Sitting of 15 June 1961

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

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  MONTROSE BURGH AND HARBOUR (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Common Market (Private Investment)
    Mr. Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to state the amount of private investment by Common Market countries in the United Kingdom in the last half of 1960; and what was the amount of United Kingdom private investment in the Common Market countries in the same period.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I regret that this information will not be available until the end of July.
    Mr. Holt: Can the Economic Secretary say why there is so much delay, because when I asked for these figures last year they were provided a good deal more quickly than now? This is a matter of some considerable urgency, because there is every indication that a large amount of capital investment from this country is going into Europe because we have not yet decided to go into the Common Market.
    Mr. Barber: This is, as the hon. Gentleman points out, an important matter, but the information about private investment is given in the balance of payments White Papers and is largely
    608
    based on the result of the Board of Trade's inquiry into overseas direct investment. The final results of this inquiry for 1959 have only recently been published, and tabulation of the 1960 returns cannot begin before the end of June, because sufficient returns will not be available until then. Publication is planned for August. There must, inevitably, be some delay while firms make up their accounts for the preceding year.

    Tobacco Products (Taxation)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue the taxation of tobacco products yielded during the last 12-month period for which information is available; and how this compares with that of the previous twelve months.
    Mr. Barber: The revenue yield was £823 million in the 12-month period ending on 31st May, 1961, compared with £801 million for the previous twelve months.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Economic Secretary aware that this fantastic figure leads people to suspect that the Government have a big vested interest in smoking? Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of this sum is to be spent on educating young people in the dangers of smoking and will he not now consider, in view of this vast sum, a tax on the advertising of tobacco products, some aspects of which have been very distasteful in recent months and which cost £2·2 million in nine months of last year?
    Mr. Barber: This duty is the largest single source of revenue from all the Customs and Excise duties, but I do not really think that it falls within the scope of the Question for me to give an answer on the subject of advertisements. I must point out, since this is highly relevant, that the basic rate of tobacco duty was increased by the 1960 Budget and, consequently, the figures I have given in the answer do not constitute a direct measure of changes in consumption.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall endeavour to raise this subject on the Adjournment.

    Duple Motor Bodies Ltd. v. Ostime
    Sir H. Butcherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the case of Duple Motor Bodies Ltd. v. Ostime, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes, in relation to the valuation of work in progress; whether he is aware that the judgments given in the Chancery Division, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, were unanimously against the contentions of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and how much were the costs, including those of the company incurred by the Crown, in connection with this litigation.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Yes, Sir. The Crown's costs, including those of the company, are expected to be in the region of £3,750.
    Sir H. Butcher: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he has seen the remarks of the Master of the Rolls, and what steps is he taking to ensure that public funds are not dissipated in the manner shown in this case?
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not agree that public funds were dissipated unreasonably in this case. An important general issue was involved and it has been of considerable value to have had a final decision on it.
    Mr. More: In view of the fact that in this case judgment was given against the Crown, both in the Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal, without any dissenting judgment, can my hon. Friend say whether, before seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords, an undertaking was given by the Crown to bear the costs, and, in any event, if this is not the usual practice, will my hon. Friend give instructions that this should be the usual practice?
    Sir E. Boyle: That raises another matter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it, but I should prefer that he should give me notice of that question.

    Richard Thomas and Baldwins Ltd. (Spencer Works)
    Mr. Wiseasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the estimates for building the Spencer works of Messrs. Richard Thomas and
    610
    Baldwins Limited will be considerably exceeded, and that revised estimates will be submitted with an application for increased Government loans for a greater sum than the £70 million at present agreed; and if he will undertake that no such increased advances will be granted without the approval of this House.
    Mr. Barber: On 27th October my right hon. and learned Friend informed the House that the company would have to find substantial sums for its developments at the Spencer Works and elsewhere in addition to the expenditure of £150 million to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power referred in the debate on 27th June last. In order to do this it will need to increase its external borrowings during the next few years. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his reply on 26th October last, the company will look to the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency which is its usual source of finance for short term requirements. There is thus no question of an increase in the amount to be advanced by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wise: Will my hon. Friend agree that it would be better that this firm should be returned to private enterprise before it has a chance to come to this House and follow the usual procedure of nationalised industries in asking us to write off past extravagance at the taxpayers' expense?
    Mr. Barber: My right hon. and learned Friend has already stated the Government's policy on denationalisation and in particular with regard to this company; but earlier in the year we did take a considerable step forward in publishing a White Paper on Government expenditure below the line. It would not strictly have been necessary for us to include in that the amounts which are involved so far as this company is concerned, but we did so for the convenience of the House and a considerable amount of information has been given.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get a move on?
    Mr. Barber: I am sure that that request will be noted.
    Mr. Mitchison: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there has been any extravagance in this matter? I have not heard of it.
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. All I would say on that point is that, very naturally, as the Government are involved in this, we are anxious that the new strip mill capacity should be provided as economically as possible. At the moment a re-estimation is going on, and I think the House will be interested to know that the company is, in fact, receiving outside professional advice in this matter.
    Mr. Mitchison: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the company is not also concerned to avoid extravagance?
    Mr. Wise: In view of the fact that even the managing director has stated that the estimates for the new works are going to be considerably exceeded, is it not the case that if the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has not heard about it he must be singularly deaf?

    Investment Earnings
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, since foreign investment earnings in Britain rose between 1958 and 1960 by 60 per cent. whereas British investment earnings in other countries rose by only 20 per cent., what steps he is taking to ensure that a larger proportion of the profits earned by British investment overseas is brought back to this country, so as to help the balance of payments position; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Barber: In 1958 and 1959 United Kingdom firms remitted about 60 per cent. of their profits, whereas subsidiaries of overseas firms remitted from this country a substantially smaller proportion. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend relate to total earnings and not to amounts remitted to the parent country. It is, of course, in the national interest for profits to be brought back to this country as quickly as possible, except to the extent that these are required for direct overseas investment of a kind for which permission would be granted.
    Sir C. Osborne: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is against the national interest for British firms to export their scarce capital, invest it in overseas companies and then keep reinvesting their profits in new capital development and not bring any of the profits back to help this country with our balance of payments problem? Will not the Treasury look into this matter to see that at least a fair proportion of the earnings are brought back here to help the position at home.
    Mr. Barber: In so far as the profits are retained for direct overseas investment, of a kind, as I said earlier, for which permission would in any event be granted, for the export of capital, obviously that is a sensible thing to do. But my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that it is in the national interest that, after taking that into account, as large a proportion of the profits as possible should be remitted to this country. Of course, we have powers under the Exchange Control Act to require the repatriation of profits of United Kingdom subsidiaries and we exercise them, but we try to avoid wherever possible interfering with the normal development of United Kingdom subsidiaries.
    Mr. Jay: Is it a fact that, as a result of the O.T.C. provision introduced by this Government and with the double taxation agreement, a rather alarming proportion of the profits accrued abroad are not being returned to this country?
    Mr. Barber: The figures for 1958–59 show that in 1959 the United Kingdom subsidiaries abroad remitted 58 per cent. of their profits, whereas the figure for foreign subsidiaries here was only 44 per cent. In 1958 the figures were 62 per cent. and 53 per cent. respectively.
    Sir C. Osborne: Would the Treasury fix a period of years in which the profits earned overseas can be ploughed back overseas, at the end of which period some of the profits must be brought back here to help the home position? Surely, that is fair, and something like that should be done?
    Mr. Barber: I certainly appreciate the importance of this matter and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Stock Exchange Transactions (Taxation)
    Mr. Tileyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in view of the taxability of profits derived from Stock Exchange transactions, where the person concerned is in effect carrying on a business of trading in shares for gain, what steps the Inland Revenue are taking in order to ensure that all profits from such Stock Exchange trading transactions, and in particular profits from stagging operations as opposed to genuine investment, are assessed for tax;
    (2) what action it is proposed to take to obtain complete returns from stockbrokers and others of profits derived by individuals or firms from stagging operations so that the appropriate assessments can be raised in respect of past and future transactions.
    Sir E. Boyle: With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
    If a person is carrying on a business of trading in shares—and this must depend upon the facts—he is under an obligation to show his profits in his Income Tax return. In this, as in other matters, the Inland Revenue does all it can to enforce the law. My right hon. and learned Friend does not at present contemplate bringing before Parliament the legislation that would be necessary to obtain returns of the type suggested in my hon. Friend's second Question. But, as he said in his Budget speech, he will be considering the whole of this question during the coming year.
    Mr. Tiley: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, in view of the fact that it has been definitely stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these day-to-day selling operations are trading ventures and are subject to tax, may I ask my hon. Friend what steps we are going to take to see that the proper amount of tax is recoverable? Surely some action should be taken by my right hon. and learned Friend to see that these items are declared. If they are declared by the operators, is it not a serious offence for others concerned not to declare them also? Is it not time that some action was taken, for the good of our economy and of our industrial relations, to stop this inflationary merry-go-round?
    Sir E. Boyle: If my hon. Friend looks at my original Answer he will realise that my right hon. and learned Friend takes this matter seriously. The point is that there are real practical difficulties about introducing arrangements whereby the United Kingdom Revenue should obtain and be required to analyse details of all bargains put through by stockbrokers. It is no good this House passing legislation which would not stand up from an administrative point of view. But, having said that, I entirely agree that this is a matter that we should consider very seriously.
    Mr. Speaker: Sir Cyril Osborne, Question No. 9.
    Mr. Tiley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I be allowed to ask a second supplementary question, in view of the fact that my two Questions were answered together?
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. There are two points. One is that in the circumstances the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to refuse his permission for the two Questions to be answered together, and the other is that we are making very poor progress.

    Tariffs
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the urgent need to increase exports and the failure of exhortation alone to achieve this, if he will consult with the President of the Board of Trade about the immediate reduction of tariffs so as to reduce the greater profitability of the protected home market as against export markets, in order to divert more production into exports, and help the balance of payments problem; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade have both referred in this House to the beneficial effect of increased competition in the home market which might be expected to result from a reduction in tariffs. But, as the President of the Board of Trade said on 30th March, the right way to cut tariffs is by getting reciprocal reductions at the same time so that we can not only increase competition in this country but also increase opportunities for our exports. This is

    615
    a major objective of the G.A.T.T. tariff negotiations now in progress.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Bank for International Settlements Report this morning shows that British exports in the last seven years have increased by only 28 per cent. as against 156 per cent. by Germany and 180 per cent. by Italy? Since exhortation has not caused our manufacturers to go into the export market, why does not the Chancellor make it more profitable to sell in the export market and less profitable to sell in the home market, thus driving the manufacturers to concentrate on exports? Will he do something on these lines?
    Mr. Barber: It is certainly the hope of Her Majesty's Government that as a result of the current G.A.T.T. negotiations there will be really big and effective reductions in industrial tariffs on a reciprocal basis between ourselves and the other major trading nations concerned.
    Mr. Holt: If that is the object of Her Majesty's Government, why have they given such a niggardly response to the offer of the Common Market countries to make a cut of 20 per cent. along the whole of the industrial tariffs?
    Mr. Barber: All these matters are now being considered in the G.A.T.T. negotiations and certainly it would not be wise from a negotiating point of view to disclose our hand at this time.

    Officially Appointed Bodies (Reports)
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the publication of a monthly cumulative list specifying the various matters referred to Departmental and other officially appointed bodies upon which the Government have made a recent decision, which have been reported upon but are awaiting the Government's decision, and which have not yet been reported upon, respectively.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. I do not think that this proposal would be practicable.
    Mr. James: Is my hon. Friend aware that even the keenest student of politics finds it rather hard to remember at the drop of a hat the whereabouts and contents of the various Jack, Wolfenden, Scott Henderson, Albemarle, Roberts,
    616
    Philips, Radnor, Streatfeild, Romer and other Reports, and that such a document might be a convenience for hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House?
    Sir E. Boyle: Even so keen a student of politics as my hon. Friend might be a little bemused by the accounts of progress of advisory bodies of a central and national character which, even in 1958, totalled 850 and now probably total even more.

    Multi-Storey Flats (Cost)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total cost to a local authority of a £2,600 multi-storey flat after interest has been paid for sixty years at the new Public Works Loan Board rate of 6¼ per cent.; and how much per week the interest charge involves.
    Mr. Barber: The total costs of borrowing £2,600 repayable by half-yearly annuities over sixty years would amount to £10,000. The average weekly interest charges on such borrowing would amount to £2 7s. 4d.
    Mr. Allaun: Are not those staggering figures? Is the Minister aware that if the repayment charge is added, the total loan charge would be £3 4s. per week even without rates and repairs? Does he admit that this intolerable burden, for which the Government's financial policy is responsible, has halved council house building during the last six years and has shocked house buyers too?
    Mr. Barber: There is another aspect to this matter. Housing provided in accordance with the Government's housing policy, including the multi-storey flats which are referred to in the Question, attracts a substantial subsidy from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This considerably reduces the amount of rent which a council needs to charge.
    Mr. Jay: In view of the general state of our economy and the export figures quoted by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on Question No. 6, does the hon. Gentleman think that anything worth while is being achieved by these extraordinarily high interest rates?
    Mr. Barber: The Public Works Loan Board interest rates have, since the

    617
    change was made in October, 1955, followed the ruling rate of interest, and this is because the Government do not feel it right that the local authorities should be shielded from the general trend of interest rates. To do that would, in fact, give them a form of concealed subsidy, and we feel that any assistance given to local authorities should be open and above board.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the general trend of interest rates, from which, apparently local authorities must not be shielded, the result of Government policy? How can the hon. Gentleman run away from that responsibility? In view of the many Government pronouncements recently making it quite clear that they are introducing economic regulators because they have now come to accept the Radcliffe Report on these matters, will the hon. Gentleman explain how he justifies these high interest rates when, apart from one or two Members of the Government, practically everyone recognises that they have been a complete failure in regulating the economy?
    Mr. Barber: High interest rates are, in the main, the consequence of a shortage of capital.

    Housing Loans
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the recent increase in interest rates for home purchasers and council house tenants, he will restore the 3 per cent. housing loans available to local authorities up to 1951; and what would be the approximate annual cost to the Exchequer of providing housing loans through the Public Works Loan Board at this rate instead of 6¼ per cent. on council houses now under construction.
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. It would cost the Exchequer roughly £8 million per year to allow the Public Works Loan Board to make 60-year loans to local authorities at 3 per cent. instead of the current rate of 6¼ per cent. in respect of the 142,500 or so council houses now under construction.
    Mr. Allaun: Is not £8 million a relatively small sum to help the rehousing drive which is so desperately needed? Will the Minister again make the excuse that he cannot insulate tenants from the
    618
    general interest rates in the market, when that is precisely what he is doing with Cunard, Colvilles, B.M.C. and Ford? Does not his Answer to Question No. 11 show that it is not the tenants who are being subsidised but the financiers?
    Mr. Barber: In answering Question No. 11, I dealt with Her Majesty's Government's general policy on this matter. I can only repeat that to do what the hon. Gentleman wishes would, in effect, be to give a concealed subsidy. We believe that it is better, by means of the assistance given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to give help in such a form as will be perfectly apparent to all concerned.

    Commonwealth Assistance Loans
    Mr. Rankinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider the principle that Commonwealth assistance loans should be granted at interest rates higher than those ruling in the London money market, in view of the special appeal made by Mr. Nyerere at the recent Constitutional Conference on the introduction of self-government for Tanganyika.
    Mr. Barber: These loans are made at rates of interest which reflect the rate at which Her Majesty's Government could themselves borrow for comparable periods. These are more favourable rates than the countries concerned could themselves expect to obtain on the market. I regard these as appropriate terms for this loan finance and I cannot undertake any change in this respect.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many of these new African States are being compelled, unfortunately, through the Government, to pay extravagant rates for the money which they require for their development and that, as a consequence, their development is hindered and the cost of living is going up? Does he know, for instance, that in Uganda recently the cost of electricity went up by 15 per cent.? Does the Government's policy really help to produce in these new States a state of affairs which the hon. Gentleman would like to see? Will he reconsider the matter and think of assistance loans at preferential rates?
    Mr. Barber: I think that the rates currently being charged are reasonable. It is fair to say that most of the less-developed countries could not borrow at all on the London market, or, if they had to do so, would certainly have to pay more than they are paying at present. Moreover, as the hon. Member knows, we assist these countries in other ways.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not the plain fact that, if the Government's interest policy were more rational, these and other countries and home borrowers and others in this country could all borrow at more reasonable rates? In view of the figures in regard to invisible payments disclosed on an earlier Question today, has not the hon. Gentleman yet woken up to the fact that these high interest rates mean a very heavy drain across the exchanges paid to people abroad from whom we are borrowing money? Will the Government reconsider their whole policy?
    Sir J. Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you renew your request that supplementary questions be shorter?
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I regret that it is becoming rather repetitive.
    Mr. Barber: That matter raised by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) is outside the ambit of this Question and raises broader issues.

    P.A.Y.E. Refunds (Warrants)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the Blackburn branch of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters protesting against his refusal to arrange for refunds of Pay As You Earn Income Tax to be made in uncrossed rather than crossed warrants.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have sent the hon. Member a copy of the reply in question.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not that reply totally unsatisfactory? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that about 4 million of these refund payments are made every year, many of them to people who have no bank account and who must, therefore, hawk these confidential drafts round traders to find someone kind enough to
    620
    cash them, the traders having to pay bank charges, and is it not intolerable that this burden should be put on humble people in order to save the Government administrative expense?
    Sir E. Boyle: I think that the hon. Lady is making a bit of a storm in an egg-cup about this. For thirty-five years, all repayments have been made by crossed cheque and complaints of difficulty about encashment have been very few. Orders may be paid into Post Office and Trustee Savings Bank accounts, and a leaflet is enclosed with each order showing just how it can be cashed and making all explanations. I will look at the matter again, but we have had really very few complaints about it over a long time.
    Mrs. Castle: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the people who receive the complaints are the sub-postmasters and that their federation at its last conference passed a resolution of protest just because it was aware of the burden put upon its members' customers whom they cannot help in these matters? Will he look at the matter again?
    Sir E. Boyle: I think that crossed cheques are the simplest means of providing the maximum security against fraud of all kinds. I will look at it again, but I think we should need a lot of persuading that our practice of the last thirty-five years should be altered.

    Gold and Dollar Reserves
    Mr. Ginsburgasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the change in the gold and dollar reserves, for the period 1st March to 31st May, 1961, compares with the changes for the similar period in 1960 and 1959, respectively and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Barber: The gold and convertible currency reserves fell by £104 million during the period 1st March to 31st May, 1961; they rose by £49 million in the same period of 1960, and fell by £13 million in the same period of 1959. The fall in the reserves in 1961 is partly due to the present adverse underlying balance of payments, and partly to the withdrawal of short-term funds from London.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Is not the Economic Secretary aware that this is an extremely serious decline at a time when the pound

    621
    should be seasonally strong? Does it not reflect a very serious lack of foreign confidence clue to the complete failure of the Government's present export policy?
    Mr. Barber: The Government have never concealed their view that our present balance of payments situation is most unsatisfactory, and my right hon. and learned Friend explained the way in which he proposed to deal with it in his Budget speech. I would merely add this for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. Changes in the reserves do not by themselves necessarily provide a reliable indication of the underlying balance of payments position in the United Kingdom because they are influenced by other monetary movements. For example, during 1960, the reserves rose in each month of the year, except January, and by a total of £177 million, even though 1960 was a year when there was a large balance of payments deficit.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Do not these figures, grave though they are, very much understate the position in the five months in question in that this new system has been introduced of European central banks holding sterling? If it were not for that, would there not be a very much heavier drain on our reserves? Could not the hon. Gentleman put a figure on that item?
    Mr. Barber: I am sure the right hon Gentleman knows that it would be contrary to public policy to disclose details of the transactions under the Exchange Equalisation Account. Clearly, the United Kingdom's reserves have been supported by the assistance given to us by other central banks, but I cannot reveal the size of the transactions.

    Building Societies (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Marcus Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to control the rate of interest charged by building societies on advances to owner-occupiers purchasing their houses through building societies.
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. The rate of interest on mortgages must remain a matter for settlement between a society and its borrowers.
    Mr. Lipton: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the highest mortgage interest rate for forty years, it
    622
    is sheer humbug to talk about encouraging a property-owning democracy? Would not he also agree that, instead of forcing building societies to raise their interest charges, which is what he is doing at present, causing serious hardship to over 2 million borrowers, steps should be taken to force interest rates down?
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I point out that building societies have to borrow money before they can lend it. If their interest rate on loans were controlled in one way or another, the individual society would not be able to adjust the rate it offers to investors so as to maintain an adequate inflow of funds.

    Members (Salary and Expenses)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase in the salary and expenses of hon. Members is necessary to bring them up to the money equivalent when the present rates were decided.
    Sir E. Boyle: On the basis of the change in the internal purchasing value of the pound since July, 1957, the equivalent now of the £1,000 salary and of the £750 additional remuneration of hon. Members would respectively be £1,056 and £792.
    Mr. Shinwell: Then why not pay the increase? Why should we be deprived of our rights? Why should civil servants, teachers, doctors, and even footballers get an increase in salary while impoverished and impecunious Members of Parliament have to look outside in order to gain a little extra to keep their heads above water?
    Sir E. Boyle: That is a highly controversial question, and I am glad it does not fall to me to decide it.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend draw attention to the outside income of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) from broadcasting, television, and the remainder?
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the true position is that the Minister is scarcely responsible for activities of that kind.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Did you, Mr. Speaker, regard the observation of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) as relevant to the supplementary question which I put?
    Mr. Speaker: I thought that the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Kidderminster was out of order on two grounds. But one ground is enough, and that is that there is no Ministerial responsibility for that aspect of the matter.

    Universities, Scotland
    Mr. Rankinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of places estimated to be needed in the four universities in Scotland by 1970; and if he will give the detailed provisions planned for each.
    Sir E. Boyle: I would refer the hon. Member to the second paragraph of the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend on 18th May and to the statement I made on 26th January last in reply to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson). Underlying these statements is the calculation that the total demand from Scottish students is likely to be of the order of 8,000 additional places in the early 1970s, and the Scottish universities' own assessment of their capacity to expand.
    Mr. Rankin: Neither in the beginning, the middle nor the end has that Answer anything to do with the Question on the Order Paper. I have asked for the figures of supply and demand for 1970. The hon. Gentleman either refuses or has forgotten to give them. Is it not the ease that by 1970, the date which everyone is looking to, the number of places available by expansion for Scottish students will still be over 2,000 short of requirements? In view of that, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend to look again at the statement which he made on 18th May?
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not think that I can go beyond the Answer which I have given. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the second half of it in particular, he will find that it is pretty specific. I assure him that we have followed the exceptional procedure of fixing the capi-
    624
    tal programme for the universities for the next four years, and we have borne the expansion of Scottish universities very much in mind.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the considerations which caused him to decide that a fifth university was not necessary in Scotland.
    Sir E. Boyle: The location of new university foundations in the immediate future was considered by the University Grants Committee, whose recent recommendations on this subject have been accepted. My right hon. and learned Friend explained the underlying considerations for the omission of a new Scottish university from the present list in his statement on 18th May. Further development must, as he then explained, await the Report of the Committee on Higher Education at present working under the Chairmanship of Lord Robbins.
    Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman quite certain that by 1970 there will be accommodation for these extra 8,000 pupils? If he is not, what does he propose to do about it and what consultations will the Chancellor of the Exchequer have with the University Grants Committee?
    Sir E. Boyle: If I may say so, that supplementary question hardly arises out of the Question which the hon. Lady tabled. I cannot say any more than I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) just now.
    Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman did not say enough.

    Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow
    Miss Herbisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the conferring of university status on the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow; and what recommendations on this question he has received from the University Grants Committee.
    Sir E. Boyle: I would refer the hon. Lady to my reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) on 8th June.
    Miss Herbison: I have in my hand the reply which the Financial Secretary gave, which was most unsatisfactory. Does not he realise that most educationists in Scotland have been convinced for a very long time that this college, with its high educational reputation, ought to have the status of a university conferred on it?
    Sir E. Boyle: That may be, but my reply on 8th June was perfectly true. My understanding today is exactly the same as it was when I answered on that occasion.

    University Development
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he takes into consideration the advice of the University Grants Committee when deciding his policies for university development.
    Sir E. Boyle: Very fully.
    Mr. MacPherson: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman consider making public the considerations which were taken into account by the Committee? Does he realise that university development is now a major matter of national policy and that it is not suitable that the public should know only via Government spokesmen what conclusions the Committee reached? Is it not desirable that we should know the grounds which led to those conclusions?
    Sir E. Boyle: I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but we ought to think very hard before saying that the advice and reasons for the advice given by the Committee to the Government should always be made available in detail to this House. It is essential that the relationship between the Government and the Committee should be easy and informal, and the interests of all hon. Members are bound up in this.
    Mr. Rankin: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises another aspect of the problem. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a quite detailed statement about future university provision on 18th May, practically all of it referred to England. Scotland was dismissed almost in a single sentence. Cannot the hon. Gentleman tell us a
    626
    little more than we were told on that occasion?
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not propose at Question Time to say any more about the advice which the Government received from the University Grants Committee, except that I think that the Chancellor would rightly hesitate very seriously before departing from any view which the Committee expressed.
    Mr. Mitchison: Could we have a White Paper on the subject?
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. and learned Friend will consider any suggestions.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his policies for university development are influenced by the concept of an optimum size.
    Sir E. Boyle: Optimum size is a matter on which opinions are bound to differ and is primarily for each university to decide for itself.
    Mr. MacPherson: Is it not the case that a decision not to locate an additional university in Scotland prejudges the whole matter? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the two larger universities in Scotland are already unitary institutions, bigger than any unitary university in England, and that the present decision means that they appear to be likely to go up to 10,000 or 12,000 students? Is this desirable in view of the question of a possible optimum?
    Sir E. Boyle: It would be very undesirable to take up a rigid attitude on this matter. No pressure has been brought to bear either by my right hon. and learned Friend or by the University Grants Committee upon any university to expand beyond what it considers desirable.

    Payroll Tax
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received from employers' organisations and trade unions, respectively, conveying support for the proposed payroll tax.
    Mr. Barber: None, Sir.
    Mr. Prentice: Is not the real position that this proposed tax has been attacked

    627
    by people on both sides of industry, by practically the whole of the Press, by this side of the House of Commons and by a number of hon. Members on the other side? Has the hon. Gentleman found any support anywhere for this proposal?
    Mr. Barber: I would have been very surprised indeed if any organisations such as those mentioned in the Question had written to my right hon. and learned Friend to welcome the proposal of increased taxation.

    Government Securities
    Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons for the declining market value of British Government securities, in particular three-and-half per cent. War Loan; and what action he is taking to arrest this decline.
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to arrest the decline in the price of British Government securities.
    Mr. Barber: Movements in interest rates, and thus in the values of British Government securities, reflect conditions in the capital market. It would be contrary to practice to say anything about the future.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many decent patriotic citizens, some in quite humble circumstances, bought War Loan, for example, years ago and they feel that they are the victims of a gigantic swindle and that the Government do not care two pins about them except to repeat these worn-out, soulless economic clichés? Is not this a shocking and heartbreaking state of affairs, for which the Goverment must accept a heavy burden of responsibility?
    Mr. Barber: I certainly understand the difficulties of the people of whom the hon. Member has spoken, those who hold War Loan in particular, but I am afraid that the fall which there has been in the value of War Loan does not affect the considerations which, as I explained to the House last December, have determined the Government's decision in this matter.
    Mr. Jay: As innumerable small savers have suffered huge losses, and, indeed, the National Insurance Fund, which is held in trust for the contributors, has
    628
    now made losses amounting to nearly £400 million, are the Government completely indifferent and complacent about the plight of all these unfortunate people?
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir, we are not indifferent. But after the fullest consideration, we came to the conclusion, for reasons which I gave at length last December, that we could not assist in the various ways which had been suggested.
    Sir C. Osborne: Since War Loan is now down to 55, which is nearly half the price a lot of people paid, especially during the war, when they felt that they were in some way helping the Government by buying this stock, should not something be done to put a floor beneath this stock so that it will give people the feeling that they have not been diddled in their patriotism?
    Mr. Barber: If we were to put a floor beneath War Loan as my hon. Friend suggests, that would in effect entail a commitment upon the Government to buy at the support price all stock offered, however large the amount. My right hon. and learned Friend simply could not contemplate such a commitment.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Since this is the third Question this afternoon which has shown up the costly effect of the Government's high interest rate policy, is it not time that the Government reconsidered the whole of their policy, the more so as they have been telling the House that they are now coming round to acceptance of the general doctrine of the Radcliffe Report?
    Mr. Barber: Once again, that goes much wider than the Question. The factors which determine the level of interest rates cannot sensibly be considered at Question Time.
    Mr. Lipton: In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, propose to raise the matter at the earliest possible date.

    Sterling
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to widespread anxiety concerning continued weakness of sterling, what steps he is taking to prevent an autumn financial and economic crisis; and whether

    629
    he will make a statement upon outflow of funds in recent months and on the weakening of sterling.
    Mr. Barber: I will answer the second part of the Question first. The foreign exchange market was disturbed following the revaluation of the Deutschmark and the guilder in March. With the underlying deficit in our balance of payments, sterling came under pressure, and the reserves fell by £62 million in the month. Although this pressure was subsequently reduced, the outflow of funds continued on a smaller scale and the reserves fell by £26 million in April and £16 million in May. They then stood at £1,037 million.
    My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the possibility of an overload on the economy threatening the balance of payments and will act as necessary to deal with this.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend confirm that the first, second and third lines of our reserves are adequate for all foreseeable contingencies? Secondly, and more important, would he confirm that in no circumstances will the Chancellor contemplate devaluation of sterling in the autumn?
    Mr. Barber: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has already stated categorically that sterling will not be devalued and I emphatically repeat that statement now. Concerning the adequacy of our reserves, at the end of May the reserves stood at £1,037, or £60 million higher than they were at the beginning of 1960. In addition, the United Kingdom drawing rights in the International Monetary Fund are completely unused. In the meantime, the co-operation between central banks agreed upon at Basle in March, although intended to deal with short-term movements of funds, was not a short-term understanding. The United Kingdom is thus able to call on resources which are fully adequate to meet any speculative attack on sterling.
    Mr. Nabarro: A very good reply.

    Steel Industry (Denationalisation)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the aggregate current inventory value of
    630
    Government investment in the steel industry; what inventory value is now represented by investment in the wholly nationalised Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited; what progress has been made since February, 1961, towards denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited; and whether he will now make a further statement concerning denationalisation of the State-owned residue of the steel industry, particularly Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited.
    Mr. Barber: The book value to the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency of its present holdings in the Steel industry amounts to £140·7 million, of which £67·1 million relates to securities in and loans to Richard Thomas and Baldwins. In addition my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has lent £12·1 million to Richard Thomas and Baldwins and £15 million to Colvilles under his arrangements with these two companies. As for the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, it would be contrary to practice for me to enter into discussion about possible future sales by the Agency.
    Mr. Nabarro: That is a very bad reply. Does my hon. Friend realise that his supporters on this side of the House have endured with considerable patience the long delay in denationalising Richard Thomas and Baldwins? Cannot this be carried through at an early date while stock market conditions are so favourable for the exercise?
    Mr. Barber: My right hon. and learned Friend has on a number of occasions, and I have again this afternoon, referred to the intentions of the Government concerning denationalisation. We have made our position clear and I hope that in due course my hon. Friend will be satisfied.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Illegitimate Persons
    Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will set up a committee of inquiry into the legal and social disabilities suffered by illegitimate persons, and to make recommendations for the removal of their disabilities.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not convinced that there is a case for appointing a committee for this purpose at the present time.
    Mr. Parker: In view of the fact that the Act passed two years ago only reduced the number of illegitimate people rather than dealt with the problems of those who remained illegitimate, is it not time to remove these disabilities from this second-class group of citizens, who are in this position through no fault of their own?
    Mr. Vosper: During recent years, a great deal of legislation has been enacted to remove disabilities. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not satisfied of the need for further action, but if the hon. Member likes to submit any suggestion we will, of course, consider it.

    Traffic Wardens (Fixed Penalty Notices)
    Mr. Wadeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of fixed penalty notices issued by wardens in the Metropolitan Police district since the passing of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960; and whether he is satisfied that all the tickets issued are accounted for.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Forty-six thousand four hundred and forty-one fixed penalty notices had been issued in the Metropolitan Police district up to 3rd June, 1961. A regular audit of notices is carried out, and my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that any of them are not accounted for.
    Mr. Wade: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of a statement in an article in the Solicitors' Journal of 19th May this year which contains the statement that about 15,000 tickets with a face value of £30,000 were unaccounted for and which concludes with the observation that
    "the law is brought into disrepute by the very facility with which the consequences of breaking it can be avoided. The whole affair of the warden's ticket has become a game"?
    Is the hon. and learned Gentleman quite satisfied that the system is working satisfactorily and that the law is not being brought into disrepute?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. The facts contained in that article were quite wrong. The House will be interested to know that at 30th April, 1961, of 38,968 tickets issued to that date, the Commissioner had decided to take no action in 6,160 cases, the police were pursuing inquiries in 4,130 cases and in the remaining 73·6 per cent. of cases the fixed penalty had been paid or the case had been dealt with or was awaiting hearing by the court.
    Mr. Mellish: Will the Joint Under-Secretary say that he is quite sure that the parking meter system allied to the traffic warden system is not in great danger? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman happy about the future?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. The fixed penalty system and enforcement by traffic wardens have done much to relieve congestion in the West End and to free police officers for other and more important duties.

    Prisons (Home Secretary's Visits)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons he has visited in the course of the present year and in 1960; on how many of these visits he was entertained to luncheon or other meals in the prisons; and if he is satisfied that the food served to him on these occasions was identical with that served to the prisoners.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Since being at the Home Office I have visited a great variety of penal establishments and whenever possible it is my practice to see and sample the meals served to inmates.

    Essex County Fire Brigade
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that C Division of the Essex County Fire Brigade, serving Barking, Dagenham, Hornchurch, Ilford, and other parts of Metropolitan Essex, is 81 short of its total strength of 453 full-time firemen, that in the next four years 68 more firemen will retire on completing their pensionable service, and that wastage due to resignations is greater than the intake of recruits; and what

    633
    steps he is taking urgently to make good this deficiency.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: My information is that this division is at present 52 men short of a whole-time establishment of 440; that normal retirements on pension during the next four years are not expected to exceed 40; and that in the last twelve months recruitment to the brigade has exceeded wastage by 52 men.
    Mr. Driberg: Even if the figures are not exactly the same as those which the right hon. Gentleman has, does he nevertheless agree that there is a very serious situation? How urgently is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to meet it?
    Mr. Butler: We have this situation almost throughout the country and we are doing our best to put it right, but in the area which the hon. Member represents it is true that recruitment has exceeded the wastage and to that extent it is satisfactory. But this does not mean that we are sitting back. We are doing our best to improve recruitment.

    Fire Services
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of his discussions with the representatives of local fire authorities about an inquiry into the future of the fire services; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The consultations are not quite complete; but I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

    Air Raid Shelters, Madeley Heath
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he refuses to consent to the demolition of the air raid shelters in Madeley Heath, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme recently drew his attention.
    Mr. Renton: It remains the policy of the Government to preserve sound ail raid shelters as far as possible. If a shelter can be shown to be dangerous to health or there are other compelling grounds my right hon. Friend is always prepared to consider its removal, but a recent inspection of the shelters referred to by the hon. Member revealed no such grounds.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these shelters were cleaned out for purposes of inspection but that as probably there will not be another inspection unless I keep writing to him, they inevitably will become unsanitary again? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman have regular inspections made to keep them sanitary or else have them pulled down?
    Mr. Renton: We will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said. The inspection in April was attended by the medical officer of health and he said that the shelters were in good structural condition and constituted no danger to public health. They contained some refuse, and since inspection they have been cleaned and resealed. The local authority no doubt will wish to keep an eye on them.

  LAND
  Mrs. Butlerasked the Prime Minister if he will instruct the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to consult together with a view to initiating a joint study of the present use of land resources, and to make recommendations.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): There is already close coordination between the Ministers concerned. I do not think that a new joint study is needed.
  Information about the present use of land, and proposals for future changes, are contained in the development plans prepared by local planning authorities. The information is brought up to date periodically as the plans are reviewed.
  Mrs. Butler: But does not the Prime Minister know that there is complete agreement among experts on the vital necessity for such an inquiry which the first Census Report has shown to be urgent? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he leaves it to the individual Departments to go on fumbling with the land problem our way of life and the beauty of our country can be irrevocably mutilated, if not destroyed? Since the right hon. Gentleman has now turned down a Ministry

  635
  of planning and a co-ordinated inquiry, may I ask whether at least he can see that the present limited activities of the separate Departments are co-ordinated and that there is some implementation of these ideas in the next Session?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the Departments work very closely together. There is, as the hon. Lady knows, prime responsibility on local authorities to make their development plans and to keep them up-to-date. What I said was that I am not satisfied that to set up, however grand it might sound, a new Department or a new joint study would really do what the hon. Lady wants done. All that the Departments are trying to do is to solve the problem by their work together.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Nevertheless, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real problem here? Could he say which Minister is responsible for seeing that there is proper co-ordination of the decisions of the Board of Trade on industrial location, of the Minister of Transport on trunk roads, and of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the local authorities under it on the question of urban development?
  The Prime Minister: They work closely through the Government machine and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from experience, these things are very often discussed in Ministerial committees. The final responsibility for local plans rests with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to approve them or disallow them.

