with us. But there are others who also possess exceptional knowledge, and though I shall not be here for the whole of the debate I am delighted to think that the House of Lords should spend this day on a

523
Report which I am sure will go down in history for its many memorable qualities.
4.22 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I have been grateful in the past for many things that the noble Lord who has just sat down has done with me and for me. I am even more grateful than ever before for one thing which he said in the speech he has just made, giving me the inevitable opening for what I have to say. I am before your Lordships as an illiterate backwoodsman who has tried, but failed, to read the Report that is under consideration to-day. I have done some statistics on the Report—that is my dirty nature. The Report has 986 paragraphs and is followed by ten pages of names of people giving evidence or submitting memoranda. There are nearly forty names to a page. Let us say, then, that about 400 people have contributed to it. The taxpayers have also contributed £20,000, apart from the voluntary work done, for the printing and the collection of the material; and I am bound to say (to use a phrase which the Committee themselves used in one of their paragraphs) that I cannot help feeling that this thing could have been done much better.
My chief difficulty in pursuing the matter is that although the Committee were formally instructed, having made their Report, to make recommendations, they firmly refused, not merely to give a list of recommendations—there is nothing of the kind anywhere in the Report—but even to suggest where one would find recommendations. In fact, those who want to know what the Committee really recommend have no choice except to read 986 paragraphs. One can leave out the memoranda and statistics at the end. That is the simple choice put before one by this Committee. I confess that I feel it is a great pity that they, having to deal with a vital question and to come to recommendations or suggestions, do not do so at all. The best they say is that something could have been done a little, or perhaps a good deal, better. They make no recommendations of any kind anywhere. In a moment I will come to the fact that when they mention five things to which they really attached importance they also leave us to find out the explanation of all those things—in
524
986 paragraphs. And I do not know how to do it.
I confess that I am a little troubled by this. If I violently disagreed with anything that I understood them to recommend, I should feel very much like the two economists who were discussing a book written by a third economist. A said to B, "Have you seen what C has been saying about you in his book? It is perfectly horrible stuff." B asked, "How many words has he taken to do it?" The answer was, "Oh, it is an enormously long book." The comment of B was, "Oh, that's all right; nobody will read it." If I did not want this Report to be read I should be quite happy, but I should like Ito see the Report or, at any rate, the subject with which it deals, examined and dealt with, because it is vital to the happiness of the people of this country.
I will say at once that there is one sentence, in paragraph 980 of the Report, in which the Committee say:
"There is … no single objective by which all monetary policy can be conditioned."
As a very ordinary citizen and a backwoodsman, I wish to urge that there is one indispensable quality for money, and that is reasonable stability. Money is the practical instrument by which the citizen manages his own life and decides how and when he will spend his free resources. The State having provided him with the basis on which to live, money is the instrument. He has to decide whether he will spend it all in his youth or will save it for his old age or for his children. How on earth can a man make that decision unless he knows whether money will be of the same value twenty years, six years or even one year hence as it is to-day?
Reasonable stability is an absolutely essential requirement of money. Let me say that that is not easy to achieve. It is very difficult, particularly in countries like this or, say, the United States of America. Reasonable stability of money has to be combined with two other things to which the people of this country are absolutely attached—I believe that they are firmly attached to reasonable stability of money. My study of monetary policies over the past 700 years shows what passion for the stability of money the people of this country have had, always wanting good money and not debased money of any kind.

525
That has to be combined with two other things—full employment and freedom and responsibility for the citizens. It would be quite easy to get full employment if we did not want freedom. We should simply have a nice Communist State to ensure it. But if we want freedom it means that the State, by itself, cannot solve this problem for us; and nobody but the State can give us stable money, because the State is the manager of money. But the State cannot do it unless other people co-operate with them—all the banks and the other institutions of all kinds. The associations of employers and of workmen have all to co-operate if we want, in a free society, to combine full employment and stable money. It cannot be done by the State alone. It is a very difficult question, but I think it is one of the three most important questions facing this country at the present time.
I wish that this Report, into which so much brain-power and so much assiduity have gone, were more likely to be read, and that when read it would really help to solve that problem. It is a very difficult problem to approach—how we treat banks, how we treat employers' associations and workpeople and all the rest of them, in order to get them to co-operate in securing stability of money, without giving up their freedom. Whether we put what I call the central management of money into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or into the hands of the Bank of England is an important question, but it is far less important than solving these other questions, and I wish we had been helped by this Report to solve them. I am going to read this Report again, but I do not believe, having looked at it carefully, that it is really going to help very much for that purpose. May I express my hope that I ant quite wrong in that belief.
4.32 p.m
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, the noble Lord said first of all that he had not read this Report; now he says he is going to read it again, which implies that he has at least had a look at it before coming to this House. I think myself he was a little uncharitable to the Committee. I want, however, first of all, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, on his maiden speech. It is an atrocious subject upon which to
526
make a maiden speech—what the Prime Minister described as
"a realm where mysticism and dogma are so strangely mixed."
It is upon this awful uncharted sea that he proposed to embark, and has embarked with such enormous success. He made a frightfully good speech, if I may say so, to your Lordships on a subject about which no one but the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, can be funny; and no one except the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, can be interesting.
My only excuse for speaking this afternoon is that I was the first person to suggest to Parliament that a Committee should be set up to inquire into the working of the monetary system. That suggestion was acknowledged by Mr. Thorneycroft, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he subsequently announced the setting up of this Committee. One achieves so little in public life that the temptation to take credit when one "pulls something off" is quite irresistible; and the main purpose of my remarks this afternoon has therefore already been achieved.
I feel, however, that the result has not been so melancholy as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, implied. We have now—and I think I shall carry the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, with me—an authoritative and lucid account of the monetary and credit system as it works in this country to-day; and, particularly, of the technique of debt management, to which both the Committee and Lord Robbins rightly ascribe great importance. For this alone the Report seems to me to have been well worth while. It is, however, by no means alone. No one, I think, has yet drawn sufficient attention to the importance of the need for more and better statistical information, which is emphasised again and again throughout the Report. The Bank of England, it says, has not published all the figures it collects; and it has not collected enough anyway. A great many of us have always suspected it; and it is satisfactory that steps have already been taken to rectify this. For my part, I hope that not only the research and intelligence side of the Bank's activities will be strengthened, but that the closer collaboration between the Bank and the Treasury, envisaged in paragraphs 863 and 864 of the Report, will now take place. The figures that

527
ought to be available have been made abundantly clear in the Report, over and over again; and—rather remarkable—one has the impression that some of the figures that have been produced by the Radcliffe Committee were almost "screwed out" of the monetary authorities for the first time.
There can be no doubt, my Lords, that the criticism of the management of the National Debt in recent years is severe. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that there is anything equivocal about this. The Report says there has been too much secrecy; and a lack of clear purpose in the funding operations of the Bank of England, which is tacitly criticised for not allowing gilt-edged prices to fall in 1957, and for preventing a rise in 1958 through over-funding; and, at the end, there is a criticism of the Bank for failure to make its intentions known to the market. These criticisms add up to quite a lot.
Then we come to the "symbolical" significance of a high bank rate; and here is where the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and the Radcliffe Committee part company. The Committee say, in paragraph 441:
"We find it difficult to believe that such veneration for Bank Rate can persist if there develops a general scepticism of the power of interest rates over the internal economic situation."
This statement is coupled with a warning that
"The authorities must resist the temptation to push interest rate so high, in order to get the debt firmly held, that they engender a slow but damaging decline in activity."
Again, there is a rejection of
"… any suggestion that the rate of interest weapon should be made more effective by being used more violently."
This, of course, ties up with what the Committee regard as the limited significance of any changes in the interest rate. I think there is no doubt at all—and we have to accept it—that the use of monetary policy by itself, in isolation, is thought by the Committee, as against the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, to be very limited indeed; and I think that is a very important conclusion. I am not myself saying (I am not really an economist, only an amateur) whether your Lordships should agree with them or not.
528
I do not know; but after a careful reading of the Report, I have no doubt on which side they come down. They are, on the whole, very sceptical about the use of monetary policy, in isolation, to direct the national economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, raised an interesting point concerning business men, and this is the relevant passage in the Report:
"When we confined our questions strictly to the direct effect of interest rate changes in making business men alter their decisions to buy or sell goods or services, we were met by general scepticism. The insignificance of interest changes in relation to other costs and to the risks involved was emphasised to us again and again, in relation not only to fixed investment but also to stocks of commodities."
That, I think, is what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, had in mind when he said the Committee should not have been guided as much as they were by the evidence of the business community. Nevertheless, I think it is not entirely without relevance; and I thought that passage was of sufficient interest and significance to copy it out.
LORD BRAND: During inflation?
LORD BOOTHBY: Yes, during inflation. We now come on to the relative significance and importance of the supply of money and the velocity of circulation. Here again the Committee come down hard against the general conception of the supply of money as having a great influence upon the economic welfare of the country as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said that this question of the supply of money was the leitmotiv of the Report; and wondered why this should be so. I think we all remember that, during the period 1957 and 1958, the phrase "supply of money" became the basic theme of Ministers of the Crown in justifying their policies, which may or may not have been right. But they went on and on talking about the supply of money, until one wished one might never hear the phrase again. It was persistent and monotonous; and I think it was perhaps to counteract this that the Radcliffe Committee introduced a leitmotiv on the treble section—to counteract this thundering and steady bass, which had gone on for so long. There is no doubt that if the Radcliffe Committee did unduly stress this question of the supply of money, Her Majesty's Minister—and