  DISARMAMENT (CENTRAL EUROPE)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister if, following his talks with President Kennedy, he will now put forward proposals for a limited arms, and/or nuclear-free, zone in Central Europe.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) on 1st May.
  Mr. Swingler: But will the Prime Minister put this proposal forward
  636
  again? Is it not extremely relevant to the question of reducing tension in Germany? Might it not be a method, at any rate in a small way, of constructively beginning some disarmament? As the right hon. Gentleman was associated a couple of years ago with this idea, could he not take the initiative at least in this respect?
  The Prime Minister: The Government stand by the proposal for the control of arms and forces in an agreed zone in Europe, as it was put forward in the Western peace plan at the Geneva Foreign Ministers' Conference in May, 1959. As the hon. Member rightly says, it was part of the communiqué issued in Moscow but it was there made clear that it was part of a political settlement and not isolated. Moreover, I am sorry to say that since then we have had the invention of the new dogma of the troika. The troika is the power of veto of any person over any agreement, which makes any form of control over tests or disarmament extremely difficult to operate.
  Mr. Gaitskell: If indeed the troika doctrine were applied to all forms of arms control, this would be a very serious development. Is there any evidence that Mr. Khrushchev has committed himself to its application in such a wide form? Would it not be worth while to raise again with our allies the question of the proposed zone of controlled disarmament in Central Europe?
  The Prime Minister: If we had discussions on the whole German problem we should stand on this decision which we took then and which all our allies, I am happy to say, now share with us. But I thought it only right to remind the House that there has been, to my mind, a tragic deterioration in the last six months that even on agreements which I had hoped we were going to get in Geneva there is this new dogma which says really that one can only control oneself and one will not let anybody else control one. If that is to stand, we are facing a very difficult position.
  Mr. Mendelson: Whilst agreeing with the Prime Minister that these are extremly difficult negotiations and that they include many difficulties which are not of our own making, may I ask him whether he would not agree that it would improve our position in the discussions

  637
  on the German problem if we were to take a new initiative in favour of such a zone free of nuclear weapons?
  The Prime Minister: I think that we should stand by the principles we set out. We have always linked this question with a political settlement of the German problem.

  COMMON MARKET
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, following the recent meeting between President Kennedy and President de Gaulle, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to continue their efforts to secure European economic unity.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statements that I have made at different times in the House and, in particular, to what I said at some length on Tuesday.
  Mr. Henderson: Following the talks in Paris, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is now satisfied that President de Gaulle wants negotiations between Britain and the Six?
  The Prime Minister: It is quite difficult to know what Members of this House wish and I am afraid that I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman what President de Gaulle wants.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Is my right hon. Friend concerned that the Canadian High Commissioner should consider it necessary to urge this country to give more consideration to Commonwealth economic unity than to European economic unity?
  Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister is not responsible for what the High Commissioner says.

  TREATY OF ROME
  Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a Command Pa per particularising the measures taken by the parties to the Treaty of Rome since the signing thereof in implementation of those Articles which provide for measures to be taken or proposals to be made in the context of the creation of common organisations, insti-
  638
  tutions, and constitutional machinery, together with an assessment of the modifications which would be entailed in the national organisations, institutions, and constitutional machinery of the United Kingdom by adherence to the Treaty.
  The Prime Minister: The information called for in the first part of my right hon. and learned Friend's Question, if it is to be authoritative, can only be provided by the authorities of the European Economic Community themselves. I am quite willing to see if it can be obtained I have, however, explained the difficulties inherent in producing a White Paper in reply to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) on 13th June.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the White Paper referred to by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) was not on precisely the same lines as that for which I am here asking? Will he be good enough, therefore, to ask the European Economic Community to supply the information to provide the first part of this Command Paper? Will he also be good enough to answer the second part of the Question, about the assessment of the modifications required in out constitutional machinery if we were to adhere to the Treaty of Rome?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part, I repeat that if I can obtain the information I will. Of course, it is somewhat delicate; it is partly in negotiation now going on in that Community. If I can find a convenient method of doing the second part, I will consider it and see what can be done.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) is a very good example of the kind of information which I ventured to suggest the other day should be made available to the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at the whole question so that he may try to present to the country a much clearer picture of what the real facts and issues are in this whole very tangled subject?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course I would do that, but I again

  639
  repeat the warning which I thought it right to give. I do not regard these positions as absolutely static; they may be fluid. It would be a mistake, I think, to tie ourselves, should we decide to enter negotiations, by too rigid a view beforehand.
  Mr. Grimond: I think that the Prime Minister referred to negotiations going on. I believe that was the phrase he used.
  The Prime Minister: I meant negotiations among the countries of the Treaty of Rome on their own affairs.
  Mr. Grimond: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for clearing that up. But does that prevent the information asked for in the Question being provided, not necessarily at once but when the negotiations are finished?
  The Prime Minister: I was pointing out that the first part of what was asked for was something which was not within our power to provide except by the good will and courtesy of the powers signatory to the Treaty of Rome. We are asking what measures they are taking, and so on, and we have to find out information about matters which are now in process of negotiation or development between them. That is what I meant.
  Mr. Holt: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his attitude in this matter? He saw in the House the other day the emotions and prejudices now being raised by this matter largely due to ignorance. Would not he agree that it is high time that the Government at least indicated those parts of the Rome Treaty which really offer no difficulties at all and which they can support, and provided the House with a great many more facts than it has at the moment?
  The Prime Minister: I will, of course, consider any way in which I can help the House, but we have to be very careful. A factual White Paper might be produced, but it is all in the Treaty of Rome for those who study it. I do not want to mix up that with advice on balancing between very difficult problems at this stage. I think I made it clear on Tuesday. I think there was general acceptance that the procedure that we were adopting, regarding the Commonwealth in particular, was a wise one at this stage.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I think we all understand the difficulty of putting into words the Government's policy at the present time—because, anyway, nobody knows what it is—but we are not asking for that. Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that at this stage there is much to be said for posing and answering factual questions so that we can have a much clearer basis on which to make up our minds? Is he aware that this can be done, or at any rate a great deal of it can be done, without in any way prejudicing any negotiations that may take place?
  The Prime Minister: I will look at that again, but I am bound to say that if I should have to enter these negotiations I do not believe it is right to put every card on the table before one starts them.

19TH BRIGADE GROUP (DISPATCH TO PORTUGAL)
Mr. G. Brown (by Private Notice)Mr. G. Brown (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Defence whether he has now considered the representations made to him by the right hon. Member for Belper about countermanding the orders for the dispatch of the 19th Brigade Group to Portugal, and what decision he has come to.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): It was announced in March last that this exercise would take place in Portugal in July. As I said yesterday, the choice is between holding it where planned, or cancelling it altogether. I have considered carefully the representations made to me yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman, but have decided that I must maintain my decision, subject, of course, to any unforeseen emergencies.
Mr. Brown: That seems to remove the issue which was in dispute yesterday. In order that we may get that quite clear, may I ask whether I am right in taking it that this proposal does not arise out of any alliance requirement of ours and is wholly a voluntary decision by us to have this airlift training exercise in that country?
Mr. Watkinson: May I be as plain as I can? It cannot be strictly a N.A.T.O. exercise, because the 19th Brigade Group

641
is not at this moment allocated to N.A.T.O., although, of course, all our forces are committed to N.A.T.O. under Article V of the Treaty. I want to be quite plain about this. At the moment, this Brigade Group is not definitely allocated to our N.A.T.O. force. On the other hand, it is clearly within the normal pattern of bilateral arrangements that N.A.T.O. allies make, and I imagine that this sort of move would be welcomed by all other N.A.T.O. allies. The forces that take part on the Portuguese side are normally committed to N.A.T.O. Therefore, the only reason why it cannot be strictly a N.A.T.O. exercise is the simple one that the 19th Brigade Group is not allocated to N.A.T.O.
Mr. Brown: That is not the question I asked. I asked whether we are required by our N.A.T.O. alliance arrangements to hold these exercises. I understand the answer to be "No, we are not". Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will afford me an opportunity later to seek to move a Motion on the subject.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what this is likely to cost the British taxpayer?
Mr. Watkinson: As the exercising of these forces is a continuous process, this will not cost the British taxpayer any more than the normal sums that he has to pay anyway.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 19TH JUNE—Completion of the Report stage of the Licensing Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about seven o'clock; and of the Committee stage and remaining stages of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the International Tin Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order.
TUESDAY, 20TH JUNE—We shall make further progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
642
WEDNESDAY, 21ST JUNE—It is hoped to conclude the Committee stage of the Finance Bill by about seven o'clock, and then proceed with the Third Reading of the Licensing Bill.
THURSDAY, 22ND JUNE—Supply [18th Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally.
A debate will take place on Southern Rhodesia, on a Government Motion.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order.
FRIDAY, 23RD JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
During the week we shall ask the House to pass the Land Compensation Bill [Lords] and the Factories Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
We also hope to proceed with the remaining stages of the Police Pensions Bill [Lords].
MONDAY, 26TH JUNE—The proposed business will be to complete the Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force Bill.
Mr. Gaitskell: First, on Thursday's business, are we to take it that the Government Motion will be related to and in support of the proposed new Constitution for Southern Rhodesia? Secondly, on Monday's business, while the Licensing Bill has been treated by the Opposition as a matter for a free vote, I understand that it is not by any means certain that the Report stage will be concluded by seven o'clock.
Should the debate not be concluded by then, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that we shall not have to take the Committee and remaining stages of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, in which many hon. Members are very interested, at a very late hour?
Mr. Butler: The first Motion on Thursday is likely to be in the form of taking note of the papers relating to the Southern Rhodesia Constitution.
It will be noted that on Monday we are separating the Report stage of the Licensing Bill from the Third Reading, as I undertook in the course of the recent debate, so as to give a chance for the reprinting of the Bill. I think that it

643
should be possible to complete the Report stage within a reasonable time and that that should, therefore, enable us to proceed with the rest of the business. We had better see how we get on.
Mr. S. Silverman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what has happened to his proposed Motion about House of Lords reform and when he proposes to move it, or are we to take it that, the immediate emergency having passed, the urgency of this matter is no more acute now than it has been at any time during the past fifty years?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The Government intended to move a Motion relating to a Joint Select Committee, and in due course we shall move it. Meanwhile, there is no alteration in either our procedure or our policy, but we have certain more important business to get through first.
Mr. Strauss: Can the Leader of the House now give us any further information about the prospects of the Road Traffic Bill?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir; not at this stage.
Mr. Strauss: Since it now appears clear from a Government statement made in the House of Lords that this Bill, the purpose of which was to reduce the number of accidents and save lives, is to be jettisoned through lack of time, what justification have the Government for giving priority to a Bill to increase National Health Service charges, which was not even mentioned in the Queen's Speech?
Mr. Butler: The latter issue has been very widely debated in the House, and I cannot add anything to the very good reasons which the Government had for introducing the Measure in question.
When we are ready to make a statement about the Road Traffic Bill, we will.
Mr. Grimond: As the Leader of the House will no doubt be anxious to get abroad again early in August, and as it does not look as though, by then, we shall have finished all the Bills at present going through Parliament, can he tell us when he will be able to tell us which Bills will be abandoned?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, in due course. May I say that I would rather prefer to visit one of those islands such as the hon. Member represents?
Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not extraordinary that the Leader of the House cannot give us any news about important Bills, when, as he announced in his business statement, he is asking the House to spend a good deal of time on the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, and when, as reported this weak, the chairman of the Cunard Company has said that he might not even need that loan by the time that Parliament has approved it? Is it not a great discourtesy to the House in that the House will have to go to all this trouble and have the loan thrown back in its face at the end of the day?
Mr. Butler: It is not either suitable or possible at the time of the business statement to take up policy questions, and I do not assume to myself the duty of answering a policy question.
It is our intention to proceed with and pass through the Bill relating to the Cunard affair.
Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously not understood my question. In his business statement he was asking us to spend a lot of time, perhaps late at night, on a Bill which seeks to vote a large sum of money to a private company. If the private company now says that it may not even want it, should we not have that decision about that from the private company before hon. Members are asked to waste any more time on this matter?
Mr. Butler: I would not have announced the Government business if it had not been the intention to make progress with the Bill.
The issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman could more properly be raised when questions of policy are discussed, namely, during the passage of the Bill.
Sir C. Osborne: Despite the number of Bills which we have to get through, would my right hon. Friend consider bringing in, before the Summer Recess, emergency legislation to deal with immigration, in view of the fact that recently Mr. Manley said in this country that he would not be opposed to some

645
control of immigrants on health grounds and to dealing with the deportation of those with criminal records? If they are agreed, cannot we have legislation at once?
Mr. Butler: I think that my hon. Friend says that Mr. Manley has agreed to it. I did not read Mr. Manley's speech, which was brought to my attention, exactly in that sense. I agree that he certainly referred to health control—on their side, not on this side—and made certain references to our having power of deportation, which I noticed, but I do not think that he went further than that. This is a very urgent and important subject, but I have never given the hope that we would have time this Session to introduce legislation.
Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is still rather vague about some of the Bills in the pipeline. Could he say whether it is the intention of the Government now completely to drop the Weights and Measures Bill, or is there any hope of this Bill, which was first recommended ten years ago, getting through this Session?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I have no further statement to make on that subject at present.
Mr. Hamilton: With further reference to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be moving his Motion on House of Lords reform within the next month? In view of the cluttered-up state of the legislative programme of the Government, would he not consider taking that Motion and Order No. 11—Suicide Bill [Lords]—together?
Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is making very constructive suggestions, all of which will have consideration.
Mr. Mellish: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the Question which I put to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, about the possibility of having a debate in the not too far distant future—before the Summer Recess anyway—on the economic plight of Northern Ireland? Although we had a debate not so long ago, it was initiated on a Private Member's
646
Motion. It is important, in view of the disastrous position of this small country, that we should know what the right hon. Gentleman and the Government intend to do. Can he say whether there will be a debate, as the people there are desperate?
Mr. Butler: I do not underestimate the difficulties in Northern Ireland. There are certain measures in hand which we hope will help the situation. We had a recent debate, I agree, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the situation will not be allowed to get out of sight.
Mr. Mellish: When can we have a debate?
Mr. Butler: I cannot give any answer at present.
Mr. Jay: Why has not the Leader of the House the courage to admit that it is not the intention of the Government to proceed with the Road Traffic Bill or the Weights and Measures Bill?
Mr. Butler: These matters are under consideration by my right hon. Friends principally concerned, and I have nothing futher to add today.
Mr. C. Royle: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), will the Home Secretary go further than he has done already and state categorically that there will be no legislation on the lines suggested by the hon. Member?
Mr. Butler: I think that I should want to define the lines of my hon. Friend more closely with him before I could make such a categorical statement, but there will be no legislation directed against colour and based on prejudice.
Mr. Mendelson: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Motion on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of a considerable number of my hon. Friends, concerning the important recent increases in the level of rearmament in the Federal Republic of Germany? May I further call attention to the fact that these changes, important though they are, have never been submitted to Parliament? In these circumstances, would not he allow time for a debate?

647
[That this House deplores the decision of Her Majesty's Government in supporting the policy of Western European Union which is responsible for constantly increasing the military strength of the Federal Republic of Germany, including the decision to build destroyers of 6,000 tons equipped with nuclear weapons despite the assurances on German arms limitation given to Parliament and the country when the Brussels Treaty was accepted.]
Mr. Butler: I will discuss that with my right hon. Friend principally concerned.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. George Brown.
Mr. Page: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has been rising a good many times to catch your eye, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry. I always endeavour to call all hon. Members who rise at the time of business questions, but I did not see the hon. Lady. Miss Vickers.
Miss Vickers: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he intends to continue with the Report stage of the Human Tissues Bill? We have had many late nights, and if they continue, we shall probably find the Bill very useful.
Mr. Butler: I will see what I can do to help my hon. Friend.

19TH BRIGADE GROUP (DISPATCH TO PORTUGAL)
Mr. George Brown: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a
648
definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to countermand the dispatch of the 19th Brigade Group to Portugal.
In the light of what has happened, I will not intrude unduly on the time of the House. Perhaps you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to urge in support of my claim, first, that we have now had an announcement which removes any dubiety there may have been about the definiteness of the situation; secondly, that we are in order in terms of urgency, because we have raised this at the first opportunity; and, thirdly, that there are no known opportunities open to us to raise this matter; and on that point we have consulted the precedents of the House and the suggestions there laid down.
Unless the Government's decision is quickly challenged and quickly changed, there will be no opportunity to take effective action in a matter which is, at the moment, still well within the control of the Executive.
The importance of the matter is, as has been ruled, a matter for the House. On the other hand, I do not think that any of us have any doubt about it. For these reasons, I trust that you will allow me to secure the opportunity this day to consult the feeling of the House in this matter.
The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), until Seven o'clock this evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1961–62

    CLASS III
    VOTE I (HOME OFFICE)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £5,368,280, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the salaries and expenses of the office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and subordinate offices; grants towards the expenses of the probation of offenders and of magistrates' courts; expenses of inspection, training, superannuation, &c., in connection with the fire services in England and Wales, and balances of grants in respect of expenditure incurred by fire authorities during 1958–59 and earlier years; certain grants in aid; legal aid in criminal cases; and sundry other services. [£1,973,000 has been voted on account.]

  TIMOTHY JOHN EVANS
  3.51 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It is eleven and a half years since the trial and conviction of Timothy Evans, and as we got further removed in time from this case the larger, the more vocal and the more authoritative becomes the body of opinion that there was a terrible miscarriage of justice. Lord Birkett is one who has now added his opinion to that effect, and his weighed and written words are of an authority that will not lightly be challenged, I think, in any quarter. Writing in the Observer of 15th January, Lord Birkett said:
  "If the facts, as they are now known, had been known in 1950 no jury could possibly have said that the case against Evans had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt".
  I myself, with much less authority than Lord Birkett have come to the same conclusion, very reluctantly. I do not like to find a miscarriage of justice and I have come to my conclusion very reluctantly after the most intense reading and re-reading of the documents and publications involved in this case.
  650
  We are pressing for an inquiry to be set up. When I say "we" I do not mean only hon. Members on this side of the Committee. This is not a party matter. I hope—I am sure—that I am speaking for very many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee whose consciences are troubled about this case. As I see it, the inquiry should go into two major points. The first is whether Timothy Evans was rightly convicted, and the second is whether his remains should now be restored to his mother to be buried in consecrated ground. These two points are connected. The second arises only if one is satisfied that there was a miscarriage, and a clear miscarriage, of justice.
  I should like to consider these two things in order, and start with some words about the question of the guilt of Evans and whether he was rightly convicted.
  I think that the fundamental cause of the doubt which has grown increasingly widespread is this: if, in the light of the knowledge we now have, we assume that Evans was guilty, we must accept colossal coincidences which could not be swallowed by any twelve reasonable men. We should have to assume that in one small house there were two killers killing victims in the same horribly eccentric way. We should have to assume that these two men were operating independently and in ignorance of one another. We should have to assume that one killed six women and one killed only one woman. We should have to assume that while most of Christie's victims were parcelled up in old blankets, it was by pure chance that Evans parcelled up the body of his wife in the same way.
  We should further have to assume that Evans, again by pure chance, accused of murder a man who was the Crown's star witness at his own trial; who was described at that trial, with "judicial approval, as "this perfectly innocent man"; but who in fact, unknown to anyone at the time, had strangled two women and was later to strangle four more. This seems to me to be a set of coincidences that it is impossible for a reasonable person to accept.
  But if, in the light of this after knowledge, which no one knew at the time—there is no question that at the time

  651
  the case seemed overwhelming—we re-examine the Evans case, I think that certain grave doubts arise about the rightness of his conviction which enormously multiply the already enormously high odds against the set of coincidences that I have described.
  The Scott Henderson Report, I think it fair to say, contains two main arguments for the conclusion it came to in paragraph 41:
  "…that there can be no doubt about the responsibility of Evans for the death of his wife and child."
  The two arguments on which the Report relies are, first, that in his confession Evans disclosed vital facts about the two murders which he could only have known at first hand; and, secondly, that Christie's confession to the murder of Mrs. Evans was false.
  As to the first point, the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, now the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Kilmuir, in a debate in this Chamber on 29th July, 1953, stubbornly defended this argument in the Scott Henderson Report. He maintained strongly that Evans only knew what Chief Inspector Jennings said in court that he had told him, before Evans made his confession at Notting Hill Gate police station.
  In the alleged statement made by Mr. Jennings to Evans there was no mention that the bodies in the washhouse were under the sink. There was no mention that the bodies there were concealed by timber and there was no mention that the baby had been strangled by a tie. In his confession Evans revealed knowledge of all these three things—of the sink, of the timber and of the tie.
  When one looks at the transcript of the evidence of the trial I think one may say that it cannot be read without there being very grave doubts whether it is true that Evans could only have known what Jennings told him and was not told anything more. Because there was a second police witness in this case, Inspector Black, who was present when Mr. Jennings was saying these things to Evans. His evidence throws a very different light on the things which Evans was probably told.
  On page 76 of the transcript, Inspector Black is being cross-examined. The question was:
  652
  "And there did Mr. Jennings tell him (Evans) that he, Mr. Jennings, had first found the body concealed under the washbasin or sink of this outhouse?"
  The answer is, "Yes, Sir". That is evidence that Evans knew from what the police had told him that the bodies were behind the sink.
  The next question was:
  "Did he also tell him that he found the body of his baby concealed behind some timber in the outhouse?"
  The answer was "Yes, Sir". Therefore, the only point left, I think, where it can be seriously argued that Evans revealed in his confession something probably not told him by the police is the question of the tie round the baby's neck.
  Mr. Black's evidence on this point also was much less strong and clear than the evidence of Mr. Jennings. When pressed by Mr. Morris, the defending counsel, to say whether he clearly remembered whether Jennings had or had not mentioned the tie to Evans he said, according to page 67 of the transcript, "I cannot remember". This is a very much weaker statement than that made by Mr. Jennings when he said that there was no mention of the tie.
  It seems that, in any case, there is no need to establish that the tie was mentioned, because Evans had been told that both these bodies were of people who had died by strangulation. He was also shown a separate pile of the baby's clothes with a tie on top of it, still knotted and cut at the back and, as Mr. Jennings himself said, he stooped to pick this tie up before making his confession. He therefore must have known that in the view of the police this tie had been used to strangle his baby. It seems that if one studies the transcript of the trial, as I have done over and over again, at the very lowest one must say that there is very grave doubt about the validity of the main point on which the argument for Evans' guilt must and does rest.
  There is another vital consideration here, that Evans' confession—which he withdrew and repudiated in court—is demonstrably false in two very important, indeed crucial, particulars. He said in his confession that he had murdered his wife on Tuesday, 8th November—that is an important date—and had carried the body down to the washhouse the same

  653
  night. He confessed that he had murdered his daughter on Thursday, 10th November, and at midnight that night had carried her body to the washhouse.
  The first statements made by a number of workmen to the police, and backed by time sheets—workmen who happened by the most extraordinary coincidence to be working in this fatal house over this critical week—showed the following things. First, they showed that workmen were going in and out of the washhouse, where the bodies were said to be, between the 8th and 10th and that they cleaned it out on the 11th. They said that there could not have been bodies in the washhouse at that time. It follows inescapably, if that evidence is true, that Evans must have been lying. It could not be true that he murdered his wife on the 8th and his baby on the 10th and carried them to the washhouse, because the washhouse was cleaned up by these workmen on the 11th.
  As to the timber, the second thing which the evidence of these workmen showed was that the timber which formed either all or the greater part of the timber used to conceal the bodies was not given to Christie until Monday, the 14th. That was the afternoon on which Evans left London and went to Wales. If the evidence is true that the timber was not given to Christie until Monday, 14th, one of two things must be true.
  Mr. F. V. Corfield: Is it not true that Evans left after midnight on the night of the Monday and Tuesday?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I think it true that Evans left for Wales on Monday afternoon, the 14th. We can check that up, but I think that that is so.
  As I see it, it follows either that Evans must have put all, or at any rate the greater part, of the timber in front of the bodies in broad daylight between about eleven o'clock in the morning and four o'clock in the afternoon on a day when the Christies were at home; or that Christie himself put the timber in front of the bodies. One cannot escape one or other of those conclusions and one is infinitely more probable than the other.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Christie said he had.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: That is true.
  There is one disturbing feature about the evidence of these workmen. When the police took the first statements, backed by the time sheets, it became clear to them at once that this evidence did not fit in with Evans' confession. They then recalled the workmen—as they were perfectly entitled to do—and, after long interviews, persuaded them that they had been wrong in their first statements and persuaded them to make rather general and vague new statements which, while they do not altogether support Evans' confession, do not clearly contradict it.
  I can understand—although I cannot wholly condone the methods used on this occasion—the police trying to fit bits of evidence into the pattern of events which they honestly and sincerely believed to be true. What appals me is that the whole of this evidence was not made available to the defence. Mr. Scott Henderson, in his Supplementary Report, says, in paragraph 5:
  "The police gave these 32 statements"—
  that is, all the statements of the workmen—
  "to the Director of Public Prosecutions."
  Why were they not then given to the defence? They would have been of major value to the defence. Here was Evans repudiating the confession. If there were evidence before the court which showed that at any rate part of the confession could not possibly have been true, that must have greatly aided the defence.
  What effect it would have had on the outcome one cannot say, but it would have greatly aided the defence. I hope that the Attorney-General will deal, in particular, with this matter, because it is a vital mattes which goes beyond even the Evans case. It seems that this case might disclose that there is a defect in our procedure which is designed to ensure that evidence which may conceivably be of value to the defence gets to the defence. In this case there was a defect; there may be a general defect. This is one of the matters which, if it were set up, an inquiry could go into.
  As I said, Evans repudiated this confession in court.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend make the

  655
  point clear, because this seems to be the occasion when it should be made clear, that the firms had the time sheets over a period of years and that these time sheets are still missing?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It is true that they have all the time sheets except one which has been lost, but I do not want to cumber my case with too many detailed points.
  Evans repudiated his confession in court and reverted to the second statement he had made at Merthyr Tydvil Police Station, in which he alleged that Christie had murdered Mrs. Evans. The essential feature, I think, of this second statement made at Merthyr Tydvil Police Station was that Evans admitted that he knew of his wife's death—Christie had murdered his wife and he knew of her death—but he did not know of the baby's death. According to this statement made by Evans, Christie had undertaken that the baby should be looked after by a couple he knew at Acton.
  It seems that there are strong reasons for accepting the substantial truth of Evans' second statement at Merthyr Tydvil Police Station. There are strong indications that he did not know his baby was dead. There are many others, but, for instance, there is the fact that, whereas he tore up and disposed of his wife's clothes in London, he kept the pram and kept the clothes of his daughter and gave them to Christie. That would be an extraordinary thing to do if he knew that both were dead.
  Secondly, Evans was illiterate: he is said to have had a mental age of 10½. But he reproduced in court in every detail a statement he had made six weeks before, which he had not seen since. Indeed, he had made another confession in between. Of course, Evans was a self-confessed and ready liar. That is clear, but it is notoriously much harder to remember a long series of lies than to remember the truth and to remember it in close detail over an interval of six weeks.
  There is one other point which has struck me in reading and re-reading these documents. In this mass of conflicting and inconsistent confessions and statements which one finds in both the Evans and the Christie cases there is
  656
  only one, Evans' second statement at the Merthyr Tydvil Police Station, which, I believe, is not contradicted by any single fact which was then known or which has subsequently become known.
  This is an extraordinary thing, because all sorts of things have become known since which throw doubt on many things which were said. But this statement, which he repeated six weeks later—I repeat that he was illiterate and had not seen the statement in the interval—is not contradicted in any respect by any fact which has become known subsequently.
  Further, if, as Evans alleged, Christie murdered Mrs. Evans, there is much evidence that the murder of Mrs. Evans fitted in with Christie's pattern of murder, which was not then dreamed of. Evans could not know it. Nobody knew it.
  Mr. Scott Henderson dismissed Christie's confession of the murder of Mrs. Evans primarily on the ground that it was falsely made on the principle that the more murders he confessed to the more chance he had of being found guilty but insane. But the same line of argument could be used to explain Christie's denial of the murder of the baby. It certainly would have destroyed the picture of a maniacal necrophilia murderer if he had admitted that he had done a cold-blooded, rational, non-sexual murder in order to remove an embarrassing baby after the death of the mother. That argument could work both ways, and it seems to me that the two things cancel out.
  There is a piece of evidence which was not mentioned in the Scott Henderson Report which fits the actual pattern of Christie's murders. Dr. Teare gave evidence at the magistrates' court. There has been some dispute about some of the evidence which he has been said to have given, but there is no dispute that he said that there was a bruise in Mrs. Evans's vagina that, to quote his words,
  "could have been caused by an attempt at forced intercourse in a struggle."
  That was the horrible hallmark of all Christie's admitted murders, except that of his own wife.
  The doubt about the rightness of Evan's conviction is so overwhelming that I need no inquiry to convince me. But I must press the Secretary of State,

  657
  because he has, in fact, refused to grant an inquiry and in a Written Answer on 16th March last he gave reasons for doing so, which I expect he will repeat and elaborate today. He said this:
  "I have reached the conclusion that a further inquiry could not bring any new information to light, and that witnesses' recollection of the events of 1949 must inevitably have been dimmed by the passage of time and may have been confused by the discussion and speculation to which the case has given rise."
  I want to say two things about that. First, that line of argument would have stopped the pardon and release of Oscar Slater. It is an extraordinary thing that the very controversy which alone has made it possible to consider giving a free pardon is itself pleaded as an argument for not doing it, because it will obscure people's memories. Secondly, an inquiry could establish the truth, if it made, as the Scott Henderson Inquiry could not because of the timetable that was forced upon Mr. Scott Henderson, an unhurried, calm and thorough investigation into only the written documents of the case. I believe that the truth could be established even if the witnesses or some of them should have disappeared.
  The Secretary of State went on to answer, in effect, the petition made to him by Mrs. Evans—that is, the mother of Timothy Evans—praying that a posthumous pardon should be granted to her hanged son and that his remains should be delivered to her for interment in ground consecrated by her church. To that, the Secretary of State replied in the same Written Answer:
  "I have given careful consideration to the suggestion that Evans should be granted a free pardon. There is no precedent for recommending posthumous free pardon…. In any event a free pardon cannot be granted without a certainty which is not possible in this case…I am in these circumstances unable to agree to the proposal that Evans's remains should now he removed from Pentonville Prison."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 142.]
  I cannot believe that powers do not exist. I cannot believe that the Royal Prerogative does not extend to this. But if there is any doubt, that is an extraordinarily strong reason for setting up an inquiry to find out what the legal position is. The Secretary of State himself is uncertain of his powers.
  I put this question to the Secretary of State. If Evans had been reprieved and were still alive, can anyone believe
  658
  that he would not long ago have been pardoned, released and compensated? It is inconceivable that he would not have been. Why should not this principle apply retrospectively and posthumously? Why should there be a demand now for a greater degree of certainty than would then have been demanded—indeed, an impossible degree of certainty? To ask for positive proof of innocence is to ask for the impossible.
  The case will not lie down. This case cannot be stifled by authority. The weight of opinion that Evans was wrongly convicted is increasing and will increase. Sooner or later, justice will be done. The Secretary of State is a fair-minded man. I cannot believe that in his heart he does not agree with us. The choice that faces him is this. If he feels that he cannot overthrow the stand taken by a predecessor of his in office, he will be remembered as another Home Secretary who refused to do right in this great matter. On the other hand, if he agrees to a free pardon, he can be remembered as a Secretary of State who had the courage to remedy a great injustice—an injustice which, sooner or later, will be remedied.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember two things. First, where a miscarriage of justice has occurred, it does more harm to the repute of British justice to stifle it up than to admit it. We have clear evidence of this. The long delayed pardon to Oscar Slater did good and not harm to the repute of our system of justice.
  Secondly, on the outskirts of London lives a simple, devout woman whose only son was hanged for a crime which, I think one can now say, the great majority of thinking people are convinced he did not commit. She will receive great human and spiritual comfort if she is allowed to bury the remains of her son in ground consecrated by her church. Common decency, common justice, demand that this simple desire of hers be not denied on the ground of expediency.
  4.18 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I intervene in the debate because I was Under-Secretary at the Home Office at the time of the Christie trial and I replied on behalf of the Home

  659
  Office to the Adjournment debate on 5th November, 1953. I then gave the Government's reasons for refusing an inquiry. I referred to the inquiry which had taken place, which was conducted by Mr. Scott Henderson. The most important part of my reply was contained in these words:
  "I wish to tell the House plainly that my right hon. and learned Friend"—
  that is, the then Home Secretary, the present Lord Chancellor—
  "is quite satisfied that there is no question of any impropriety having taken place here. On the contrary, he is completely satisfied that the inquiry was held with skill, care and impartiality."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 457.]
  The Committee knows that those words would not have been spoken lightly of a man who is fully respected by all hon. Members who knew him in the House of Commons.
  The object of this debate is to ask for a further inquiry. As the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, the purpose of such an inquiry would be, first, to clear the name of Evans, and, secondly, to allay any public anxiety about the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. I certainly do not wish to question at all the complete sincerity of those who ask for such an inquiry.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I thank the hon. Baronet very much.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I said that because the sincerity of those who oppose the request may be questioned. Therefore, it is right to say at the beginning that we should accept the sincerity of both sides in this issue.
  Unfortunately, it is impossible to approach such a question completely objectively. Everybody has strong emotional and moral attitudes to these questions, particularly where the question of capital punishment is involved. We cannot approach these questions as objectively as we would wish. That fact must be borne in mind when we are considering such a question as the present. It is right that it should be pointed out at the beginning of the debate that the law has been changed since the date of the Evans and Christie trials. In fact, there is no doubt at all that, if Evans were tried today on the
  660
  same facts and all other circumstances except the change in the law were the same, he would not be convicted of murder.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I am very interested to hear the hon. Baronet say that. If that is so, how can he possibly defend the Scott Henderson Report, which said the exact opposite on the same facts?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: What I am saying, if I may be allowed to complete my argument, is this. Section 2 of the Homicide Act, 1957, would have been available and Evans would certainly have been able to plead diminished responsibility and would have been convicted of manslaughter and not of murder.
  Mr. C. Pannell: How do we know that?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: No one can know that, but the very basis of the case put forward on behalf of Evans is that he was a man of not very strong mental character. I have no doubt that, if that was so, Section 2 would have been available and he would have been convicted not of murder but of manslaughter.
  Mr. Leo Abse: Is it not quite clear that it is precisely because Evans was of such low mental stature and Christie's intelligence quotient was almost double that much of this trouble has arisen? Will not the hon. Baronet take the consequences which arise from that in reconsidering this evidence rather than dismiss them by saying that the man would otherwise have been convicted of manslaughter?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not dismissing anything. I am merely pointing out that, if the trial had taken place today, the law being different, there would have been a different result. That should be borne in mind when we are considering this problem. What we must do is to disregard the punishment which was inflicted in this case. The question before the Committee and every individual hon. Member is this: has anything now happened or come to light about the deaths of Mrs. Evans and Geraldine Evans which requires further official examination? That is the point, and the whole point, that we have to consider.