529
I think the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, did so as well—from another angle.
The Committee came to the conclusion that the supply of money is not the critical factor; and that the velocity of circulation is. In fact, they go so far as to say that there is no limit to it. In October, 1957, I pointed out in another place that the supply of money had not been increased since 1954; and that our wage-cost inflation had been financed entirely by the increased velocity of circulation—and that is a fact which you cannot get round. It is always agreeable to an amateur to find his views confirmed by professionals; and I do not think anybody can deny that there were some pretty good professionals on the Radcliffe Committee. I do not think that the 1956–57 inflation was caused—in fact it clearly was not caused, because it did not happen—by an increase in the supply of money.
The next point that interests me very much—and I do not know how far Lord Robbins would concur in this—is the emphasis put by the Radcliffe Committee upon the limited effect of any single remedy. "Monetary measures", they say, "can help, but that is all." And there are "narrow limits" to the usefulness of hire-purchase controls. In a real emergency they come down in favour of some kind of prescription for bank liquidity ratios, which some of us have been advocating in another place for several years; and also, if necessary, a quantitive control over private capital expenditure, rather than the qualitative control exercised by the Capital Issues Committee—and I think they are right here.
To summarise the Committee's proposals, they say that
"monetary measures are not so much a policy in themselves as part of one general economic policy which includes among its instruments fiscal and monetary measures and direct physical controls."
As one who has been saying this, on and off, for the last 35 years, how can I be blamed for feeling pleased? As for the emphasis that is placed on the various instruments for carrying out the economic policy of this country, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, would disagree with Lord Radcliffe and the members of his Committee in detail; but I do not think he will dis-
530
agree with the general conclusion of the Committee, that no one of these instruments can be taken alone, in isolation. You must consider them in relation to the whole economic situation; and use whatever you think best, without any doctrinaire prejudices in relation to the circumstances at the time.
My Lords, I now come—and I am nearly at the end of the points I want to make—to the necessity for retaining control over the export of capital, of which the Committee are firmly in favour. The relevant paragraphs, which are paragraphs 731 to 747, are cogently argued and, to my mind, are completely convincing; although I would put in this reservation: that blocked sterling for non-residents should be swept away altogether. Indeed, my Lords, it is something of a myth—but it is a myth which undoubtedly exists in the minds of foreigners at the present time. To my mind it is responsible for keeping away quite a lot of foreign capital that would otherwise flow into this country, not on short-term but on long-term, because foreigners vaguely feel that there is such a thing as blocked sterling for them; and that, somehow or other, their investments may be tied up on that account. It is in fact negligible; and I think we should make a firm statement that, for non-residents, the days of blocked sterling are over. I think that would do a great deal of good to the national economy.
In the circumstances, I must say that I found it more than somewhat astonishing to learn that Treasury assent had been obtained just the other day for the City Centre Company to invest 25 million dollars in a skyscraper in New York. This seems to conflict with the recommendation in paragraph 740, that it would be foolish to export capital if that meant denuding British industry and thus impairing its competitive power; and also the recommendation that overseas investment in the Commonwealth should have priority. I am delighted to see our rapid expansion abroad, as well as at home; but I do not think that at this moment we have quite got to the stage of building skyscrapers in New York.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I do not think he has seen an explanation which has been given, I

531
believe in another place, to the effect that this was an exchange of investment. It was a maturity or sale of a dollar investment, and was a replacement.
LORD BOOTHBY: If that is the case, I am delighted to hear it. I had not seen the explanation. I saw merely the fact that Treasury assent had been given for the building of a skyscraper, and I think in the first announcement there was no qualification at all; it merely stated it was for that purpose. If it is an exchange, then my remark has no relevance, and I am delighted to withdraw it.
There is one last point in connection with the constructive proposals of the Report, arising from what it describes as "a shortage of risk capital." It recommends the establishment of an Industrial Guarantee Corporation, on similar lines to the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to tell me that they will give serious consideration to this proposal. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will realise, a special agricultural credit corporation was considered unnecessary, as it was thought in the Report that farmers did not realise the facilities that were already available to them at the banks. I think that is largely true; but there was a definite statement that there is a shortage of risk capital which an Industrial Guarantee Corporation might help to fill.
All in all, my Lords, this Report is a pretty revolutionary document. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, that you have pretty well got to read all of it: you have got to "plug through" the whole thing, though it is very well written. But when you come to the end of it, if you have read it with some care, you realise that it is pretty far-reaching. All the economic policies pursued by the Treasury and the Bank of England in recent years, and particularly in what I may perhaps call the "Thorneycroft-Robbins phase," are dismissed as well-intentioned but, on balance, ill-conceived; and based on hopelesly inadequate statistical information. That is how the Report comes down; and I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, should have vehemently refuted these conclusions. The fact that it is done
532
in polite, gentle, scholarly prose to my mind adds weight to the indictment rather than detracts from it.
Now I come to a few brief criticisms which extend to a rather wider field than the monetary field, but which the Committee did deal with. It has been said by Sir Roy Harrod that the Report as a whole is not based on any firm substructure of theory—and there is an element of truth in this. I agree that the velocity of circulation is far more important than the supply of money in any given inflationary situation. Nevertheless, I would also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and with the Committee, that the supply of money is an important factor; and, provided they maintain their ratios, the commercial banks alone can create new money—and it is no good saying that, if they do create new money, it will not have any effect on the economy; because of course it will.
My Lords, the note issue is now completely detached from the gold reserve; and I confess that I had hoped for an alternative, in the shape of goods, to the production of which the supply of money might be brought into some kind of relationship. We do not get it. We do not in fact get any alternative suggestion. The Committee say that the Bank Charter Act of 1844 has been repealed; and that cash is no longer related to the gold reserve, or indeed to anything else. But they do not make any attempt to put anything in its place. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, that a stable measuring-rod of value, to quote Keynes, is essential to a healthy functioning economy; and that if money is unrelated to anything the danger is that it will fail, in the long run, to provide one. After all, it is the goods and services that money can buy which give it its value.
My second criticism is this. I promise that I have nearly finished, and will never, never mention the subject again so long as I am alive. In fact, I can tell your Lordships that the Radcliffe Report and every document connected with it is now in my wastepaper basket. This is my swansong: it is not a subject one can return to at frequent intervals and keep sane. But the Committee come down in favour of fixed exchange rates; and I must say to

533
your Lordships that I have long believed that the system established at Bretton Woods was too rigid. Between 1934 and 1937, as some of your Lordships will remember, we let the pound find its own level in the exchange markets of the world. We established an exchange equalisation fund, and regulated credit with the primary object of maintaining the stability of commodity prices. According to the late Mr. Frank Graham, of Princeton University, who was a great economist:
"This provided Great Britain and the world as a whole with the best exchange system we have had since World War I,"
He went on to say that:
"unco-ordinated national monetary policies, non-discriminatory multilateral trade, and fixed exchange rates cannot be made to mix."
My Lords, I think that there is a great deal of truth in that observation.
The theoretical price paid at Bretton Woods for fixed exchanges was adequate and well-distributed liquid reserves for the free world; and they were not provided. As a result, to-day nothing automatically "gives" under external economic pressure; and the necessary economic adjustments have too often to be made too late by means of violent changes in interest rates, or physical controls, with substantial devaluation as a final resort. In the absence of a single, comprehensive monetary system, which is not yet in sight, I believe that we need a more flexible international currency system than we have got, with a margin of, say, 3 per cent. on either side of parity, to smooth out fluctuations of normal size in international trade balances, and to equate the nominal and real value of the national currencies of the free world. I hope that at some point the Government will raise this matter at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund, because I do not think that it would necessarily meet with great objection from other countries.
There is also the question of gold. The Committee come firmly down against a rise in the price of gold. I am against that for one reason only. I think that the liquid reserves of the free world are inadequate for the task that lies ahead of us—and I include in this the United States and all the countries of Western Europe, as well as this country. I think
534
that altogether, distribute them how you will, our liquid reserves are quite inadequate for the task we have to do, which is stupendous. It is no less than the capital equipment and economic development of the uncommitted countries of the world; and for us, in particular, there is a special responsibility for the Commonwealth. This is a gigantic task, which requires enormous resources; and despite recent additions that have been made to the resources of the International Monetary Fund and of the World Bank, they are still inadequate. The easiest way to increase them would be to raise the dollar price of gold, which I believe would benefit all concerned; and which I am certain will have to come sooner or later.
Finally, my Lords, I come to the management of the National Debt, to which my noble friend Lord Robbins frequently referred, and which is described by the Committee as the
"… fundamental domestic task of the central bank."
This task is defined as follows (in paragraph 562):
"To push the rate of interest to a level that is high enough to attract sufficient firm holders for the debt, and is yet consistent with the balance between demand in the public sector, demand in the private sector, and the available resources of the economy."
I would only suggest to your Lordships—and I think that here I shall carry my noble friend Lord Robbins with me—that this is a pretty tall order. If we want to do all this simultaneously, it is a very formidable task; and the Committee are by no means clear about how these requirements, which must at some time or another conflict, can be reconciled.
Professor lames Meade made a pregnant statement in The Times a year or two ago. He said:
"It remains very desirable to find some way of preventing a continuous inflation of prices without stopping economic growth."
I believe that in that single sentence he got to the heart of the economic problem which confronts us to-day. If the Radcliffe Report has not found the way, I think we can say with truth that it has illuminated the scene, and put up some useful direction posts. It is a remarkable State Paper, which will be regarded as an economic textbook of the highest calibre, not least because it lives up to