  661
  The main argument which has been expressed outside the House of Commons, and which was very fully and fairly expressed by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, is the same as the argument advanced in 1953 during the debate which we then had on these matters; the argument which rested on the matters that came to light during the Christie case. I think that the answer to that must be, "There has been a full inquiry, a fair inquiry and an independent inquiry into those facts, which was conducted by Mr. Scott Henderson"—
  Mr. C. Pannell: It was none of those things.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I appreciate that objections have been raised to that inquiry. The first of them, voiced today by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick, was that the inquiry was not a public inquiry but a private one—
  Mr. Gordon Walker: No. I said that it was not an unhurried one; that it was too rushed. That was the only criticism I made.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The criticism has certainly been made that the inquiry was not heard in public, but was held in private. I gave the reasons for that in the earlier debate, and one of the reasons was—
  Mr. C. Pannell: The Summer Recess—that was the reason.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: One of the principal reasons I gave was that an inquiry of this kind ought to have access to all the available facts, and some of the available facts would not come to whatever tribunal was set up unless the inquiry were held in private.
  That view is fortified by the introduction to the book, which I think most hon. Members who are interested in this question have read: Ten Rillington Place, by Mr. Ludovic Kennedy. At the beginning of that book, in the acknowledgments, Mr. Kennedy says, perfectly candidly:
  "A very great number of people have helped me in the collection of material for this book, but as many of them wish to remain anonymous, it would be invidious to name some but not others."
  That is exactly the position here. If we wished to get at the facts of the case
  662
  we would have to ask people questions which they would be unwilling to answer at a public inquiry. If we were to have a full inquiry into the matter, it has to be a private one.
  I recognise, too, that the validity of the findings of the Scott Henderson inquiry have been questioned. They were questioned this afternoon. In a sense, I think that is inevitable, for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, namely, that we do tend to take sides on this issue in accordance with our views of the result—in accordance with our attitude to capital punishment—
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I am a little distressed. I am not affected in the way the hon. Baronet suggests at all. I have been very much affected by reading these books and, having read the evidence that was available at the time, I have very considerable doubts whether this was a proper decision. I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather side-tracking the case by suggesting there are motives in the minds of many hon. Members who have read these books and are very disturbed by them.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not for a moment suggest any motive, or any insincerity whatever. I merely say that in our approach to these matters we tend to look at them from the point of view with which we wish to look at them. I think that I am within the knowledge of most hon. Members there.
  I can certainly assure the House that, as Under-Secretary at the Home Office at the time, I studied the Report and all the papers that were available to me—and which are, I think without exception, available to all hon. Members and the public now. I personally held that the findings of that Report were correct. So did my right hon. and learned Friend, the then Home Secretary, and so did very many other people whose good faith has not been challenged.
  If that is so, if there has been an inquiry—even though that inquiry may not be satisfactory to everyone—it would be wrong to say that we should have another inquiry; that we should look into these matters yet again. The only reason for doing that would have been if there had been some impropriety at the first inquiry,

  663
  or if further evidence had come to light which required further examination. I think that that is the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. A. Woodburn).
  That there was no impropriety at the inquiry is, I think, common ground, and accepted by hon. Members on both sides—
  Mr. Ede: Not accepted by me.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt develop that, but I think that I can say that most hon. Members do not regard that inquiry as having been improper—
  Mr. Leslie Hale: But it was not public.
  Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose—
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I cannot deal with several points at the same time.
  Mr. Hate: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with this one? The evidence has never been published. The House does not know what evidence was given, and in what circumstances, but we do know that it was given in the absence of the legal advisers to Evans, and without their being able to put any questions. What about that?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman is raising the question of Whether it should have been a private or a public inquiry, but his right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick has not raised that question, and has expressly denied that he has done so. I agree, of course, that there are several views here. My own view is that this inquiry was better as a private inquiry, and was right as a private inquiry. That, I think, disposes of the hon. Gentleman's point—
  Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Baronet is confusing two quite different things. It is possible to hold the view that it was better to hold the inquiry in secret, and if one holds that view it is also possible to hold the view that the evidence should not thereafter be published. I hold neither view, but it is possible to hold them. But does the hon. Gentleman really defend a procedure, even in secret—and especially in secret—where those
  664
  most closely concerned have no right to hear the evidence given, and no right to cross-examine on it?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think that the hon. Gentleman is going far beyond what the position was at that time—
  Mr. Silverman: No, I am not.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Yes, far beyond it. And I think, too, that there is no evidence at all which was available at that inquiry—
  Mr. Silverman: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: —which is not now available to every hon. Member and to the public at large—
  Mr. Silverman: How does the hon. Gentleman know.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Well, that is my opinion; I cannot put it higher than that. The hon. Member may argue that there was—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Sir Herbert. Is there no way of hearing this as a debate? A lot of us have a good deal of sympathy with the mood that inspired the debate, but I think that my hon. Friend should be allowed to develop his argument.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Herbert Butcher): Order. I should be much obliged if hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would enable the debate to continue without interruption.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If further evidence were now available I would agree that there would be a case for a further enquiry. There has been a great deal of further argument. I think that all hon. Members have been impressed by Mr. Kennedy's book, to which I have already referred, but that book did not contain further evidence. It merely set out and elaborated the arguments on the known evidence. If I may say so, I think that it was tendentious, and has misled a great many hon. Members, and other people outside the House of Commons.
  The method of the book was to tell the story of the two cases as the writer himself saw them—and, I have no doubt, genuinely saw them. The story contains a very great deal that is mere surmise.

  665
  It gives a flattering picture of Evans, and it damns Christie on every possible occasion—[Interruption.] If any hon. Member reads the book fairly I think that he will agree that he cannot help taking that view.
  The writer then deals with the points taken at the trial, and the points made in the Report and, where they part company from the story as he has already told it, he deals with them as though they were deviations from the correct view. That method of procedure is very effective advocacy, but it is not the objective view of the evidence which we should take if we are to judge these matters fairly.
  The right hon. Member for Smethwick referred to one piece of new evidence, and it is brought forward in the book. That piece of evidence suggested that Mrs. Evans' murderer was a necrophilic, as Christie has been shown to be. That, I think, weighed a great deal with a great many people. It certainly weighed very heavily with me. When I saw that piece of evidence I thought that it would certainly be necessary to reconsider the matter. But the evidence derives from a statement made by Dr. Donald Teare, and when one considers what Dr. Teare has to say about that evidence when he saw it I do not think that it will weigh very heavily with any hon. Member.
  Dr. Teare wrote a letter to the Sunday Times on 5th March of this year, dealing with this allegation in Mr. Kennedy's book, and said:
  "Retrospectively the bruise"—
  that is, the bruise to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—
  "though small, was so definite that it is a reasonable assumption that it occurred at least hours before death. It was at the classical site in which self-inflicted injuries are found following attempted abortion, and this in my view is the most likely explanation. Indeed, if such bruising were at all common during forced intercourse I should have expected to have seen other cases in 20 years' experience in this type of work. I have in fact, seen none."
  In the face of that statement, that piece of evidence disappears altogether. No further evidence has been brought forward; there has only been further argument.
  The only circumstance which throws doubt, to my mind, on the conviction of Evans, is the improbability of finding two stranglers living in the one house
  666
  at the same time. That is an extraordinary coincidence but there is no reason why it should not, in fact, have occurred. One only has that one coincidence to set against the very substantial body of evidence on which a court came to the conclusion that Evans was guilty.
  In my view, there is no ground for reopening this question at the present time. I am satisfied that the inquiry was such an inquiry as ought to have been held, and I think that the House of Commons should let the matter rest there.
  4.41 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: My connection with this case was rather earlier than that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), and I feel certain that he will realise that I speak only with a sense of the very gravest responsibility this afternoon. I could very well have wished that I should not take part in this debate at all, but I am quite certain that if I did abstain it would be an act of cowardice, which I have no intention of committing.
  I took no part in any of the discussions after the Scott Henderson Report. But I had held this highly responsible office and I know the awful loneliness of a Home Secretary. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman was told when he was appointed, but the Prime Minister who appointed me said to me: "You understand that we are not bound to support any decision that you give in capital cases and you are not entitled to come to us and ask for our view. You must make the decision yourself and you must bear the responsibility yourself." I do not imagine that the present Home Secretary is in a much better position, and I am sure that he will allow me to say that he has been perturbed about this case.
  I had no intention of alluding to the Scott Henderson Report, but as the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South did so and made high claims for it, I want to read to him what actually occurred. I shall quote from the book Ten Rillington Place, and I have had conversations not only with Mr. Kennedy but also with Mr. Morley Lawson, who was the solicitor appearing far Mrs. Probert, the mother of Timothy Evans, I am assured by both of them that what I

  667
  intend to read is completely accurate. I do not propose to read anything that is comment. I will merely read history. It is stated in the book Ten Rillington Place:
  "The inquiry started its work on Monday, July 6th. On Tuesday July 7th Mr. Bernard Gillis, Q.C. was instructed by Messrs. Zeffrett Herd and Morley Lawson, a firm of solicitors acting for Mrs. Probert, to represent Mrs. Probert's interests at the inquiry. After consultation with Mr. Scott Henderson, Mr. Morley Lawson told Mr. Gillis that it would be agreeable for him to appear before the inquiry at 2.15 p.m. the following day, Wednesday July 8th. Mr. Gillis made himself available to do this, but shortly before 1 o'clock on the Wednesday he received a message that he would not now be required to appear before the inquiry until 10.30 a.m. the day after, Thursday July 8th. As the inquiry was due to finish on the Friday evening this meant that Mr. Gillis was prevented from attending more than half of the hearings.
  At 10.30 a.m. on the Thursday morning Mr. Gillis turned up at the inquiry as requested with Mr. Morley Lawson. After Mr. Scott Henderson had outlined the procedure he was going to follow Mr. Gillis made three requests. The first was that he should see the evidence already taken from witnesses during the previous days and, if necessary, cross-examine them. This was refused. The second request was that he might have access to copies of Evans's original statements and other relevant documents. Mr. Gillis pointed out that although Mr. Lawson had applied to every official quarter known to him' for a copy of the transcript of Christie's trial, it had been refused him, and if the Home Office had not given him a copy of the transcript of Evans's trial, his work would have been well nigh impossible. This request however was also refused.
  Mr. Gillis's third request was that he might call before the inquiry a number of witnesses and he gave Mr. Scott Henderson their names. Mr. Scott Henderson said he had no objection to these witnesses being called, but he emphasised that Mr. Gillis would not be able to examine them himself, and that while he could submit questions far them to be asked, Mr. Scott Henderson reserved the right to decide whether he would ask these questions or not. Further, said Mr. Scott Henderson, while Mr Gillis could be present while his own clients (Mrs. Probert, Mrs. Ashby and Mrs. Westlake) were giving evidence, he could not be present at any other time. Mr. Gillis stressed that as the inquiry was being held in private, it was all the more important that he should be allowed to attend throughout. Mr. Scott Henderson said that he did not intend to alter his procedure without a specific direction from the Home Office,"—
  Mr. C. Pannell: Accessory after the fact.
  Mr. Ede: The passage goes on:
  "but that Mr. Gillis could apply for such a direction if he wished. On hearing this
  668
  Mr. Morley Lawson immediately left the Inquiry for the Home Office in order to try and obtain the direction. While he was away one of Mr. Gillis's witnesses, Mrs. Vincent, was called to give evidence. After Mr. Gillis had read her proof he was asked to withdraw, and so had no opportunity of hearing Mr. Scott Henderson's questions or examining her himself."
  I was first appointed a magistrate in 1920, and I have had some experience of the conduct of judicial inquiries of many kinds. Does the hon. Member for Hendon, South still describe the conduct of the Scott Henderson inquiry in the language that he used in his speech a few moments ago? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] The Committee can judge between the hon. Member for Hendon, South and myself. I say that an inquiry so conducted—into which both counsel and solicitor had the greatest difficulty obtaining admission until they went straight to the Home Secretary to get that permission—is a travesty—[Interruption]—of anything in judicial procedure recognised by the law of this country hitherto.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary came to me as a friend one night to ask me a question after he had been considering the case of Mr. Wedgwood Benn in the Committee of Privileges. May I say that I am a friend of the right hon. Gentleman and I am under the deepest obligation to him for the way he treated me when I was his Parliamentary Secretary during the passage of the Education Bill in the House in 1944. As a friend and former Home Secretary I told him what I would do in the present circumstances. I told him, and I went home and wrote a letter to him, in which I set out what I had told him. The thing that alarmed me most about what he said to me was this: "I am advised that I cannot say that this man Evans was innocent". I replied—
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: Would the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) say whether he is repeating a private conversation?
  Mr. Ede: If the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have gone a little further he may then be able to ask that question. I wrote this letter to the Home Secretary and I was very careful not to mark it "Private and Confidential". I told him

  669
  that, in my view, his advisers had misdirected themselves. What everybody in the English legal system has to bear in mind, no matter how high they may be—Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary included—is that in this country people are not called on to prove themselves innocent. Very few of us would be able to do so. The question before the Home Secretary now, and that will remain before Home Secretaries until this matter is cleared up, is this: in the light of all the evidence now available, can you regard this man as guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?
  I had placed in front of me certain papers which are still in the Home Office. None of the persons who drafted those papers knew that this man Christie had already murdered two women and that he was using the leg-bone of one of them to support a fence on the curtilage of 10, Rillington Place.
  Let us suppose that this case had occurred recently and that at the trial of the man Evans and at the time of his appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal nothing more was known than was known at the moment when those papers came on to my table. Then suppose that the Home Secretary, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman says about the alteration of the law, came to the conclusion that the diminution of responsibility was not such as to bring the case within Section 2 of the Homicide Act, and said that the law must take its course; and then, between that date and the date of execution, the story of these other six women became public. What would the House be expected to do? Suppose the man was to be executed next Thursday.
  No man can do more than deal with the evidence in front of him in making any decision. Have not many of us in the course of our private lives had to make a decision and then a new fact has come to our notice the next day and we have said, "If I had only known that yesterday". That is the difficulty about this case.
  Lord Birkett wrote:
  "The case against Evans at his trial on the facts as they were then known was quite overwhelming. There was no failure in the administrative machinery of the criminal law. No human skill could have prevented the conviction, and no human judicial system, whatever its checks and safeguards, can ever pro-
  670
  vide complete security against the exceedingly rare and utterly exceptional case such as that of Evans."
  People may say that I have an interest in this matter. Lord Birkett has no interest in the matter, beyond the service of truth and the upholding of the system of justice in this country to which he has rendered many an eminent service.
  Lord Birkett went on:
  "If the facts, as they are now known, had been known in 1950 no jury could possibly have said that the case against Evans had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. This is the real ground of complaint against the Scott Henderson Report. The report was honest and painstaking enough, and contained most cogent reasons for the conclusions it contained; but there are equally cogent reasons for believing these conclusions to be wrong."
  There are hon. and learned Members on both sides of the Committee. If they had to sum up to a jury when they reached that conclusion, would they not lay heavy stress on the duty of being satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt before they allowed the jury to go into the jury room? I know that many of my hon. Friends think that Evans was innocent. I did say to one of them that I had been confronted with a demand that I should prove Evans innocent. He said, "Do not trouble about that, Kennedy has done that." I do not today ask the Committee to declare that Evans was innocent. What I ask the Committee to say is that the elements of doubt in this case are so overwhelming—what I have just read from Lord Birkett ought to be sufficient conviction for everybody as to the exact position—that this man's name ought to be given the benefit of the doubt that has arisen in subsequent years.
  Now I come to the other point which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). The three surviving women relatives of this man hold a view which I do not share. They believe that while his remains are in unconsecrated ground he will remain in purgatory. I do not accept that view. I doubt if there is any Member present who shares that view. But by my own claims to have my religious beliefs respected I am compelled to respect the beliefs of every other person, and I say that this is a state of spiritual anguish for these three women who took the utmost care themselves to question the man in his last hours

  671
  whether he was guilty or not and received throughout all their inquiries a stout denial from him that he did it and his affirmation that Christie had done this particular deed. I hope that steps will be taken so that their spiritual anguish might be relieved, even if it should involve an Act of Parliament.
  With the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I have been inquiring into what has happened to some of the members of the nobility and higher aristocracy who at times have found their blood corrupted and their estates and good names forfeited because they were convicted of high treason. As a result of my hon. Friend's inquiries in the Research Department of the Library, I find that there are listed on the Statute Book of this country 121 Acts relating to men and women who have suffered that penalty for high treason and then a later generation has thought it well to wipe it out and restore the good name.
  As one goes from the central lobby into the Members Lobby, the first picture one passes on the left of the corridor is that of Alice Lisle, the widow of a Puritan Member of Parliament, to whom after the Battle of Sedgemoor two refugees from Monmouth's army fled to refuge, with James's soldiers very close behind. In that picture one sees the two men escaping to some part of the house and this old woman being questioned by the Royalist soldiers. She was sentenced by Bloody Jeffreys at Winchester Assizes to be burned. The only good thing I know about James II is that he altered the sentence from burning to being executed by another means. But she was just as dead at the end.
  In the First Session of William and Mary, which was 1688–89, there was an Act for annulling and making void the attainder of Alice Lisle. As for the dukes who backed the wrong horse temporarily and paid the penalty and whose descendants thereafter managed to get back not merely their goods which were forfeit but their good name, the list is far too long to read out.
  The strategy and tactics of this debate are arranged by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I conform lest I should share the fate of my hon.
  672
  Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
  Mr. S. Silverman: Not such a bad fate.
  Mr. Ede: I am not sure that I am entitled to call him my hon. Friend.
  I put the matter to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in this way. In my judgment, the overwhelming mass of opinion in this country believes that a mistake was made—a mistake which, in the circumstances of the case, I regret to think that most people believe was inevitable—when this man was sent to the scaffold and that at least so grave is the doubt that very few would feel, if all the facts were before them, that they could return a verdict of guilty. If we are to commit an act of grace, let us do it gracefully and graciously. Let us say that we have grave doubts about the case, doubts which are increased as the years go by and as men study the facts, and that the right hon. Gentleman should recommend Her Majesty to grant a posthumous free pardon to Evans.
  I am told that there is no precedent for this. I am not so concerned with precedents as some people are. There come times when the urgency of the situation demands the creation of a precedent. It has been well said that if a thing has to be done it is either wrong or, if it is right, unless it has been done before it will be a dangerous precedent. We are concerned here today not so much with the law as with justice. One of the difficulties for all of us, whether we be lawyers, magistrates or Ministers of the Crown, is to reconcile law and justice. If one has to go, let us be quite certain that, for the safety of the State, it must not be justice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who was associated with me in this matter a few weeks ago, was perturbed at the position of the three humble women of Evans' family. He went to the authorities of their Church and asked them whether, if the remains were made available to them, they would agree to inter them in their consecrated soil. After full inquiry, they gave him the statement, which they have allowed me to repeat today, that if that were done they would reinter the remains where this man's mother desires them to

  673
  be interred. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley went into all the details. He worked out an arrangement, which was communicated to the Home Secretary, by which the reinterment could take place without any public demonstration, which is the last thing that either the family or any of the rest of us who are interested in them would desire to have.
  The House of Commons in this Committee this afternoon has an opportunity to end a story, which I started, in the light of what is admitted by the highest legal authorities to be overwhelming evidence. Just before I wrote the six fatal words on the document, the then Permanent Under-Secretary of State said to me, "Sir, you must not forget that this man has stuck to his story that he did not do it and that Christie did". Apparently, legal opinion thinks that I took the right course. I discharged my oath in the light of such evidence as was then available. No man can do more. The right hon. Gentleman could do neither more nor less. But I say now that, if the people of this country are to believe that justice will be done to the poorest when new facts benefiting them appear, the steps which my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick and I have suggested should be taken. My right hon. Friend thinks that there is need for a further inquiry. The hon. Member for Hendon, South, so proud of the last inquiry, thinks that one is unnecessary. I condemn the last inquiry so unreservedly that that alone, in my view, reinforces the plea made by my right hon. Friend.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: After the speeches of my right hon. Friends the Members for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and South Shields (Mr. Ede), I think that it would be an impertinence on my part to endeavour to add anything to the two aspects of the case with which they dealt. I wish to devote what I have to say to another and more general aspect of the problem with which we are faced.
  Twelve years ago, Timothy John Evans was executed for the murder, on one occasion, of his wife and, on another occasion, of his child. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who alone has spoken so
  674
  far from the opposite side of the Committee, has suggested that if the present law had then been in force, in spite of those convictions, Evans would not have been executed. I think that he is mistaken, because among the exceptions in the Homicide Act to the abolition of the death penalty is the case of a man who commits more than one murder on different occasions.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I was careful to say, under Section 2 of the Act. I appreciate fully the force of the argument that Section 4 is caught again by Section 6 in the case of multiple murder, and I made no reference to that Section.
  Mr. Silverman: All I am concerned with is that it seems to me, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that if Evans had been convicted today in the same way and on the same evidence as he was convicted twelve years ago he would still have been executed. However, that is not the point.
  I wish to indicate first my own view about the Scott Henderson inquiry. Mr. Scott Henderson was given certain terms of reference. I quote the relevant one:
  "and to report whether, in his opinion, there is any ground for thinking that there may have been any miscarriage of justice in the conviction of Evans for the murder of Geraldine Evans."
  I hope that hon. Members will note strictly the terms. He was not asked to decide whether there had been a miscarriage of justice, or whether Christie's confession or Evans' confession was true in circumstances in which both could not be true. He was asked only to decide whether there was "any ground for thinking"—not whether the grounds were overwhelming or conclusive or even whether the balance of evidence was one way or the other—"that there may have been"—not that there was—
  "any miscarriage of justice in the conviction of Evans for the murder of Geraldine Evans."
  He reported in his ultimate findings:
  "I have therefore to report that in my opinion there is no ground"—
  not that there is insufficient ground—
  "for thinking that there may have been any miscarriage of justice in the conviction of Evans for the murder of Geraldine Evans. I have already referred to the fact that I am satisfied that all the material bearing on my Inquiry in the possession of the police was made available to me."

  675
  He had previously said in paragraph 41:
  "Having carefully considered all the foregoing material I am satisfied that there can be no doubt about the responsibility of Evans for the death of his wife"—
  which he was not asked about—
  "and child. There is nothing"—
  not insufficient, not little, not a suggestion of a doubt or a hesitancy—
  "to suggest that his confession of these two murders was false other than the belated and inconsistent statements by Christie that he killed Mrs. Evans but not Geraldine Evans."
  Mr. Scott Henderson is now an elderly man. I am told that he is a rather sick man. I have no doubt that this matter has been on his conscience for many years, and I do not willingly say anything harsh or unnecessarily harsh that could add to the burden which I am sure he carries. But we have our duty to justice and to the dead. We have a duty to ourselves, and I say that no honest man, on the evidence before Mr. Scott Henderson, could have made the report which he made. It is just not true that there were no grounds. Mr. Scott Henderson must have known that it was not true. If he had reported, "On the whole, I think that the convictions were probably justified", no complaint of this kind could have been made. But to report that on the evidence that was then before him, which, be it noted, is the same evidence as is before us now, there was no ground for thinking that there was any possibility of any miscarriage of justice in that case was a report in defiance of all the evidence before him. Is there any Member of this Committee who will endorse that Report now? Is any Member of this Committee in any quarter of it prepared to say that on the evidence as we now know it, which is the evidence which was before Mr. Scott Henderson, there is no ground whatever for thinking that there may have been any miscarriage of justice? Of course there is not.
  My own view is that Mr. Evans' innocence has been established. I go considerably further than some others have gone. The evidence before Lord Justice Birkett was the same evidence as was before Mr. Scott Henderson, and he says that on that evidence no jury should have convicted. This is evidence which, in the opinion of Mr. Scott Henderson, repudiated the bare
  676
  possibility of any miscarriage of justice in the case.
  Where does the fault lie? The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South suggested that people's views on this case are subjectively influenced by the fact that they may be in favour of or opposed to the capital penalty. I confess that I cannot follow that argument. I cannot imagine that the most convinced and sincere supporter of the necessity of retaining the death penalty in all cases of murder, or in any cases of murder, does not have the same interest as everyone else—perhaps even a greater interest—in making sure that this death penalty which he regards as a social necessity in our country is not unjustly inflicted and borne by innocent people.
  One of the arguments—and, I suppose, something of this kind was in the hon. Baronet's mind—that people have used against the death penalty is that mistakes can be made and that if mistakes are made nothing can be done to rectify them afterwards. One would have thought that it was very much in the interests of those who wished to retain the death penalty to take a leading part in seeing, first, that mistakes are not made and, secondly, that if they are made they are not concealed.
  As I said on another occasion, and I repeat it now, no one in our country expects the administration of justice to be infallible. It is administered by human beings. I do not altogether share the view that proper investigation at the time could not have established the truth of this case. But the mistakes that were made were understandable mistakes. Nobody expects infallibility. It does not undermine the confidence of the people in our system of justice to be convinced from time to time that a mistake has been made. They can tolerate that and understand it. They can forgive it. What undermines the confidence of the people in our justice would be if they became convinced that when a mistake had been made all the forces of the State were used, not to uncover it, but to conceal it.
  That leads me to say to the Home Secretary—I am sorry he is not present, but no doubt the Attorney-General will listen—that I cannot understand why he is so rigid and so obstinate in this

  677
  matter. Why does he hold out? He will not persuade the majority of the people that Timothy John Evans was rightly executed.
  I am not a party to it, but I understand that a decision has been taken not to force a Division on this matter at the end of the day. For myself, I regard that as a mistaken decision, although I understand and respect the reasons for it. One reason which is given for it is that, perhaps in loyalty to the Government, the vote would be lost and, therefore, in some way damage would be done to the cause of putting this tragic error right. I do not believe it for a moment. I do not believe that anything the House can do will alter what has become the conviction of most people that Evans ought not to have been hanged and that he would not have been hanged if the evidence that was before Mr. Scott Henderson and that is before all of us today had been known at the time of his conviction.
  The Home Secretary can remove such a difficulty. He can accept the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick so eloquently pressed upon him and which was supported almost more eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. Why should not the Home Secretary hand over the poor remains of this man to his surviving relatives so that they may be buried in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the faith in which they believe? What damage would be done to our prestige by doing that? What harm would be done? What is the danger of a precedent that might be created? Why resist that suggestion? There is no real difficulty, and such difficulty as there is can be easily removed.
  I beg the Home Secretary to do now what might have been done before—to bring this argument to an end, to hand over the remains and to declare, as, I think, we all would like to declare, that we are satisfied that justice according to our British conception of justice was not done in this case and that we are ready to make such amends as are in our power.
  If ever another inquiry of this kind becomes necessary, let us never again have this kind of inquiry conducted in this kind of way—an inquiry almost con-
  678
  fessedly conducted not so as to expose a miscarriage of justice but to conceal one. If we have to have an inquiry of this kind, let us have it in the open. Let everyone with an interest in the matter be present. Let all the evidence be heard, as it would be heard in an ordinary case. Let it be subject to cross-examination and let it, for heaven's sake, be heard and decided, with the assistance of a jury or without it, by a man of judicial quality who will not allow his decision and his verdict on the evidence to be influenced by any other kind of consideration.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) because, whether one agrees with him precisely or not in what he has said on any one occasion, it is always a pleasure to listen to the lucid and forceful way in which the hon. Member unfolds his argument. I always think it is a little appropriate that the hon. Member should have so many of the qualities of Labouchere, occupying as he does the same seat in the House of Commons and wearing almost a Labouchere beard. Indeed, one feels that one is taking part in a debate which has been ranging over many generations of Parliament.
  I should like to follow the hon. Member straight away in one point he made and one which was not quite in full accordance with the standards of debate which he usually follows. In what the hon. Member said—I hope I am wrong; if so, I am sure that he will correct me, and I shall be glad to accept it—I felt that in some parts of his speech he might be understood to be saying that although this was no time to be harsh about the personal feelings of Mr. Scott Henderson, the inquiry was, as the hon. Member put it, designed to conceal rather than to expose a miscarriage of justice. I noted the hon. Member's use—I assume that the word came from his mouth into my ears as I wrote it down—of the word "dishonest"—
  Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose—
  Mr. Iremonger: I will give way to the hon. Member. That word seemed to carry an imputation which the hon. Member might appreciate the opportunity to clear up.
  Mr. Silverman: I do not want to quibble about words, because in substance the hon. Member is right. I did not actually use the word "dishonest". I thought carefully in advance of the words I would use. What I said, and I stand by it—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member—was that no honest man could have made the report that Mr. Scott Henderson made.
  Mr. Iremonger: I am glad the hon. Member has had the opportunity of clarifying what he said, and I must say that I agree with him in that I find what he said a little disappointing. If I may say so, it will be very difficult for Ministers of the Crown to put upon learned counsel the very onerous and odious responsibility of carrying out inquiries, perhaps not only in matters of this kind but in other circumstances which may arise, when they may be subjected in the House of Commons in their absence to imputations of a very personal character which are privileged and which they cannot answer. I know that the hon. Member would not have done so if he had not felt it right, but I am sorry that he felt it right to go as far as he did. I repudiate the thought that this was either a put-up job or that counsel was a venial and cowardly man upon whom a duty was put which no honourable man would have accepted. I absolutely repudiate that, and I hope that I carry the Committee with me.
  I hope that I also carry the Committee with me in another point. Speaking from this side of your Chair, Dr. King, I do not feel that this is an issue which divides the Committee on party lines, because there are very important issues underlying the subject which has been raised on Supply on which every hon. Member must take his own view. The first and fundamental issue which we are debating is the confidence of the people in their parliamentary and judicial institutions. I think that that is recognised on both sides of the Committee, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not take it in a partisan way if I try to establish it, that those who may not entirely agree with them are no less sincere in their attachment to the importance of that confidence being maintained.
  The second question, quite apart from the merits of the case of Timothy Evans,
  680
  is, "What is the right procedure that should be followed in a similar situation if it should arise again?" I will try to address myself to that point in a moment. The third consideration is, I think, the most important of all to realise. This debate is a further blow being struck on behalf of the case, whether one agrees with it or not, for the total abolition of the death penalty. I do not quarrel with that. It is perfectly fair, and this is absolutely a case in point, but the Commitee had better consider it in that light. What has been said in the Committee—and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has said it—is that the country would do well to think again about the death penalty, because it must accept the fact that, if it wishes to maintain the penalty for one purpose or another, it is not impossible that it may end for ever in certain cases the chance of remedying later a decision the justice or injustice of which it cannot be sure. This is something that we must all face. If I would be in order in widening the debate to that extent, it is an argument against the death penalty to which I am very sensitive.
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I should like to be clear about the hon. Member's attitude towards this. Surely he would agree that what we are concerned with here is exclusively justice to this man. The repercussions on big issues of capital punishment, of confidence in Parliament and of confidence in justice are matters for comment afterwards. This debate is bound to have repercussions which are open to argument afterwards. I accept that, but what we must concentrate on is this simple question of justice to one man.
  Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member, but you, Dr. King, are in the Chair, and if you feel that in the wider view I am taking and in referring to the wider aspect I am out of order, then I am in your hands.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It is not a question of order.
  Mr. Iremonger: But if the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) is saying that I ought to confine myself to a narrower point in debate, that is merely his opinion and I accept his strictures

  681
  with more equanimity than I would accept yours, Dr. King.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am not concerned with a point of order. I am not raising this matter as a point of order at all. All I am saying to the hon. Member is that wider questions on capital punishment are merely repercussions which will arise inevitably from the decision made one way or another in this case, but the decision with which we are concerned tonight should be made exclusively upon the ground of justice to this one man and not on wider considerations.
  Mr. Iremonger: That is a point which the hon. and learned Member is perfectly entitled to urge upon the Committee, but in so far as it is calculated to restrict my animadversions, I hope that he will allow me to resume what I was saying, which was that whether we like it or not and whether here or later, this debate is bound to raise in the minds of those who favour the death penalty the horrible thought that if they make a mistake they cannot put it right afterwards. This is a consideration which influences me very much. My attitude to the abolition of the death penalty, for what it may be worth, is not a very happy one. I am convinced by the arguments of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, which they advance with such sincerity and passion, but I think of St. Augustine who when praying to his God said, "Lord, make me chaste, but not yet".
  I feel that the arguments, however powerful they may be, are not the whole story, and I am afraid that in making a political decision of this major kind one has to have regard to something more than the mere logical arguments advanced. We have to ask how far we are justified in outraging the very deeply held convictions and feelings, rightly or wrongly, of the great majority of people for whom we are responsible in the House of Commons. I should like to carry these people with me faster than I can. Perhaps I ought to say that their feelings should be outraged because I think that they are wrong, but it is a matter of judgment, and if my judgment is wrong I must answer for it. I therefore merely take this case as an extra warning to be put into the minds of those who feel that they must support the death
  682
  penalty. I take note of this Evans case as one which these people would do well to remember. If they feel that their convictions are right, then, when they hang a man, they must abide by that decision for they cannot modify it later.
  I should like to refer to the terms of an early day Motion bearing directly on this subject in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, because it raises certain important questions, particularly in respect of pardons.
  [That, having regard to recent experience in the case of Mr. Scott Henderson's inquiry and report in the case of Mr. Timothy John Evans and to similar previous experience in a least one other case, this House considers that this form of inquiry is inadequate in its methods, contrary to natural justice in its procedure, and conducive in its results to the concealment rather than the exposure of miscarriages of justice; it therefore expresses the view that in all future such cases the inquiry shall be conducted by a High Court judge with the assistance of a jury, that all interested parties shall have the right to attend, to call evidence, to cross-examine witnesses and to be legally represented; and meanwhile, being of opinion that Mr. Evans was not guilty of the charge on which he was executed, deplores the refusal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to recommend a free pardon and to hand over the remains to his surviving relatives so that they may be decently buried in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the faith in which he believed.]
  It raises the point which the hon. Member made in his eloquent plea today, that the bones of Timothy Evans should be removed and given to his family for burying in consecrated ground. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who I assume will reply to the debate, whether he can give us a little elucidation on the subject. Many people would like it explained exactly what considerations govern the burial of executed persons, whether or not a pardon is given. Supposing that a pardon were given, is it practicable to find and remove the remains of an executed prisoner? What could be done if the Government had the will to do it? What are the considerations that apply to the burial of executed prisoners? Do they

  683
  have to be buried within the prison, and, if so, why, and what is the statutory authority or compulsion for that? It is something which I think is bound to strike the public as emotionally very compelling in the argument that has been put forward from the benches opposite. I think it would be very difficult, if a free pardon is not granted, to remove the bones, but in any case there may be other arguments against removing them and it might save a great deal of pain if those arguments could be explained.
  I think that the question raised of the granting of a free pardon is a rather difficult one which it might be well for the Committee to get into perspective. I understand that the legal situation is that a pardon is something which can be granted only by the Crown but is granted upon the advice of the Secretary of State. I understand that in respect of the death penalty we are in a rather particular situation. The Home Secretary may not refer to the Court of Criminal Appeal a petition for pardon having reference to the sentence of death, and before he tenders his advice to the Sovereign, he is responsible to the Sovereign and not to the House of Commons at all, as we have often found. I think I am right in saying that before the Home Secretary tenders his advice to the Crown he is responsible to the Crown and not to the House of Commons. After he has tendered his advice, he is responsible to the House for it. But his advice cannot be debated in this House until the execution, if his advice has been against a pardon, has been carried out. Thereupon it becomes debatable.
  Mr. Ede: If it is decided by the Secretary of State that the execution shall take place, no communication at all is made to the Crown. A communication is made to the Crown only when the Secretary of State decides to recommend a reprieve. That is the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy.
  Prior to the accession of Queen Victoria, a death warrant was required which the Secretary of State recommended the Sovereign to sign. But immediately after the accession of Queen Victoria the Whig Government of the day decided that to send to the Sovereign a recommendation for the death warrant—in
  684
  which, after all, the Secretary of State had to prove that the murder, possibly a very villainous one, had been committed—could not be contemplated when one had a girl of only just over 18 years of age on the Throne who would have to read the document and consider it. Then the present system was inaugurated.
  Mr. Iremonger: I am sure that the Committee will be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that. It does not actually alter, thought, indeed, it greatly enriches, the substance of what I was saying.
  We had reached the point at which it becomes debatable in the House of Commons as to whether or not the Home Secretary should have advised Her Majesty to exercise the Prerogative of Mercy. We are in that position now. It is now debatable in the House of Commons. The question arises as to whether that debate should take place after inquiry, and, if so, what sort of inquiry should be held as a basis on which the House should debate the Home Secretary's decision, whether it should be an inquiry of what might be called with reference to this debate the Scott Henderson type or some other kind of inquiry which seems to be envisaged in the Motion to which I have referred, some other form of inquiry presided over by a High Court judge with the assistance of a jury and so on.
  In regard to the question of the pardon for Evans in particular, the inquiry has been made. We are now debating the Home Secretary's decision. In respect of that decision an inquiry has been made, and that is the inquiry on the basis of which we are now debating in the House of Commons. It may be that there could be another inquiry, but the inquiry has been made, and it was of the Scott Henderson type, the non-High Court judge, non-jury type. If hon. Members like so to describe it, it was the secret inquiry.
  That Report has been made. Whether the Committee likes it or not the fact is that that Report did not uphold the proposition that there had been a miscarriage of justice. That is the Report on the basis of which the Committee is now debating the question. But hon. Members are not persuaded by that