535
its own standard of constant and profound diagnosis, accompanied by the avoidance of doctrinal preferences of any kind. This is what gives the Report its great weight and value. I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, when he said that it amounts to being a worthless document. It is not so, and it will not be so regarded by economists or by anybody else in the years that lie ahead. I think that we have every reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, and to his colleagues.
4.56 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, to have read the Radcliffe Report is something which, to those of us who have accomplished it, gives grounds for a certain amount of boasting. For the last few weeks copies of Dr. Zhivago and the Radcliffe Report have gone with me wherever I have travelled, but owing to the decision of my noble friend, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, to put the Report down for debate, Dr. Zhivago is still waiting its turn. I would point out one important difference between these two volumes. In Dr. Zhivago there is a list of the principal characters. There is no such list in the Radcliffe Report, and in studying it one of the difficulties is that if one wishes to refer to, say, the supply of money, one has to re-read the Report. In view of the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I am wondering whether perhaps this was not intended by the authors.
In his time, the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has produced many distinguished and, indeed, voluminous Reports. His recommendations—for instance, those on broadcasting policy—could hardly have been clearer. They were so clear that the Government of the day decided not to put some of them into effect. In the few remarks I have to make I should like to appeal to your Lordships not to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, with most of whose speech I found myself in agreement except on this one point. We should not regard this Report as being finished with to-day. This is only the beginning of, or, shall I say, only a further stage in, the process of attempting to understand our economy, to which noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, have made so distinguished a contribution.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I make it clear to the noble Lord that I was referring entirely to myself. At the moment, I am so exhausted with monetary policy that I cannot take it on again for some years. I was not referring to anybody else, certainly not to the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot think that the noble Lord is exhausted about anything, and I hope that he will participate in future discussions, because there are many aspects of this Report—the whole question of policy in the monetary field from a monetary and credit standpoint, for instance—which we shall have to explore again.
I should like to add the request that we should follow the example of the Committee and not approach this subject from a doctrinaire standpoint. I hope that at this stage none of us will seek to make Party political points on it, tempting though this may be. It seems to me that here is a document which has been produced by a number of people of great distinction—economists of distinction and trade unionists of distinction—and they have arrived at, not total agreement on every issue, but a broad agreement in their analysis, and it is in the analysis that I believe this Report is so valuable to us. It will be the subject of agony to many economic students for many years to come, because I do not doubt that this will be standard reading for those who wish to take a degree in economics.
The great contribution of this Report is that it explains in much greater detail than has been done before the consequences of certain tried and tested instruments of policy. I do not believe that to-day there will be any disagreement between us on the fact that the Government have a responsibility in the field of monetary policy and in the running of the economy. The extent to which they exercise that responsibility is a matter which will continue under debate for quite a long time.
What we are now enabled to do is to look at the effects of certain instruments. I feel it a great disadvantage to disagree with a noble Lord as distinguished in this field as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins—indeed, it was always a pain to me to read my economy essays to my tutor at Oxford, and to do

537
so in the House of Lords in the presence of the noble Lord is a great embarrassment. But I must say that the concept that the Committee drew up in regard to the supply of money, and the advantages or disadvantages or effectiveness of any policy in solving the current problems by attempting to bring action on the supply of money, is something which is made abundantly clear in the Report; and those of us who, like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, remember the tremendous over-emphasis that Government spokesmen and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer made on the importance of the problem by attacking it on the supply of money, will see that this does justify the Committee in their emphasis on this aspect of it, in contrast to their general advice that any monetary policy to be effective must be effective on the total liquidity of the economy. I may have misunderstood what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said, but it seems to me that this is an important point.
Nor did the Radcliffe Committee, in fact, reject the idea of using monetary policy. What they have said is that in the short run it is not nearly as effective as is generally believed; and they point, quite clearly, to the disadvantages. I should like to refer to some of those disadvantages, and in doing so I would stress that I am talking purely in terms of the short-term problem. When we take the question of control over capital issues, which I take it is part of monetary policy—it is, like the bank rate to-day, almost a weapon in the field of inflation—the Report shows quite clearly that the effects are far too slow to produce any worthwhile result in the short run: it may have some slight result, but the Committee feel that it is an ineffective instrument. This is something which gives those of us on this side of the House who are interested in investment policy great cause to think. They regard the qualitative capital issues control as something largely ineffective, and they say that if you are as hard up against it as to require drastic action, nothing less than quantitative control, which is going to be a very rough and harsh instrument, is necessary.
But the main burden of the Committee's Report is that monetary policy and its use in this way is something that, on
538
the whole, we ought not to put too much emphasis on in the short run, either in regard to expecting much in the way of effectiveness, or in the way of hoping that it will not have any ill effects. I believe that, although the policy which the Government have followed to deal with the situation to bring back a relative state of prosperity has been effective, it has not been purely the monetary policy; the fiscal policy has played an important part—and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, mentioned this. But we are paying some price for it, in that we are faced to-day with a decline in the private sector of industry. This is a serious matter and is, I think, part of the working of certain of these monetary controls.
The general conclusion of the Committee on the short-term problem is that any monetary measures must operate on the credit system as a whole, and that these liquidity requirements must be laid down, if it is necessary to have them, not merely for the clearing banks but for all the major financial and credit-providing institutions in this country. I admit that the Committee do not go so far as to say how that shall be done; and this is again consistent and is not a matter for which we should blame the Committee. They have taken their analysis to a point, but they clearly found it impossible to go on proliferating the different types of measures that should be taken. They point to the disadvantages of control over hire purchase and the consequent directional effect of it on certain sections of industry.
The question which no doubt will be the subject of much debate in the future is the extent to which it will be possible to use more freely and effectively fiscal instruments. Again, I should have liked to see some further examination of the methods by which fiscal weapons could be used. We know that, in practice, it is difficult and uncomfortable, particularly in another place, to have more than one Budget a year, but it may well be that this very direct and much more effective—and I think the evidence of the Committee is clear on this—method of achieving monetary ends can be achieved if we can use fiscal weapons. It has been suggested, most interestingly—although I think it would be political dynamite—that one of the directions is in the rate of National Insurance contributions; although I do not say that this

539
should be adopted. But it does show that there is a good deal more thought to be had on this. I would only say that, whatever the Government do, I hope they will not play about too much with purchase tax rates, for reasons which have been frequently argued when that subject has been under discussion.
Finally, the Committee do not exclude the possibility of direct controls. I want again to repeat my wish that we should look at this in a non-doctrinaire light, and even if "controls" has been a nasty word in the past, we should not shrink from facing up to the possibility of using that sort of instrument in a really difficult situation.
The main point of the Report is not, I think, how best to deal with short-term crises, but how best to serve long-term monetary and economic ends: and whereas the Committee have repeatedly said that they hoped monetary policy and monetary methods of this kind would not be used in the short-term, and that it should be possible to avoid them, they strongly advocate, possibly, I believe, for the first time—and I shall be interested to hear from other noble Lords whether my interpretation is correct—that open market operations should be conducted by the Government in regard to long-term finance, so that the interest rates are effective in order to serve the major aims of Government policy. This, I understand, has always been held to be impossible: that whereas open market operations were possible in regard to short-term finance, they were not a suitable object, for a number of reasons, for long-term bonds. I should be interested to know what is the view of the Government on this particular proposition.
I would say only one further thing, in conclusion. To-day—and I speak for a moment as a business man—we are in the middle of a consumer boom: we can see retail sales rising to a prodigious height, and I would go so far as to forecast that the figure will really "go through the roof" this Christmas. At the same time, our friends in industry know that they have not had too easy a time of it in the course of this year. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, the rate of investment in the private sector of industry is, if anything, going down. Whereas one would expect to see boom conditions, or
540
at least better conditions, spreading throughout industry, they are not being achieved to-day.
Speaking as one who has to take decisions in these matters in regard to investment, and in regard to the raising of new capital, I would ask the Government to consider this Report very carefully, and in particular the evidence which has been given by individuals and different sections of industry. So far as I know, that evidence has not yet been published, and I doubt whether I shall be able to attempt to read the whole of it, but I think there will be some important and enlightening evidence on the consequence of Government action in various ways. I would only mention again the Capital Issues Committee. It has been a most tedious and trying business for those trying to take proper decisions. In any machinery that may result in the future, I hope that the needs of industry will be much more clearly understood than they have been in the past. In conclusion, I should like to say again that I hope that this is only the first of many considerations, and that noble Lords who have not read this quite fascinating document—provided they do not try to read it all at one time—will persevere and will see this whole matter in as undoctrinaire a way as possible.
5.12 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to take up only one point made by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and that is his statement, which I regard as a myth, that owing to the monetary policy there has been inadequate investment in productive industry. I would answer him out of his own mouth by asking: how can there be a boom in consumer goods going "through the roof" if industry has not been equipped in the past to produce those goods? I believe that the last investment boom set up industry for a good long time ahead, and that a certain degree of pause was thus inevitable.
I think everybody must agree that it has been a most memorable afternoon. We have had the maiden speech of one of the leading economists in the country—and, my goodness! how I enjoyed it—and we have had what I suppose is a unique occasion, the chairman of one of the larger banks speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box, asking for a

541
greater understanding between the Labour Party and the City of London. All men of goodwill must thank him and respect him for his speech, and hope that his wish will be gratified.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, took up two points upon which I have always agreed with him: first, the point that it would be wise to have somewhat more flexible exchange rates; and secondly, the point concerning the very low price of gold which exists in the world to-day. As a humble student of these matters, I welcome the information in the Report very much indeed. At first sight there was not a great deal of positive guidance, but at second sight some of the guidance was found to be tucked away in various places. But it is tucked away, and there is a certain degree of excuse for those noble Lords who somewhat petulantly prefer that Reports should be served up in a more easy manner.
The subject on which I particularly wanted guidance—and I suppose it is one which exercises all of us—is that, so long as there is human frailty in this world, we shall have moods of mass pessimism and mass optimism, and therefore we shall have booms and slumps. How are we to ensure, in a nation of capitalists, large and small, that the stored-up claims on the economy are matched at a rate neither greater nor less than the coming into force of physical resources to meet them? The chief problem is dealing with the inflationary boom. The Report supports varying interest rates, though with some reservations. It supports a variation in the liquidity ratio of the banks, and a restriction on the absolute volume of lending by the banks, together with control on capital issues. All these powers and controls, so far as I am aware, exist at the moment.
But the Report also stresses the indivisibility of the pool of liquidity of the whole economy, and it recommends, or suggests, that other controls will have to be adopted to match those I have already outlined. The control of the volume of hire purchase credit and of building society advances has been adopted in the past, but the Report goes on to mention other credit-giving institutions. I think many sensible people will agree that this is a necessary armament for a Government to have.
542
But the precise form is not quite easy to visualise when you get to the institutions who are at the present not controlled. Then there is a subsidiary problem arising out of the last one, and that is the sharing of the pool of credit in an inflationary boom between the public and the private sector. When optimism is in the air and everything is booming, the private sector is extremely greedy. It wants to go full steam ahead and everybody to get out of the way. It wants the public sector to be cut so that the private can be allowed its full head. This, of course, may not be either practicable or desirable.
It is, of course, axiomatic that in an ideal society the full weight of public investment would fall when the economy is slack, but in practice it is almost impossible to do such a thing. In the past, when this necessity to cut back has arisen the Government have had to re-phase their capital commitments, chiefly in nationalised industries and by postponing defence expenditure—policies which are not unpopular, but which may be very dangerous to the national economy. In the future, it may well be that if a similar situation happens to arise the thing that will have to be cut will be the road programme, and that will not be half so popular. Therefore, I believe that we must try to get some balance of living between these two sectors in an inflationary boom. It may well be—in fact, I think it will be—that the private sector will have to submit to considerably more curtailment of its activities than it has in the past if a similar boom arises.
This leads one to a discussion on borrowing and lending. The Government must make both ends meet, and therefore must borrow at times. It must renew loans as they fall due; it is responsible for paying out that vast pool of demands on the economy called National Savings—I think the Report rather belittled those thousands of millions, demands for which, in theory at all events, could be presented to the Government to-morrow—and it has got to pay for any below-the-line expenditure for which it is not willing to tax further its already overtaxed subjects.
The Report recognises that the Government must borrow long if it can, and