  685
  Report. They think that its conclusions are mistaken. It is a matter of opinion. As a matter of fact, with great respect to the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and other hon. Members who have spoken, I think that rather more than justice has been done to the case for the innocence of Evans and rather less than justice has been done to Mr. Scott Henderson's Report. I do not myself feel that if I had been on the jury and if everything that was known afterwards had been known then and used by the defence I would have been altogether likely to have sent Evans to the gallows. That is a personal opinion. It does not vitiate the sincerity or the validity, in his own view, of the conclusions reached by Mr. Scott Henderson.
  I will give examples, which just happened to occur to me while I was listening to the right hon. Gentleman, of two ways in which he was unjust to Mr. Scott Henderson in a degree far more culpable, I think, than Mr. Scott Henderson is supposed to have been unjust to the case for the innocence of Evans. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was quite sure that the train which Evans caught to Wales was a mid-day train.
  Mr. Hale: My right hon. Friend did not say that. He was interrupted. Actually, the train was just after midnight
  Mr. Iremonger: I think that we are making the same point. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was an afternoon train.
  Mr. Hale: The hon. Member must be fair in matters of this kind. My right hon. Friend was interrupted by someone who said that it was not on a Monday. In reply to an observation to the effect that it was not Monday, my right hon. Friend said that it was Monday and that he thought it was the afternoon. It was, in fact, just after midnight, if the hon. Gentleman wants to make that point.
  Mr. Iremonger: Exactly, and it is a very important point.
  Mr. Hale: Why?
  Mr. Iremonger: Because the intervening hours in the afternoon are the vitally important hours when Evans could have disposed of the bodies. [Interruption.] I do not think that it is really part of
  686
  the function of this Committee to re-conduct the two trials.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Do not do it, then.
  Mr. Iremonger: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to tell me not to do it, but every other hon. Gentleman does it. I am trying to resist the temptation. I have fallen into temptation in one respect, and I shall fall into temptation in one other respect in criticising the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman.
  The right hon. Gentleman said—this is my last point about the Scott Henderson Report—that the murder of Mrs. Evans showed the characteristics of the murder by Christie of the other women whom he murdered. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention—I think it is relevant, and I think that he should have mentioned it—that an autopsy was carried out on Mrs. Evans some considerable time after her death and that the Home Office pathologist said that there were in the body no traces of carbon monoxide such as would have been there had Mrs. Evans been murdered by Christie in the way in which Christie murdered his other victims—namely, by gassing.
  Mr. Hale: He did not use the same method all the time.
  Mr. Iremonger: There are in Christie'e confession three separate examples of how he gassed his victims first and sent them off to sleep. He said in his confession that he murdered Mrs. Evans and that he had done that to her, and the autopsy was carried out in order to see whether that could be proved by the carbon monoxide in her body, and, in fact, it was not. It would have strengthened the right hon. Gentleman's case if he had been fair enough to take that into account in criticising Mr. Scott Henderson's Report. I got the impression generally that nothing is too bad to be said about Mr. Scott Henderson, and no point is too small to be made against him, but where he has powerful arguments to support his case, these are not accepted with the same degree of enthusiasm. May be I am unfair about that.
  Mr. S. Silverman: There are not any.
  Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman says that there are none. I do not think he is doing justice to himself.
  Mr. Silverman: I do not want to be misunderstood. There are plenty of arguments which might convince reasonable and honest minds that there was doubt as to who was guilty and whether it was Evans or Christie. There is nothing whatever in this evidence to justify the Scott-Henderson Report in suggesting that there are no grounds for thinking that there was any possible miscarriage of justice. We may say that the evidence is one way or the other way, but when Mr. Scott Henderson said there were none, he was saying what he must have known not to be true.
  Mr. Iremonger: This is a point on which the hon. Gentleman and I differ, and this is the crux of the matter and the difficulty of the whole debate. The point is that, having had the inquiry, the Committee is now debating the Home Secretary's decision, and because hon. Gentlemen do not accept the Report made by the man who carried out the inquiry, they are now moving, in effect, that, notwithstanding the Report, the Home Secretary should recommend a pardon. [Interruption.] I am actually discussing the Motion on the Notice Paper which says that, meanwhile, a free pardon should be given. I feel that it is not unfair—
  Mr. C. Pannell: It is unfair. The main question before the Committee is the Motion which has been moved from the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman starts off the argument completely bare of any justification for the Scott Henderson Report, and goes into a disquisition on hanging and imputes motives, and now he wanders off on to a side Motion which is not before the Committee. His speech is something like a filibuster.
  Mr. Iremonger: I think I should be more right in saying that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is something like a filibuster. As a matter of fact, I am coming almost immediately to the point of the inquiry, which I know is put forward by the Front Bench opposite. In passing, I am observing that what the hon. Member's Motion does is to ask that the House of Commons should itself take the place of the further inquiry, and that it should decide that the Home Secretary should grant a pardon and arrange for the bones to be moved. I do not myself think that this is con- 688
  stitutionally at all desirable, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who, among his many other attainments, is a lawyer, should have put forward a Motion which in fact undermines the division between the Legislature and the judiciary, and makes this Committee of the House of Commons in Committee of Supply a judicial tribunal—
  Mr. C. Pannell: No.
  Mr. Iremonger: —which should conduct a judicial inquiry. It is, in fact, what is being done in this Committee, and no tribunal, no collection of human beings, could possibly be less well-equipped to conduct a judicial inquiry into the merits of the issue—
  Mr. Pannell: There is no such Motion before the Committee.
  Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman's Motion is that the Home Secretary should grant a pardon.
  The Temporary Chairman (Dr. King): Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a fair amount of latitude. He is in order in making passing references to the Motion on the Notice Paper, but I hope that he will keep to the main debate.
  Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged, Dr. King, and will at once leave the hon. Member's Motion, having made perhaps more than a passing reference to it, and return to the main point, which is that an inquiry should be held.
  What I do not like about this suggestion that a further inquiry should be held in this. It would be quite impossible for the Government to accept this suggestion without in fact making what would be tantamount to a directive to the inquiry on what its findings should be. This Committee would be saying to the Government, "You set up one inquiry, and we do not like the answers. You must try again." I think that would be highly objectionable on constitutional grounds. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will not accede to the plea, with which on emotional and sentimental grounds one has a great deal of sympathy, but which on constitutional grounds is highly objectionable, made by the right hon. Member for Smethwick. For a shadow Home Secretary, he has a great deal more homework to do

  689
  before he will be able to assume responsibility.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Who is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
  Mr. Iremonger: I am talking about the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am sorry that he has not been here all the time, but I am sure that his hon. Friends would not want me to go over it all again, so that we could have the benefit of his replying. I was actually talking about him.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman think that nothing further whatever should be done in this case at all?
  Mr. Iremonger: I have suggested to my right hon. Friend that he should explain to the Committee what, if anything, can or could be done, if it were felt right, as an act of grace, in respect of the bones. Constitutionally, I think that for a further inquiry to be set up by the Government at the command of the House in Committee would be highly objectionable, and I think that the constitutional considerations are over-riding there.
  What hon. Gentlemen are also saying is that in future the kind of inquiry that should be held in such circumstances should be quite different from the Scott Henderson type. That type of independent inquiry by counsel in private is, they say, objectionable, and not likely to arrive at the truth. I agree that it is a very difficult question. I think that every Englishman's instincts run against the private inquiry. If the private inquiry results in a recommendation which one does not like, one's abhorrence of the private nature of it is even more intensified, though if it recommends something with which one does agree, possibly one is inclined to be slightly more tolerant. There are serious considerations, which were obviously in the mind of the Government of the day when the Scott Henderson inquiry was set up, serious considerations in favour of a private inquiry, which, if they had not been taken seriously, might very well have defeated the object of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends. It cannot be denied that the object of this inquiry of Mr. Scott Henderson was to probe into all matters, whether admissible in evidence or not; and to see people who were invited to come and to give
  690
  evidence on the understanding that they would be heard in private and not referred to in public.
  Mr. C. Pannell: That is not true.
  Mr. Iremonger: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is true.
  Mr. Pannell: It is only an excuse for taking up another five minutes of the debate.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I suggest that the debate might proceed faster if we do not have interruptions of the hon. Member who is speaking.
  Mr. Iremonger: In the classical phrase, I do not wish to weary the Committee—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. William Ross: It is far too late to say that.
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: My hon. Friend said he felt that had he been a member of the jury, he would have found it difficult to agree to a guilty verdict. If I understood him aright, he went on to say that he neither favours the granting of a free pardon nor the establishment of another inquiry.
  Mr. Iremonger: That is perfectly true, Having appointed an inquiry and having had the inquiry, it would be quite wrong, constitutionally, simply on the grounds that this Committee did not like its findings, to appoint another inquiry with, in effect, a directive to reach a certain conclusion.
  Mr. S. Silverman: And so we should do nothing?
  Mr. Iremonger: As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne says, we should do nothing. I think it far preferable to do nothing than to set up an inquiry with a directive from the Government that it should reach a certain conclusion.
  Mr. Hale: On a point of order, Dr. King. Would it not be possible for you, in view of what is now clearly happening, to stop the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger)? The hon. Member did not even rise to speak in this debate until he observed that no one from his side of the Committee was proposing to speak, and he has now been

  691
  guilty of repetitive observations time after time. Most of those repetitive observations have little relevance to the subject of the debate. I am not challenging your Ruling, Dr. King, because I know you are always kind, but the hon. Gentleman's observations have no related relevance to the subject. After the Committee has listened with attention to one of the most moving speeches in the history of the House of Commons: after the Committee has been talking over the grave of a dead man, cannot you appeal to the hon. Member to give some effect to what Lord Sankey called the golden warp which runs through the weft of justice and ask the hon. Member for Ilford, North to end this indecent exhibition?
  The Temporary Chairman: I take note of the point of order which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has expressed a little more eloquently than was necessary. It is not for the Chair to comment on the quality of any speech. It is for the Chair to note when repetition becomes tedious. I must be frank, and say that there has been repetition in the speech of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) and I hope that he will take note of the fact that there are many other hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate.
  Mr. Iremonger: The plea of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) would have been enough. Although it is a case of Satan rebuking sin, I am perfectly prepared to be rebuked by the hon. Gentleman. But I think that in justice to myself I should say that the last ten minutes of my remarks have been spent in trying to cope with interruptions which have drawn me from my argument. I will no longer weary the Committee. I am obliged for the attention which has been paid to me. I think that it would be a mistake if my right hon. Friend appointed a further committee of inquiry, but I think that it would be helpful if he could give an explanation of the considerations with regard to the disposal of the bones.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: In the short time which remains for this debate I wish to speak as an hon. Member who first asked for the Scott Henderson inquiry, and who first
  692
  believed in the innocence of Evans long before anyone in this Committee—and only immediately after his own family. Although I only knew Evans and Christie superficially, I did meet them, and apart from being their Member of Parliament, I had some personal interest in the case, in that it was brought to my attention at a time when Evans was awaiting execution in the death cell. His mother came to me after his appeal had been dismissed and when it was too late for me to do anything. At that time the Labour Government were having difficulty in trying to maintain their majority of six. It was a time when we were all overworked and in any case the resources of a private Member of Parliament which would enable him to engage in inquiries of this nature are extremely limited and inadequate.
  I must say that it must have been intuitive, but I formed the view that Evans was innocent after his mother came to see me. Perhaps I was moved by her faith in her son's innocence, but in fact I believed that he was not guilty as charged some considerable time before the Christie murders made clear to the country that there was doubt about Evans's guilt. I was engaged in an inquiry into this case and I thought, when the Christie murders were disclosed, that at last there was an answer to our request for evidence in favour of the innocence of Timothy Evans.
  Although perhaps in the beginning my conviction of the innocence of Evans may have been purely intuitive, nothing which has happened since has in my view tended to confirm the verdict that Evans was guilty but rather has tended to weaken the verdict arrived at at that time. I am just as convinced—more so—now, aided by the evidence which has appeared, of the innocence of Evans, as I was intuitively at the time when his mother came to see me.
  It is extremely difficult for us to try this case, to examine the arguments backwards and forwards. It is an impossible task and that is why I hoped that the Home Secretary would agree to a further inquiry. I am very disappointed about the Home Secretary. We know that the right hon. Gentleman is not a perfect man, as he knows well himself, and probably he knows—as the House of Commons knows—that he is

  693
  not a perfect Minister. No such person exists. But I did think that the right hon. Gentleman was big enough and generous enough to recognise that the only way to set at rest the minds of people in this country over this issue was to agree to another and a fuller public inquiry. I did think that the right hon. Gentleman would realise that, because, whatever hon. Members may think, there is a widespread cynicism about the conclusion given in the Scott Henderson Report.
  At the time of the debate on the matter, and after it took place, several of my hon. and learned Friends quite openly labelled the Report as a dishonest one. I say, and I must say this frankly—I do not think that I am an irresponsible person—that I was rather sickened by what I thought was the cynicism of the Report. No attempt was made to give full value to the evidence of Timothy Evans. I do not understand how the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) can be so sure to the contrary when he does not know what evidence was put before the inquiry. I do know what was put before the tribunal, at least so far as I was concerned.
  Much of the evidence which I gave to the Scott Henderson inquiry was, in my view—though I am not a trained lawyer—of sufficient force to cause considerable doubt about the verdict which was given at the trial. I think that the evidence which I submitted—some of which had been given to me by Peter Baker of the Daily Mirror, who pursued a lonely task in investigating this case long before anyone else ever thought of doing so—ought to have received more serious consideration than it did. I am disappointed that the Home Secretary will not agree to have another inquiry.
  What harm could a new inquiry do unless everyone is prepared to try to pretend that the legal system is infallible? I must say, frankly, that I got the impression, at the time when I was attempting to inquire into this case, that the whole of the Establishment was lined up against me to prevent me from proving that Evans was innocent. I got this impression at the time of the Scott Henderson inquiry because of the hurried way in which it was held, and because of the factor of secrecy, although there might have been some argument
  694
  in favour of that. When I went to see Christie in the death cell I was limited to inquiring about one single factor. Had I been left alone, instead of being in company with several other people, I believe—knowing Christie—that I could have got much further along the road to proving that Tim Evans was innocent.
  I shall refer to the particular thing which I talked to Christie about. It has been said that there is nothing new in this case. I read Mr. Kennedy's book with great interest, but so far as I am concerned there is nothing new in it. All he wrote about I knew, and therefore, presumably, the Home Office and the police knew about these things at that time. There is one point which I do not think has been given enough importance. At the time of the Christie trial I received many anonymous telephone calls and some anonymous communications and I was given much information. I was told that Mrs. Evans, when she was going to see Christie—as we now believe to have an abortion—had given her child to a neighbour to look after.
  The Home Secretary would know that if a young woman were going to have an abortion she would not be likely to leave a baby only a few months old in her own room, but would probably ask someone to look after it. I was informed by telephone that in fact this was done. I was told that in fact there was a woman who looked after the Evans baby in this period. That woman must therefore have taken the baby back and given it to Christie or Mrs. Christie because Mrs. Evans was at that time dead. I believe that woman exists. I was told where she lived. I did what I could to get her to come forward, but she never did. I believe that it is not too late, if we had an inquiry, to get that woman to come forward and give evidence which might prove that at the time when Evans was supposed to have killed his child she was in fact in some other place, either in Christie's hands or in the hands of this neighbour.
  Mr. Iremonger Mr. Iremonger rose—
  Mr. Rogers: I am sorry, I have not time to give way. I was also informed that while Evans was in Wales he bought a yellow coat for his child. In the course of the opening remarks of my right hon.

  695
  Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) it was said that on the weight of the evidence Evans did not know that his child was dead. If it was true, and I have reason to believe that it was, that he bought the yellow coat for his child, that again is circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that he did not know that his child was dead. Added to a number of other circumstantial matters, it would tend to the same conclusion.
  I believe that when Mrs. Evans gave the neighbour this child to look after it was dressed in that new yellow coat which Timothy Evans had bought for the child. This was the thing I was allowed to question Christie about in Pentonville. That yellow coat was never discovered. It was not in the pile of clothing placed before Timothy Evans and it was not in the clothing at the house which later was disposed of. I believe that those two things, the yellow coat plus the neighbour who looked after the child, might throw a new light on the case. They might establish the time when the child was in Christie's or Evans's hands, whichever the case might be. A proper inquiry, even at this stage, although I admit the trail is very cold—heaven knows, at the time of the Christie trial, when we tried to follow it, it was very cold and a number of witnesses have disappeared could investigate a number of facts to determine whether or not Evans was guilty as charged.
  I appeal to the Home Secretary. If he agrees to an inquiry and it gives a verdict that Evans was guilty, the whole country will feel reasonably satisfied. It will feel that an attempt has been made to prove the truth. If, on the other hand, the inquiry establishes Evans's innocence, equally the country will be glad because it will prove the intuitive belief held by a great majority in the country that Evans was wrongly hanged. Reference has been made to Mrs. Probert. I do not want to bring too much sentiment into this matter, because that is not the proper way to deal with it, but I know that after the Evans execution Mrs. Probert lost her job as soon as it was known that she was the mother of Evans, a murderer. She has undergone a great deal of suffering in these years.
  696
  The Home Secretary must know—he is too intelligent not to know—that there is a strong case for a reasonable doubt. A proper inquiry could do no harm at all; it could do nothing but good. I beg of him, if only for the sake of the family as well as for the reputation of our British system of justice, but primarily because I want to see the name of this man cleared, not to leave it until we get into office. I beg him, because I can assure him that we shall do it, but we do not want to make a party issue of it. He knows that there is a big doubt in the public mind about this case. If he gives us this inquiry, whatever its verdict, he will go down in history as the Home Secretary who was prepared to put right before the Establishment.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. Reader Harris: I intervene for a few minutes in the debate because I should not like the impression to be given that only the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) represented the view of those on this side of the Committee.
  We have a very difficult problem before us tonight. I do not think that anything is achieved by trying to re-try this case at this stage, or by going over all the evidence which was given at the time of the trial. We who have had to consider these matters have had a lot of advice from many different quarters. Few subjects come before the House in which we have the benefit of two whole books written about them.
  I have read some of the stuff which has come to me and much of it I have not read because I do not think it matters whether two or 200 books are written, for in the end it boils down to the fundamental question: if the jury, the court, the police and the public had known at the time of the trial what they afterwards knew, would Evans have been convicted? Surely the answer of any reasonable man is that he would not have been convicted. He would have the benefit of some doubt and, by Jove, there was some doubt, as we afterwards discovered. What is the point of going over a whole mass of details and evidence again? There is one simple, narrow issue. One of the most moving speeches I have heard in this House was that which was made tonight by the right hon. Member for South

  697
  Shields (Mr. Ede). He did not attempt to get himself out of the many difficulties with which he must have been faced. He did not try to excuse himself, but said quite simply that what was done at the time was justice on the facts that were before him.
  I accept that, but I ask the Home Secretary and any other hon. Member if he can enlighten me on this. Has there been any other case in my lifetime—about forty-eight years—where a person has been convicted of murder and, within a relatively short time afterwards, a whole mass of new evidence has come forward which has made people say, "We would not have hanged that man had we known it at the time"? I cannot think of such a case, but maybe I am wrong. I am open to advice if anyone can give it. Here was a case where the most fantastic events were revealed after the hanging had taken place—the most amazing story of this monster, Christie, and the things he did. If those facts had been known, of course Evans would never have been convicted or hanged.
  The request made to the Home Secretary is that he should grant an inquiry. I feel some diffidence in rising to ask for another inquiry, because there is already a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and the names of 256 others asking for an inquiry. Perhaps it is appropriate for us to ask that there should be an outright pardon. That seems to be a reasonable thing to do as there is doubt. The facts which afterwards came to light would have been regarded at the time as reasonable doubt. If the facts come to light after the event, there is still reasonable doubt. As we would have given the man the benefit of the doubt when he was alive, why do we not give him the benefit of the doubt when he is dead?
  I do not think that the public's faith in our judicial system would be shaken if a pardon were granted, nor do I believe that it would be an implied criticism of those who were concerned with the events at the time. It would strengthen the public's faith in our judicial system if we had the courage to do something which we know to be right.
  I am sorry that all sorts of things have been said this afternoon about Mr. Scott Henderson. I do not think that the case has been strengthened by say-
  698
  ing that he was dishonest or anything like that or that the inquiry he conducted was designed to cover up the facts. I do not think that is true. I think that the simple, narrow issue is this. Would we have done what we then did if we had known all the facts that came out afterwards? The answer must surely be "No", and I ask the Home Secretary to respect this feeling, which is not confined solely to the other side of the Committee.
  6.22 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I do not think that it would accord with the spirit of the debate if I spoke at any length. I do not intend to do so. I desire to make a most earnest appeal to the Home Secretary to accept the suggestion that there should be a further investigation into the circumstances of this case. The question before us is whether an innocent man has been hanged. We all of us have been brought up in the tradition that it is better for a hundred guilty men to go unpunished than for one innocent man to be punished. In the spirit of that tradition, ought we not to say to ourselves that we must do absolutely everything that we humanly can to try to reach a conclusion as to whether Evans was innocent and, though innocent, sent to the gallows?
  What is the premise from which we start? It has been stated several times in the course of the debate that had the true facts been known about Christie no jury could possibly have come to the conclusion that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Evans was guilty. That view has not only been expressed by hon. Members in this debate. It is the advice given by Lord Birkett, one of the greatest advocates of our time, with an unrivalled experience in the defence of persons accused of serious crime.
  I ask the Committee to say that that is the point of departure. This man did not receive the trial which we try to give to persons accused of crime—a trial by a jury properly directed, having before it all the material facts to enable it to make up its mind. The most material fact, namely that Christie was a sordid, bestial murderer, capable not only of murder but of trying to put upon others the blame for what he himself had done, was a fact which through

  699
  nobody's fault was veiled from the jury. The judge and the jury came to their conclusion in ignorance of that fact. In spite of the most spirited and courageous defence by Evan's counsel, Mr. Malcolm Morris, the jury reached the only conclusion that it could possibly reach on what it had before it upon which to reach a conclusion. That is the point of departure from which we start.
  All right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate are agreed at any rate about this, that at least there is doubt and grave doubt as to whether Evans was guilty. Many hon. Members go further and say that it is clearly shown that he was innocent. All agree that there is at least the gravest doubt whether he in fact was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. If we value the principle that no innocent man, in so far as human prescience can prevent it, is to be convicted or punished for any offence under our system of criminal justice, we surely owe it to ourselves and to the public conscience to take this step of reinvestigating the facts in order to try to reach some more safe and solid conclusion as to where the guilt lay for the murder of Mrs. Evans and Geraldine in 1949.
  Hard things have been said about Mr. Scott Henderson. Mr. Scott Henderson is a fellow Bencher of mine, and I have known him intimately for years. I say without the slightest hesitation that he brought to the inquiry the complete and perfect integrity that all of us who have known him for years would have expected of him. But that does not prevent one from saying that some of the decisions that he took in the course of the inquiry were open to question as to whether they were wise or not. It does not prevent one from saying, as I do say to the Committee—other hon. Members have said so—that the process of reasoning by which he reached his conclusions and the conclusions themselves do not carry conviction to very large numbers of people. When the Committee differs as to whether there should be a further inquiry, the very fact that his conclusions still seem to many people to leave the question unanswered is in itself a ground for a further inquiry.
  700
  I do not suppose that the House of Commons ever before has heard—I hope that it will never hear it again—one Home Secretary, in a case in which he has written the words "Let the law take its course", appeal to another Home Secretary to grant a free pardon in the same case. Is not that in itself a reason why we cannot let this matter rest?
  There is the human aspect—the mother and the two sisters who ask that the remains of this man who was hanged should be returned for burial in consecrated ground. On any view it is not a barren, sterile inquiry. It is an inquiry which may lead to the giving of some redress not to the man who has been punished, but to his mother and sisters who may receive it in a sense on his behalf. This is surely another reason for an inquiry.
  It has been said that the test should be whether there was any impropriety in the way in which Mr. Scott Henderson conducted his inquiry. I do not think that is the test. Though I think that some of his decisions are open to criticism, I do not think that there was any impropriety. However, I do not think in any case that is the test.
  The real test I think is this: in the course of speeches delivered today the House of Commons has shown that its conscience is uneasy about this. We are all concerned and troubled, because we think that that nightmare of jurists and non-jurists alike in this country may have turned into reality in this one case of Evans—namely, that an innocent man has been sent to the gallows. I do not think that the House of Commons is the proper forum for discussion of the question whether Evans was guilty or not That question requires precise, minute and leisurely analysis of fact. But I believe that a further inquiry would be useful, because the person who conducts it can profitably again go over material no doubt now largely committed to writing but still available from some living witnesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) has just given an example. There is plenty of material to reinvestigate and there are conclusions which are susceptible of further consideration, namely, the conclusions expressed by Mr. Scott Henderson. I therefore earnestly appeal to the Home

  701
  Secretary to reconsider the view that I believe he has been disposed to form, that no useful purpose would be served by a further inquiry.
  His predecessor has spoken of the loneliness of the office of Home Secretary, and I think that any Member of this House would have sympathy with the person who fulfils the onerous duties of that office, and who has painful and difficult decisions to make. I do not think that any hon. Member would be disposed to criticise the right hon. Gentleman severely if, on hearing the views expressed, he felt that it was appropriate for him to reconsider his earlier opinion as to the usefulness of a further inquiry.
  I hope that he will now say that, having reserved his intervention until the conclusion of the debate, having listened to the views expressed and taken note of the sincerity behind them, and of the reasons on which they are grounded—and, in particular, the solid reason that there is obvious doubt as to whether an innocent man has been convicted—the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will at least give earnest and serious consideration to the question whether there should not be a further investigation into the facts. If he will tell the Committee that he will do that, and announce his decision later, then, speaking for myself, I should be satisfied, and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be satisfied.
  I would hope that he would reach the conclusion that a judge of the High Court of Justice should be invited to undertake the inquiry; that he should be invited to undertake it with plenty of time at his disposal, and with every help at his disposal; completely in public, unless there were the strongest and most cogent reasons for part of it to be conducted in private; with the assistance of argument on both sides: indeed, with every aid to enable him to go into precisely the same issues that Mr. Scott Henderson investigated, and to go further into those matters, as pointed out by Mr. Kennedy in his very useful and notable book, that have come to light since.
  I would hope that he would do that, and I now appeal to him earnestly and sincerely to do it. In this, I believe that
  702
  I voice the opinion of right hon. and hon. Members wherever they sit in the Committee. I appeal to him to say that, having heard our views, he now thinks that he should give further consideration to the matter, and will announce later whether he cannot set up some kind of judicial inquiry, completely impartial, as I am certain it would be, but with all the facilities at its disposal to enable it to arrive at a conclusion that will reassure the public.
  If the conclusion is that Evans was an innocent man, the action that must inevitably follow is obvious. There must be a free pardon, and the man's remains must be allowed to be taken to consecrated ground. If the tribunal were to decide that Evans should be regarded as a guilty man, the public conscience would be satisfied.
  If that is not done, the case will never come to an end. It will pass into legal and judicial history—it has already done so. It is, and has been for months and years, the subject of acute controversy and difference on the part of writers and speakers both inside and outside the House of Commons. If this step is not taken the case will pass into judicial history, not as a case in which there was a doubt but as one in which it must be accepted that Evans was innocent. That is a question that should be resolved.
  I do not desire to detain the Committee further, so I will end by saying that my appeal to the Home Secretary is most earnest. I believe that if ever there was a debt due to justice, and to the reputation both of our own judicial system and to the public conscience of many millions of people in this country, that debt is one that the Home Secretary should now pay, and I hope that he will agree that I am right in making my appeal to him.
  6.34 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I feel that we have all been through a rather moving experience in this debate. The speech of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who opened this debate, and the speeches that have followed have certainly maintained the high reputation of the House of Commons on a solemn occasion.

  703
  The position, as very well stated by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers), and voiced also by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), is that we should not attempt to try this case, and it must not be taken that I can go into all the details, same of which were very clearly set out by the right hon. Member for Smethwick. If I started on that line, I do not think that I should do justice either to myself or to the office that I hold, because it is really impossible to treat this Committee as a court, or to have a retrial here. I shall not, therefore, go into all the details raised, but in the course of my remarks will give only indications that I have considered them.
  The speech made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was, indeed, an exceptional one, as he held office at a critical time in this case. One of my hon. Friends felt that, perhaps, some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks revealed a private conversation, but in view of the seriousness of the issues involved I do not feel that I have any complaint whatever at anything he may have said. I quite understand the emotion that moves him on this occasion.
  We have had speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) and for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) and, taking all in all, the speeches show that while there is difference of opinion, there is a great body of anxiety in the Committee on this matter.
  Taking up the spirit in which the hon. Member for Kensington, North spoke, let me examine the situation for a few minutes with the Committee. It was in 1953 that Christie, following his arrest for the murder of his wife, confessed to the murders of six other women, including Mrs. Evans, although he denied responsibility for the death of her child. Since that date, attempts have been made to establish Evans' innocence of the murder of both his wife and child.
  From time to time, books have been written. When I entered the Chamber for this debate I met the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) carrying at least eight books. I think that it is possible to collect as many as that on this subject, and per-
  704
  haps one of the most remarkable has been written by the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
  All these books have been carefully examined by the Home Office as they have come out, and the necessary inquiries have been pursued. When the hon. Member for Kensington, North refers to the "Establishment", I hope that he will realise that, whilst there is an Establishment, it can, at least, be painstaking and human in examining all these things as they come up.
  I have followed this course in relation to the most recently-published book, which has been referred to on several occasions in this debate—Mr. Ludovic Kennedy's "Ten Rillington Place". I have studied it with great care, and have considered all the other information available to me to see to what extent it brings to light new facts or reveals grounds for thinking that a fresh inquiry would be likely to produce useful results. I have noted the points made by the right hon. Member for Smethwick and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and all the other points made, but they are, I think, pretty well summed up in the marshalled list of points made by Mr. Kennedy in relation to his book.
  Mr. Kennedy has written this book very skilfully and, as he himself declares, he is wholly convinced of Evans's innocence. He tells the story of Christie and Evans from that standpoint, and lays emphasis—very naturally and properly, having regard to the object of his book—on the points of evidence which appear to tell in favour of Evans. He gives explanations for the actions of Evans, including his confession, which have appeared to point to his guilt. Now, although I have examined this book very carefully with the aid of the best advice I can obtain, I cannot find that Mr. Kennedy has produced any significant new facts, and the facts as they are known by no means point conclusively to the innocence of Evans.
  There are many people who, on the basis of the same evidence, feel that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of his conviction for the murder of his child. I must say that, upon looking through the mass of material I have had to look through, I have the greatest difficulty in not having some wonder

  705
  and doubts on this matter, but the evidence seems to point really quite strongly to that conclusion.
  Mr. Kennedy states that he was able to discover some new points of evidence which point towards Evans's innocence. Mr. Kennedy draws attention to those points in the open letter with which he prefixes his book and in a letter to the Spectator on 28th April summing up those points. I have looked extremely carefully into this and it may be said that the most important point raised—and I am concentrating on Mr. Kennedy's book because Lord Birkett found it a most important contribution and, therefore, I am concentrating on it on purpose—is that one of the most important of Mr. Kennedy's discoveries is the paragraph in the defence brief about the result of Dr. Teare's examination of Mrs. Evans's body.
  On the basis of this paragraph the suggestion is made that there is medical evidence to show that Mrs. Evans was sexually assaulted after her death and that this points to Christie as having been her murderer. I must say that on the information at our disposal—which I have examined—there is no medical evidence that Mrs. Evans was sexually assaulted after her death. From published correspondence, which I have with me, it now appears that Dr. Teare's impression after this lapse of time is that the bruising which gave rise to this suggestion was so definite that it must have existed for hours before her death,
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South indicated from his reading of Dr. Teare's letter, that letter removes the impression that the murder was performed in exactly the same way or that the case was exactly the same as that referred to by the right hon. Member for Smethwick and that it was Christie's pattern of murder. It rather removes that feeling and makes one feel that this, which is one of the main points raised by Mr. Kennedy, is not really valid.
  Mr. Abse: Is it not clear from the paragraph, to which reference has been made, that the solicitor at the time, long before Christie was ever heard of, stated in a report that remarks had been made in the magistrates' count by Dr. Teare at that time that this woman had, apparently, been sexually assaulted? How can someone possibly suggest that any
  706
  solicitor, at that time, could have made those remarks without knowing anything about Christie if, in fact, it had not been said?
  Mr. Butler: I can only go by Dr. Teare's own letter in the Sunday Times of 5th March, this year, which relates to this point, and I have every reason to believe that he is speaking what is true. He says clearly that that particular report is not correct—from what he says here. Therefore, we must rely on Dr. Teare's own published report.
  Sir F. Soskice: Has the Home Secretary read Dr. Teare's letter of 19th March? In order to do justice to the quotation, I will read the whole of this paragraph:
  "Dealing with the vaginal bruising, I still do not deny that it could have occurred during forced intercourse, although a further eleven years' experience have failed to produce another such case, while the frequency of such injuries during self-inflicted attempted abortion has been underlined by the same experience."
  The Home Secretary cannot exclude a possibility that these bruises may have been caused by forced sexual intercourse.
  Mr. Butler: The point is that those were there before her death and not after her death, and it is made clear in the letter of 5th March that that is true. That is the point. It is clear that this occured before her death. Dr. Teare points out in his letter of 5th March that, in his opinion, they were due to attempts at self-inflicted abortion.
  In any case, whether we argue about this point or not, it is clear that this is no additional evidence, and all the comments that we are exchanging in this debate show how difficult it is to go into these matters after this lapse of time. I do not think that the point raised in Mr. Kennedy's book is any clearer indication than we have had up to date of the innocence or guilt of Evans. I am not trying to go further than that.
  Apart from this medical point, Mr. Kennedy draws attention in his book to what he describes as nine new points of evidence. Many of these points are new only in the sense that they have not been published before. He refers, first, to two matters: Evans's low intelligence and the fact that Christie assumed a bogus medical knowledge. I have

  707
  nothing to add with regard to the first point, because that has been taken into account and has been analysed by all concerned with the case. I would only add that the prison medical officer reported that Evans's low intelligence was due to an educational deficiency and not to any innate defect.
  The second point does not help to throw much light on what happened in this particular case, particularly in the light of Dr. Teare's evidence. Four of Mr. Kennedy's nine points relate to discrepancies and untruths in the many statements made by Christie to the police and in the course of his evidence at the trial of Evans. I have made careful comparison and examination of these statements, and although they may have some evidential value, it is surely not right to imply, as Mr. Kennedy does, that Christie would have had no need to lie if he was innocent. Christie was mentally abnormal and was much given to lying, as was shown at his trial.
  Three of Mr. Kennedy's points concern the conflicting statements that were made regarding the activities of the men who were working in the house during the week of the murders, and the origin of the timber that was used to conceal the bodies. These matters have already been mentioned by hon. Members and I have inquired very closely into each of these points and I have considered whether, individually or collectively, they allow any useful deductions to be drawn, or suggest any further lines of inquiry which would be likely to be productive.
  I am forced to the conclusion that they do not. While, taken by themselves, they lend some support to Mr. Kennedy's theories, they must be set alongside all the other evidence, much of it tending to indicate Evans's guilt.
  Since the publication of Mr. Kennedy's book, hon. Members have put three questions to me. They have asked me to do three things. First, they have asked me to institute a new inquiry. While we would all wish to have the doubts about the case and the conflicting views resolved, I do not believe that a further inquiry would bring us any nearer to the truth. There is no reason to think that any new evidence would be brought to light, and, apart from the
  708
  written evidence that was available at the time of the earlier inquiry, all that could now be investigated would be statements made by people whose recollection of the events of 1949 has inevitably become dimmed by the passage of time and confused by the discussion and speculation to which this case has given rise.
  The suggestion has been made that a new inquiry, based on an examination of the written documents, would be of value and that it might well draw deductions from the documents which would differ from those drawn by Mr. Scott Henderson, when he examined the same material.
  But, as I have said, there are no grounds at all—in Mr. Kennedy's book or elsewhere—for thinking that it would be possible by this means to resolve the doubts that have arisen and to establish any more firmly than at present the parts played by Evans and Christie respectively in the events which led to Evans's conviction.
  I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick paid a tribute to Mr. Scott Henderson and that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne indicated that he realised that Mr. Scott Henderson was not well and, therefore, all humanity must be extended to him, although I realise that his Report has led to some controversy.
  There are no grounds for thinking, from Mr. Kennedy's book or elsewhere, that an inquiry would do any good. I had it in mind myself that probably a most important person would be Lord Birkett to advise. Lord Birkett was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, but Lord Birkett, after describing the merits of Mr. Kennedy's book which I have not tried to traduce or minimise, says that it would not seem that a further inquiry would do more than Mr. Kennedy has done in his book. It could not establish or prove that Evans was innocent and the truth has, perhaps, been best stated in that way.
  Mr. S. Silverman: If the Home Secretary has reached a conclusion in his own mind that there is considerable doubt in this case and that no further inquiry would resolve that doubt, then the doubt remains. And if the Home Secretary

  709
  admits that doubt remains, what more test could he want before taking action?
  Mr. Butler: I am coming to that point. I think that is really what is puzzling the Committee. I am coming to that point as soon as I can.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Will not the Home Secretary continue with the quotation? It continues:
  "It could not establish or prove that Evans was innocent…"—
  Mr. Butler: If I may interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am bringing the rest of that quotation into the next portion of my speech, when I read from Lord Birkett's paper. It is all written down in my notes. I do not want to do anything unfair to Lord Birkett. I should hesitate to suggest that there is anybody more able to pronounce upon these matters than he.
  I have been asked secondly to recommend the grant of a free pardon. When I made my statement on 16th March, I said that there was no precedent fox recommending a posthumous free pardon and that the legal powers to do so are doubtful. That remains the position, But what is important is whether the conditions which would justify my recommending a free pardon exist. It may be said, and it may be true—and I will acknowledge this from this Box—that if the facts as they are now known had been known in 1950 the jury would not have found that the case against Evans had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I am saying that deliberately and with authority.
  Unfortunately—and here I must put myself upon the sympathy of the Committee—these are not the circumstances in which a free pardon is granted. I feel sure that there has been much confusion between the circumstances which make the granting of a reprieve possible in a capital case and those in which a free pardon is granted. In the first place, if there is any doubt, that is taken into account in deciding whether to grant a reprieve and, as was said by my night hon. Friend the Member for South Shields—I call him my right hon. Friend even though he sits on the other side of the Committee; he is my friend as much as he said I was his friend—that does happen, and when there is doubt or a
  710
  scintilla of doubt our distinguished predecessors from Sir Robert Peel onward have always acknowledged that it is legitimate to grant a reprieve. But a free pardon cannot be granted unless, as I stated in my reply to Questions on 16th March, there is a certainty which is not possible in this case.
  Here I follow up with what the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) referred to, by referring to this statement by Miss Tennyson Jesse—
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Approved by Lord Birkett.
  Mr. Butler: Approved by Lord Birkett. I was deliberately coming to this. Writing in 1957 on the trials of Evans and Christie in the "Notable British Trials" series, she came to the conclusion that it seemed more likely that, in pursuit of his lust and under the guise of performing an abortion, Christie murdered Beryl Evans and that he murdered the baby. She adds:
  "There are objections to this conclusion; it does not satisfy all the conditions or resolve all the doubts. No explanation I have thought of does. Each one leaves something unaccountable."
  That is the exact position in which I find myself today as Home Secretary. I have acknowledged that if this was simply a case of a reprieve—although one does not discuss one's decisions on a reprieve, alas, with anyone in normal circumstances—I think that a reprieve might well have been granted if the full facts had been known. But taking the situation as we find it today, with the tradition handed down to Home Secretaries of the granting of a free pardon, and the fact that there has never been one before, I feel it impossible for me in the present circumstances, while there is doubt, to grant a free pardon.
  If I am wrong, I consider that this debate has been so important that I am entitled to continue thinking about this. But that is the state of the convention under which the Home Secretary acts as at present understood, and if I am to depart from that—I say this definitely to the Committee—I should have to be more certain personally about the question of the murder of his child than I can be from the intensive amount of material that has been put before me

  711
  when there is still grave doubt in my mind. That is the position.
  I do not want to underestimate this debate. It has been an extremely serious one. Since I have been in my present office—and I have been longer in my present office as Leader of the House—I have always tried to sense the feelings of the House, and on a serious occasion like this it would have been wrong of me not to make the most weighty statement in reply. As I am advised, that is the present position in regard to a free pardon, and it follows from that, unfortunately, that I cannot authorise the removal of the remains, as is so much wanted by the man's family, whose circumstances have been referred to in such moving terms by the right hon. Member for South Shields and others. I cannot at the moment, under the Capital Punishment Amendment Act, 1868, remove the body. It would have to be done by legislation, and while there is doubt, I do not think I can authorise Government support for legislation on this matter.
  It has been very painful for me to say these things today and I have not looked forward to this debate. I have found it extremely difficult to speak in it. But I have put the situation frankly as I see it before the Committee, and I think hon. Members would agree that the Home Secretary of the day should not depart from the traditions of a free pardon as it has been handed down. I will certainly accept the right hon. Gentleman's request that I should think about these matters in the future. I will do so. I will think about the question of evidence being provided to the defence, and points of that sort, just as I have thought about the Judge's Rules being revised in relation to modern cases.
  I will not be inactive in this matter But unfortunately today I cannot, for the reasons that I have given, and because of the tradition of my office, carry the matter any further.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Redmayne]—put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker: The Sitting is suspended till Seven o'clock.

  19TH BRIGADE GROUP (DISPATCH TO PORTUGAL)
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. George Brown: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
  The House will, I hope, acquit me of any desire to avoid facing the fact that anyone who has responsibility for the defence of this country has from time to time to make decisions which are not always easy or necessarily wholly comfortable. I hope that I shall be acquitted of wishing to play politics with essential issues in the defence of this country. I say that to begin with, because I want, at the very start of the debate, to get away from the element which the Minister introduced yesterday when he sought, I thought, to suggest that, because he was the Minister and we were the Opposition, he had the responsibility of seeing that our troops were trained and had opportunities to train, almost as though we did not have it, too. I want to make it perfectly clear that I understand and accept that and, for my part, in politics in the country and in the House I have always tried to be willing to accept the consequences of it, whether in Government or in Opposition.
  I do not raise this issue with any sense of wanting to resist the argument that, if we have defence forces, if we have a Strategic Reserve, and if we rely—as, clearly, we are more and more—upon air transportability, we must exercise them, try them and see what arises. All that I understand. I raise this matter now because we do not believe that that can ever be the only consideration.
  I accept that the War Office requires this exercise and would like to have it, and I accept that it was laid on when there did not seem to be tremendously powerful reasons against it. Now, however, in our view, the outstanding and most impelling feature of the decision is the obstinate determination of the Government to go on with the exercise when it has long since become absolutely clear that, whatever the military desirability of it may be, there are overwhelming foreign and colonial policy arguments against it.
  Any exercise is, of course, desirable at some time, but there is nothing which requires that this particular exercise shall

  713
  be done at this time. Whether the exercise be done in June or July, last January or next December, is a matter over which we have absolute control and, obviously, it is a matter of accident in which month it is actually done. Equally, whether it be done in this, that or the other country and which country is at the end of the airlift is again a matter of arrangement. There is nothing which requires that we have an air transport and mobility exercise which finishes with our troops spending a few days in Portugal rather than spending a few days anywhere else.
  There is no alliance requirement. This should be made quite clear. I have always been very tender and susceptible to the consideration that if we are in an alliance we must accept the requirements of being in the alliance even though those requirements from time to time may be uncomfortable, inconvenient or awkward to defend. This decision is not in that category. Moreover, although the Minister of Defence was very ambiguous about it, if I may say so, there is no element of joint exercise here. The only suggestion of it that I ever saw was a small piece in The Times at the end of March which said that we were to have joint exercises with, I think, the Portuguese Third Division and the Portuguese Air Force. I do not believe that that is correct. I gather that the Minister no longer urges it, and perhaps he never did. He does not say it, anyway. Yesterday, he said that there would be some "token" Portuguese forces involved. I understand that they are to be very tiny indeed. Therefore, this is not even a joint exercise.
  We in Britain wishing to exercise our troops—or, as it has been said, give the troops a change—wishing to exercise the 19th Brigade Group, want to find some place to which they can fly which will give us the opportunity of testing the means of flying them, of flying their equipment, deploying them on the ground when they arrive, and doing all the things which they would do on active service, and then bringing them out again. That is all there is involved. Therefore, it seems to me, we have the utmost latitude, the utmost command of the situation, the utmost ability to change the timing, the venue or the kind of operation should it seem to us that other reasons overwhelm any decision so far made.
  714
  The impression I have is that the War Office decided upon the exercise. The Ministry of Defence found a willing co-operator after having, I understand from the Minister, tried many others, and, having done that, it has just gone ahead and no one seems to have pointed out at any stage that other considerations have since arisen. If that is not the correct interpretation, the other is terrifying. The other interpretation is that, although all the other considerations in regard to Portugal have arisen, we are nevertheless so insensitive to them that we have decided quite deliberately to go ahead in the teeth of the consequences. That interpretation, if it were true, would be terrifying.
  When the Minister of Defence says that in the situation of the world today there are certain limitations upon our opportunities for doing this kind of training, I understand that; there is a great deal in what he says. On the other hand, if it be true that our major allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have been refusing co-operation in operations of this sort, it is about time we raised the matter in the alliance and made perfectly clear that, if that goes on, there will not be very much alliance at the end of it. It seems to me to be quite unreasonable that we should be left ourselves to carry a most unfortunate political burden as a consequence, as I shall show in a moment or two.
  Even if we have difficulties, even if there are limitations on our opportunities for doing these military training exercises in the world, that is no reason for ignoring the facts of life, which is what I think the Government are doing. The facts are as follows. Since January, when, so the Minister says, this was arranged with Portugal, events in Africa have blown up in a very considerable way, a way which is politically very dangerous not only for us but for the moderate forces in Africa and for the peace of the world. Not only have they blown up in Africa generally but they have blown up in Angola in a very obvious and determined way. There is, I hope, no need to spend time tonight on persuading the House of the seriousness of the situation which has arisen in Angola.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: On a point of order. I understood that the Adjournment Motion was quite clear

  715
  and specific and referred only to the sending of troops for training to Portugal. It would seem from page 374 of the 16th Edition of Erskine May that it is difficult to bring Africa, particularly Angola, and Portuguese colonial policy into this debate. Under the heading:
  "Relevancy in debate on a motion under S.O. No. 9"
  it is stated on page 374:
  "The debate on such a motion (when it comes on in due course at seven o'clock) is confined strictly to the matter with regard to which leave to move the adjournment of the House was obtained. No matter can be raised incidentally which would have been out of order if it had been included in the terms of the motion, when leave was asked, on any of the grounds mentioned in the preceding section."
  Had the Motion included the words "because of the colonial situation of Portugal", then it seems possible—obviously I cannot pronounce on this—that the Motion could not have been accepted.
  I therefore ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how wide the debate will be allowed to go, since it did not seem clear and apparent when the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was moving the Adjournment that the debate would be on the question of Portuguese colonial policy.
  Mr. Speaker: In my view, this is the position. I hope to have the help of the House in trying to keep order. Of course, the rule is that which the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has read out of Erskine May, namely, that
  "The debate…is confined strictly to the matter with regard to which leave to move the Adjournment of the House was obtained."
  Leave to move the Adjournment was given because of the refusal of the Government to countermand the movement of this infantry brigade to Portugal. It seems to me that that enables the House to argue, aye or no, why it was desirable that the movement of the brigade should be countermanded. My view at the moment is that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has not yet transgressed, and I do not think that he was about to do so.
  On the other hand, it would, of course, be wholly out of order to cause this debate to turn into a discussion of events
  716
  in Angola, since leave was not given to discuss those events and there is no Ministerial responsibility for them. We have to steer between the two. I hope that that is clear.
  Mr. Brown: It is absolutely clear to me, Mr. Speaker.
  I was saying that I was sure that there is no need to spend a great deal of time in developing the case about what is happening in Angola. If the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) was present yesterday, as I hope he was, and if he refreshes his memory about what I said in columns 409–411 of HANSARD, he will see that at every point of intervention I related this to what is happening in Angola. It is the only point. I do not propose to argue what is happening in Angola, why it is happening, or to go into details about it. I was saying that I trust that it is not necessary to spend time proving the case that there is at the moment in the Portuguese territory, colony, associated territory, or whatever may be the appropriate description of Angola, a rather terrifying situation. There are handfuls of cuttings to this effect to which everyone has access and which no doubt many of us have read. The evidence is powerful. There is tremendous repression. There are massacres and there are killings.
  Mr. Fell: On a point of order. Further to your Ruling, Sir, for which I was most grateful, it would seem that, although the right hon. Member for Belper is trying hard to be moderate and not to get out of step, if this sort of argument is to be deduced at this stage of a debate, before we know where we are we shall be in the midst of a debate on Angola. This is possibly what was wanted. I do not know, because I cannot read the minds of the Opposition, but it would seem that if this sort of argument is developed it will be an invitation to the right hon. Member's hon. and right hon. Friends to continue this sort of argument and we shall have a discussion about Portugal and Angola.
  Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are approaching the danger point. On the other hand, I think that it is reasonable to allow at least the substratum to be stated in two sentences. I agree that the right hon. Member for Belper is approaching the

  717
  danger point, but I do not think that he has quite reached it.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Member for Belper has just made an opprobrious reference to the Government of Portugal. He has accused them of repression. I understand that it is a rule of this House, set out at page 458 of the 16th Edition of Erskine May, that no approbrious reflection may be cast on the Government of a country "in amity with Her Majesty". I submit to you, Sir, that that ruling has always been applied with the utmost strictness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Erskine May quotes two references for that at the bottom of the page, and I respectfully direct your attention to them, Sir. One is when the hon. Member for North Ayrshire said on 26th April, 1949:
  "Is the Prime Minister aware that racial discrimination has become so bad in South Africa"—
  and then Lord Winterton intervened on a point of order and your predecessor ruled:
  "The noble Lord is correct. One could not criticise the Government of a self-governing dominion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1949 Vol. 464, c. 14.]
  The other reference at the bottom of the page is when Mr. Gallacher, on 15th May, 1941, said:
  "The Polish Government are the people who ran away at the beginning and deserted their people".
  Colonel Clifton Brown said:
  "It is not allowable to use opprobrious epithets against a Government with which this country is in amity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1941; Vol. 371, c. 1294.]
  I respectfully submit that to accuse the Portuguese Government of repression in Angola is to use an opprobrious epithet in respect of them, and, still more, I submit to you, Sir, that it is not in order in this House to refer to massacres.
  Mr. Speaker: I agree with and desire to follow the Rulings of both my predecessors cited by the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that anything which has been said yet has infringed those Rulings. I do not believe that by criticising the policy of a friendly Government one necessarily refers to it in opprobrious terms within the rules. I
  718
  do not think that the right hon. Member for Belper has done that yet.
  Mr. Brown: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. May I repeat, in case, as might have been the intention—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Sir. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) say out loud, "Now perhaps the Fascists will shut up". I do not believe that that can possibly be Parliamentary language.
  Mr. Speaker: So many people were talking at the time that I am not certain to whom it referred. I did not hear it.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is perfectly correct. He heard me quite clearly. I apologise to him and to the House. I should perhaps have said, "friends of Fascism" and not "Fascists."
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I certainly do not take umbrage very easily, but, in my submission, that is deliberate offence. Hon. Members who get up in this House on points of order which are not frivolous points of order and which may be in fairly close relevance to the progress of the proceedings should not be exposed to that kind of aspersion.
  Mr. Brown: Since we have taken the time of the House to discuss an issue which worries people in Britain and elsewhere very much, would it not be more in keeping with the dignity of the House if I were allowed to continue to make the case, to which hon. Members may later try to deploy an answer if they think they have one? To continue this kind of interruption seems to me to be doing the credit of this institution very little good indeed.
  The basis of my case against sending our troops to land in Portugal is that by so doing they will be thought to be the action of our Government associating themselves with the policy of Portugal, which is producing what many people in the world consider to be a serious situation in Africa. That is the basis of my case. Therefore, I must seek to show that what I think is happening is, in fact, happening.
  There is a mass of printed evidence in responsible organs to show that there have been tragic happenings in Angola

  719
  on a massive scale, on a scale which, the Observer says, makes what happened in Kenya during the Mau Mau look very small beer indeed. In that situation, for us to go voluntarily to Portugal means that we get associated with the consequences of that situation. I will spend no more time than that, unless the House insists, upon proving the facts of what is happening in Angola.
  One can argue that in the newscutings, of which there are many, and which are responsible, there is an element of exaggeration. So long as journalists, Parliamentarians and others are not allowed to go into Angola to find out what is happening, there will, of course—
  Mr. Fell: On a point of order. I apologise sincerely for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman once again, but you said some time ago, Mr. Speaker, that you thought he was getting near the danger point. Now he seems to be turning the debate, as one forecast, into a debate simply on the iniquities of a friendly Government—that is, Portugal.
  Mr. Speaker: Assuming what the right hon. Gentleman's case is, the hon. Member must realise that it is nonsense unless he can say that there is reason for not sending the infantry brigade to Portugal. The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to develop that. It is inherent in what this debate must be about. I agree that he is very near the limit when he states that these things are happening and that the newscuttings are sufficient for the basis of his case.
  Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order. This is an old tactic. You said, Mr. Speaker, that I was very near the limit. I have not entered into any debate about colonial policy in Angola. So far, I have done no more than establish—and I have barely been allowed to do that—that there is evidence to believe that certain things are happening in Angola, so that I might go on to say that there is a case for us not to do certain things in Portugal.
  Continually to say that I am near the limit encourages hon. Members again to rise. This means not only that I have been on my feet for 25 minutes but allowed to speak for no more than ten minutes, but that the rest of my case will
  720
  be similarly messed about. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, at some stage to rule that I may be allowed to make my case uninterrupted.
  Mr. Speaker: I must listen to points of order because I do not know what they are until they are made. I hope that we can get on. When I consider that the right hon. Gentleman is transgressing, if he does—I do not think that he has done so—I will say so. I hope, however, that we can get on.
  Mr. Driberg: Leave it to the Chair.
  Sir Peter Agnew: Further to that point of order. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for feeling it necessary to interrupt him, but I do so in the sincere belief that good order demands it. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to deploy a case, and to show that it is within the rules of order, in which he states that it is wrong for our soldiers to go to Portugal because the Government of Portugal is doing things which, on the basis of his information, which is not necessarily accurate, stand to be condemned by all proper-thinking people. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman had deployed a case, which he has not done, that our soldiers, by going to Portugal and having contact with the ordinary people in the country-side when they go for a glass of wine or something or other, when they stand easy or go to a show—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. To be fair, I must ask the hon. Baronet to indicate what is his point of order.
  Sir P. Agnew: The point of order which I was seeking to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it is out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to say that because the Government of the country where the soldiers are going is doing something that he does not like somewhere else, that can be deployed as an argument why our soldiers should not go, whereas, instead, everybody knows that on the basis of the information which the House has—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is getting beyond a point of order. I do not think that it is a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to state a reason for desiring this expedition to be countermanded. I do not think that he has transgressed.
  Mr. Brown: This only shows that opening a case in this House, in the face of some hon. Members, in a spirit of moderation and in an attempt to approach the problems responsibility, is not respected and not reciprocated. I will go no further than I have to, but I have to make the case and to try to protect the position of other people in this House. The case has to be made.
  There is a great deal of evidence that a situation is happening in a part of Africa—namely, Angola—with which we ought not to be associated. There is much evidence for that. If there is evidence to counter it, it is for hon. Members to produce it if they wish. I cannot, however, be denied the opportunity of referring to the fact that the evidence exists. Here it is.
  We not only have the evidence that is printed. Some of us have seen religious bodies serving there. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who is to wind up the debate from this side, has chapter and verse of the case made by the Baptists serving there about what is happening there. Therefore, I should have thought that it was clearly accepted that there is a situation both of repression and violence—to what degree may be a matter for argument—which is considerable and of which we must take notice.
  In any case, whether we think that it is so or not, whether we accept the evidence in whole or in part, the point of the matter is that world opinion believes that it is so. It is a large part of my case that by identifying ourselves with Portugal in this way, we are going straight in the teeth of world opinion and, in particular, of opinion in those areas of the world that it is tremendously important for us not unnecessarily to offend.
  The whole of Asia and the whole of Africa certainly believe, and are enormously moved by the belief, that great violence is being done in Angola, by the belief that liberties are being infringed in Angola, by the belief that people are not being treated properly in Angola—
  Mr. Fell: On a point of order. [An HON. MEMBER: "Another Yarmouth bloater."] Although, obviously, I take the greatest possible notice, Mr. Speaker, of your asking hon. Members not to interrupt the debate too much on points
  722
  of order, nevertheless—this may be just the way I look at it, but this is how it seems to me—one could not have thought from the Adjournment that was won this afternoon that the Opposition would simply use this as an attempt to have an entire debate on the subject of difficulties that Portugal is experiencing in Angola.
  Mr. Speaker: It really is, I think, rather unacceptable. Will the hon. Member for a moment perform the mental gymnastic of turning himself round into someone taking the opposite view from himself and having to present the case of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)? One might be forgiven for thinking that the minimum way in which one could press the case would be to say that, rightly or wrongly, the world believes so and so and that we should be associating ourselves with the practice which the world believes exists if we took this step. As I see it, it really is essential for someone arguing the case on this matter to give his reasons for saying, "Do not send them to Portugal."
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Further to that point of order. It is obvious that we have had a number of interruptions all designed for a purpose which is perfectly clear to every hon. Member. When hon. Members rise time and time again to the application of the same point of order as they originally raised, are they not merely usurping the functions of the Chair, and is it not time to stop this kind of nonsense going on?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not accept that. It is difficult to see precisely where the line falls between what is proper and improper here. An hon. Member may quite genuinely and sincerely take the view that as the speech of the right hon. Member for Belper progresses it goes too far. I did not observe any abuse. I hope that we can now get on.
  Mr. Brown: I only hope that people can remember the points which I have urged, and to make it perfectly plain, may I recapitulate the last point? It was that world opinion believes that there is a situation in Angola with which we ought not to be associated.
  March is the operative date, because it was in March that we announced that

  723
  we were going to send our troops to Portugal. Since March, the Security Council and the General Assembly have had this matter under review and have both carried resolutions on it. On both of those—and I mention this because it links up with the action which we are now asking the House to prevent the Government from taking—Her Majesty's Government have abstained from the vote. By abstaining they have indicated, or have appeared to indicate, that we have some sympathy, some understanding, and some acceptance of the situation in Angola. By abstaining, we have put ourselves out of step with our ally, America.
  I make this point, and I hope that the Minister of Defence will listen, because we have had enough interruptions openly and continuous sotto-voce ones are only an additional complication. We have put ourselves out of step with our American ally. I make this point so plainly because it seems a large part of the Government's case that we cannot cancel sending troops into Portugal because if we did it would be an offence to our Portuguese ally. I make plain that we have here chosen one ally against another. We have been quite willing to put ourselves right out of step with our American ally and we have been willing to be the recipients, as it were, of very disagreeable comments from Mr. Stevenson speaking from America. It seems to me a very peculiar position to choose.
  Not only have we put ourselves out of step with our American ally, but we have put ourselves right out of step with members of the Commonwealth, with Ceylon, India, and Ghana, with countries which are not only in the Commonwealth but which are trying to hold a very difficult position in a troublesome world situation.
  To complete the sequence of events, we add the gratuitous visit of H.M.S. "Leopard" and add the visit and speech of the Foreign Secretary in Lisbon, seeming to give cover to what is going on, and on top of all that we then add the sending of these troops in the very near future, or we shall add it unless somebody can stop their going to Portugal.
  724
  I am bound to say, therefore, that though I do not know how much hon. Members opposite agree about the issues as apart from the periphery, anybody looking seriously at what Dr. Nkrumah said in the Ghana National Assembly on 13th May about our attitude on this must be very seriously troubled about the consequences for us if the Government are allowed to proceed with this intention. [Interruption.] It may well be that the noble Lord, the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) holds the view that Dr. Nkrumah is as disagreeable a person as the noble Lord then appeared to be saying, but the point is that Dr. Nkrumah is both the Prime Minister of Ghana and a very important personality in the political life of the world.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I said nothing that was deleterious to Dr. Nkrumah's character. I merely said that it would be an extraordinary event if we allowed him to dictate the course of action we take in foreign affairs.
  Mr. Brown: When the noble Lord says "dictate" he means that we should take into account. I repeat that if Britain is to live in the world, and the Commonwealth is to be the institution which hon. Members like the noble Lord on other occasions say it is their aim that it should be, then Dr. Nkrumah should be considered and his reactions taken into account. I repeat that if we look at what Dr. Nkrumah said in the Assembly in Ghana we must realise just to what consequences the events, of which this movement of troops is the latest, are leading us. There are difficulties throughout Africa. There are troubled places all over Africa. This determination on our part to move troops into Portugal at this moment can only add to those difficulties and to the problems of the people who are trying to handle them.
  On 27th May, Moscow Radio put out an English broadcast to Africa in which it drew attention not only to the visit of H.M.S. "Leopard" but to the fact, as it said, that Britain was now moving 4,000 troops into Portugal. It went on to associate this with what was happening in Angola and with the movement of Portuguese troops to Angola. It called these positive steps by Great Britain

  725
  to go to the assistance of Portuguese colonialism. I assert, therefore, that the House and hon. Members opposite would be much better employed, in the interests of Britain and of the Commonwealth, in thinking about the effect that broadcasts like that have than in taking the attitude which hon. Members opposite are taking tonight.
  It does not matter that the Minister said to me yesterday that we do not mean to indicate that we acquiesce in what is happening in Angola. It does not matter that we do not want to be associated with this kind of colonialism. The point is what others can be brought to believe if we associate ourselves quite unnecessarily at this moment with the country which has been accused of these things.
  I do not know whether the Minister or hon. Gentlemen opposite have seen the leading article in The Times today entitled "Fools Rush In…". It has great bearing on what I now want to say. There could be only one argument in favour of doing what the Minister is now insisting upon doing, and that is that we have an absolute defence requirement to move troops at this moment to Portugal and with the assistance of Portugal.
  Have we an absolute requirement to do that? I claim that we have not. We may have a requirement to give the brigade group which constitutes our Strategic Reserve some exercise and some movement, but it is my guess that there is absolutely no requirement at this moment to move it to Portugal.
  The main purpose of this exercise as I see it—let us be quite clear about this, and let Ministers come clean on it, because we have had ambiguous statements—is to test and exercise our airlift capacity for the brigade group. There will be some training on the ground, I understand, when they get there, but that will be incidental. [Interruption.] I see the Minister of Defence shaking his head. I will repeat the question. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to interrupt me now, but I should like him to give me a considered answer later.
  I will put the question this way. As I understand it, these troops are not going to Portugal to exercise on the ground. They are going away from this
  726
  country to exercise their air mobility, and it would, of course, be useful to do some training when they are on the ground.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I shall deal with that point.
  Mr. Brown: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, but if he contradicts what I have said we shall really begin to get a bit tired, because the number of different explanations given by different voices for the Service Departments is getting a bit tiresome. There have been statements made by the right hon. Gentleman's Department—by his spokesmen. In fact, the actual timing would not permit of any other explanation. The whole thing occupies a fortnight. We shall listen with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman says. As I say, my understanding is that the main purpose is the air mobility but that the troops will be glad to do some training if they can.
  Whether I am right or wrong about that as a matter of fact, what absolute requirement is there that it should be in Portugal? Suppose the case of the Minister now is—it would be quite different from what has been said—that he is really doing this in order to get ground training. What requirement is there that it must be in Portugal? That is not where the Government wanted to go. That was not where the Government first asked for facilities. The Minister has, I think, given us an indication of other places where the Government had asked to go.
  If I chanced my arm I might suggest that the Government had made at least four other requests before they got to Portugal. I have a feeling that the Government would have liked to have gone to France. Maybe they even tried. I have a feeling that they would have liked to have gone to Libya. Maybe they even tried. I see the Secretary of State for War shaking his head. Is he quite sure?
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo)The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo) indicated assent.
  Mr. Brown: I have a feeling that a number of other places were tried. I do not want to be provoked into betraying any confidences, but I certainly have a feeling that other places were tried and

  727
  that Portugal was not the first place. Therefore, there is no essential requirement to go to Portugal. I suggest that it happened to be convenient because the Portuguese offered to help us out.
  As a matter of fact, in terms of distance from this country, there are a number of other places where this could be done. One of the other places is obviously Norway. To that the Minister of Defence yesterday posed an objection; he said that he wanted a hot barren terrain. Is he suggesting that Portugal is the only place that he could find when in any case he suggested that it was all that essential to have that requirement?
  I suggest that there are other ways of doing this airlift and that there are other areas where the right hon. Gentleman could find the terrain to do whatever training the troops are going to do on the ground. The fact of the matter is that Portugal would be a convenient place to do it were there no other obstacles or objections, but in our view it is criminally stupid in the face of all other objections that there are to associating with Portugal at the moment to go on and do it in the circumstances.
  I claim that, whatever advantage it gives the 19th Brigade Group, it will do enormous damage to our standing in the world. It will do enormous damage to our own friends in Africa. One can see that by reading what they have to say both in their own Parliaments and in the United Nations. It will do a very great deal of damage to N.A.T.O.—of course it will—because if in the end it is to emerge as the position that if one is in N.A.T.O. one will never be in a position to disassociate oneself from actions by the other members of N.A.T.O. which the rest of the world condemns, people will end up by saying that one ought not to be in N.A.T.O.
  I, personally, would regret that very much. I happen to be one of those who find a powerful case for N.A.T.O. But unless one can dissociate oneself from actions as repulsive to the world as this, then we are going to put ourselves, those of us who are keen about N.A.T.O., into an impossible position.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has just referred to the Portuguese Govern-
  728
  ment as repulsive to the world. I raised a point of order when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair inviting his attention to the rule of the House that there must be no opprobrious reference to a Government which is in amity with this country. In my submission, the words "repulsive to the world" could not be other than opprobrious to the Portuguese Government which is in amity with this country.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I appreciate that there are limits, but I think it is not out of order to make remarks about the policy of another Government.
  Mr. Brown: At that stage, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was not even doing that. There is, clearly, such a feeling on the part of hon. Members on the other side of the House that their case is impossible that they are not even willing to hear the opposition to it put. I was not at that moment even referring to Portugal. I was referring to what the Security Council of the United Nations had itself found.
  I want to end in this way a speech which has taken much too long and has been much too interrupted. It is part of our case—it may not be part of the case of some hon. Members opposite, but it is part of our case—that it really is time that we stopped giving the Communists these easy propaganda opportunities. In fact, the hon. Gentlemen who have been interrupting so strenuously might perhaps reflect at some stage how much they are playing the very same part. It seems to be very silly for us to offer the Communists the kind of easy opportunities which Moscow has been able to take in appealing to Africa because we insisted upon doing a wholly unnecessary exercise at this moment and to that country.
  We must realise that the issues in the world conflict at the moment are not just in having troops, nor in just training them. It is not purely a technical question. That is part of it. The major issue in the world is that we are fighting for men's hearts and minds, and if we go in the face of what people believe to be justice, in the face of things that move them dearly and in the face of actions which seem to them to refute all that we claim we are standing for, then no matter how technically well we train our troops and no matter how technically

  729
  good our troops are, we shall in fact, have lost the battle for men's hearts and minds because the psychological battle is far greater than the other.
  I claim that that is what we are doing. That is why were I the Minister at this moment I would not go on with the exercise. Understanding fully as I do why the Minister wants to do it, and understanding fully as I do that it is high time we gave the 19th Brigade Group this kind of exercise, I would not do it at this moment if the only place in which I could do it was Portugal because I realise that by so doing I should make a fantastic political error which could not possibly be compensated for by any lack of efficiency that might arise in the brigade group. I would wait if I could not go anywhere else, and the Minister of Defence says that we cannot go anywhere else at the moment. In that case, I would wait and negotiate with other places to receive the brigade.
  I would go back to France, if need be, and go back to General de Gaulle and try again. I would go back to Norway, I would go to Italy, and I would go back again and talk to Libya. I would try all these things, because at this moment to do what we are doing is so absurd, and there would be so many other opportunities. If we did not do it in July, because there was nowhere else to go at such short notice, and we had to wait until later in the year, it would not be a major tragedy. We have waited all this long time, and we can wait and try again, but to do it at this moment seems to me to be the utmost absurdity, politically, for which there is no compensation.
  We realise that clearly we are making a case which has to do with politics and which has to do with world issues. We realise also that there is an impatience on the Government side of the House which makes hon. and right hon. Members there quite unable to understand it. I believe the Government to be making an absolutely tragic mistake—a mistake of far-reaching consequences, for which there is no military compensating advantage. I believe that the military desire could be met if we would think again. I suspect that we started planning this exercise way back last year. I suspect that in January, after many disappointments, as the Minister told us, we got it fixed up, but that between January
  730
  and now, things have happened that ought to make us think again. We are all politicians, and even a Service Minister is a politician, and we all have to take into account the politics of the world.
  I would like to think that the Government were going to think again, but I doubt it very much, and I hope that, later in the evening, if that is so, the House will show in no uncertain terms its disagreement, and will try to dissociate itself from the action which the Government are so obstinately determined to take.
  7.53 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I realise that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was often interrupted in the course of his speech, which made it a little more difficult for me to understand on which leg he was basing his argument, but, towards the end of his speech, he said quite clearly that the case for the Opposition rested on the question of politics. With that I entirely agree, although I find myself entirely unable to agree with any of the other points he put forward during his speech.
  Therefore, before we embark on the stormy seas, which the Opposition appear to intend us to do, I think I had better tell the House something of the military background of this issue—the nuts and bolts of how it all happened and what it means to the Army and the nation. Then, I will be content to rest on the decision of the House and indeed to let the nation judge.
  I think that all would agree that it must be one of the responsibilities of any Secretary of State for War to see that the Army which is available for the purposes of supporting national policy is properly trained, and is properly trained in the rôles which it might at any time be called upon to carry out in the interests of the country. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there is very considerable importance in this modern era in trying to give as much exercise as we possibly can to the troops in air portability and in going to foreign countries and in practising in a live way. I think that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, and therefore, each year we try to do our best with the resources

  731
  at our disposal to carry out this sort of activity.
  Last year, the House may like to know, we planned ten large exercises with the Royal Air Force. This year, and I hope that this will not escape the attention of the House, there was a special reason for trying to do better, and this is the problem which we are facing and which the whole House recognises—the problem of recruiting voluntary recruits for an all-Regular Army. That is the problem we are all facing, and we have set ourselves the target of getting 165,000 men by the end of next year or the beginning of 1963.
  In the Army Estimates debate on 7th March with regard to being able to get more recruits I said this:
  "Excitement and going abroad are two things which attract the would-be recruit, and 1960 was the first year of large-scale overseas airborne exercises. We have a far more ambitious programme this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 280.]
  I noticed no dissension at the time, although there were not very many hon. Members here. Very few hon. Members opposite did me the courtesy of being in the House and discussing the Army on that occasion.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: So far from dissenting, I think we are agreed with what the night hon. Gentleman is saying. It has always been our view that recruiting could be improved by this method. What we are objecting to is that he should go to Portugal rather than the places my right hon. Friend mentioned. It is quite ridiculous to put this case on a recruiting basis.
  Mr. Profumo: It is not at all ridiculous, and I think the House will find, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument—I am prepared to be interrupted, and it is probably tit for tat with the Opposition—I was only saying that very few hon. Gentlemen apposite were present—it was a meagre House—and that there was no dissension. I do not think hon. Members opposite dissent now, either. I remember that when we considered this, there was mild applause for trying to build up these overseas exercises.
  For 1961, I had planned a much more ambitious programme for overseas exercises—
  732
  no fewer than sixteen in different parts of the world. One of these exercises was to be the one we are talking about today—namely, for the 19th Infantry Brigade Group of the Strategic Reserve. The right hon. Gentleman made play with why we came to fix on Portugal. He is quite wrong. We started in the initial stages of planning by planning this exercise in France, which was close at hand and had the various kinds of terrain in which the troops could be exercised, but France was unable to offer us the necessary facilities. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to know the answer to his question why we did not go to Libya or any other country, and although the right hon. Gentleman wagged his head at me in a knowing way as if to suggest that he knows, his military intelligence on this occasion is wrong.
  We did ask France, and after that we asked Portugal. In any case, we would have asked Portugal for facilities for some sort of exercise. We found last year, when we did a pilot exercise, that the terrain was suitable and it is not far away. These are very expensive exercises to carry out, and we do not want to go to the other end of the world. I have planned for this year for the first time an air transport exercise in Canada, and I want the troops to go to foreign places and different terrains so that the troops can accustom themselves to the realities of the situation.
  Therefore, Portugal suited our book very well, and above all these things, Portugal is a N.A.T.O. ally, and there is a N.A.T.O. application to these exercises.
  Mr. G. Brown: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask whether Libya would have suited his book and if so—he says that I am wrong—would he be willing to ask Libya instead of Portugal?
  Mr. Profumo: I will come to that, I take the point. For the moment I was answering the right hon. Gentleman's question. We did not ask Libya for facilities for this exercise. I will try—
  Mr. Brown: We could.
  Mr. Profumo: I do not know whether Libya would have done or not. We could

  733
  have asked all sorts of people, including the United States, I have no doubt—
  Mr. Brown: The point is that the United States is over 3,000 miles away. The right hon. Gentleman has just commented on distance. I am asking him whether Libya would have done. He says that Libya has not been asked, but would he be willing to ask Libya?
  Mr. Profumo: I will come to that. I do not think that Libya would have done. Libya would have been too far way. We had an exercise there last year. There are other problems in Libya—crops, far example—which the right hon. Gentelman should realise. If the right hon. Gentleman knew the problems which we had in trying to make arrangements in Libya, so that we did not cause too much inconvenience, he would realise that we have to treat these people in a proper modern and sensible way. So Libya never came into this and would not have suited us for this exercise.
  I was talking about the N.A.T.O. application. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a N.A.T.O. exercise as such, but the Strategic Reserve, though not committed to N.A.T.O., might well be called on to go to the assistance of N.A.T.O. Therefore, it seemed to be a sensible thing to carry out an exercise with one of our N.A.T.O. allies. The right hon. Gentleman might like to know that this exercise has been registered with N.A.T.O.
  The right hon. Gentleman made great play about the dangers of N.A.T.O. and said that if it became a situation where we could not disagree with the policy of any N.A.T.O. ally, that would weaken the alliance. We are at liberty to disagree with the policy of a N.A.T.O. ally, but if we allowed that to get into the way of N.A.T.O. training we should be weakening the N.A.T.O. Alliance.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that as long ago as March we issued a Press release, from which he quoted, and the release appeared in all the newspapers. I will not bother the House by reading the release. The right hon. Gentleman has a copy of it. We announced that this exercise would take place in Portugal between 11th July and 26th July and we said that during that period there would be an exercise in which
  734
  Portuguese troops of the Third Division would take part as well.
  Nobody dissented at that time. It was an expression of solidarity with a N.A.T.O. ally and an example of cooperation—the kind of thing which hon. Members on both sides of the House frequently recommend. I still believe that this sort of co-operation is desirable. When that announcement was made there was no "bleating" from anyone—not a "cheep" out of the Herald or The Times; nothing. Three months have elapsed and it is only now, when we are in the final phases, that this sudden and violent opposition has burst upon us—
  Mr. R. T. Paget Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton) rose—
  Mr. Profumo: I will give way in one moment. The right hon. Member for Belper and his colleagues cannot tell the House that it is only since this week that the situation in Angola has developed sufficiently for them to try to step in and ask us to stop this exercise.
  Mr. Paget: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has grasped the point. This was an admirable idea in January, but in the last three months a civil war has started and terrible things have happened in Angola. Portugal has been condemned in the United Nations.
  Mr. Profumo: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is listening—or it may be I am talking too fast for him, in an attempt not to take up too much of the time of the House.
  I said clearly that this Press announcement was made in March. Since March, three months have elapsed, or nearly three months. Why, in those months during which the situation in Angola has boiled up, did not hon. Members opposite seek to use some of their own Parliamentary time to express their displeasure? Why wait until now, within a month of an important exercise, to come with this great burst of indignation? Hon. Members may not like what I am saying, but I believe that they are doing it for political purposes.
  Mr. G. Brown: No.
  Mr. Profumo: I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions, why did not we cancel this exercise when the

  735
  problem of Angola was coming to a head? That was one of the clear questions asked by the Opposition. I agree with what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. We regard this as a military affair and as having nothing to do with the colonial policy of Portugal. Indeed, I am most grateful to the Portuguese authorities for letting us proceed with the exercise at a moment when it will have next to no benefit for them whatsoever. This is very important, because it was originally intended that the exercise should benefit Portugal as well.
  The right hon. Gentleman made tremendous play with the fact that we would appear to be involving ourselves in the colonial policy of the Portuguese Government. May I put it in this way to him, because I wholly disagree with the case which he wanted to make? The Russians have made the same case and all our ill-wishers and all the people who do not wish well to this country all over the world. It is clear that we shall get a lot of "stick", and the Opposition are heaping on coals of fire—
  Mr. G. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Minister has just made the point that this is something which is being done by all the ill-wishers of this country with which, he said, the Opposition had associated itself, and that it would lead to this country getting a lot of "stick" and that we are adding fuel to the flames. That seems to me pretty well to be an indictment of the Opposition for raising as an issue which ought to be considered something which the ill-wishers of this country would raise. Is that permissible for the Minister to do?
  Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Is that a point of order?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker Mr. Deputy-Speaker I did not take it that the Minister was going as far as that.
  Mr. Profumo: I am grateful to you, Sir. Of course I was not going as far as that. I am sure that in doing this the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues feel that they are doing their duty. But they are heaping coals of fire, and it may be inevitable that they should do so.
  736
  This right hon. Member for Belper told the House specifically what was said on the Russian radio. Why did he quote that?
  Mr. Brown: Because the Africans hear it.
  Mr. Profumo: Indeed the Africans may hear it. But the right hon. Gentleman ought to listen to the whole of my case and the case put by my right hon. Friend, and at the end he and his hon. Friends may perhaps say, "We are sorry, we made a mistake. We believe that you are right." But let us wait and see what happens.
  It is not right that the right hon. Gentleman should think that because we carry out a military exercise on Portuguese soil we are associated with the internal and external policies of that country. May I give an example? I was a proud and assiduous member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That did not make me subscribe to the policies for the Commonwealth and the Colonies advocated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It did not make me a Socialist. But I did not stay away from the meetings, because we had a joint interest in the Commonwealth and the Colonies. I put it to hon. Members opposite that here we have a joint interest with the Government of Portugal, and with our N.A.T.O. allies, in preparing ourselves. Because they do something with which we do not agree, I cannot see that what we are doing is wrong, and I believe that, in their hearts, all good-thinking people would agree with me.
  This exercise has been criticised, but it is an exercise for a limited war. There is no question of Portuguese internal security, as was suggested. There is no conceivable connection with any such project, and any suggestion that there is any attempt at training Portuguese troops is wicked "bunkum". I know that that has not been said by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am saying this in advance so that nobody may criticise us for that. The only Portuguese ground forces taking part is one tank company of the Third Portuguese Division assigned to N.A.T.O., which I am assured will not be sent to Angola under any circumstances. Anyone who knows Angola will realise that tanks could not possibly be used there.