543
that the terms must be attractive. But that is difficult if we follow the policy of expansion that we must follow, because an expanding economy tends automatically to bring growth to the first-class equity stocks, and at the same time bonds have to pay the penalty of any inflation which an expanding economy does tend to engender. So I believe it is perfectly reasonable to-day to believe that Government long-term bonds must be expected to yield a higher rate of return than that obtainable on the first-class equities of companies with a stake in an expanding economy. The Government for many years have had the tremendous advantage of a virtual prison in which they kept all the trustees in the country. Those trustees are gradually escaping. We in the Church of England managed to forge the key earlier than most people, but the trustees, one after the other, are having the files or the skeleton keys passed in to them, and they are getting out one by one. That means that more and more Government stock will come on the market, and the sale of that Government stock is going to mop up funds which would otherwise go into fresh Government stock. So that the position for long-term borrowing by the Government is really extremely difficult.
All this new situation takes a bit of getting used to. In fact, an attractive rate of interest for long-term bonds may not be enough, and the Government may have to think out other methods of borrowing. If the Government cannot borrow long it has got to borrow short, and if it sells short-term bonds to the general public, that is all right; it is taking cash out and giving bonds in return and spending the money, so there is no inflationary effect. But if the Government has to sell Treasury Bills, the position, as I understand it, is that it automatically increases the deposits in the banks, which are thus in a position to make more advances to their customers. So that the securing of purchasing power for the Government from the banking system at the same time creates further purchasing power in the banking system for the private sector, and the means to gratify it may not come into being at the same time. That means inflation if the economy is already at full stretch. Clearly, what we want is some
544
system or method whereby the Government, in borrowing from the banks, can borrow some portion of the lending power of the banks which would otherwise be used to lend to the private sector; then there can be no inflationary effect.
Perhaps the Report is intended to convey that this can be done through the variation of liquidity ratios and the restriction of the volume of bank advances—but here I am in very deep water and, quite frankly, out of my depth. To a simple-minded person like myself, it would seem that if the Government could lay their hands on the money the banks would otherwise lend to the public, the Government could borrow from the banking system with impunity. The banks would not like this, because their advances are the most profitable proportion of their funds; but that presupposes that a bank must lend to Government at a lower rate than to its customers. But I challenge that ancient concept—in fact I am not sure that it is quite so ancient. If my recollection of our history is right, many of our Sovereigns had to pay considerably stiffer rates for their money than some of their loyal subjects. Allowing a certain margin for the inevitable bad debts—not being a banker I have no idea what proportion of bad debts they make, but I suspect they are remarkably small—I see no reason why lending to Government should not be as profitable as lending to customers.
Then I come to a part of the Report with which I am afraid I do not agree: that is where the Committee say the local authorities should go back to the Public Works Loan Board. Everybody knows that the local authorities are borrowing much shorter than they ought to for long-term works and are paying what at first sight seem stiff rates. On the other hand, this is making them scrape the barrel. I found a figure in one of the tables which seemed to confirm that they are scraping their own internal resources, and they are, to some extent, tapping an entirely fresh stream of credit. If the local authority were not there to borrow it, some of this stream undoubtedly would be going to the gilt-edged market, but I question whether very much would go into the long gilt-edged market. Some would stay on

545
deposit in the banks, and some would go to institutions whose borrowings have not as yet been controlled; and at the moment there is no need to control them. The Government is already borrowing all it possibly can from the public in the long term, and there seems no justification whatsoever to think that the Government could borrow more than at present from the public or on better terms than those on which the local authorities are getting the money.
The sums are pretty stupendous. If I am right, in the last year in the table (I think it was 1958) the local authorities borrowed £376 million. I found it difficult to find exactly how much Government had borrowed long-term in the same period, but one of the tables made me think it was something of the nature of £100 million. So that to step up that £100 million by a further £376 million is really out of the question; it could be done only by selling Treasury Bills or other short-term loans to the banks. The local authorities are paying, of course, 5½ or 5¾ per cent. for mortgages. I suppose that the long-term Government credit rate is something about 5¼ per cent., but how much could Government borrow to-morrow if it went to the market for a long-term loan? And people forget what the Government is paying for some of its money. I personally am lending money to the Government at rates which, worked out gross—that is, adding back tax—come out at 15 to 30 per cent. That is on tax reserve certificates, savings certificates and premium bonds. So that it is a complete illusion, I believe, that Government is capable of borrowing long at a lower price than the local authorities are now borrowing short.
This problem, and the others that I have outlined, are very complex and very fascinating ones, and I believe that finding a solution to them presents a real challenge to the skill of our monetary managers. The Report is a magnificent survey of the practices, but it does not go as far as I should like in suggesting a solution to the problems. I believe that solutions to the problems would be much more likely to come out of a Working Party of the Treasury, the Bank of England and the financial institutions. Nevertheless, I greatly welcome the Report.
5.30 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I have more courage to congratulate him than perhaps I would in his presence. I confess that his overwhelming knowledge seemed to me, a mere amateur, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, called himself, or layman as I should prefer to say, rather daunting, and indeed to congratulate him might seem to be something of an impertinence. However, I cannot resist saying how much I enjoyed listening to him. If only I, like my noble friend Lord Pakenham, had had the privilege of sitting at his feet, I am sure I should not need to describe myself as a layman.
There is, I think, one point upon which every single speaker in this afternoon's debate, even Lord Robbins, has been in agreement. It has been universally recognised that this Report will become a classic—it will become a mine from which ore will be extracted by economists for a very long time in the future. I found myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, because, frankly, this Report has seemed to me singularly readable. Indeed, like the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, it is, when dealing with as complicated a subject as this, surprisingly intelligible. I could not help wondering—I think one other noble Lord also wondered—whether perhaps there was a method in the manner in which the Committee have spread their recommendations through the text, so that those who wish to find them will have to read—no short cuts, and therefore the argument presumably has to be studied and possibly understood.
With your Lordships' consent, I should like, first of all, to read two quotations. The first is from paragraph 514. At the end of that paragraph one finds the words:
"Monetary measures can help, but that is all."
I think that that is a pretty clear statement of the Committee's views. The other quotation will be found in paragraph 64—again the last sentence. This I find a profoundly interesting statement:
"The choice between conflicting alternatives is a continuous process, to be lived through all the time."

547
This seems to me an inspired statement of the greatest possible interest.
This Report comes at a time when doubts have become general of the simple explanation of Britain's post-war difficulties: that they have been due to demand inflation, too much money chasing too few goods, curable simply by a deflationary monetary policy. The Governor of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, in his address to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, showed, I think most interestingly, that the monopolistic practices, administrated prices, and the post-war character of collective bargaining had been largely responsible. The place of monetary policy is among economic weapons, along with fiscal and direct controls, and their relationship and co-ordination must be analysed. On such an analysis—in this I have been encouraged by the debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon—perhaps unexpectedly widespread agreement might be reached. I thought during the speeches this afternoon that, on the whole, even between Lord Robbins and Lord Boothby, there was not really so much distance.
This I believe to be profoundly important in view of Britain's disappointing post-war record. Already under the Labour Government decontrol measures had weakened resistance to recurrent balance of payment crises, to which the reaction of all Governments was a restriction of investment. The fraction of the national income devoted to investment declined, and so at the same time did the rate of increase of that income. Since 1952 the increase in Britain has been 14 per cent., while that in France, beset by troubles at home and abroad, increased by 60 per cent. That in Russia increased by 600 or 700 per cent. To Germany Britain has lost her place as the third industrial Power, and also second place as industrial exporter and shipbuilder. This year she lost to France her position as the third largest producer of automobiles. It is a disquieting record. The clash between a vigorous demand for higher living standards and an insufficient increase in productivity has been causing the periodic recurrence of balance of payments crises.
548
It is, perhaps, unfair to reproach the authors of this Report with a failure to find answers to these problems. This, however, may have been due to an understandable desire to produce a unanimous Report. It is debatable whether the cost of unanimity has been excessive. That is not—I would say this most emphatically—to underrate the usefulness of the Committee's Report. The Committee have had a number of criticisms to make. They have criticised not only the Bank of England's management, but also some of London's other institutional arrangements. For example, the Committee clearly do not think that a discount market provides an essential link in banking management.
The most unsatisfactory, and indeed inadequate, part of the Report is that which deals with London's position as a financial centre, and the sterling area. I am not going to weary your Lordships by repeating this afternoon and at this late hour what I have said on other occasions in connection with the sterling area, but I cannot believe that it was either wise in our own interest or just in the interest of other members of the Commonwealth that the poor and primary producers should, in effect, have financed the richer and better-off areas of the Commonwealth. Here I come to a point upon which I hope that perhaps I may receive guidance later on. I am much puzzled by the Report's acceptance of the Treasury's estimate of the need for a £450 million export surplus, without apparently—I speak with diffidence about this, but it strikes me as curious—considering how Britain, with so low an overall savings rate, can possibly afford to do this without a complete reversal of domestic policy.
However, the Committee have made a number of most shrewd suggestions, scattered though the Report. They reject the romantic notion that the interests of poorer and weaker countries were protected at Bretton Woods by Clause 7, the so-called "scarce currency clause". This promised discrimination against the exports of a country whose currency had become scarce. But the dollar could not be declared a scarce currency for years, as a result of the structure of the International Monetary Fund. The Committee's recognition of this fact led to their consequent rejection of the formal convertibility obligation.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the Report is that which deals with the