  737
  The right hon. Gentleman said that all we wished to do was to exercise our forces in air mobility. Why then are we going to spend nine days manoeuvring on the terrain of Portugal? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I think that after he had said it he realised that he was wrong. We want to do two things. We want to practise air transportability in co-operation with the Royal Air Force, and we want to manoeuvre on the ground.
  The right hon. Member for Belper has been wagging his head and nodding; I am not quite sure what he is doing at the moment. But I am telling him the truth, and so long as I am Secretary of State for War I hope he will believe that I shall not try to mislead the House. We are going to exercise on the ground. Had we gone to France the air transportability part of the exercise would not have been for very long.
  Mr. G. Brown: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but will he see that in future his public relations officers put out the right story and not the wrong one?
  Mr. Profumo: My public relations officers have put out the right story. If only the right hon. Gentleman would read it with an unjaundiced eye, he would realise what we mean. But I am being asked to give the House an explanation.
  Apart from the fact of not wanting to change the location of the exercise, even if we had wanted to in April, when the Angola problem first came before the United Nations, I doubt very much whether it would have been possible. Today it is out of the question. We can do nothing other than cancel the exercise.
  Perhaps the hon. Members would like me to tell them something of the size of the British forces. We have the forces and brigade headquarters—two separate things. There are three infantry battalions, a field regiment and various supporting and administrative units—3,000 soldiers with more than 200 vehicles stockpiled in the exercise area beforehand by sea, plus more by air to give verisimilitude to the operation. There are nearly 40 transport aircraft, ten fighter aircraft and about 400 men from the Royal Air Force also involved. I say this to give an idea
  738
  of the magnitude of trying to lay on an operation at this stage.
  Mr. Mayhew: How long will it take?
  Mr. Profumo: May I finish my sentence and then I will give way. I do not want to prevent the hon. Member from asking a question, but perhaps this will give him the answer. He asked how long it will take. It takes four months to lay on this sort of exercise. How on earth in the course of a month could we change this exercise to some other terrain?
  Mr. Mayhew: I was asking about the flexibility of the Strategic Reserve. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that it takes four months to send the Strategic Reserve anywhere? [Laughter.]
  Mr. Profumo: That would be quite a good joke, but I did not say that. I said that it takes four months to lay on an exercise of this sort in peacetime. First, the exercise has to be written properly to take advantage of the terrain to which it is to go. Hon. Members opposite talk glibly about going to Norway, but the whole terrain in Norway is different. It would mean that the exercise would have to be completely re-written. Then we would have to get political clearance with the country concerned and would have to overcome some of the local problems. We have to be sure of the available airfields for a heavy airlift and the civil and military aerodromes for use in peacetime. All these things have to be phased together. It is necessary to pre-stock rations, petrol and so on. Fifty aircraft and 300 vehicles drink a lot of petrol.
  The chief reason why we cannot alter this now is simply that in order to do this exercise we are using all the resources the Royal Air Force can give us at this particular moment with the many other obligations it has to carry out for the United Nations and otherwise. We cannot go further afield than Portugal without lessening the amount of troops we want to use on the exercise. Therefore, we could not go to Italy even if terrain there were available. We could not go to Libya, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested when he asked if we could switch the exercise. We could not go to Cyprus, because that is further away. We have planned the exercise

  739
  inside the availability of aircraft over a phased number of months and we would have to cut the size if we were to change it.
  I have told the House that the question of using territory in France is out. France could not accept us at this time of the year.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Could my right hon. Friend kindly tell the House why France refused to allow us to go there?
  Mr. Profumo: I am grateful to my noble Friend, because I should not like the House to think that France refused us out of hand. The reason was that the facilities we wanted in the area for aerodromes and everything else were not available in France at this time when our aircraft and troops concerned were available for the exercise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I do not know why. I should have to look up the detailed reasons. They are perfectly friendly, but the facilities were not available to us at this time of the year. In Germany and Scandinavia the training areas are already fully committed to N.A.T.O. and similar exercises at this time of the year. Therefore, nothing remains available except Salisbury Plain. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh no."] If the hon. Member can think of somewhere else I shall gladly allow him to try to tell me where we could go, but I am telling the House the facts. We could go only to Salisbury Plain if we had to switch the exercise.
  What about postponing the exercise, as the right hon. Member asked? That is impracticable because aircraft available for training later on have already been booked for other exercises.
  The best laid plans go awry. My ambitious plans for training in overseas exercises this year have already suffered. Unforeseen difficulties have led to the curtailment of the list which I had prepared. For various reasons the Royal Air Force has had to take on other commitments, for instance, helping the United Nations in the Congo and to do with our responsibilities in the Cameroons. Therefore, we could ill-afford to cancel one further exercise of this magnitude. It is my responsibity to see that we have this joint training.
  In addition, this very formation, the 19th Infantry Brigade, together with
  740
  other forces, was to take part in a similar exercise last year. It was cancelled because of political difficulties in the part of the world to which it was going. Can hon. Members imagine what would happen if at the last moment, a year later, we were to cancel an exercise for the same people? The right hon. Member said that if he were the Minister responsible he would cancel it now. If he did the Army would say that he was plain barmy—and I would agree with them. We have to consider the morale of the troops and the training and readiness of the Strategic Reserve.
  At the beginning of my speech I said that I did not understand what all this was about, but on reflection I believe I do know. I believe that the right hon. Member is so right wing that he has got to do something to make his peace with the left. All I say is, for Heaven's sake do not do it at the expense a the Army.
  8.16 p.m.
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: That was a thoroughly irresponsible speech. The right hon. Gentleman made three main points and they all came to this, that he preferred having an exercise for one brigade group to taking into serious consideration the effect which the operation might have on the political situation of this country.
  It was a thoroughly irresponsible attempt to justify the action he has taken. He divided his speech into three parts. The first dealt with the military side. He said that the exercise was to help recruitment. He said that he has stepped up the number of exercises from ten to sixteen. This was his idea of giving people a trip abroad and some excitement on an exercise to stimulate recruitment. He brought it forward that he has pushed up the number of exercises from ten to sixteen and proposed to the House that knocking one-sixteenth, one segment, off his recruitng campaing is something which ought to be taken into consideration seriously when dealing with an internationl question of this kind which has disturbed the whole world. That is an utterly irresponsible attitude.
  The second point he made was the relationship between military operations with N.A.T.O. countries of whose policy we might disapprove. I have a great

  741
  deal of sympathy with the general proposition he put forward on that point. I agree at once that when we have military arrangements in N.A.T.O. with our N.A.T.O. allies that does not mean that we automatically approve the policy which those allies follow. Nor would I suggest that, because we happen to disapprove of the policy of a particular N.A.T.O. member at a particular time, we should break off all political connections. That is not the case which has been made on this side of the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked why we delayed from March until now to raise this matter. Let him consider the international situation. I deplore that Portugal is in N.A.T.O., but I accept that she is in N.A.T.O. If it were not for what has happened in Angola over the last three months, I should not be opposing the proposition the right hon. Gentleman makes. What the Government have done by their actions time and again within the last three months is to give the world the strong impression that they approved of the policy of Portugal in Angola. That has been the difficulty.
  We take this action now because this comes at the end of a series of actions on the part of the Government which have given the impression of countenancing Portuguese policy. If the attitude of the Government were that nobody could suggest that they approved of Portuguese policy, we should then be in the position which the right hon. Gentleman hypothecates, for the general proposition that having military arrangements with a N.A.T.O. country does not necessarily mean that we approve of a particular item of its policy. That is not the situation we are in.
  There has been a series of incidents which have given the impression that the Government approve of Portuguese policy in Angola. There has been the extraordinary action of the Government in abstaining in the United Nations and bringing upon themselves the condemnation of all the democratic world for that abstention. Further, the Foreign Secretary has chosen now of all times to go to Portugal. There has been the visit of H.M.S. "Leopard" to Angola. On top of that there is to be this visit.
  The right hon. Gentleman is so completely out of touch with political reality that he has the effrontery to come to
  742
  the House at this stage and ask why we have waited until now to take this action instead of taking it three months ago. We were not then in the political situation which we are now in. What we are concerned about is that, in view of the Government's attitude on previous occasions during the last three months, the world at large will inevitably interpret this action at this time as a further indication of Government approval of Portuguese policy in Angola.
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot run aware from it by stating as justification for this action the general proposition with which I have already said that I agree, namely, that our having military operations with a particular N.A.T.O. country does not necessarily mean that we approve of its policy. In the circumstances, this military operation with Portugal at this time, in view of the Government's abominable attitude over the Angola issue, is to be read as a political and not as a purely military incident.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that it took four months to mount such an operation. He mentioned, among other things, two points which are valid. The first was that there must be political clearance with the foreign country. The second was that the Government must be satisfied with the state of the airfields in the foreign country before aircraft can be landed. Those are the only two items which distinguish this exercise from the requirements which would prevail in the case of the Stategic Reserve being suddenly required for an emergency. Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that those two factors distinguish between a genuine military operation in the case of an emergency and an exercise? Of course it does not take four months or anything like it to get military clearance and be satisfied about the condition of the landing grounds.
  The right hon. Gentleman has said in effect that the Strategic Reserve of this country is in such a condition that an exercise of this kind cannot be mounted in less than four months. No wonder they made such a mess of Suez, and we are now given to understand that the situation now is no better than the situation obtaining at the time of Suez. It is shocking that the right hon. Gentleman, who among others is responsible for the

  743
  military condition and readiness of our country, should come forward with this kind of an excuse for continuing the exercise. His speech was an appalling speech with which to justify the action he is taking.
  We say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) emphasised, that this is a major political consideration affecting our position in the world and the interpretation of our action by the world. The significance of this exercise is that it is susceptible of political implications and is in fact being given a political interpretation. It is being given a political significance which far overrides the importance of merely giving a military exercise to one infantry brigade in the British Army. Let us have a sense of proportion restored to the Government, and let this exercise be cancelled.
  8.26 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I have listened very carefully to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). I cannot help feeling that the purpose of this debate is less to display an interest in the efficiency of Britain's fighting forces than to provide a convenient opportunity, under a rather thin disguise, to criticise the colonial policy of Portugal. The logical conclusion of the arguments put forward from the benches opposite seems to be that United Kingdom Forces can train in the territory of a friendly N.A.T.O. country only provided that at a given moment neither the Government nor the Opposition happen to disapprove of any aspect of the policy of the Government of the territory in question.
  That argument, if carried to its logical conclusion, could certainly have in future—and, if it had been applied in the past, it certainly would have had in the past—some extremely interesting results. The right hon. Member for Belper asked why the Government did not try France. I suppose two years ago he would have said that we could not conceivably carry out an exercise on French territory because at that moment the Opposition did not happen to agree with the policy of the French Government with regard to Algeria. I
  744
  suppose that the same argument could be applied to an exercise in Germany, because a large section of the party opposite happen not to like either the Western German people or certain elements of the Western German Government. So an exercise in France or Germany would be out.
  Then there is Belgium. A number of hon. Members on one side or the other are bitterly critical of what was thought to be rather precipitate action on the part of the Belgian Government in the Congo. So an exercise in Belgium would have been out, too.
  I must say that much as I deplore, alongside any member of the Opposition, events that have taken place in Angola, I rather wish that I could recollect on rather more frequent occasions in the past the Opposition moving the Adjournment of the House to discuss the terrible happenings in the Congo since the Belgians came out. I should have thought that a massacre, whether it be of Europeans or of Africans, was equally deplorable.
  I suppose, equally, that we could eliminate any possible exercises in Denmark because of the incidents the other day with the trawlers—
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Or Iceland.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Yes, or Iceland, with the fishing fleet. Therefore, the logical argument of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that one cannot be certain of being able to have exercises anywhere at a particular moment because there may be some dispute with a fellow N.A.T.O. country. This is a very dangerous argument, because it may be applied in reverse. We might possibly wish to have some S.E.A.T.O. exercise in the Pacific. In accordance with the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, New Zealand might say, "No, we cannot cooperate with the British Fleet because we are nervous of rumours about the Common Market."
  That argument could be applied all over the place, and the result would be to stultify any defence force exercise—
  Mr. William Hamilton: Cannot the hon. Gentleman distinguish between a political argument about the

  745
  Common Market and the massacre of thousands of Africans in Angola?
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: This is the logical conclusion of the argument for not carrying out an exercise in the country of a friendly Power if, at a particular moment, that Power's policies are such that one does not agree with them, or they do not receive universal approval at U.N.O. or elsewhere—
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I said the very opposite.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I repeat that this is a very dangerous argument, and if carried to its logical conclusion or, rather, its absurd conclusion, it would stultify and render invalid any exercise by N.A.T.O. troops except in their own country—
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I said the very opposite.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The real question is this. If the party opposite is really genuine in its professed support for N.A.T.O. and in its professed belief in an efficient United Kingdom defence force both inside and outside N.A.T.O., it must support the Government in giving British defence forces all proper training facilities wherever the Government may think that, for technical reasons, they are best suited at a particular time.
  If hon. Members do not support N.A.T.O., or if the political qualifications of their support are such that they can come to the House and use the sort of argument they have used this evening, they had much better say so openly, and give up any lip-service to making British defence forces efficient in their training at any given time. The words they have used this evening will quickly indicate to the country upon which side of the fence the members of the party opposite sit.
  8.33 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) has made a very interesting contribution to this debate, and I think that it deserves to be answered. In effect, he says that we have a number of allies in N.A.T.O., and that it is perfectly possible to go from one ally to another and find points of disagreement with their policies, particularly their colonial policies. No doubt they could
  746
  have their points of disagreement with us but, far from his case disproving our point tonight, I think that the hon. Gentleman has come very substantially to our support.
  What has emerged is that we on this side do not expect our own country to be perfect, nor do we expect our allies to be perfect. They are in N.A.T.O. We claim that we are building up a defence association in order to safeguard the free world. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that we are building up a defence association of countries, not claiming to be perfect but, in the main, on the side of the angels; countries who believe that there is a real danger of a united Soviet bloc at some time seeking to overrun our territories? I think that is fairly put.
  One of the fascinating things in the world at present is the divergencies, not only among Western countries but in the Soviet bloc. There is no more reason for France, Belgium, Portugal and ourselves to be in total agreement than there is for Russia, China, Albania and other small countries to be in total agreement
  We take it for granted that, in the main, there is a Communist bloc, in which, internally, there is absolute dictatorship—interpreted in our British constitutional fashion—and not an Opposition as we have in the House of Commons. We then take it, in the main, that in the N.A.T.O. countries there are Oppositions as well as Governments and that the air is more free. It is because of this mutual tolerance, and because we believe in our way of life, that when any one member of the N.A.T.O. association behaves in such a way that it makes it a mockery for us to claim to be the defenders of the free world, we become profoundly involved politically.
  What is it all about? There was a time when the phrase
  "Their's not to reason why,
  Their's but to do and die"
  could be recited to the ordinary soldier. But we are not living in the sort of world where men's bodies can be ordered around and their minds left behind. All hon. Members are aware that we are engaged in a profound argument in the world. I support N.A.T.O., with all its limitations, and I do not expect it to be perfect, but I am heart sick at the thought of one British soldier being asked to go to Portugal at this moment, after the

  747
  most shocking deterioration of the internal situation there.
  It is not merely Communists one finds in gaol in Portugal, but Socialists and even Liberals. I have friends, including a gentle Liberal professor, who is imprisoned there. I have had arguments with him and I have disagreed with him, but he is my friend.
  If I were a British soldier asked to go to Portugal at the present time, I should be hoping that I would be treated with respect and that it would be remembered that I was not only a soldier in uniform but, also, a man and a citizen with a point of view on what is happening in the world.
  I do not think that we should be allowed to have those convivial glasses of wine in Portugal until the company that is kept over those glasses of wine is made a little more general than it is at present. Some of the people I should like to see sipping that wine are in gaol in Portgual now, and this is a factor we cannot ignore. If we try to ignore it and if we try to pretend that we do not know what is happening in Angola, what an insult that is to many of the leaders of the British Commonwealth.
  For instance, what about the statements put out by Premier Nehru? Are we to say that he does not know what he is talking about? Mr. Nkrumah has already been mentioned. Do we dare so grossly underestimate the repercussions throughout the Commonwealth of the events taking place in Portuguese colonial territories at the present time? I urge the Government not to underestimate the intensity of feeling of all those who are concerned.
  The Minister goes around a good deal. He is what is called a good mixer and he has an exceptionally lovely wife to help him mix. He meets our Indian and African friends. He knows their point of view and he realises that they feel as passionately on these issues as do we.
  I am not a military expert, but the right hon. Gentleman has convinced me that if this brigade does not go to Portugal he will not be able to send it elsewhere. He has convinced me, whatever other hon. Members who have expert military knowledge may think. On first principles, I am willing to accept the fact that if the Government cannot send these
  748
  troops to Portugal the poor devils will perhaps have to remain on Salisbury Plain. Are the Government seriously saying that they would like to give our fellows a more exciting time and that they are going to send them to a more stimulating and perhaps more educational sort of place the price of which will be that the sour suspicion which is already darkening our relations in many parts of the Commonwealth may be further darkened?
  Can it be that hon. Members opposite are beginning to care less and less for the Commonwealth? Can it be that they do not like the excitement of its thrusting out towards an increasing inter-racial attitude, that they do not like the progressive point of view of many of the emerging nations in the Commonwealth? I should hate to think that that is true.
  Sir Godfrey Nicholson: That is unfair.
  Miss Lee: If that is unfair I will gladly withdraw, but I do not want any hon. Member this evening to say that we on these benches are raising this matter frivolously. We cannot separate military from political issues in the world as it is at present. The argument about Angola is going on all over the world, not only in this Chamber. It will be considered a symbolical act of unnecessary warmth towards the Portuguese Government if, following the quite unnecessary visit of the Foreign Secretary, we now have this additional event.
  I want to make it clear that I myself have a great fondness for the people of Portugal. I have warm personal relations with many of them, as I have with the people of Spain, and I hope that no single word will be reported outside this Chamber that will suggest that we are speaking in an anti-Portuguese mood. Nothing of the kind. I am not even raising the fact that people like myself are prohibited immigrants. Portugal is perfectly entitled to do whatever it wants to do inside its own country, but it cannot exempt itself from the judgment of the world for what it does either inside Portugal or inside its colonial empire.
  I am not asking us to interfere in Portuguese affairs. What I am asking is that we should be quite clear that British opinion is deeply shocked—that we share this shock with the majority of

  749
  the members of the British Commonwealth—at what is going on in Angola, and that we are also shocked when we think of the men and women who are asking for only the most moderate reforms and who are in Portuguese gaols.
  Far from asking for a big thing, I believe that we are asking for the very minimum of action when we say that we should make it clear to the Portuguese Government, in terms wrapped up in all the diplomatic courtesy one may choose, that with this background of events this is not the moment when we should be happy Ito see British soldiers arriving on Portuguese soil.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) will, I hope, believe that I am completely sincere when I say that no one would believe after she has spoken that she at least was approaching this matter in a frivolous manner. She obviously felt very deeply and intensely in everything she said. Nor do I believe that one of the charges we could fairly make against any member of the Opposition—at least, those who have spoken so far—is that they are approaching this matter in a frivolous way.
  With a sincerity equal to that of the hon. Lady, I wish to lay quite another charge against the Opposition. We should pay a great deal more respect to their indignation on this occasion if we were not driven to the impression that this is yet another step in a long vendetta against Portugal. Only a short time after I entered the House of Commons, long before recent events in Angola and long before some of the events in Portugal to which the hon. Lady referred, there was objection made from the benches opposite even against renewed trade talks and a British trade fair in Portugal. The same attitude has often been displayed towards Spain.
  We all know that hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen opposite dislike the Portuguese Government, always have disliked it, always will dislike it, and would be only too pleased if it could be brought down. Let us be honest about that.
  Miss Lee: We should like the hon. Member and his Government to be brought down, too.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: Of course, that is our attitude towards the Portuguese Government. It is a Fascist Government.
  Mr. Bennett: I have no doubt that the hon. Lady would like to see us brought down, but she will not succeed.
  Of course, we can all feel indignation about a Fascist State, but, again, the indignation which hon. Members opposite display always goes one way. A few months after the Hungarian episode, for instance, there would undoubtedly have been a welcome in the House for any suggestion that Ministers should visit the Soviet Union in order to try to improve relations there, yet, apparently, it is a crime to do what it is now intended to do and it was a crime for the Foreign Secretary to visit Portugal. Do hon. Members opposite really suggest that the policy of the Soviet Union in Hungary and some of its other actions are such that we should welcome and applaud the occasion when we hear that there is to be a summit meeting, semi-summit meeting, or any attempt to improve relations with that country? The moment we try to improve relations with a country, which at the least, is not hostile to us, we hear the cry about Fascist ideologies with which we cannot agree and ought not to associate.
  It is about time that there was a fairer appreciation of where this indignation, always one way, leads us in the eyes of the outside world and the eyes of many of our best friends.
  Mr. Hamilton: This must not pass unchallenged. The hon. Member will recall that there was very great criticism from this side, including criticism from myself, of the policy pursued by the Soviet Union in Hungary. We made the charge at the time that the Government were inhibited from criticising the Russians then because they were engaged in a similar operation at Suez.
  Mr. Bennett: With respect, that interjection is completely irrelevant. I did not say that hon. Members opposite did not object at the time of the Hungarian trouble. What I said was that, consistently, hon. Members opposite have welcomed and would, no doubt, again welcome visits by Foreign Secretaries or anybody else to Soviet bloc

  751
  countries, but they would not do so in regard to Portugal. I challenge the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) to answer if that is not so. If there were a fresh announcement from the Dispatch Box tomorrow or any other day that a further series of visits to the Soviet bloc countries was to be made, countries with far more stringent dictatorships, would not hon. Members opposite be only too pleased to give the announcement their favourable consideration? Everyone knows that they would.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock spoke about the troubles we are getting into with certain Commonwealth countries because of this very limited action we propose to take. Again, I ask for a little logic. I ask for a little fair-mindedness here, and in some of those countries and among some of their leaders. Are we quite sure that, in the eyes of certain people in the world, Indian action in regard to the Naga tribes has been something which we should warmly welcome? Has not that raised a certain amount of indignation in some quarters? Again, in Ghana, for reasons of their own, the Government have many members of the Opposition locked up in prison. When do we have Motions for the Adjournment of this House moved by the Opposition directing attention to the plight of political prisoners in those countries? Always, the voice of indignation speaks one way. When we have Motions or Questions, it is one-way criticism.
  Mr. Paget: Has the hon. Gentleman possibly observed that Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for prisoners in the Naga country, and therefore the matter cannot be raised?
  Mr. Bennett: Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not try to be so legally technical. I am merely answering the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock, one of whose chief complaints was about political prisoners in Portugal. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is legally qualified enough to know that the Government have no authority to deal with questions of political prisoners in Portugal. Since the hon. Lady raised the point, I am entitled to answer what she said.
  Mr. Paget: We are not sending troops to India.
  Mr. Bennett: That is wholly irrelevant, because we have had military missions in India and close working arrangements with the Indian Army, and have had for some considerable time. Again, that is a wholly irrelevant interjection.
  Again when all the killing which is going on in Angola was the other way round and it was Africans who supported, rightly or wrongly, the régime there, when it was Portuguese mulattoes, men, women and children, who were being butchered, we did not have this indignation aroused in the House. It is only because killing is now the other way round that all this indignation has been aroused. Since hon. Members opposite seem to think that the actions of this Government are misinterpreted throughout the world, I assure them that there are many people in the world who and their idea of logic and fair play far more distasteful.
  If the object of the Opposition is to relieve the situation in Angola and to help the inhabitants there, do they believe that this line of conduct and the advocacy that British troops should not be sent to Portugal will have any effect at all? Surely all our experience shows that if we try to force a country with whose policies we may disagree into total isolation, it results, not in a relaxation of the situation but rather the opposite. In the case of Angola—I wish that the rules of order permitted me to say more on the subject than is possible—if it is the object of hon. Members opposite to try to bring about a better situation there, I hardly think that the calling off of this British force going for training in Portugal would have that effect.
  I not only support the Government in the stand which they are taking, but I do so enthusiastically, not only on military grounds, but on political grounds. I hope that from at least one part of this House will go a message expressing our disgust at the total lack of logic in the vendettas which hon. Members opposite pursue against particular political systems and personalities with which and with whom they choose to disagree.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) has made a number of points which do not go to the root of the matter. I am sure that he will understand that if I take up only a little time in dealing with some of his arguments it is because I wish to deal with the speech made by the Secretary of State for War.
  After all the discussions which have taken place in this House, it should not be a basis for argument that there is a vast difference between attending a summit conference or going to a diplomatic meeting and relations between two countries which have joint military exercises and demonstrations like the one that we are opposing. Obviously there must be normal diplomatic relations and conferences between Prime Ministers and between Foreign Secretaries on both sides of the present tragic and dangerous argument that is going on in the world. I do not think that it advances the discussion or improves the level of debate to create that sort of confusion merely to make a propaganda point.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) was criticising the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Portugal.
  Mr. Mendelson: Of course she was. But the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Portugal and to Spain is part of a policy which we regard as very dangerous. It is not the same as creating the confusion that I have just indicated, as the hon. Member did only a few minutes ago, by criticising people for wishing to hold a summit conference or a conference of Foreign Secretaries. The answer to that kind of argument has recently been given both by the President of the United States and by the Prime Minister.
  I wish, however, to come to the speech of the Secretary of State for War and to put specific questions to the Minister of Defence. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for War is no longer in his place. I do not criticise him for that—he has been here a long time—but I am none the less sorry that he is not here when I am about to criticise something that he has said.
  We should get away from the attempt to smear the Opposition in the House
  754
  of Commons with giving aid and comfort to those who are our ill-wishers abroad because we put down critical points against the Government's policy. Not long ago, the Minister of Defence nodded his agreement in another debate when my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said to him across the Table that if we disagreed with the policy pursued by the Government, we had a duty to criticise and to say so. Certainly, it comes ill from a spokesman of the Front Bench of a party which was led at one time by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) to complain about criticism and the right to criticise being exercised by the Opposition. We should get away from that sort of nonsense. It does not belong seriously in a debate of this kind.
  Mr. Stephen McAdden: That is a fair point. Would the hon. Member, however, also take the reverse case that it is extremely wrong and greatly to be deprecated when members of the Opposition call hon. Members on this side who differ from them pro-Fascist if they express a different point of view?
  Mr. Mendelson: There is a vast difference between what we say to each other in the course of debate and interjection, which has gone on in this House for centuries, and trying to smear the entire Opposition with being in co-operation with our ill-wishers because we exercise the necessary function of criticising, which is the duty of the Opposition if they disagree with the policy pursued by the Government.
  One of the reasons put forward by the Secretary of State for War why it was virtually impossible to cancel the exercise at this stage was that for political reasons the same unit had a visit cancelled last year. That means that the right hon. Gentleman has established a point of principle. He has told the House that political circumstances can arise from time to time that make it imperative for the Government to change their arrangements for military training. That is only common sense. I should not have expected a Minister of the Crown to make any different point on this matter.
  Therefore, it was possible last year to cancel a military exercise for serious

  755
  political reasons. The Minister did not tell us at the time the country concerned or the precise circumstances or reasons, and we did not press him to do so. I do not intend to press him now. No useful purpose would be achieved by going into the details of that cancellation. If, however, it was imperative in those circumstances to cancel the exercise, obviously it cannot be entirely wrong to reconsider an engagement that we have entered into this year. It must be possible for the Government seriously to consider—and, therefore, legitimate for the Opposition seriously to advance—issues of a similar kind which, in our view, should compel the Government to cancel this exercise. Therefore, the general argument that it is impossible to allow political considerations to intrude into decisions concerning the arrangement of exercises by our Forces falls to the ground.
  I turn now to what I consider to be equally not a very serious argument advanced by the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman told the House, again in all seriousness, that one has to consider that it takes four months to prepare an exercise of this kind. The point has already been made that the mobility and the ability of the Army to get quickly from one place to another is the purpose of the exercise, and that training on the ground is only additional. I should have thought that in that case quick preparation of the scheme might be part of the exercise itself. But even if it is necessary to spend a great deal of time in preparation, surely the time spent in that preparation cannot be a decisive reason, if other reasons are compelling, for the Government to say that they have unalterably decided that they cannot change their policy on this matter.
  I believe that there are far more serious reasons than the Secretary of State for War has ever advanced in debate why the Government do not wish to change their minds. One of the reasons probably is that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence does not wish to tell the Government of Portugal that he has cancelled the exercise, because he feels that that would be regarded throughout the United Nations and by the Government of Portugal as a clear expression of our disapproval of
  756
  the policy which Portugal is pursuing in Angola.
  I should like to link this statement with the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in recent proceedings in the United Nations. We have had several examples where practically all the countries associated with us in N.A.T.O., those with whom we are in the closest co-operation, including the United States, have expressed clear and open disapproval of the policy which the Government of Portugal are pursuing in Angola. And Her Majesty's Government have consistently refused to take part in this disapproval and open criticism. In spite of what the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary said in various Press interviews, I think that that is a decisive reason why the Government refused to cancel this exercise.
  It is equally important to realise that the Secretary of State for War is seriously advancing the argument that if we were to postpone this exercise the Royal Air Force is so fully occupied with future plans that it would not be possible to obtain the necessary transport aircraft. This is a peculiar explanation. On all occasions when we have private and very useful discussions with Army Commanders, which the Secretary of State for War is encouraging and organising, flexibility is put to us as a decisive point. It is a poor commentary to be told that because the Royal Air Force is occupied with some other duties it would not be possible for the Chief of Staff to switch things round.
  This is surely a poor argument to expect people of my own low level of militray experience to accept, let alone those hon. and right hon. Members who have had far greater experience. Instead of attempting to make debating points and party points, it should be possible for the Government to say that this is a serious case, based on policy and on the military alliance to which we belong.
  I speak as a supporter of the N.A.T.O. alliance. Like many others, I have been involved in arguments on our participation in that alliance. It is common ground and it has been often stated by the Minister of Defence himself that we are in a situation in which our purpose is to avoid war, but at the same time see to it that we belong to an alliance which

  757
  is effective and has a good political standing among the uncommitted countries. It is important to realise that not only is this an important issue among African peoples and in the Commonwealth but that there are in the United Nations a number of discussions going on in which the Soviet bloc is advancing certain suggestions.
  It is legitimate and important that we should quote these suggestions because we are in a conflict of opinion with the Soviet bloc and we are in competition with it for the support of uncommitted nations. It is not relevant therefore to criticise us for quoting opinions advanced by the Soviet bloc. We have to deal with the Soviet bloc, and so has the Minister of Defence.
  They are advancing the opinion in the United Nations that the declaration by Britain as a country that N.AT.O. is a defensive alliance—in defence of democracy—is a spurious argument. It is to our interest, quite apart from the position of other Commonwealth countries, so to act—it cannot be done by declarations—that at all times we make quite certain that we regard the alliance in defence of democracy as an alliance at the same time in defence of our national interest. It is no good advancing the argument that the Soviet Government pay lip-service to democratic solutions and are not serious about it. We have got to show that we are.
  In respect of the operation in Cuba this aspect of the matter was discussed by responsible leaders of the Democratic Party in the United States Senate and by members of the Opposition, and no objection was taken to it. It is important to realise that we differ from the Soviet Government precisely in this respect in that we are serious about the claims that we make for the defensive alliance to which we belong. It is imperative that at no time should a British Government act in a manner which will lay us open to doubt as to whether we are serious about these declarations.
  I believe that there is also a fear in the minds of the Government about what might be felt in Portuguese Government circles, Her Majesty's Government having made an engagement which is in some way related to the fact that we are both members of N.A.T.O. However,
  758
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper has proved to the satisfaction of most hon. Members that this is not a N.A.T.O. exercise in the usual sense of the term. But there is probably a fear in the Government's mind that it might be argued that if we did not continue with the exercise we should be reclassifying Portugal as a second-class member of the alliance. I do not think that that can be regarded as a serious reason which carries any weight. However, as I have said, there might be the fear if we cancelled the exercise suddenly that it might be argued in Portuguese circles that it was something that one should not do to any partner in the alliance.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon, Gentleman seems to be on a bit a buffalo there. Surely the Opposition are always trying to classify Portugal as a Fascist Power which has no business in N.A.T.O.?
  Mr. Mendelson: The noble Lord ought to be fair. I am trying to suggest serious reasons which might be in the Government's mind for not wishing to act on the Opposition suggestion. I am deliberately trying not to make party points, because I think that the Government's case has not yet been given to the House.
  As I have said, the Government are perhaps fearful that it might be regarded in Portuguese circles as a reclassification of Portugal as a second-class member of N.A.T.O. Far more important than any such fear is that it should be made clear beyond doubt that we are serious about the nature of the alliance, that we are not in the alliance unconditionally and that we must be able to determine the nature of the alliance in which we take part.
  It must be possible for hon. Members to go about the country encouraging support for the alliance, and it must be possible to do that with a clear conscience. Therefore, it is imperative that the Government should take such action at this late stage as will make clear—it must be done not only by speeches but by action—that we want to demonstrate that we will not be associated at this moment with the Government of Portugal when they are pursuing a barbaric policy of suppression in Angola.
  Secondly, we must make it absolutely clear that we take seriously the basic