549
status and management of the Bank of England. When the Bank was nationalised it was claimed that it would serve an overall plan for progress and social justice, to which end it had been put under the control of the Treasury. It emerges from the Report that it was, in fact, the Bank which took over the Treasury. Nearly all monetary decisions seem to have been taken by the Bank rather than the Treasury. The terms of the Bank of England Act left the relations of the Governor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ambiguous. These should be clearly defined. I venture one more quotation, from paragraph 767 of the Report, at the end of which will be found this sentence:
"The policies to be pursued by the central bank must be from first to last in harmony with those avowed and defended by Ministers of the Crown responsible to Parliament."
And with that I could not agree more. It is instructive to compare the way in which the British economy staggered into an exchange crisis, even in a period of improving terms of trade, despite—if not on account of—the policy of the Bank, which made no secret of its dislike of controls, with the brilliantly successful management, in far more difficult circumstances, of the Australian economy by the Australian Government and Central Bank.
The Committee make it clear that in their view internal policy should not be dominated by financial considerations. To this end they have suggested the setting up of a Committee to undertake the effective management of the Bank, under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a membership which would include officials from both the Treasury and the Board of Trade, and a minority of hank representatives. This suggestion has already been mentioned in your Lordships' House this afternoon, with rather mixed enthusiasm. It is one which seems to me extremely wise and modest. In the future, it is suggested—and this has been said previously this afternoon, I believe—that even changes in the bank rate should be announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and made under his authority. I think the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, was a little scornful of this particular point, and where the noble Lord is scornful I tremble to differ from him and to approve; but owing, perhaps, to my limited understanding, I find I am
550
totally in agreement with the suggestion. I thought, too, that the suggestions made for the alteration and easing of the position of part-time directors was desirable, and desirable, I should have thought, in the interests of the directors themselves.
The inadequacy of the Economic Intelligence Department of the Bank is criticised. The Committee has stated in paragraph 776 of the Report that their report is "less useful" because of lack of essential background information. That department is to be increased in importance by the promotion of its head to membership of the Court. It will be interesting to see, and I hope we may have some indication this afternoon, the extent to which Her Majesty's Government will accept the suggestions of the Report. But even if they were formally to accept none of them, things can never be the same again. Many previously basic assumptions have been exploded: and for that we must, I think, be profoundly grateful to the Committee.
5.45 p.m.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, my first pleasure is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Robbins on his remarkable speech. I deliberately asked to be put rather late in the debate—though no doubt I should have been put late anyway—because I wanted to hear and think over what he said. I believe that what he said has been extremely valuable to us. Before I go on, I ought to congratulate my noble friend Lord Radcliffe and his Committee on the Report they have introduced. I do not agree with all of it, but I do regard it as a very wonderful document. I believe that it will be enormously useful in the economic schools at Oxford and Cambridge in explaining to them how the City and other things work financially. I do not agree with all the Committee's conclusions, but nobody would say that this is anything but a great piece of work.
I now come back to my noble friend Lord Robbins. In my view what he said about the bank rate and the rate of interest in connection with inflation really hit the nail on the head, and more or less destroyed the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, on the importance of the effect of the bank rate during a period of inflation. It is really a pleasure to borrow when inflation get very high and very rapid. One does not

551
lose money; one makes money. To judge of the rate of interest during a period of inflation, and its effect and value, as compared with its effect during steady stable prices, I should say, is really impossible. That seems to me a very important contribution to our debate.
I might go on to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Robbins and I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, on the recommendations of the Committee as regards the Bank of England. These are two definite recommendations which the Committee make, not in the course of their disquisition. They are definite recommendations in different paragraphs: that all changes in the bank rate, small and great, should be announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and that what is called a "deliberative advisory committee", of whom one member, it appears, is to be the Governor of the Bank of England, shall sit to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The idea is that there shall be about eight other members, including representatives of the Board of Trade and the Treasury; and the chairman will be not the Governor but the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—because he and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer will always be there.
Both these proposals seem to me, to use Sir Oscar Hobson's words, to "degrade the Bank of England." Although the noble Lord, Lord Faring-don, obviously hates the Bank of England, I regard it as very important to keep up the authority and prestige of the Bank of England. The Governor of the Bank of England has an immensely responsible position. He represents a whole financial, almost an industrial community—certainly a financial community—and the banking community. He has to keep his end up with all other central bankers. His powers, in any case, are nothing like those of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the United States, who is completely independent of Government.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will excuse me. I take it that he was joking, but I should not like it to go on record that I hated the Bank of England or would do anything at all to damage its prestige.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord said. I only noticed a sort of tone of delight come into his voice when he cracked at the Bank of England, and it struck me that he was pleased to see the Bank of England down-graded. It is very important to keep up the prestige of the Governor of the Bank, and I do not see how any harm can come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the ancient practice of changes in bank rate being notified in the City instead of in Whitehall; and I do not see how the intimate relations that already exist between the Governor, the Deputy-Governor and other members of the staff of the Bank of England and the Treasury officials, and, no doubt, the Board of Trade officials, can possibly be helped by a deliberative and advisory committee. I have had, and I daresay other noble Lords have had, a great deal of experience of advisory committees, and I can tell your Lordships that they do not lead to action. I was a member of the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade, and of other advisory committees. I was asked by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald to be a member of his Economic Advisory Committee. I refused because by that time I had come to the conclusion that advisory committees had nothing like the value that discussions between executive officials—in this case of the Bank and the Treasury—had in themselves. I do not think they make any advance at all.
I realise that those noble Lords who have not spoken are very few, and that the Ministers are looking tired; therefore I shall not say a great deal on any other subject. But I do want to make a certain observation about a matter that I do not think has been mentioned yet. That is the list of objectives which the Radcliffe Committee summarised and the order of the list. In paragraph 69 they do not make recommendations but they summarise a list of
"objectives in pursuit of which monetary measures may be used:

(1) A high and stable level of employment.

(2) Reasonable stability of the internal purchasing power of money."

What "reasonable stability" amounts to one is not quite sure. The paragraph continues:
"(3) Steady economic growth and improvement of the standard of living.

553
(4) Some contribution, implying a margin in the balance of payments, to the economic development of the outside world.
(5) A strengthening of London's international reserves".
A page or two before that the Report states:
"Stability of the external value of the country's money remains a major objective."
A page before that the Committee speak (I will not hurt the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe) in a slightly patronising voice about the Committee of which I was a member, the Macmillan Committee. The Report states:
"When it came to elaborate the major objectives of monetary policy—'the maintenance of the parity of the foreign exchanges without unnecessary disturbance to domestic business, the avoidance of the credit cycle, and the stability of the price level'—it still placed foreign exchange stability first."
Only two paragraphs later did it explicitly state as an objective stability of output and employment at a high level. Well, my Lords, I personally would still put first of all in the objectives a stable rate of exchange (I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, would agree), and ample reserves. We are far from that point at the present moment.
I consider that at present this country is still in a dangerous position so far as the return of inflation is concerned—not very dangerous; but still we have not nearly reached a stable position. We want a great deal more of gold and dollar reserves than we have, and it is not very likely that we shall get them at the same time as our consumption is increasing. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, says, our consumption is increasing very greatly and—I do not know why—our production is not. Our capital programme is not increasing. I took out some figures the other day concerning Germany compared to England. The gross national product, the consumption per head, of the Germans, was much more than ours, and the capital investment was much greater, both in 1957 and in 1958. Unless we can make that position better, I do not think we shall prosper as much as the other European countries are prospering. I will not bother your Lordships longer because time is running out and I expect the Minister wishes to reply.
5.59 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, but I should like to say a word or two on this problem. I presume that one of the main reasons for the appointment of this Committee is that we are all concerned about the problem of inflation, with which this country has been beset ever since the close of the war, and perhaps, in a con, cealed form, at an earlier date than that. But I do not want to go into the history of the monetary measures which were taken during the war. Every economic policy involves costs of some kind or other, and the question that arises is how those costs will be distributed, and what the effects of the policy adopted will be. I think it is a mistake to suggest that a policy which does not use, or does not use to any great extent, alterations in the bank rate is necessarily a less costly policy to the community than one which does; and certainly a policy which involves a continuous increase in the price level inflicts upon some sections of the community a cost of a very drastic and extreme character. The purchasing power of money in this country has fallen in the last few years by something like 50 per cent., or prices have gone up in that proportion; and that has imposed costs upon people. Some of those costs are, in turn, shifted, by means of the price of goods or labour, on to other persons; and the residuary burden falls upon those who are least able to shift the costs and who are left to carry the burden in the long run.
However, I venture to suggest that perhaps some undue attention has been devoted to the question of the bank rate. After all, if we are concerned with the problem of inflation, our primary concern must be to see that the amount of money which is in circulation is restricted. When I say "money", I mean that in the broad sense of the means by which exchange is effected, whether by money in the limited sense of notes and coin, or in the sense of bank deposits which are capable of being transferred from one person to another in extinguishment of obligations. It is perfectly clear that for years past the amount of money in circulation has tended to increase. The note issue has

555
gone up more or less continuously, and according to the last Bank of England return the notes in circulation now are about £100 million higher than they were a year ago. This is something which must be taken into account; and unless the monetary circulation is restricted, the increase in prices is bound to continue, leading from time to time to crises which involve additional costs because of the dislocation which is caused to the economy as a whole and to the stream of production, distortion of which is necessarily involved in violent changes brought about for these causes.
Therefore it must surely be the primary object of any Government to watch the situation as it develops from day to day; and in this I agree with the Report, that it is necessary that there should be a prompt and adequate collection of financial and other statistics which will enable decisions of policy to be taken quickly, in sufficient time to avoid any difficult situations arising. That, surely, with the resources at our disposal, is not an unduly difficult problem. If the main objective is to ensure that inflation is avoided, steps can be taken by controlling the monetary circulation, with the use of the bank rate also, so far as that is necessary—and it is indeed necessary, particularly when questions of foreign exchange come into consideration. By those means I believe it should be possible to avoid any appreciable amount of inflation, and to keep the economy upon a stable and sensibly-developing basis.
6.6 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we are now drawing to the close of a most interesting discussion upon a matter which, inescapably, is somewhat technical. I would, however, point out that the subject is not limited to one of mere economic considerations. After all, the management of the monetary mechanism of this country affects the lives of our people and their future; and we should approach the problem of preserving economic equilibrium with some sense of humility and remember that the application of measures which may seem so neat and tidy and logical to us may result, in operation, in throwing hundreds of people out of employment and shattering hundreds of homes. It is in
556
that spirit that I, at all events, approach the consideration of this matter.
My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence has added to the sense of obligation of this House to him by introducing this Motion this afternoon in one of his inimitable speeches; in which, with fascinating simplicity and clarity, he brought out the main features of the problem to be discussed. This afternoon is memorable, as has already been said, for the fact that we have enjoyed an outstanding speech from the noble Lord, Lord Robbins: a speech which was based upon an informed and experienced consideration and knowledge of the complexities of the problem, speaking as he did from a wide academic experience. His speech, if I may say so with every respect, was fascinating in its lucidity.
We have had an interesting and, I think, a stimulating discussion about what I have indicated is an important and impressive matter, dealt with in a Report which I think has been correctly described as monumental. It is the Report of a Committee which is representative of most of the important elements in our economic and social society. It is a Report which is comprehensive, if at times a little diffuse; but it has, it seems to me, for the first time taken the mystique out of this problem. It has brought monetary affairs down from the Olympus to which only the high priests can ascend to the valley where live the common men. That I think is an achievement. It will enable more people to understand the mechanism of our increasingly complicated society.
The Committee's Report is unanimous. I think that it can be said, without any criticism of the Committee, that it may well be that that unanimity is reflected in some measure of mutual accommodation between the members of the Committee. I do not myself think that that is necessarily a defect, because, clearly, if there had been any serious fundamental differences they would have been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Brand, referred to the fact that he was a member of the Macmillan Committee. When I commenced to read the Radcliffe Report I could not help recalling the Macmillan Committee; but, of course, they met in entirely different circumstances. They met at a time when we had had, and were still having,

557
a serious and continued deflation, whereas the Radcliffe Committee have been sitting in a period of continued inflation. But I think that the differences are even deeper than that. At the time of the appointment of the Macmillan Committee certain elements of our economic structure were approaching a state of decay. That applied not only to equipment but also unhappily to the workers, who were not permitted to work. At that time we had a very large unemployment problem, and even in 1939, just before the outbreak of war, the number of unemployed was no less than one million. Between the wars, the economic system was kept in balance by the operation principally of the monetary mechanism, and that was entirely based noon the movements of the bank rate and the control of bank facilities. Thus we achieved a reduced total demand at the price of unemployment.
I was a member of the May Committee in 1931. I had the honour of signing the Minority Report with my good friend the late Sir Arthur Pugh, a former chairman of the Trades Union Congress. I cannot help thinking that our history shows that in those difficult, bitter and wretched days we took the wrong course. We allowed panic rather than reason to determine the steps we should take, and in the result we pursued a policy which generated wretchedness. Conventional and accepted methods were applied, but at what a price!—the price of Jarrow, the North-East Coast and South Wales. And we are still paying the price. We shall pay it right through this generation.
Those were unworthy and desolate days. To-day we are considering monetary policy on a basis of preserving full employment and relatively stable prices. That must be the basis. It is accepted by all Parties, as it was accepted during the war; and it is unthinkable that we could manage our society except on a basis of full employment and relatively stable prices. By that I do not mean fixed prices: I take the view that expansion involves, in a modest degree, some measure of inflation. So we are in a different position to-day, living in a society that is quite changed. The Radcliffe Committee review the financial measures which have been taken since 1951, in the changed conditions, and suggest methods for the future. The Committee are of the
558
opinion (and my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence read out the related words) that conventional measures, principally monetary policy, have failed, for a variety of reasons.
First of all, they had a limited effect, arising from the different economic structure. The evidence tendered seems to show that a high bank rate or a bank squeeze did not lead manufacturers or distributors or industrialists to cut down their capital expenditure to any marked degree. When there was a cutting down it was, unhappily, a cutting down in capital investment and not a cutting down in consumers' consumption. Accordingly, the mechanism exercised very little restraint on distribution businesses or light engineering. As the Report points out, a number of witnesses said that if the bank rate went up by 2 per cent., 1 per cent. of that was paid by the Government by way of relief from taxation.
Then there was the fact that the retained profits of companies amounted to a very large sum, and that those retained profits could be used for expansion, for capital investment or as the owners might please, without let or hindrance, and without any control whatsoever by the Government, whether through the banks or otherwise. In 1954, after tax, £1,500 million was retained by or ploughed back by business enterprises, and accordingly that money was available to counter what was intended to be the result of the bank's restriction of facilities. Then, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, there was hire purchase.
So it is now clear, it seems to me, that the bank rate alone is not an effective weapon: it needs to be reinforced by a properly related fiscal policy and also by a policy of controls. It seems to me that the proposals made in 1957–58 from this side of the House for controls which could be selective and discriminatory provided a proper and a better method of meeting the situation which then existed. The Committee, I think, are conclusive in their view that adjusting the bank rate alone is of no great utility: it is only a utility as part of the armoury, consisting of also, as I have said, fiscal policy and controls.
Then we come to the cost. My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in an

559
earlier speech, gave some figures as to the cost of the increase of the bank rate—and they were very high and disturbing figures. In the Report, it will be noticed, it is suggested that, as regards our external balances, an increase of 1 per cent. in the bank rate leads to a loss of £15 million a year or part addition to sterling balances of £15 million a year, which in four years, of course, can become £100 million. As regards the National Debt, in 1951 service of the National Debt cost us £550 million a year, and in 1958 it cost us £783 million a year, an increase of over 42 per cent., with the National Debt up by only £6 million. Then, of course, there was the cost arising through local authorities and the nationalised industries having to pay a higher rate of interest for financial accommodation; and there was the loss, not only monetary but a loss of all kinds and descriptions, referred to by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence. So it seems to us that on all counts—on efficacy, on proper operation, on indiscriminate application of controls and the like—the present monetary system is inadequate and ineffective to deal with the problems of preserving an equilibrium which arise in the new conditions of to-day.
I should like to close with one or two remarks about the position of local authorities and their financing. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, took the view that the very strong recommendation appearing in the Radcliffe Report was one which ought not to be supported. The Report gives three conclusive and, in my view, convincing reasons why the practice which endured until some two and a half years ago should be reverted to—namely, that the local authorities should have the right of access to the Public Works Loan Board (of which I was a member for a number of years), but that if they wished to go elsewhere, by way of stock issue or otherwise, they should be at liberty to do so, and that the rate of interest charged to them by the Board should be the rate prevailing for gilt-edged on the day of borrowing.
When one talks of local government expenditure one must remember that a large element of it comprises money that is being spent by the local authority for
560
the Government. For instance, education is a national service, and the Government, through the Ministry of Education, quite properly see to it that it is maintained on a minimum standard, insisting upon new schools being built, new playing fields being provided and all sorts of things involving capital expenditure; and the local authority raises the money. But it raises the money mainly for the Government, because the local authority formerly had a percentage grant on educational expenditure but is now, of course, getting a grant included in the block grant. The actual borrowing of the money is on account of the Government. Why should local authorities pay more than the Government for the money which they want for purposes in which they are acting largely as agents for the Government?
Take this Gilbertian situation. A local authority builds an "A" road. It is entitled to, and gets, 75 per cent. of the cost from the Government, and the Government have raised that money, with other money, at a certain rate of interest. But for the remaining 25 per cent. of the same road, under present arrangements, the local authority has to go into the money market—or if it is a large authority make a stock issue, if it can get into the queue—and pay a higher rate of interest than is paid by the Government. So you have three-quarters of the road financed at one rate of interest and a quarter financed at another. The situation is absurd.
At the present time the outstanding short-term debt, as a debt repayable in one to five years, of local authorities is £550 million, and there is a continuous scramble between local authorities and their treasurers to get almost day-to-day money. It is said that at the recent Conference of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers, which caters for the treasurers of local authorities, most of the time was spent in talks among various treasurers as to how they could get another £10,000 on seven days' notice.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has taken me up. He wants to put this to the Government. Where are the Government going to get the rest of the money? I think I mentioned a figure of £376 million in a year.
LORD LATHAM: It does not mean that any more money is raised; it means only that there is a difference of who raises it, and on what terms. In 1956–57 the total expenditure of local authorities on capital account was £582 million. It really is indefensible to say to local authorities—and there are 1,000 local authorities concerned—that they should go into the money market and scramble for what they can get. I have borrowed for a local authority, and I have lent to a local authority. And of this £582 million. £94 million is spent on education, which is really a national service administered by the local authority as agents for the Government. At the present time, the yield on recent London County Council stocks is £5 10s. 9d.; and the yield on comparable Government stock, £5 5s. 2d. Why should the London County Council pay that extra rate to the money market?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord misses my point. If it has to borrow from the Government, the Government have to borrow from somebody. Who is the Government going to borrow this enormous sum of money from at the rate he is saying, except by selling Treasury Bills to the Bank?
LORD LATHAM: The money is borrowed from somebody. I am reminded that apparently no such considerations were in the mind of the Government when it was decided to provide £50 million for Colville's at gilt-edged rates. No one is going to suggest that Colville's is a better security than a local authority, including, if I may, the London County Council.
To take that point a little further, that is a difference of 5s. 7d. The rate for mortgage loans is £5 15s. 0d., as against £5 5s. 2d. on Government stock, Why should the local authorities be burdened—and burdened for not a few years? Unless there is a stock issue, the local authority gets a loan sanction for a certain period. It borrows the money for that period, and it may go on for 20, 25, 30 and, indeed, in some cases 40 years, paying this high rate of interest which is incidental to circumstances over which it has no control whatsoever.
I was concerned with this matter as far back as 1944. Until 1944 local authorities had the option of going to
562
the Public Works Loan Board or elsewhere to get the money they wanted. In 1944 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Anderson, accompanied by the then Minister of Health, called a meeting of local authority associations and said that the Government were anxious that the cheap money policy should be maintained and that all concerned should benefit by that policy. The Labour Government pursued a policy of cheap money. Its successors, of course, have not. The then Chancellor went on to say that: "Local authorities would incur expenditure on reconstruction" and so on and so forth, and that is the case. It was
"Essential that all that capital expenditure be financed not only in orderly fashion but on best terms obtainable, and to avoid scramble for capital and consequent increase in rates Government proposed that local authorities should borrow only from one central source at rates determined by the credit of the central Government. The arrangements should be temporary, perhaps for four or five years."
When that proposal was first put to the local authorities they were not very keen about it. I think they were wrong. However, the London County Council, having regard to its record of stock issues and credit standing, was probably at a slight disadvantage in corning into the proposal. Nevertheless, I persuaded the London County Council to do so, and the central pool was established. It worked pretty well. Later on, the obligation to go to the Public Works Loan Board was removed, but local authorities could still go; and in my view they should be permitted in future to go to the Public Works Loan Board and to borrow at a rate equal to and no more than the gilt-edged rate on the day of borrowing. That seems to me to be a sensible proposal.
I cannot understand why this extra cost should be cast upon the ratepayers. One must bear in mind that residential rates are based on need, for the most part, whereas the payment of taxes is based for the most part on means. I hope that whatever else the Government may or may not do, as a consequence of this Report they will accept this strong recommendation that the local authorities should be able to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board and go elsewhere if they wish. It has been suggested that it is a subsidy. It is not a subsidy. Nobody gets anything out of it except that the