  759
  content of the N.A.T.O. Alliance as one in defence of our national interests and of democracy at the same time.
  Thirdly, the Government ought to forget that this debate has been initiated by the Opposition. They should be prepared at this late stage to take another look at the matter and agree with the action which we propose. I regret to have to conclude by saying that if the Government have determined on political, and not military, grounds that they cannot budge from their position, then all our worst fears and suspicions about the motives which inspire their actions will be completely confirmed.
  9.10 p.m.
  Captain John Litchfield: The military reasons for arranging this exercise are not, I think, in dispute. This debate has rather puzzled me. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who moved the Adjournment of the House, spoke about maintaining a sense of proportion, but I cannot help feeling, from the speeches to which we have listened from the other side, that that is just what we have been losing in this debate. The right hon. Gentleman was also, I think, mistaken in his interpretation of public opinion in this country and in the world on this issue.
  I cannot help thinking that the great majority of people, and even some hon. Members in this House, would have heard very little about this exercise if it had not been for this debate. I do not see that this country has anything to fear, with our liberal reputation and name in the world, from the fact that we are carrying out a comparatively small and purely military training exercise in Portugal. I cannot see how this can be seriously thought to indicate that we approve in any way or condone the Portuguese Government's policy in a Colony thousands of miles away. If it did indicate that, I think we should be getting into very deep waters indeed.
  The fact that there were American troops in this country at the time of Suez, at the time of Cyprus and of various other troubles which we have had abroad was never held by anyone to indicate that the American Government were particularly supporting us in our policies there. My hon. Friend the
  760
  Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) has given the House a number of examples of the complicated situation which might arise if the principle was generally accepted that if in the course of our N.A.T.O. military training we move troops into another country, this would imply that we were concerned one way or the other with her internal, external or colonial policies.
  I cannot see the force of that argument, although I respect the feelings that have been expressed from the other side. I think that they are mistaken if they imagine that they are interpreting public opinion on this matter. The benches opposite have not been so crowded today so as to indicate any strong and general feelings there, and I cannot help wondering where all this pontificial lecturing, all this "sound and fury", is going to end.
  This debate comes at a time when N.A.T.O. has considerable strains within itself. It comes at a time when the international situation is not altogether rosy. We are facing a very uncertain world, from the military point of view. It seems a curious time to choose to throw a spanner into the works, as between the countries of N.A.T.O. We may have differences with Portugal in regard to her policies in some of its aspects, but we have none in so far as military affairs are concerned. We like the Portuguese Services, and have very good relations with them.
  I cannot therefore see what the Opposition are trying to achieve at this moment in trying to raise an issue which is bound now to complicate our relations a little bit. If the advice of the Opposition was accepted and we cancelled the exercise, it would be blown up into a political issue. As it is, a lot of unfriendly things have been said that might better have been left unsaid. I feel, therefore, that the debate on this Motion is very unfortunate—to put it mildly. I think it is misguided and harmful. I do not altogether follow the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Members opposite. I hope that at the end of the debate we shall show that we have no sympathy with the idea of confusing the already very complicated affairs of N.A.T.O. and Western Europe by supporting this Motion. I am very sorry that it was ever introduced.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I always respect the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Capt. Litchfield). When he speaks about throwing spanners, he should remember that the problem in this case—as is so often the fact with the affairs of this world—relates to the choice of spanners. It may be that we shall throw a spanner into our relations with Portugal. It may be that if we go on with this project we shall throw a great many spanners into our relations with all Africa. That is what concerns us in this debate.
  The Secretary of State for War advanced a case which fell into two halves. There was the technical case for his Department and there was the political case. The right hon. Gentleman told us that an airlift exercise for only one brigade group of the Strategic Reserve took four months to prepare. Stocks had to be piled. Petrol had to be bulked. Plans had to be prepared. If that is so, it does not seem to be a very effective Strategic Reserve. May I suggest an alternative to the right hon. Gentleman? Would not it be better to have a different exercise—an exercise to show whether the Strategic Reserve could act as a Strategic Reserve in circumstances when plans had not been prepared four months ahead, but when a reason suddenly occurred for the use of a Strategic Reserve, because that is what such a reserve is for? Could we not see whether it would work in circumstances when all the things had not been dumped, because we did not know where we should be going? Would not that be a much more worthwhile exercise?
  The right hon. Gentleman has said that the exercise had to take place at an ideal distance for an airlift. It is not necessary to travel from point A to point B. It would be possible to go from point A to point B and back again to point C. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to see whether the troops could be carried for a certain distance by air, he could send them out into the Atlantic and back again to Scotland. What is wrong with that idea? My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would be delighted to see British troops there for a change.
  So much for this very futile argument about the technical aspect. I now turn
  762
  to what I believe to be the essence of this debate, and that is the political aspect. On that for the moment I thought the Secretary of State for War was going to show an understanding of what it was really about, because he said, and said with great emphasis and indignation, "It is wicked to say that we were going to train Portuguese troops". Why is it wicked? Would it be wicked to say that we were going to train the troops of any other of our N.A.T.O. allies? Is it wicked to say that their troops are coming here to train?
  Is it wicked for any reason other than that he knows and we know and Africa knows that these troops are being trained for a wicked purpose? Why else is it wicked? Why else do we have to say this? He also asked us to say why it had been so long before we raised our protest. This operation was planned in January, he told us. Why was there all this time before we raised our protest? I shall tell him. I shall tell him what has been happening in these months which has changed the circumstances.
  I make no criticism of an original arrangement to do this exercise in Portugal—none whatever. What we complain of is the political injury which it will do to other causes—to the cause of the West, to the cause of N.A.T.O.—to identify ourselves with the Portuguese in the light of what has been happening in these months. That is what our complaint is; that is the whole of our complaint. Just see what those events are. It was on 15th March that the Wakongo and Kimbundo rose.
  There was a massacre. Do not let us go for the false pretence that we only care when black men are massacred. It was a tragedy when 250 Portuguese and mulattoes were massacred in that rising even though, in view of the conditions of rule in that territory, it was not difficult to anticipate a rising must occur sooner or later. Then came the arming of the civilian population and the wholesale, unrestrained massacres reported largely and reliably estimated at certainly not less than 20,000 African people killed in that incident—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member appears to me to be transgressing exactly the rule we laid down for

  763
  ourselves that we should not make this debate a discussion of physical happenings in Angola.
  Mr. Paget: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman posed us the question of what had happened in this period which has made the difference.
  Mr. Profumo: I certainly did not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not. What I said was, why during the last three months since this operation was announced when Angola has been a subject of controversy, did not the Opposition choose time for such a debate? Why wait until tonight?
  Mr. Paget: Now I shall say what has happened in those last three months. During those last three months, we are informed, and here I quote an authoritative Portuguese statement, that a plan of operations for this area has been made and is coming into operation now that the dry weather is coming and the grass is dry. During these three months it is reported that 17,000 troops, or approximately that number, have gone to Angola from Portugal. Those troops had these instructions from their Minister of Defence, and again I am quoting:
  "You are not going to fight human beings but against savages and wild beasts. You are going to savannah country when the grass gets dry."
  I quote again from Colonel Medina of D.T.A., an authority in this area:
  "When we get the troops he will seal the frontier and annihilate them."
  Again, Mr. Richard Beasley has reported a Portuguese spokesman as saying:
  "We shall fire the grass and hunt them like game."
  I think a very dreadful thing is going to happen there if steps are not taken to prevent it. I do not say that this step will prevent it, but it might contribute to preventing it. A sufficiently tough attitude to Portuguese allies might prevent it. At least if we take this action we shall have done something which will prevent us being identified in African eyes with a horror which I believe is going to occur.
  These are not the only things. Again, because I want to give the right hon. Gentleman plenty of time, I shall not go
  764
  into this in any detail, but there have been two debates at the United Nations within the last three months. They have been debates in which Portugal has been roundly condemned, in which America has voted for that condemnation, in which nearly all our colleagues in the Commonwealth have voted for that condemnation, but in which we, for a reason which I find difficult to follow, have abstained. What effect does that have on the mind of Africa? Perhaps the most important issue in the whole world today is the mind of Africa and who the Africans trust.
  Britain has served Africa well. I am convinced that where the flag of Britain has flown in Africa that has been a very unmixed blessing to the populations there. We deserve the faith of Africa. It will be tragic if we lose it. These are the sort of ways in which we shall lose it. That is the trouble.
  I direct the attention of hon. Members to what I know are small incidents. There is the case of Captain Galvao—an eccentric gentleman perhaps, a lawless gentleman perhaps, but one whose flamboyant action has made him appear in Portugal, and even more in this area, as a voice of liberty. We have refused him a visa. It is quite a small thing.
  Another incident has been the visit of H.M.S. "Leopard". We have since discovered who was on board. I should like to know why we were not told at the time. We raised the subject at Question Time. It was the principal topic in a censure debate. We were told what H.M.S. "Leopard" had reported having found in Angola, but we were not told that this was not merely the visit of a destroyer, but the visit of the Commander-in-Chief, South Atlantic, that he was on board the whole time, and that it was not merely the captain's report we were being told about but the admiral's report. We were not told one word of this. This was concealed from us, both at Question Time and in the debate.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): I was present when my hon. Friend the Civil Lord replied to that Question. He definitely said that the Commander-in-Chief was on the vessel.
  Mr. Paget: He did not.
  Mr. Godber: He said so in answer to that Question. The hon. Member will find it reported in HANSARD.
  Mr. Paget: I was on the Front Bench at the time, and I should be astounded if that was said. I was never more surprised than when I read it. We will check that from HANSARD. If I am wrong, I shall not have the slightest hesitation in saying so, but it came as such a complete surprise to me that I do not believe that I am wrong. However, we will check it and if I am wrong I shall make an unqualified withdrawal.
  There is something else apart from the visit of H.M.S. "Leopard". Again this is older than three months. What I am talking about here is the necessity to build up in Africa trust and confidence in this country. There was the Prime Minister's "wind of change" speech. Africans everywhere were encouraged by that. They felt that they had a friend. Then came Sharpeville and the right hon. Gentleman who had raised the storm did not ride the tempest. So that confidence has begun to fade.
  Let us just think of the sort of circumstances with which we are being faced in Africa. In The Times yesterday there was the second of two extremely interesting articles on where Ghana will go. The last paragraph on that article reads:
  "But the west and the Monrovia Powers"—
  Those are the moderate African leaderships who met in Monrovia:
  "are being judged by Ghana, and there is one area which may decide the issue—Angola. It is perhaps the scene of the last great colonial struggle in Africa, the ultimate test of western good faith. Even if in the long run Portugal cannot win (a journalist who is excluded from the country finds it difficult to judge the chances), she can in her defeat discredit her allies as well as herself. If Portugal's allies in N.A.T.O. seem in any way to acquiesce in what is happening in Angola they will lose their carefully constructed standing in the whole of Africa. The Monrovia Powers will disintegrate, and Ghana will go her own lonely and stormy way."
  That is profoundly right, and, rightly or wrongly, in the eyes of Africa, by this action we do that very thing. After "Leopard", after the visit of the Foreign Secretary, after the Galvao case, if we send this brigade we inevitably identify ourselves with what has been happening there.
  What, if that happens, is the situation in the new emergent nations; in Nigeria,
  766
  the late French Colonies in this area, the Ivory Coast and places like that, whose representatives met at Casablanca—
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us on this side have been estopped from attempting to speak in this debate in the knowledge that if we introduced the theme of what Britain might have to do by way of military exercise to subdue various forces in various parts of Africa for which we are responsible, we should be thoroughly out of order. We are now getting a speech from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) which is introducing a theme that hitherto, I think I am right in saying, you have debarred from debate, and scoring a moral advantage over us on this side who have refrained from introducing those contrary themes to rebut him.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that is right. I think that it is the essential part of the argument here to say that, on one side or the other, should this infantry brigade go to Portugal, we shall, in the existing state of world opinion—I do not descend into the arena of whether it he right or wrong—he associated with policies of this kind. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is within the bounds of order in saying, "Well, look at what seems to be African opinion about this; what seems to be a legitimate Times opinion about the degree of association which would result in activities of this kind." I do not think that he has trespassed from that, although I appreciate the noble Lord's point.
  Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, but I think that I should warn hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway that if they wish to take up further points of order with you it will come out of the Minister's time and not mine.
  I have referred to the Casablanca Powers. This is the critical moment of Africa's decision. Will she, on the whole, align herself with what will be, not Western democracy but an African system, emerging free and independent, or will she go with the Communist world? The extent to which we are trusted is the issue which settles this question.

  767
  Let us look again at the other side of Africa, to Angola, where the situation could hardly be more critical. In the very difficult circumstances that exist, the Colonial Secretary has my utmost respect and admiration for what he has done there. We are trying to bring into being an African Government which can have confidence in us and which we can trust. Ronald Ngala is in a very difficult position. What on earth will happen to him?
  Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is outside the scope here. I am sure that he knows the line and will adhere to it.
  Mr. Paget: With the greatest respect. Mr. Speaker—
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Disgraceful. Monstrous.
  Mr. Paget: I profoundly respect your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I respectfully suggest that the issues I am trying to argue, and which seem the most important, are the political effects of this military exercise, however desirable it may be for training purposes, in a number of delicate circumstances.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman is playing the Commy game. He is stirring up trouble. He is bringing it about.
  Mr. Speaker: I am at present being addressed on a point of order.
  Mr. Paget: What I am seeking to do in my speech is simply to identify the particular circumstances, to point out their delicate nature and to point out how this is going to be interpreted, for in Angola there is a situation in which we have a Government—
  Mr. Speaker: In raising his point of order, the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to me to be departing beyond the permissible limits. In order to make the situation plain to him and to the House, I can perhaps best illustrate it by saying that hon. Members may say, "If you send this brigade to Portugal you will be identified with certain Portuguese policies or events in Angola", as the case may be. Hon. Members cannot go beyond that and say that the result of that will be certain consequences in other parts of Africa.
  Mr. G. Brown: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members on this side of the House clearly heard the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) say, addressing my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), "The hon. and learned Member is playing the Commy game. He is stirring up trouble in Africa." My hon. and learned Friend is speaking in pursuance of a duty in the House. Is it in order for the noble Lord to throw that kind of accusation forward?
  Mr. Speaker: Observations should be addressed to the Chair, and if it is suggested that I am playing the Commy game or the Fascist game or any other game, then it is a complete myth and an illusion. Do let us get on with it.
  Mr. Paget: I think the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) underrates the propaganda capacity of the Communists and of the Egyptians. If he really thinks that I have to tell Africa about this joint exercise with Portugal, he is under a very great illusion. It is precisely because this provides such a propaganda opportunity that it is being seized and taken—and I can produce every kind of quotation to show how it is being used as a propaganda instrument throughout Africa, both now and before we raised it in the House. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Paget: With respect, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]—I had thought it in order to say why I thought that it was undesirable for this country to be identified with Portugal in this case, because it would affect other interests with which we are concerned. As far as Angola is concerned, I pointed that out. I will not go into detail, but I will abide by your Ruling.
  There are other problems. For instance, there are great difficulties in Nyasaland. Negotiations are in progress there and there is the importance of our being trusted. The Colonial Secretary has done a great deal there. But this sort of thing puts an instrument into the hands of everybody who is working against it. In the Federation it is the same.
  I will conclude by referring to one more matter. One thing which the right

  769
  hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said was that the "wicked" Opposition were building fuels of fire. If the Government want a scapegoat for cancelling this operation our shoulders are broad enough to carry it.
  9.41 p.m.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for finishing at about the time he said he would. I quite agree that he was much delayed, though perhaps some of us might say that it was his own fault. Anyway, I am grateful.
  As I expected, this debate has certainly had as its background, so far as Opposition speakers are concerned, the broad issues of colonial policy rather than the actual decision that the Government have taken to send a formation of British troops to carry out a training exercise in Portugal. I do not object to that. This must rightly be seen against that colonial background, and that is why I do not object at all.
  Therefore, let me start by making the position of the Government perfectly plain. It is already perfectly plain. It has been made so in the United Nations and in this House time after time, and it has been very much misrepresented by almost every Opposition speaker in this debate this evening. The position of the Government is this. We do not agree with Portugal's policy in Africa, This exercise does not in any degree imply that we do agree. We have not condoned what is happening in Africa, and when we spoke in the United Nations we took the same line as my right hon. and hon. Friends have taken in this House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made his position and that of the Government perfectly plain in Lisbon. Therefore, I am perfectly entitled to say that this exercise has no political connotations.
  It is the Opposition, not the Government, who have tried to transform a perfectly normal piece of military co-operation between close allies into some kind of diplomatic incident, and, despite the explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, the proof of this lies in the fact that this exercise has been announced and clearly known in the country and in this House for over three months. When it was first
  770
  announced, the question of Portuguese territories was already being raised by the Opposition in this House. Since then they have had many opportunities and Supply Days to raise this matter. They have not done so until now. I am forced to the conclusion—and I regret this—that they have picked this particular moment because they believe it to be the best time to make the maximum amount of trouble between Great Britain and her oldest ally.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has clearly set out the reasons which made us decide on Portugal as the best available place in which this exercise could be held, and has shown quite clearly why it is now impossible either to postpone it or shift its venue. In other words, all we can now do, as I told the right hon. Gentleman, is to cancel this exercise or continue with it.
  Let us examine for a moment the effect of cancellation. The Opposition spent a good deal of time yesterday in questioning me on why we could not increase the conventional capacity of our forces. I cannot think of a better way of increasing their conventional capacity than by this kind of exercise. As my right hon. Friend clearly explained, to cancel it now would be to deprive a vital element of the Strategic Reserve of training and experience.
  It has been said that this whole argument which my right hon. Friend advanced is vitiated by his perfectly true statement that it took four months to write up and mount this exercise. As anyone who knows about these matters will accept, that is a perfectly normal time to take when one is trying to do an exercise in peace time, when one has to invent a situation, write it up and fit it into current Service requirements. We have not, of course, stopped our trooping and all the rest of the things we have to do because we are mounting this particular exercise. Since the Opposition have tried to draw the conclusion, quite falsely, from what my right hon. Friend said, that the Strategic Reserve is not as mobile as it should be, I can only repeat what I said in the defence debate, that important elements of the Strategic Reserve remain on 24 hours' notice to go anywhere they are required, by air, if need be.

  771
  I think it is clear, therefore—to be fair, no Opposition speaker has really challenged it—that this kind of operation is essential to the efficiency of our Forces and that, if we continue with it, we shall gain most valuable experience and improve the deterrent strength of the free world as a result. This, therefore, is not an argument on military grounds. It is not an argument about whether it is possible, reasonable or practical for us either to postpone the exercise or send it somewhere else. We could only have cancelled it.
  I come now to what is, I think, the nub of the argument. Should we have the exercise at all? I find a frightening streak of inconsistency in the approach of the Opposition to this kind of problem. They seem to see no harm in damaging a N.A.T.O. ally to advance their ideas of the moment on Africa or anywhere else.
  I take a view about our N.A.T.O. Alliance quite different from that of Opposition Members who have spoken. If we accept the demand that they have made land accept their doctrine—my hon. Friends the Members for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) and Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) made this point very well, and I entirely agree with them—we say that we are prepared to treat different members of the N.A.T.O. alliance in different ways because we may not agree with certain elements of their policies. If this were the doctrine, we could not complain if we were treated in the same way. Who will escape if we start that kind of universal witch-hunt in the N.A.T.O. alliance? I must say as firmly as I can that the Opposition bear a very grave responsibility for their attack on a member of the N.A.T.O. alliance at a time when the cohesion and undivided purpose of the alliance is more necessary than ever.
  Mr. G. Brown: Since the Minister sees fit to make that allegation against us, will he admit and accept that he and his Government bear a grave responsibility for their attack on Africa in return for Portugal?
  Mr. Watkinson: That is not relevant. I shall come to that argument in a few minutes.
  Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Watkinson: No, I will not.
  Mr. Driberg: Why not?
  Mr. Watkinson: Bearing in mind what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said in his speech—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Driberg: The Minister should give way occasionally.
  Mr. Watkinson: I have dealt with the N.A.T.O. aspects of the case.
  Mr. Driberg: Coward.
  Mr. Watkinson: I turn now to consider the matter on a bilateral basis. I suggest that hon. Members in all parts of the House, particularly those who wish to see a change in the policy of our ally, should address themselves to this question: are we more likely to bring Portugal to our way of thinking by treating her as a friend and ally, as she has been for several hundred years, or by the bitterly critical and negative approach of the Opposition? This is a closely relevant matter if we are to deal with politics in this debate.
  I now turn to the question of Africa and the effect that this exercise might have in Africa. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton was perfectly right to raise this point. This presumably is the sole basis on which the Opposition have moved the Motion. They agree apparently that this type of exercise is necessary. It has been shown perfectly plainly that it could not be cancelled or transferred elsewhere—
  Mr. G. Brown: Of course it could.
  Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is very good at not seeing arguments when they do not suit his case.
  I turn to the effect that this exercise might have in Africa. I repeat that what has been said in the House this evening, however sincerely—I am sure that it has been said utterly sincerely—is the kind of statement that is calculated to inflame uninformed feeling and so completely to distort the truth. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) dealt with Russian broadcasts from Moscow Radio beamed at Africa about

  773
  the effect of this exercise. I am sure that he does not believe them, but much of what he has said could lead other people to think that he believes them.
  Mr. Brown: That is the cheapest thing the right hon. Gentleman can say.
  Mr. Watkinson: We need not fear to be judged on our own actions and policies in Africa. No nation has more painstakingly devoted itself to raising the standards of the African people than the British. I agree with every word that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said on this. We have every right to be proud of what we have done and no one has brought more colonial peoples forward to full independence and sovereignty in Africa than we have.
  If we consider the situation today, our airlift operations in support of the United Nations are showing quite clearly in Africa the work that our Armed Forces are doing in support of rescue operations and pacification operations, and this is the basis on which we have every right to stand. I therefore do not take the view that this exercise in Portugal will damage our cause in Africa. If the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that I have misinterpreted his point about the Communists—I know that he is as anti-Communist as I am—I wish to make it plain that I make no imputation of that sort.
  Let me explain again because it is very important. What I said was this. Hon. Members speak with sincerity, but in Africa much of what they say—we must face this issue—can appear to support the cause of those who bitterly criticise what Britain has done in Africa. This is a perfectly honest and fair thing for me to say as my opinion of what effect this debate may have in Africa, in just the same way as members of the Opposition have tried to impute to us actions which they say will cause the greatest damage to the cause of those who want Africa to be free, sovereign and independent, as Britain does and always has done.
  I therefore hope that I have made it quite plain that our position is clear, honest and moral and that it is plain to all informed opinion in Africa and elsewhere that what we are doing in Portugal in mounting this exercise is, as I said at
  774
  the beginning, a normal piece of military co-operation between two allies in N.A.T.O. It was notified to N.A.T.O. and is taking place between forces which are either committed to N.A.T.O. or are to be so in any emergency.
  I cannot accept that, on that basis, what we are doing is anything but what we should be doing to fulfil our normal job of trying to keep the peace in the world and our forces at a high state of readiness. Therefore, the whole objective of the Opposition tonight, in my view—again, I regret to have to say this—must be seen from these benches as being an attempt to stir up as much trouble and dissension as it can between Great Britain and one of her N.AT.O. allies.
  I want it to be plain, without any shadow of doubt, that our relations with Portugal are the relations that we should have with a N.AT.O. ally. We have always made it plain, and I make it plain again now, that this does not imply that we agree in any sense with the colonial policy of the Portuguese. [Interruption.] This does not, and should not, affect our relations with them as a N.A.T.O. ally. If we accept this kind of policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked, where will it stop? What other nations will be involved? The whole of the N.AT.O. Alliance would be damaged beyond repair.
  The Opposition case is irrelevant, misleading and calculated to do nothing but harm to the allied cause, and I ask my hon. Friends to reject it.
  Mr. Driberg: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, since he refused in a very cowardly way to give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I require the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the adverb.
  Mr. Driberg: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that word at once and I apologise to you. I would say instead that in a way that is very uncustomary in the House of Commons, the Minister refused to give way to interruptions. When he says that we are trying to harm a N.A.T.O. ally and when he asks where this process will stop, may I ask what other N.A.T.O. ally has just been massacring 20,000 Africans? Does he not think that that harms us and harms that N.A.T.O. ally itself?
  Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that the hon. Member was in the House and heard—
  Mr. Driberg: I have listened to the whole debate.
  Mr. Watkinson: Then the hon. Member should have paid a little more attention to the speech of my hon. Friend the
  Member for Windsor. The reason why I have not given way more than a little is because the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said that he would deduct from my time any interruptions tha were made from my side of the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 194.

  Division No. 204.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Ainsley, William

  Hilton, A. V.

  Parker, John

  Albu, Austen

  Holman, Percy

  Parkin, B. T.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Peart, Frederick

  Baird, John

  Hunter, A. E.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Blyton, William

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, O.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Ross, William

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Lawson, George

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Darling, George

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Deer, George

  Lipton, Marcus

  Small, William

  Delargy, Hugh

  MacColl, James

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Dodds, Norman

  McInnes, James

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Stonehouse, John

  Driberg, Tom

  McLeavy, Frank

  Stones, William

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

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

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Evans, Albert

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Fernhough, E.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Fitch, Alan

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Marsh, Richard

  Tomney, Frank

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mason, Roy

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Wade, Donald

  Ginsburg, David

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Warbey, William

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Milne, Edward J.

  Weitzman, David

  Griffiths, David (Rorher Valley)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Monslow, Walter

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Moody, A. S.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Oram, A. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hannan, William

  Owen, Will

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Paget, R. T.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pannell Charles (Leeds, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Mr. Redhead and Mr. Cronin.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Currie, C. B. H.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Burden, F. A.

  Dance, James

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

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

  Deedes, W. F.

  Allason, James

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Doughty, Charles

  Arbuthnot, John

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  du Cann, Edward

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Eden, John

  Barber, Anthony

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Batsford, Brian

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Bell, Ronald

  Chataway, Christopher

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cole, Norman

  Foster, John

  Bidgood, John C.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Gammans, Lady

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cordle, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Boume-Arton, A.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Box, Donald

  Costain, A. P.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Coulson, J. M.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Goodhew, Victor

  Brewle, John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Green, Alan

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Crowder, F. P.

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Bryan, Paul

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Buck, Antony

  Curran, Charles

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Sandys. Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Shaw, M.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Shepherd, William

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maddan, Martin

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hay, John

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Marshall, Douglas

  Smithers, Peter

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Mawby, Ray

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Mills, Stratton

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Hobson, John

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Hollingworth, John

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Temple, John M.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Noble, Michael

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hornby, R. P.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thomeycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Turner, Colin

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pannell Norman (Kirkdale)

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Jackson, John

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  James, David

  Peel, John

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Percival, Ian

  Walder, David

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Walker, Peter

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pitman, Sir James

  Wall, Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Whitelaw, William

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Pym, Francis

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Wise, A. R.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Rees, Hugh

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Renton, David

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Longbottom, Charles

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Woollam, John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Roots, William

  Mr. Finlay and

  McAdden, Stephen

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Mr. Chicbester-Clark.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed further, I thought it might be for general convenience if I indicated that I do not propose to call the reasoned Amendment of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) but will in due course call his Motion for an Instruction.
  10.8 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Linstead: This is a Bill of local importance to London, and in it the London County Council is asking for very substantial powers. I think that even at this somewhat late hour it is not inappropriate that the House of Commons should look for a moment at those powers in order to see whether or not they ought to be granted to the London County Council or whether there are any features in relation to them to which we ought to draw the attention of the Minister before we pass the Bill.
  The Bill deals with two road widening schemes—the widening of Roehampton Lane and the widening of Finchley Road. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will be dealing with the second scheme.
  I wish to make a few observations about the development at Roehampton Lane, which involves one point of important principle, the taking of some common land for the purpose of throwing it into the highway. In the neighbourhood of London that is something which the House ought always to look at with care. This will not, I think, be the last piece of Wimbledon Common which will have to be taken for road
  780
  widening, and it is important that whenever that is done we should ensure that the legislation embodies the principle embodied in this Bill, which is that an equivalent amount of land must be found somewhere adjacent to the Common by the London County Council and given to the Common to maintain its size. That point is safeguarded in this Bill.
  The process of widening Roehampton Lane has involved the London County Council in the acquisition of property by two methods; one, compulsory purchase, and the other acquisition by statutory powers. In the second scheme in this Bill, a very large element of compulsory purchase is visualised, and I think we are entitled to look at what the County Council is proposing to do in relation to Finchley Road in the light of what in fact it has done in regard to Roehampton Lane.
  There, in so far as it has compulsorily purchased certain properties, it has taken something like ten times the area which it in fact requires. In Clause 8 of this Bill, there is power in relation to Finchley Road to sever property so that the London County Council shall take only that amount of property which is required, and shall not, as it did in Roehampton Lane, take a substantially larger part of the property than it needs.
  The property which London County Council has already acquired in Roehampton Lane amounts to nothing very much—one house and eight shops—but it has attempted to take that one house and eight shops under the threat of a compulsory purchase order. I suppose it could argue that there was a voluntary agreement with the owner, but we all know that a voluntary agreement under the threat of a compulsory purchase order has not very much element of the voluntary about it.
  The point that I want to put to my hon. Friend, which will apply in relation to this Bill in regard to the property that will be acquired for the Finchley Road extension, is this. Where property has been acquired by the London County Council in excess of what it needs, what steps can he take to ensure that the owners of that property can have back from the London County Council such portions of the property as it does not need, if the owners need that property back?

  781
  There were two owners of property in Roehampton Lane who refused to sell to the London County Council, who stood out and insisted upon a local inquiry. As a result of that inquiry, they have succeeded to the extent that the Minister has told the London County Council that it must take only that limited part of the property which it really needs. Yet these two owners who have succeeded in this inquiry are in the difficult position that unless they can rebuild on the remaining part of the area left to them they will, in fact, lose the value of their property.
  Before we part with this Bill, I should like my hon. Friend, if he will be good enough to do so, to say what remedy will be available to people, either in the Finchley Road widening area or in the Roehampton Lane widening, who have parts of their frontages taken, are being left with a truncated piece of land and are at the mercy of the London County Council, in regard to rebuilding shops or houses on the new frontage. Can he give some sort of assurance to these two owners, which he might also have to give to the owners in Finchley Road, that when their frontage has been taken, what is left will be regarded as being entitled to the benefit of rebuilding and the old use?
  If my hon. Friend could give an indication of that kind it would go some way in Roehampton Lane towards restoring the reputation which the London County Council lost because it took ten times more land than it needed, which left some shopkeepers and owners with an empty area not required by the Council but useless to them unless the Minister or the London County Council will allow them to rebuild on the new frontage.
  I wished to put that point to my hon. Friend before there is further progress with the Bill. I hope that he may use his influence with the London County Council to get what is an injustice in this area put right. In Clause 8 he will find the same problem arising when the Bill becomes operative in the case of the Finchley Road.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out all those provisions which relate to the widening of Finchley Road, Hampstead.
  This Bill seeks to give power to carry out certain works in Roehampton Lane and Finchley Road. The works appear in Clause 19 of the Bill, and those particularly mentioned in the Instruction are contained under the heading
  "Borough of Hampstead—Work No. 4A widening of Finchley road partly on both sides and partly on the eastern side and partly on the western side…"
  This is followed by other details of works of widening road junctions adjoining the Finchley Road.
  In order to carry out this work, the Bill seeks to empower the Council to acquire frontages and forecourts. That power appears in Clause 5, to acquire either by agreement or by compulsory purchase in order to carry out the widening. As a corollary, under Clause 8 there is power to the Council to acquire part only of certain properties, that is to say, to acquire the forecourts and front gardens of properties now abutting on the Finchley Road in order to widen that road. The necessity for the power in Clause 8 is that under the general law the owner of a property to be acquired can require the acquiring authority to take the whole property and not merely part of it. This Clause gives the local authority the power to take only part of the property if it requires only part.
  The length of the Finchley Road involved in this widening scheme commences at a point at which Hendon Way, already a widened road, joins the Finchley Road at the Blue Star Garage. From that point widening is to take place as far south as Swiss Cottage. I wish to say at once that there are wider roads both to the north and to the south. Hendon Way is widened where it joins Finchley Road and to the south of Finchley Road, past Swiss Cottage, the road is wider. If Finchley Road is widened, undoubtedly it would enlarge something of a bottleneck for a mile or two. That might sound like a commendation of the scheme. In fact, it is a condemnation of the scheme because traffic will thus be attracted to this

  783
  widened road. It will increase the flow of traffic on what I hope to show is an entirely unsuitable road far that purpose, unsuitable even if it is widened.
  This raises a substantial point of principle which is not just of local concern. Is the inter-town motorway traffic to be disgorged from a motorway into existing streets in the town merely by widening those existing streets, or are we to bring the motorway traffic further within our cities by means of a motorway road rather than by a widened residential or shopping road, that is, by squeezing it into existing residential and shopping streets? That is the wide point of principle concerned here.
  I understand that when widened the Finchley Road will be 80 ft., extending to 85 ft. at the curves, and accommodating six lanes of traffic. It will be a multi-purpose road of the worst kind. It will a curving and undulating road; I was almost going to say a hilly and winding road. When widened it will press up against the actual residences on either side. It will have many roads entering it and crossing it and it will go through a busy shopping area. I do not think one could have chosen a more inappropriate road for six lanes of fast-moving traffic.
  The traffic which moves along that road, particularly at peak hours, is the commuter type of traffic, those who are coming from the suburbs further out to work in the City and going out again in the evenings. If the widening of this road were for that purpose alone, I query whether we have a right to bring the disadvantages of a road of this sort to a neighbourhood such as that which surrounds the existing Finchley Road and to bring those disadvantages in order to save a few moments for travellers in the mornings and evenings.
  It will be worse than that, however, for this road, when widened, will undoubtedly attract traffic from M.1 and A.1, or attract traffic which is proceeding to M.1 and A.1. That traffic at the moment tends to disperse or congregate further out, but, with the attraction of a wide road to take it right into or out from St. John's Wood, drivers will be tempted to use that widened Finchley Road through the shopping area and by the residences there. This speeding and broadening of the traffic flow will
  784
  alter entirely the whole character of Finchley Road and the properties abutting it from a pleasantly tree-lined and curving suburban road with garden frontages along quite a considerable amount of its length. It will be turned into a bare expanse of unrelieved concrete pressing up against the buildings on either side without even the relief of a central strip.
  Again, I question whether we have the right to allow in a Private Bill the powers under Clause 8 to go through under these circumstances. It is the general law that if an acquiring authority wants part of a property it must take the whole if the owner so demands. It is quite usual and frequent for a Clause such as Clause 8 to be included in a Private Bill. Then the acquiring authority is given the power to take only a part provided that that part can be severed without material detriment to the remainder. That is provided in Clause 8 as it stands in the Bill. That is appropriate for taking little strips of land for straightening out a road or cutting off a corner, but it is not appropriate when one is altering the whole character of the properties concerned.
  In this case, there will no longer be shops and residences on Finchley Road standing back and yet grouped around their road in a sort of Finchley Road community. They will be properties jammed up against the through-traffic route, which will be running 10 feet from their windows, a traffic route that is dangerous, noisy, ugly and smelly and which cuts the community into two. I cannot see how the Finchley Road area can remain West Hampstead's principal shopping district under those conditions. We are not shown by the deposited plans how that split community is to be joined together. The deposited plans give no indication whatever how one gets the majority of road users, those on foot, from one side to the other.
  We have surely got our priorities wrong. The county council comes to the House with a detailed plan to show exactly how much land it wants to take to widen this road so as to accommodate fast-moving traffic down six lanes of roadway. It wants to sweep these six lanes of traffic through an area where, for most of the daytime, a mass of people