563
ratepayers pay less for the money they have to borrow. If it is good enough for Colville's, and if it is good enough for, I suppose, the "Queens"—the terms for which, I suppose, will be similar—it really ought to be good enough for local authorities whose expenditure is largely determined for them by statutory policy or by Ministerial direction. As I say, I hope the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to indicate that among the subjects to which the Chancellor is giving consideration, as I understand it, arising from the Radcliffe Report, this reversion to the practice of enabling local authorities to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board, if they wish, will be considered favourably.
As I have said, this has been an interesting and informative discussion of a subject which is of prime importance to the modern societies of the whole Western world. High among the merits of the work of the Committee and its distinguished Chairman is the fact which has been referred to by quite a number of speakers, that their Report has opened up to a much wider public the consideration of the problems of maintaining full employment and stable prices—that is, restraining inflation without, I stress, casting the cost of it upon the unemployment of a number of citizens. It seems to me that unless these problems are satisfactorily resolved, then the free system of the Western world may be in the greatest difficulty and the East may, in the result, win the contest on economic and social grounds, with incalculable consequences to the fate of mankind. I think we shall all agree that this afternoon we have been discussing a problem which goes right to the root of the expansion—indeed, the survival—of Western economic civilisation.
6.40 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would like me to begin by expressing the congratulations of all your Lordships to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, on his maiden speech, which we all heard with so much delight. I was astonished to find that the noble Lord has been a professor of economics at London University for no less than thirty years. He must have been phenomenally young
564
when he started, probably a good deal younger than some of his students. During the war he gave to the country the most distinguished service as Director of the Economic Section of the War Cabinet, and I understand that he was also associated with Lord Keynes in preparing the Economic White Paper of 1944 on which all subsequent monetary and economic policy, including the terms of reference of this Radcliffe Committee, have since been based. I may possibly, if there is time, make a further reference later on to the noble Lord's speech. All I wish to say now is to express the hopes of your Lordships that we shall often hear him again. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, indicated at the beginning of his speech, one of the best functions of your Lordships' House is to provide a means of expression to people like the noble Lord who ought to be heard in Parliament as well as in the classroom.
LORD LATHAM: And, if I may say so, not only on economics.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly. I hope we shall hear the noble Lord on a wide range of subjects.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Agriculture.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Radcliffe Committee was appointed in 1957 by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, largely, no doubt, at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and one of the reasons given for its appointment was that we had not had a comprehensive official inquiry into the whole theory and practice of British monetary policy since the Macmillan Report of 1931. Therefore it is clear that this Committee was not appointed primarily to advise the Government about any immediate financial crisis or about any temporary economic problem, but rather to help everybody, both inside and outside Parliament, who is in any way concerned with the management and the guidance of monetary policy for the next generation, and the Committee have certainly done that. On behalf of the Government I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe, and the eight distinguished gentleman who served with him on this Committee for the prodigious amount of work which they must have done to produce a Report of this character.

565
The only really disastrous effect which it seems to have had is that it has produced such a shattering effect on the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that he says he is never going to talk about monetary policy again. This is a most formidable prospect. I cannot help wondering what would happen if Reports similar to this one were to be published on the road transport problem and on the herring fishing industry. I am afraid the noble Lord might then retire into a Trappist monastry, which would be a matter of some regret, I think, to most of us. I hope he will relent at least so far as to take the Radcliffe Report out of his wastepaper basket and use it occasionally for a little light bedtime reading.
I am very glad that this Report is unanimous and has not got any of these tiresome little Minority Reports appended to it. Those of your Lordships who were in the House of Commons after the economic crisis of 1931 may remember that we used to invite all the most distinguished economists in the country to come and meet us in our Committee Rooms so that they might be able to advise us on the best means of extricating the country from its economic difficulties. I think the conclusion that most of us came to was that when you put five economists into a room together you would always have six different opinions, two of which would probably be the opinions of Mr. Keynes. The Radcliffe Committee had only two professional economists on it, and they had a Lord of Appeal in the Chair to keep them in order, which he seems to have done with good effect.
The Report modestly explains in paragraph 15:
"It is not to be expected when a Report of this volume and complexity is produced that everything which is expressed by way of view or suggestion would necessarily have been said by each member of the Committee if he had been reporting singly instead of as one of a body of nine colleagues."
Indeed, your Lordships may have noticed in reading from this Report—I am glad to find there are so many of your Lordships who have done so—that occasionally we come across passages which contain two completely contradictory statements, each of which is expressed sensibly and reasonably, not, of course, leading to any very definite conclusion, but managing somehow to give the
566
impression that they are not really inconsistent with each other; and your Lordships may have been inclined to admire the skill with which, perhaps, academic intransigence may have been tempered by judicial moderation.
The Report was published only on August 19, and it is a long Report, although I would not call it lengthy in relation to the massive quantity of information which it contains, and I am sure your Lordships will readily agree that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers need a little more time than they have had yet before the Chancellor can express a really considered and balanced view upon the contents of the Report as a whole, as I think my right honourable friend will probably do in another place in the next few weeks, before the Christmas Recess. Indeed I know that many of your Lordships were anxious to have this debate in your Lordships' House to-day in order that the Chancellor might have the opportunity of studying your Lordships' opinions before he had finally formulated his own, and I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend is greatly looking forward to doing that. I should like to thank all your Lordships who have spoken for the informed advice which you have given in this debate, especially, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, both for initiating this debate and also for giving us the pleasure of hearing his own views which are drawn from his long and ripe experience of political economy.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment to ask him to bear in mind the fact that none of us has had the opportunity of studying the three very large volumes of evidence upon which the Report was based. That has still to reach us. So, to that extent, we have all been under a handicap.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have not read them either. It will be several weeks before anybody has an opportunity of studying the extracts of evidence whose publication is promised in the Report, and I certainly have not got that advantage.
It would be certainly premature, and possibly misleading, if I were to anticipate this evening anything which my right

567
honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be likely to say in another place in a few weeks' time. I shall be very careful not to do that. I know that your Lordships will not expect me to do so. I must therefore resist the temptation to join in a great many of the most interesting and sometimes controversial matters which many of your Lordships have raised in this debate arising out of the Report. There are in the Report not a large number, but a few, specific recommendations which have been mentioned by your Lordships. There is a recommendation which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has spoken a great deal about in his speech, about the Public Works Loan Board. He and Lord Pethick-Lawrence both approved of it; my noble friend Lord Hawke behind me took a different view. I had confidently expected that Lord Latham would naturally use this recommendation as a stick with which to beat the Government, since we have been doing something the reverse of that for the last two and a half years or more—I think it is since 1955. But this afternoon I must endure the noble Lord's chastisement in silence, although I hope with an appearance of innocence. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was yesterday asked in another place a question on this point. He will, of course, consider it, but I could not say whether he will do so favourably or otherwise. All he said was that he hoped to be able to make a decision on this and other points before the debate in another place.
Then there is the recommendation about having a Standing Committee on economic policy, which I have no doubt my right honourable friend will consider in all its aspects. There is also the proposal that the bank rate should be announced not by the Bank Deputy-Governor but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has been approved by some newspapers, while other commentators have taken the view that it would invest every change in the bank rate with an altogether inappropriate solemnity. But I shall give no indication as to the conclusion which my right honourable friend may come to. Then there is the recommendation about greater publicity and more information which many of your Lordshpis have
568
referred to with approval. I think perhaps in some ways this recommendation about greater publicity has already begun to be fulfilled, because the Report is not only addressed to the Government but to banks and other institutions as well. The Bank of England's recent decision, to which I think Lord Boothby referred, to re-create the former Overseas and Statistics Department into a Central Banking Information Department is at least consistent with the spirit of the Committee's recommendation; and the Treasury has lately announced its decision to publish quarterly, in the Monthly Digest of Statistics, a table showing how the Exchequer has been financed quarter by quarter. But all these matters will be decided by my right honourable friend in due course, I hope before the Christmas Recess.
If I may make just one general remark about all these recommendations, it is this: although all of them are important, and some are very important, they are, I would say, only incidental to the main purpose of this Report. I think that is probably the reason why the Radcliffe Committee had decided not to publish any summary of conclusions—a fact which some of your Lordships have complained about. I am sure that most of your Lordships would not wish to take the easy course of reading a sort of potted summary of conclusions. It would not do the slightest good with regard to a Report of this kind. What the Radcliffe Committee say about this matter, in paragraph 978, near the conclusion of the Report is:
"We have decided not to append to our Report any summary of recommendations … To do so would not be well in keeping with the fact that a great deal of what we have written is, by design, devoted wholly to exposition and analysis, contributions which in this field are of value for their own sake"
I would therefore infer that these recommendations, which are not great in number, are intended to be incidental; and I would say that the main purpose of the Report is, first, to present in one single volume and in a convenient form all the facts which are relevant to modern economic and monetary policy; and then, perhaps, to focus attention on those factors affecting monetary policy which are newer than some of the others and which may not have received yet enough attention from economic authorities.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot imagine that the Government would anticipate that there would be hundreds of thousands of people in the country at large who would want to read this voluminous Report. But a good deal of education might be done for people of all classes if the Government were to issue a White Paper giving a considered summary of the recommendations. If the ordinary person decided to try to get at the recommendations he would, in many cases, have to refer to half a dozen or a dozen different paragraphs to find out exactly what they were getting at. Why not give the whole of the public a decent summary?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I will certainly convey the suggestion of the noble Viscount to my right honourable friend, but I hope that your Lordships will not press me to digress too much from the few remaining remarks which I have to make.
I think the expository part of the Report is to be found mainly in the first five chapters, which deal with the background and nature of the monetary problem and the financing of the public and private sectors, and the work of the Bank. On the main contents of these first five chapters I do not think I have either heard or read anything but unqualified praise. I have no title at all to express any opinion of my own about them, but, on reading them, my impression was that the Committee have not left out anything which is relevant and have not put in anything which is redundant. Although many of your Lordships are very great authorities indeed on political economy, I think you will probably agree that, however much you may have known before, after you have read these five chapters you will know a great deal more than you did.
In regard to the next two chapters, chapters 6 and 7, on the effects of monetary policy and the management of the National Debt, of course we could hardly expect that all the economists in Great Britain would join in a unanimous chorus of agreement. In fact, if they did so they would not be giving us the entertainment which we are entitled to expect from our economists, and we should probably want our money back. The points on which criticism has per-
570
haps been chiefly focused are, first, the one that has been mentioned by several noble Lords, in relation to paragraphs 514 and 515. Many of your Lordships have quoted them already: I will not do so again. They point out that monetary policy is not the only weapon to be used, and that controls and fiscal measures must also have their place—a matter on which of course we all agree.
I noticed when the Report came out that a large number of newspapers and writers in newspapers hailed this passage as a sign that the Radcliffe Committee preferred controls to monetary policy. I daresay their enthusiasm may have been somewhat moderated when they read, a little later in the Report, at paragraph 524, that the Committee were suggesting that these controls should be brought into play only when there is a very exceptional economic crisis with a danger of galloping inflation. But so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, I do not think I shall be prejudicing anything which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be going to say if I simply repeat what has often been said by many members of Her Majesty's Government, including myself: that we have no objection in principle to any particular form of control. We believe that all different measures should be at our disposal to use, either singly or in combination and, indeed, either at a time of crisis or in normal times. And from the point of view of the Committee, if I have interpreted rightly what they say, I do not believe they felt that their observations on this subject were likely to change the opinion of anybody who wanted either more or less of any particular kind of control.
Then there is the criticism that the Committee have too much deprecated the value of monetary policy. I do not believe anybody has ever suggested (at least I have never heard of anyone who did) that the price level is governed solely by the amount of money in existence. Obviously, if one were to issue £10,000 in bank notes and give it to a miser who hid it in his stocking, that would have no effect at all on the economy. We have always been taught that the price level is affected not by the amount of money but by the amount of money multiplied by the velocity with

571
which it circulates. I will not pursue that point.
There is only one thing I want to say arising from the speech of my noble friend Lord Robbins, with which I most profoundly agreed, and in particular with his most powerful argument concerning the beneficial effects of interest rates for the purpose of checking inflation: I was not quite sure whether my noble friend intended to couple this with the issue of money as one of the things which the Committee had unduly deprecated. I rather doubt whether they did, in fact, deprecate the value of changes in rates of interest as a method of preventing inflation. They say in paragraph 397 of the Report:
"The authorities thus have to regard the structure of interest rates rather than the supply of money as the centre-piece of the monetary mechanism. This does not mean that the supply of money is unimportant, but that its control is incidental to interest rate policy."
It is only because I agreed so much with the noble Lord's speech that I should like to make it quite clear that I do not believe that the Radcliffe Committee are neglecting the value of changes in the rate of interest which, indeed, they describe as being the "centre-piece of the monetary mechanism".
Perhaps the chief focus of criticism on this Report has been the theme or leit-motiv running through these middle chapters, about the connection between interest rates and liquidity, the effect of liquidity on our credit base, and consequently on the stability of the price level in this country. The usual criticism made, I believe, is that this long chain of argument is not always presented with that lucidity and conciseness which we always like to find when we are studying a complicated and perhaps unfamiliar subject. When I read through these chapters for the first time I could not help being reminded of Rupert Brooke's poem about the religious beliefs of the fish which your Lordships may remember:
"We cannot doubt that, somehow, good
Shall come of water and of mud
And, sure, the reverent eye must see
A purpose in liquidity."
I believe I have tried to read all this argument with reverent eye, hoping to discover a purpose in liquidity; and I am sure I have not understood it nearly as well as I ought to have done. If I were to try to justify what the Commit-
572
tee have said they probably would not thank me. Probably I should not do them justice.
But as I see it the position seems to be this. From, say, the first Sinking Fund of William Pitt in 1787 until the end of the Second World War—a period of about 160 years—it has always been supposed that the policy of British Governments was to try to reduce the amount of the National Debt by means of Sinking Funds. We have never been very successful in that, because in those 160 years the National Debt has increased from £200 million to £2,500 million. Now we have abandoned the attempt altogether, and deliberately go on trying to increase it by means of a Budget deficit below the line every year. There is always a surplus above the line, but a much greater deficit below the line, in capital expenditure. I believe that the estimated net deficit below the line this year is expected to be over £700 million, Obviously, when you have the Treasury managing this huge existing debt, partly funded, partly unfunded, increasing below the line, by all these hundreds of millions of pounds every year, the way in which they manage it from one month to another must have a very great effect on liquidity; by changing their methods they could create either more or less liquidity and this must have some effect on the credit base and monetary structure.
That sounds very dull and uninteresting. To use the phrase of the only economist, I believe, who has really been unkind to the Report, and who is, of course, at Balliol College, it might be described as the highest common platitude. I do not believe there would be any disagreement about it. Where there may be disagreement is how far the increase or decrease of this liquidity can be used to carry out our objectives. That, of course, is a matter in which there is room for very great difference of opinion. It may be that the Committee have exaggerated the extent to which it can be so used, or have failed to give enough evidence to support their general ideas on the subject. I would suggest however, that the seventh chapter, dealing with the management of the National Debt, is at least a contribution of some value to modern economic thought.
I believe that the rest of the Report, and particularly the part about foreign

573
exchange is, on the whole, not at all inconsistent with the lines which Her Majesty's Government have been following for the last few years, and certainly the Committee's definition of our economic objectives are entirely such as we should all agree with—the maintenance of stable prices and full employment, and industrial expansion with a large trading surplus for the purpose of investments abroad. Although I do not want to introduce disagreement at the last moment, I am afraid I must say that I cannot accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that full employment and expansion are bound to involve some measure of inflation. I think that would be a wrong and disastrous view for a Government to profess.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I did not say that. I said "a restrained measure of inflation". I take the view, and others may not, that you cannot have expansion without some slight measure of inflation.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I wonder exactly what is meant by the words "restrained" and "slight". It sounds as though we might be getting to the beginning of the slippery slope again, and I very much hope that the Party of the noble Lord is not officially of the view that full employment and industrial expansion must be accompanied by even restrained inflation.
But, my Lords, the obligation to maintain stable prices, to maintain a reliable currency, has always been the obligation of every Government all through history. What is new here are the other objectives; that is, using monetary policy as a deliberate instrument to maintain full employment and to promote industrial expansion. These objects are comparatively novel in our politics and it is not surprising that we have all made some mistakes in applying them. But I do not think we should be too arrogant if we were to claim that the modern generation of British politicians have been more successful in their economic policy than any of our predecessors have been in the past.
When this Report came out, I thought it would be interesting to look up the first of these great national Reports on British monetary policy; that is, the Report of the Bullion Committee of 1811, and the classic speech which was made about it in the House of Commons
574
by Canning. If your Lordships will read Canning's speech and also the later speeches of Sir Robert Peel in 1819 when he resumed gold payments, and in 1844 when he introduced the Bank Charter Act, you will admire the absolute command over their subject which these statesmen had and the high sense of duty with which they applied what they believed to be the right policy. But what were its social consequences? After the Napoleonic Wars the result of resuming gold payments, going back on to the gold standard, was a deflation which caused the most cruel industrial distress which this country has ever experienced. The textile workers in the West of Scotland who had been earning as much as 37s. during the Napoleonic Wars came down after it to earning 8s. a week, and of course nearly half of them were unemployed. That was happening all over the country; and if it had not happened at the height of the Industrial Revolution, as it did, the whole history of industrial relations in this country for the last 130 years might have been quite different and far better.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will remember his own attitude to affairs in the 1920s. Of course, the distress then was to a certain extent cushioned by social services at that time, but it is a very similar story. Acceptance of the Cunliffe Committee's recommendations in 1919 leading to the restoration of the gold standard in 1925 prevented expansion and was one cause of the unemployment from which we suffered between the wars. Since the Second World War, of course, our problem has been rather in the other direction; that is to say, inflationary pressure resulting from full employment and from industrial expansion. Whoever may have to control the affairs of this country for the next twenty-five years I am sure will make some mistakes. But our objectives will remain the same: that is, to use monetary policy, as we are all pledged to do by the 1944 White Paper, for the purpose of maintaining full employment, maintaining stable prices and industrial expansion, and gaining a surplus for foreign investment. These will continue to be our objectives; and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, and his colleagues, for helping not only the Government, not only Parliament, but the banks, financial institutions, civil

575
servants and, I hope, the general public, by promoting what is really the most important thing in seeking our objective, and that is a proper understanding of the subject.
7.15 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, it is never my custom, in winding up a debate, to prolong the discussion for more than a few seconds. I feel very glad indeed to have had the pleasure of hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. It seems to me a tradition of this House that economists always disagree, and therefore it is not surprising that I, as a fellow economist of the noble Lord, should disagree with him on this occassion. With regard to the noble Earl who has wound up the debate. I concur in his view that it is
576
not expected that we should be for-warned of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's decisions. I do not altogether agree with a good many of the remarks he made in summing up, particularly upon all he said about monetary policy, but that matter can wait for another occasion. In the meantime, I thank him for his remarks about the Chancellor of the Exchequer—we are not expecting him to disclose anything that is secret—and for what he said; and if he has not given us very much information, we thank him for the way in which he has expressed it euphemistically. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.