  785
  are going about their normal pursuits on foot. Surely, such an authority, asking the House to approve its acquiring land in this way, should show how it intends to deal with those people on foot. It might not be inappropriate for the House to impose conditions upon an authority acquiring property in those circumstances to give safety and amenity to those people who have to use this road.
  It is all very well to say that the authority has to have the powers in the Bill first and later it will see that pedestrians are provided with proper crossings, that there are proper bus stops, and so on. All road users other than through traffic should not be classed in this way as merely a piece of road furniture to be added to the plan later. The House should not grant these powers unless it is satisfied that proper provision is being made for other road users than those who go straight through from one end of the road to the other.
  I know of no way in which there is to be provision for the loading and unloading of goods, for bus stops, for private cars and taxis setting down and picking up, and for off-street parking. Because of the existing buildings on the road, it is impossible to make this provision. This shows the folly of attempting to drive this sort of road through this sort of neighbourhood.
  What is the purpose of it all? My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may say that the purpose is to speed up the traffic flow. One wonders sometimes what is this thing called traffic flow. Cynically, one might say that it is the effort to get the lone driver from his home on the outskirts to his office in the centre and back again to his home. For him, we have to tear a community in half and create all these dangers of a multi-lane road. In doing that, we are surely disregarding the amenities and rights of the majority who use the road, the residents of the neighbourhood.
  We seem to have become rather obsessed with the importance of through traffic, sacrificing the rights of the residents to that through traffic. Through traffic has its importance, but that importance should be recognised by constructing the proper roads to take it—constructing motorways into the centre of and across our cities. It is wrong to squeeze through traffic into the existing
  786
  streets merely by widening them right up to the building line on either side. It may be said that by doing this we are squeezing the maximum use out of the existing roads. But the maximum use for whom? The use of a road is not solely and simply to get from one end to the other it also has a use for those on either side of it throughout its whole length.
  The Bill does not carry out the County Council's intention as expressed in a report of 1959 of the Council's Committee on London Roads which expressed the desire to see
  "the traffic needs against the broad background of the lives and beings of the inhabitants and to secure a balanced solution."
  This scheme seems to me to be thoroughly unbalanced and no solution at all.
  Surely we have accepted that the right way to develop urban areas is to segregate the users—to provide shopping precincts, even elevated first-floor pavements, in order to segregate the pedestrians from the motor vehicles. This scheme flies in the face of all that. Surely we recognise that in this sort of development we have not only to separate the different types of road user but also the motor cars when they are being used for different purposes—to separate the through traffic from the local traffic and to provide for the stationary motor car. This scheme does not and cannot do any of that. It mixes all the uses together. It mixes all the road users together. I fear that it will result in a dangerous and chaotic state.
  Is this the Minister's policy? Is it his policy to build motorways to the edge of our cities and then to disgorge the traffic from the motorways into widened residential and shopping streets? If that is not his policy, then this is an extremely bad precedent to allow to slip through.
  If he intends to build the motorway to bring the traffic further in and does not intend to disgorge the motor road traffic into Finchley Road, then this scheme as put before us in the Bill and the deposited plans is quite unnecessary.
  10.34 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): If other hon. Members do not wish to address the House on the Instruction,

  787
  perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will allow me to intervene. It is somewhat unusual for the Ministry of Transport to intervene on a Private Bill of this kind but what is concerned in the Instruction is principally a traffic and road improvement matter.
  I ought to begin by reminding the House of the position. We are concerned with the Second Reading of the Bill and the Instruction. The Clause which relates to the Finchley Road improvement would either be examined in detail by our colleagues on the Select Committee, to which the Bill will be committed, or it would be deleted if the Instruction were carried. It is only right that I should tell the House that the Bill has so far been through another place unopposed, and so far has not received any objection.
  There are, I know, a great many people in Hampstead and district who have considerable feelings about the proposals for the improvement of Finchley Road. Hon. Members will no doubt have seen the brochure issued by a body known as the New Hampstead Society, which draws attention to these proposals in very forthright terms, but neither this body nor anyone else has so far lodged a Petition against the merits of the Bill. In fact, I believe that the time for petitioning has now expired. In that case, one may wonder whether the feeling about the improvement of Finchley Road is quite so strong as has been represented.
  Having stated the formal position, I should now like to draw the attention of the House to the need for the improvement of Finchley Road, because what we are asked to do is to approve in general terms the London County Council's proposals for the improvement of this road, and it is my hon. Friend's desire that we should delete from the Bill all reference to these important proposals.
  The House will, I think, know that the Finchley Road forms part of the A.41 road which runs from St. John's Wood, at the southern end, to the Apex Corner, in the Borough of Hendon. Between Page Street and Apex Corner, the A.41 runs in parallel with the A.1, and then the roads diverge; the A.41 continues via Watford Way to Hemel Hempstead, while the A.1 continues via Barnet Way to Hatfield and the North.
  788
  Comprehensive improvement of the whole of the A.41 between Apex Corner in the north and St. John's Wood in the south has been or is being undertaken, and so far only two stretches of this road have not been the subject of improvement schemes. The first is the section between Selborne Gardens, Hendon, to Brent Cross, where the A.41 crosses the North Circular Road, and it is at that point that it is intended to build a flyover. The second stretch is that which we are now discussing, in Finchley Road, between Hendon Way in the north and Swiss Cottage.
  The improvement of the first stretch, between Selborne Gardens and Brent Cross, has already been authorised, and Orders under the Highways Act will be published fairly soon. The second stretch is the subject of the provisions of the Bill. I must tell my hon. Friend and the House that my right hon. Friend and the Ministry of Transport are in no doubt at all as to the need for the improvement of this section of Finchley Road, and I should like to give some details as to why we come to that view.
  There is no doubt that Finchley Road is at present very heavily overloaded. Its width varies from 30 feet to 35 feet. At present, it carries about 50,000 vehicles a day at the Swiss Cottage end, and at Finchley Road itself the figure is some 27,000 vehicles a day. In the experience of my Department, this is a very heavy overload indeed. Some time ago, traffic surveys were taken which showed that not only are those figures correct but that only a very small proportion of the total traffic goes to or from the motorway.
  My hon. Friend has raised the issue of whether or not we should bring motorways right into the centres of towns. I will say a little more about that in a moment, but I think that it will help the House to get the picture into perspective if I say that of the volume of traffic at present using this narrow stretch of the Finchley Road, the great bulk is local traffic; either serving that particular area of Hampstead, going a little further out to Hendon, or a little further out still to the northern suburbs.
  Only between 7 per cent. and 12 per cent. of the total traffic on Finchley Road at present is heading towards or coming from the motorway. That is

  789
  the present situation. We know from the researches carried out by the Road Research Laboratory that traffic volumes throughout the country are rising by about 5 per cent. per annum compound. That leads us, at once, to the conclusion that if we leave Finchley Road as it is, and no improvement is made, the very heavy overload it has at present will get worse.
  Even if the motorway M.1 were to be extended southwards into the centre of London, or in some other direction—and I must emphasise that this question has not yet been decided by my right hon. Friend the Minister and will not be until such time as the London traffic census, details of which were announced today, have been completed—Finchley Road would still be heavily overloaded if not improved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred to the Report of the London Roads Committee, and I should like to draw his attention to the fact that in that Report, which was published in 1959, reference was made to this situation. The Committee stated that whatever might be the future decisions taken about motorways into the centres of towns, there would still be a need to improve many roads in London. The Report specifically picked out Finchley Road as one which should have priority in this connection.
  Of course, a lot is said today about urban motorways, but they do not seem to be universally popular. In this case, the New Hampstead Society have, in the publication to which I have referred, said that we should build the motorway into the centre of London and leave the Finchley Road wholly as it is. But, further north, in Hendon, there is another body called the Motorway Objection Society, and this body says: "You have already improved the present road, so why build an urban motorway?"
  Hon. Members may come to the conclusion—as I did, some time ago—that life in the Ministry of Transport is hard sometimes. Nevertheless, we have to look carefully indeed at the proposals for urban motorways, not least because they are extremely expensive and undoubtedly consume a great deal of property.
  790
  It is important to realise that what is in the Bill is only an outline of what the London County Council would wish to do. It does not constitute a detailed set of drawings or detailed proposals for precisely the things the council wants to do. It is, as it were, a blueprint. First, it is said that the layout of the improved road will be substandard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, the width of the road, if improved, would be about 60 feet between kerbs with, on either side, a 10-ft. footpath. This would give us three traffic lanes in each direction, each being about 10 ft. wide.
  While in open country we aim at 12-ft. wide lanes, in urban areas, where property acquisition is involved, we accept 10-ft. wide lanes. I think that this is justifiable not only because of the property aspect, but also because in the towns and built up areas, traffic is moving more slowly. One can, therefore, expect a rather closer position of the vehicles to one another than one would in the open country, where speeds are higher. In the towns there must be a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. and the traffic must, therefore, be moving slowly compared with traffic in open country.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not 10-ft. lanes are sufficient for this road? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that a 10-ft. footpath in Finchley Road would be totally inadequate, in view of the enormous size of the shopping centre there?
  Mr. Hay: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with that aspect of the matter in more detail when I come later to the subject of property acquisition. The point he raises is really concerned with that subject.
  We can accept, in cases like this, a 10-ft. lane for traffic because of these factors. I should point out that already on this route, the A.41 between Apex Corner and St. John's Wood, many of the stretches which have already been improved have been built to this standard of three 10-ft. lanes and so far they have caused us no particular trouble.
  I next come to the point about the danger to property and amenities. Given the need to improve this road, which I hope I have demonstrated, we have a

  791
  choice between a 60-ft. carriageway of this kind, which involves virtually no demolition of house property, or a wider carriageway with, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said, wider pavements which would undoubtedly involve very extensive demolition of property and particularly of homes. It is true that under the county council's proposals the gardens and the forecourts of most of the properties, if not all, fronting the Finchley Road will be affected to a greater or lesser extent. It is true that many of them will lose a great deal of amenity. This is, of course, regrettable, and I am sure we all sympathise. I myself lived a few years ago in a block of flats on the Finchley Road on this section that is to be improved, and I know that it will undoubtedly affect the amenities of the property if the road is widened. But I hope I have shown that the need for improvement of this road is very great, and that must be weighed in the balance against the loss of amenities that the residents will suffer.
  I should perhaps add that there will be compensation payable by the county council under its proposals in the Bill to those whose amenities are affected and whose property is touched. The county council can also, I understand, undertake what we call in the Ministry accommodation works—the building of walls and means of access to properties where some of the frontage land has in fact been taken. So perhaps at the end of the day the thing may not prove too disastrous for those who live on the Finchley Road.
  Sir H. Linstead: I may have interrupted my hon. Friend too soon, but suppose that a part only of a fairly deep area is taken compulsorily by the county council. What are the rights of the owner in respect of rebuilding his property on the new line if he wishes to do so?
  Mr. Hay: I believe that the precise position—I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters—is that he would have to apply for planning permission. If that were refused, he would have under the Town and Country Planning Acts a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Beyond that I am
  792
  afraid I cannot go, but no doubt my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry, who has been listening to this debate, will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) if I have gone wrong. I hope I have not.
  May I next turn to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby raised about pedestrians. It is true that when one widens and improves a road of this kind, inevitably there is some separation of an existing community. But I hope that on what the county council alone has said in the Bill, and in the statement that it has issued in respect of it to hon. Members, it will be clear that the council has not entirely neglected or forgotten the needs of pedestrians. It is proposed to build at least two pedestrian subways, one outside the Swiss Cottage tube station and the other at the Finchley Road tube station. I am advised that other pedestrian subways would not necessarily be ruled out because they are not specifically mentioned in the Bill. If there were a need for further pedestrian subways and if it was technically possible to provide them, I have no doubt the county council would wish to give very careful consideration to doing it.
  But subways are not the only things which will be provided to help pedestrians. The increase in the width of the road would mean that for the first time we can properly provide central pedestrian refuges. This is something which does not exist in Finchley Road and which, undoubtedly, with the wider and more open layout, would help pedestrians who at the moment go through all kinds of hazards in trying to cross this extremely busy road, particularly between the top of West End Lane and the Finchley Road tube station.
  Sir Douglas Glover: If the three lanes are 10 ft. wide and the whole road only 60 ft. wide, presumably it will be only a two-lane road in each direction, because if refuges are placed in the centre they will lessen the effective width of the road.
  Mr. Hay: This is a question of design. It would not be easy to embark on an argument of this question from the Box.

  793
  This is our normal practice: where we have a 60-ft. carriageway with three 10-ft. lanes, we can and do place pedestrian refuges in the centre. It means that at different points the centre lane narrows a little, or the traffic must diverge a little. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not a difficult problem.
  Thirdly, for the protection of pedestrians there will be traffic signals at a number of intersections on this improved road. As the House knows, one of the great advantages of traffic signals from the pedestrian's point of view is that they break up the flow of traffic. They provide gaps in the traffic, thus enabling pedestrians to cross.
  I sum up the Government's general attitude to the Bill in this way. We in the Ministry of Transport are in support of an improvement being carried out to Finchley Road. We believe that there is a serious traffic problem there which needs to be resolved. We have invited the London County Council to submit to us a scheme to be included in our programme for 1962–63. We are prepared to authorise to the county council a grant of £2·8 million for the carrying out of this scheme. The scheme is estimated to cost about £3·75 million. It therefore represents a 75 per cent. grant by the Ministry.
  We believe that the London County Council's proposals contained in the Bill are a genuine and reasonable attempt to solve the undoubted traffic problems which there are at this place. We are not committed to the precise details of the scheme, many of which have not been formulated at all so far, but we consider nevertheless that the provisions in the Bill merit the consideration of a Committee of the House and that they should not be rejected at this stage of the Bill's progress. In the light of what I have said and the emphasis which I have placed upon the necessity for an improvement of Finchley Road, I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that, having ventilated the matter tonight, he should consider withdrawing his Motion for an Instruction.
  10.52 p.m.
  Mrs. Freda Corbet: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes in view of the excellent statement to which we have just listened. The London County Council's
  794
  proposals have been fully justified in so far as the plans are known at the moment. The proper course would obviously be that, when the Bill is referred to the Committee, the Committee should take notice of the points which have been raised and decide whether there is merit in the representations which have been made against the Bill.
  If the Committee were to be given an Instruction to leave out all reference to Finchley Road, the net result would be also to make it impossible to proceed with the Swiss Cottage improvement, where part of Finchley Road is involved, and I am sure that that would not be the intention of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).
  I should also like to reassure the hon. Member about Clause 8. This is a model Clause which is normally used to protect an acquiring authority against the kind of blackmailing by property owners which has happened in the past. The Clause puts the matter fairly in that if the property owner is not satisfied with the terms offered by the acquiring authority the whole matter can be referred to the Land Tribunal for decision. That seems to me to be fair protection for both parties and it has become customary for the London County Council to include a Clause of this kind in all its general powers Bills.
  As an authority, we who serve on London County Council have to take heed of the cost of schemes, of rehousing obligations, and of the dispersal of traffic brought into London. The council's planning committee has no hesitation in assuring hon. Members that the council, as the most advanced body of its kind, wants desperately to adhere to the principles which it has laid down. It will be a great comfort to hon. Members to know that in another part of North London, Heath Road, the council has taken steps to safeguard against road widening which would have affected the character of the road. If it had not been for the absolute necessity to eradicate the bottle-neck in this case, the council would have done the same in Finchley Road. The council's committee takes the same view as does the hon. Member for Crosby of the need to segregate not only pedestrian but other traffic. It is looking forward to the time when it will be possible to do this, but feels sure that it is the wisest

  795
  plan to await the completion of the traffic survey.
  Even after embarking on the building of a five-mile roadway, involving large-scale rehousing obligations, the council will still be faced with a terrible debouchment of traffic into the St. John's Wood area which it cannot deal with until the position of the ring roads is known. I assure the House that all these matters have been carefully considered and that powers have been taken, as has been indicated, to make it possible to cross the road in safety, that subways can be constructed and no doubt will be built, and that there is wide sympathy on the part of Members of the London County Council's planning committee with the objects which hon. Members wish to secure.
  I may illustrate this by saying that the Ministry of Transport very much wanted the council in 1951 to find a way of bypassing this stretch of Finchley Road. It was proposed to take a road down Fitzjohn's Avenue, which joins the Finchley Road further on, but it was discovered that if that were done we should do the very thing that we wanted to avoid, namely, split the neighbourhood irrevocably. We decided that we must abandon that plan. I hope that the House will be willing to let the Bill go through to Committee unfettered by any direction whatsoever, in the interest of a speedy solution of this problem.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Compton Carr: Being interested in this matter not only as a member of the London County Council but as one who has had a road driven through his constituency, I feel that I cannot refrain from asking my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to consider withdrawing his Instruction. He is asking either for a completely new road at very great expense indeed, and one which will bring the motorway into the City, something which has not yet been decided upon—it is certainly something which would destroy far more amenities than the small stretch of Finchley Road—or that the L.C.C. shall take more land than it needs.
  My hon. Friend is suggesting that at least one side of this portion of Finchley Road shall be destroyed, and,
  796
  having observed that sort of thing in my own constituency, I contend that that should be avoided at all costs. It lays a very heavy burden on the funds available for the construction of the road and on the L.C.C. in the provision of extra homes and arrangements for the removal of the residents in the area. In addition, it not only tends to split—as this may very well do—a community into two but changes the community completely out of recognition.
  I have driven along the Finchley Road for many years. When my hon. Friend describes it as something of a bottleneck, in a sort of throw-away, I am not with him, because it must have contributed to more ulcers per square yard than any other piece of roadway in London. As my hon. Friend said, it is commuter traffic. It is merely ordinary people from other parts of London wanting to get home. It is not a roadway providing speeding facilities for people outside the area or living on the other side of England. These are ordinary people wanting to get back home. My hon. Friend described these people in terms which I think they would not recognise—as single occupants of vehicles wishing to pass through the Finchley Road area without care about the disadvantages brought to the neighbourhood. They are really quite ordinary people who are continually impeded by this stretch of road.
  I hope that in view of the very clear indications which we have had not only from the L.C.C. in its explanatory memorandum but from my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend will withdraw the Instruction.
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Swingler: As one who knows the Finchley Road fairly well, I appreciate the problem of the London County Council. It is subject to the long-term plans of the Ministry of Transport.
  What was unsatisfactory to me in the speech of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was that he devoted no time at all to the alternatives. The real question is: is there any other way of relieving the traffic congestion in the Finchley Road? If it is demonstrated to us that this widening scheme as projected is the

  797
  only way of relieving the present and future congestion there, it is obvious that we shall have to accept the scheme for the sake of preventing the ulcers to which the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) referred.
  But I believe that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not really face the question of the basic priorities of the Ministry of Transport itself. As I see the problem, I am bound to agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). There is no doubt that the scheme is one to organise a speedway through a main shopping centre. Let there be no doubt about that.
  Those who are acquainted with the present conditions in the district contemplate that a road with six lanes of traffic through the shopping centre will be a speedway. If anyone doubts that let him go to St. John's Wood and look at the character of the traffic moving between St. John's Wood tube station and Swiss Cottage Odeon as a result of the widening carried out there. It may be that we want to get traffic moving fast, but in this case, in contrast to that road widening scheme, it will be passing through a main shopping centre.
  Secondly, it will be cutting a neighbourhood in two. There can be no doubt that when these six lanes of traffic are organised they will cut right through the heart of the Borough of Hampstead. We have not the privilege of the
  798
  presence tonight of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who happens also to be the right hon. Member for Hampstead. He knows, better than anyone in the House, that if we allow this scheme it will emphasise what already exists—a very striking frontier in Hampstead itself.
  The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that the scheme contains many dangers. It will destroy many amenities. One has to refer only to the trees. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) often asks Questions of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government about the promotion of tree growing as an amenity in certain areas in the country. He frequently gets very cordial and sympathetic Answers from the Ministry. Let us recognise that if this Instruction is not agreed to we shall be doing something which will lead to the cutting down of many trees and destroying an amenity in this district.
  Let us recognise what we are doing. We are organising a speedway through a main shopping centre, cutting right through a neighbourhood and destroying a definite amenity. It is up to the Ministry of Transport to prove that this is absolutely indispensable and that there is no alternative. I do not think that the Ministry of Transport has proved its case.
  Question put and negatived.

  NEWTON AYCLIFFE (RENT INCREASES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  11.9 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Slater: This has been an interesting day on which debates have taken place in which much feeling has been shown. At the close of the day I am privileged to raise an important matter on the Adjournment. After eleven years as a Member of the House this is the first occasion on which I had had the privilege of raising a subject on the Adjournment.
  I am grateful, therefore, to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the question of increased rents in Newton Aycliffe. I am sorry that the Minister, in refusing my request for him to meet a deputation from the local parish council, left me no alternative but to raise this matter on the Floor.
  Rent increases in this new town were to date from 1st April, and were to range from 1s. 6d. to 5s. a week. When this fact was made known to the tenants they were shocked and dismayed in view of the general statement made by the Newton Aycliffe Development Corporation—which, in the opinion of many people, could not be substantiated—that the financial position in the accounts disclosed or indicated a condition of prosperity.
  A deficiency of £8,579 was shown in the general fund account, but for five years in succession a surplus had been shown and this surplus would have been practically wiped out had it not been for a decision taken in 1958 that surface water drainage for highways was not to be treated as a sewerage undertaking, but as highway development, and that interest charges were a charge on the general revenue account. Overnight, the deficiency on that account was increased by no less than £6,525.
  The total capital expenditure of the corporation amounted to £609,000 and £536,000 was borrowed, the remainder coming from revenue. Bearing this fact in mind, it can be readily seen why the tenants of this new town were shocked by the announcement of the corporation
  800
  of its intention to increase its rents by the figures which I have already mentioned. Before these increases were announced, let me inform the House, the development corporation asked to meet the parish council and to explain the reason for the increase in the rents. This, I think, indicates that while the Minister was not prepared to recognise the importance of this parish authority at Newton Aycliffe, the corporation did; hence the reason for this meeting.
  I know the chairman personally, and have a great regard for him and for the position he holds. This meeting, with the chairman of the corporation acting as spokesman, informed the council—so I am advised—that it was a Ministry decision that the state of the housing revenue account was the determining factor in regulating the rents; and that the position of the corporation as a whole, and as shown in its published general revenue account, had no bearing whatever upon the rents in this new town.
  Perhaps the Minister will tell us tonight whether such a statement is correct. The council was further informed that, unless the rents were increased, then in the next three years there would be an average loss of £50,000 a year on the housing revenue account. Hence these increases. In view of this statement, a request was made by the members of the council to be allowed to examine the various revenue accounts. This was turned down and no explanation was given as to how the estimated deficiency would be sustained.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): Perhaps I missed it, but did the hon. Gentleman say by whom the request was made that the accounts should be seen?
  Mr. Slater: By the parish council to the corporation, in view of the statements made by the chairman about increased rents.
  In the light of no explanation being offered, the council could only arrive at one conclusion, and that was that if there were to be losses as estimated, then they should be substantiated by facts. If the housing revenue account was to be treated in isolation, then we are bound to get questions which can only

  801
  be answered by examination and publication of the various revenue accounts. The whole cost of the maintenance of the greens and the forecourts in the new town is charged to the housing revenue account. The tenants in the new town and the local authority ask why this should be so. There is also the question of £86,000 which was taken from the housing account and transferred to the repair fund. Even this amount averages £26 per house, which, according to my information, is greater than in the case of any other new town corporation.
  What it amounts to is that this enormous sum of £86,000 is being used as a cash balance free of interest charges. I do not deny the wisdom of having a good, solid repair fund, or the manner in which it is used, but if it is to be accepted that the housing revenue account is to be treated in isolation, surely we are faced with the question of how much free interest money is being used to benefit other revenue accounts or, on the other hand, how much money is coming from the housing revenue account to subsidise the other accounts of the corporation.
  Therefore, would it not have been better if money taken from the housing revenue account and transferred to the repair account had been followed by some form of loan charge, this being credited to the housing revenue account? Another equally unfair debit is interest charges on the houses under construction. Last year, according to my information, these charges to Newton Aycliffe amounted to £7,600, and the total to date during the lifetime of the new town corporation has reached £50,800.
  During the discussions between the parish council and the development corporation, it was brought out that the rent increases were to cover a three-year period. I have no doubt that, in making these assessments, the development corporation took into account every contingency.
  Following the decision to raise the rents, we had an announcement by the Minister in the House of an increased subsidy of £8 per annum for each dwelling. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten me tonight about whether the development corporation was informed of this prior to the taking
  802
  of the decision to raise the rents. I should very much like to know, and, no doubt, my constituents in Newton Aycliffe would like to know. How will this additional £8 subsidy per house affect the corporation's finances? Will it increase the housing revenue account? If the corporation's finances benefit from this new subsidy, there would appear to me to be little justification for further increases after three years.
  After the meeting between the development corporation and the parish council, a parish meeting was held on 7th March to discuss the matter. I understand that it was a well-represented meeting. After long discussion, the following resolution was carried unanimously:
  "That this meeting is gravely concerned about the high rent increases in Newton Aycliffe and requests the Great Aycliffe Parish Council to appoint a deputation to meet Mr. J. Slater, Member of Parliament for Sedgefield Division, with a view to meeting the Minister of Housing and Local Government to discuss the proposed rent increases."
  This resolution was approved and adopted by the parish council at its meeting on 28th March. I met the deputation from the parish council. I listened to its case and posed certain questions, and then I contacted the Minister by letter. I have raised the subject by Question in the House, and this debate is the final stage.
  I believe that the Minister could have met this deputation, with the Member for the constituency. Anyone who knows anything about this new town knows full well that the parish council, with other interested bodies, has been endeavouring to build up a community spirit in the new town. It may be that the council's efforts are not meeting with the success which they deserve. A major cause of this, no doubt, is the apathy which high rents is breeding among many of the tenants. It must not be overlooked that to meet these high rents at Newton Aycliffe, and other incidentals in building up a home within this community, both husband and wife must seek to have some form of employment, for they could not manage on one income.
  No one wants to see this new town prosper more than with a good community spirit prevailing at all times, but this recent action in increasing rents in no way assists to that end. Questions

  803
  are continually being asked, and answers have to be given. Through what medium must the tenant look for answers to his many questions? I have gathered from conversations with people, not of any particular group, that if these rent increases continue to take place at Newton Aycliffe, the rents will become too high, with result that instead of drawing people into the new town, we shall find those now living there seeking to get out.
  In its circular to the tenants about this increase, the corporation drew their attention to what had been happening in regard to wages, which placed additional costs on its building programme. It stated that there had been an average increase of nearly 20 per cent. in wages since 1956, with a 5 per cent. increase in the cost of building materials and an increase in the cost of borrowed money. But this has applied itself not only to new town building, but to local authority building throughout the country. I venture to suggest that these increases, on average, have not reached a figure equivalent to an increase of 5s. a week in basic rents. I have endeavoured to bring the objections to the Minister's notice, and no doubt the tenants of Newton Aycliffe new town are anxiously awaiting his reply to their objections.
  Anything that the Minister can tell me tonight which will allay the fears of the tenants of Newton Aycliffe of further increases will be greatly appreciated. This new town is growing. People are going to it from all parts of the country. There has been a true community spirit. But apathy is creeping in. I fear that if this continues there could be a form of disintegration; instead of a true community spirit, there could be an apathy which would retard the development and the progress of the town. Instead of a happy community we should have a community expressing much dissatisfaction.
  11.24 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: Before the Minister replies, I should like to underline two points put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater). I was surprised to learn that the Minister of Housing and Local Government had refused to receive a deputation which was to be introduced by my hon. Friend. If it be said that, after
  804
  all, there are many parish councils in the country, and the Minister cannot possibly meet them all, it must be realised that it is not every local authority in whose area rents can be directly determined by ministerial policy. If it was really impossible for the Minister to see the deputation, could not the Parliamentary Secretary himself have undertaken to do so?
  I was also surprised to learn that it had apparently been impossible for the persons concerned to see the relevant accounts of the corporation. If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, I would have thought that these were public documents. If my hon. Friend himself wished to have access to them, surely he could not be refused. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point.
  11.25 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): In answering this debate, it is necessary for me to go back a little, and to explain what the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) may know but which ought, nevertheless, to be on the record. Ever since the time when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was in my right hon. Friend's position there has been a consistent policy about the rents in new towns. Each Minister, no matter what his party, has required that the development corporations should raise by rents, in addition to the subsidies they receive, sufficient in aggregate to cover the outgoings of their housing costs.
  Because, over the years, the costs of building houses and of servicing the capital needed to finance them have increased, the cost of houses in the new towns has also tended to increase. In order that this should not impose an unfair rent on those who happened by chance to occupy the houses at a later stage in the new towns' history, more and more of the new towns have adopted a rent pooling policy, which seeks to ensure that, broadly, the same rent is charged for houses of a single type, irrespective of the historical cost of the house concerned.
  The Newton Aycliffe Development Corporation went on to a pooling system for houses in 1956. At that time, because it was moving to a pooling system,

  805
  there were some rent increases, but the corporation then undertook that there would be no further rent increases for a period of three years. That was in 1956. In fact, the corporation has been 66 per cent. better than its words; very roughly, there was not a rent increase for five years.
  The first increase since 1956 was on 1st April, 1961, and is the one to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It is true that in a few cases the increase was as much as 5s. a week, but only where the house was let with a garage—and only then in a few cases. It is true that there were also a number of cases where the rent increase was as much as 3s. 6d. per week, but the bulk of the rent increases were no more than 1s. 6d. a week—and this, after a five-year interval of no increases, and no increase of rent charged, according to my information, in the case of elderly people—old-age pensioners. I hope that that puts the position about rent increases in proportion.
  The different increases arise from the corporation's endeavour to arrive at fair letting values for each type of house in present-day conditions, bearing in mind the relative popularity of different types of house as well as their size and amenity and, of course, their age and position in the town. That is why some houses had different rent increases from others, but all within the figures I have given.
  The hon. Gentleman has told the House quite correctly that the development corporation carefully and courteously invited the parish council along before the increases were made, and informally told the council what the proposals were. I am told that, in fact, the council has not been back to the corporation since then. It is true that it called a public meeting, and it is, of course, true, as the hon. Gentleman explained, that at that public meeting the resolution was passed inviting him to take up the question of rent increases with my right hon. Friend.
  It is also true that this meeting was called by the parish council and a resolution passed at the meeting. But, so far as the occupants themselves were concerned, it is interesting to see how many of them protested themselves. There was a protest on behalf of the members of the Newton Aycliffe
  806
  Tenants' Association. They did not, so far as I am informed, back it up with any details of real hardship. The development corporation has had one letter complaining of hardship.
  In the case of an individual tenant—who says that the rent increase will cause him hardship—the development corporation is trying to arrange a transfer for him from his present house to a cheaper house which will still suit him. I am told that the development corporation has offered him two different houses, both at cheaper rents and that, up to now, he has refused both. Thus, an attempt to rehouse, to his approval, the one tenant for whom hardship is claimed, is going on.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) are upset because my right hon. Friend will not receive a deputation. Both hon. Gentle-merit are disturbed that the development corporation will not disclose all its accounts to the parish council. I can inform the hon. Member for Fulham that to the extent that its accounts are public, they are available, in due course, to anyone. But I imagine that what the hon. Gentleman demands are the calculations leading up to those public accounts.
  The reason why the Minister will not receive a deputation is, of course, that he and his predecessors have laid down broad policy for development corporation rents. It would be intolerable if members of development corporations were then called to account by the Minister at the wish of bodies that, although elected, are elected to carry out functions other than housing, if the development corporations are, in fact, acting within the policy laid down by the Minister.
  The moment he believes that a development corporation is acting outside the broad policy he and his predecessors have laid down, action to correct that lies with him. Of course, if he heard, from whatever quarter it might be, that a development corporation was acting outside that policy, he would consider what action he should take. In this case, the development corporation is acting within the policy laid down by the Government and, therefore, it would be wrong of my right

  807
  hon. Friend to interfere with its discretion and with its policy.
  A parish council is an important body. It is an elected body and it has responsibilities. But those duties do not happen to include the responsibility for housing. It must be the development corporation that carries out those duties. The hon. Member for Sedgefield asked how he, as the elected Member of Parliament for the area, could carry out his job if he could not have access to the Minister—
  Mr. Slater: With the deputation.
  Sir K. Joseph: Yes, with the deputation.
  Let me inform the hon. Member how he can. It is his duty, if he knows of any case of real hardship arising from the policy of the development corporation, to inform the corporation of it. He should put it to them. I am sure that the corporation will do its best to take into account any cases of hardship brought to its attention by the hon. Gentleman.
  In this case, the hon. Gentleman has come to the House and, so far as I could gather from his speech, he has spoken in general terms. He did not cite one case of real hardship, and I repeat, no rent increase took place for about five years, the bulk of the increases that did occur were of 1s. 6d. a week, a few of 3s. 6d., and where there were garages, 5s. a week.
  Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman now trying to suggest that there have been no cases of hardship? If I had known that he wanted such cases, I could have got all those I required. It is not a matter of citing single hardship cases, but of my seeking to present the general picture on behalf of the local authority.
  Sir K. Joseph: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that if he has a case of real hardship he has no reason to bring it to my right hon. Friend unless he can show that he has been to the development corporation and the development corporation agrees that it is a case of hardship and will not do anything about it. In fact, at the moment, despite the public meeting and despite the interest of the tenants' association,
  808
  the development corporation has received evidence of only one case of real hardship, and in that case it is doing its best to rehouse the tenant at a lower rent.
  I am not seeking to do any more than suggest that the development corporation would be more than anxious to hear of any case where real hardship is being caused and to see if anything can be done about it.
  Mr. Slater: A public meeting was held. Representations were made to the parish council for certain action to be taken. I have had a long experience of local government before coming to this House, and I do not want the hon. Gentleman to tell me what my duties are. So far as the parish meeting was concerned, the people of Newton Aycliffe had a right to know what really happened to the representations which have been made to the Member of Parliament and, through him, to the Minister. That is what we are waiting for tonight.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am suggesting that those representations should be made to the development corporation in the case of any hardship, because the development corporation carries out my right hon. Friend's policy, and it must be left to carry out that policy at its own discretion, provided it remains within the limits laid down.
  I fear that that is all I can say to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that he is doing his duty in bringing the matter here. I very much hope that the single case of hardship that has come to light as a result of this comparatively gentle rent increase—the first to take place for five years in Newton Aycliffe—will be satisfactorily solved by the efforts of the development corporation that are now going on, and I am sure that any further case of real hardship that is reported to the development corporation will be considered sympathetically and constructively.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Universities (Cumberland and Westmorland)
  Universities (Cumberland and Westmorland)
  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  Goya Picture (Duke of Wellington)
  Goya Picture (Duke of Wellington)
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Pensions (Widows and Orphans)
  Police Pensions (Widows and Orphans)
  Intoxicating Liquor (Crime)
  Intoxicating Liquor (Crime)
  Girls and Young Women (Prison Sentences)
  Girls and Young Women (Prison Sentences)
  Members (Police Grievances)
  Members (Police Grievances)
  West Indian Immigration
  West Indian Immigration
  Remand Homes
  Remand Homes
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Juvenile Delinquency
  Juvenile Delinquency
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  A and X Films
  A and X Films
  Inspector Pawsey and Sergeant Hutchins (Deaths)
  Inspector Pawsey and Sergeant Hutchins (Deaths)
  Domestic Oil Heaters
  Domestic Oil Heaters
  Prison Officers (Assaults by Prisoners)
  Prison Officers (Assaults by Prisoners)
  Prison Service
  Prison Service
  Captain Galvao (Visa)
  Captain Galvao (Visa)
  Bookmakers and Betting Shops
  Bookmakers and Betting Shops
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  National Democratic Party
  National Democratic Party
  Economic and Social Development
  Economic and Social Development
  EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
  EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
  FREE WORLD
  FREE WORLD
  TREATY OF ROME
  TREATY OF ROME
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
CANADA
  Great Lakes (Shipping)
  Great Lakes (Shipping)
CYPRUS
  Extradition Treaty
  Extradition Treaty
SIERRA LEONE
  Fourah Bay College
  Fourah Bay College
  Inter-University Council
  Inter-University Council
EDUCATION
  Training Colleges (Places)
  Training Colleges (Places)
  Research Staff
  Research Staff
  National Union of Students (Memorandum)
  National Union of Students (Memorandum)
  Mathematics (Teachers)
  Mathematics (Teachers)
  School, Dagenham
  School, Dagenham
VIRGIN ISLANDS
  Economic Development
  Economic Development
WEST INDIES
  Federation
  Federation
KENYA
  Independence (Statement)
  Independence (Statement)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Mr. Harry Nkumbula
  Mr. Harry Nkumbula
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  River Hull (Flooding)
  River Hull (Flooding)
BRITISH ARMY
  Television Recruiting Campaign
  Television Recruiting Campaign
  Three-Year Engagements (Other Ranks)
  Three-Year Engagements (Other Ranks)
POST OFFICE
  Site, Brentford
  Site, Brentford

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield
The Earl of Effingham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BRITAIN, THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY AND EURATOM
2.35 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, if Britain were to join the European Economic Community, this would also mean joining the European Coal and Steel Community and/or Euratom; and, if so, what the consequences would be for British related industries.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, if the United Kingdom were to become a member of the European Economic Community, the question of our membership of the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom would also arise. When the Western European Union Assembly considered, in June, 1960, a suggestion that the member countries should examine the possibility of United Kingdom membership of Euratom, my right honourable friend Mr. Profumo, who was then the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, said that
"we would be prepared to look again at the possibility of joining not only Euratom but also the European Coal and Steel Community."
He went on to say that our position must depend on whether our action would help or hinder the general prospect of a satisfactory settlement of the general European problem, and that we regarded this
282
matter as part of the wider European construction which we hoped would be undertaken.
Exploratory talks are now taking place to ascertain whether a basis for negotiations can be found with the European Economic Community. It is only when the position in this respect is clearer that it will be possible to consider the consequences for the United Kingdom's relations with Euratom and the European Coal and Steel Community, and the consequences which might follow for British related industries.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount for his Answer, could he say whether an economic appreciation of the consequences of going into either or both of them has been made?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think there could be an appreciation of the economic consequences of going into Euratom because there is practically nothing economic going on on the ground there. But I am not sure if an investigation has been made of the Coal and Steel Community recently. Of course, the matter arose acutely during the Labour Government in 1950, when the Community was formed.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords., would the noble and learned Viscount agree that going into Euratom would be likely to have serious consequential effects upon the aircraft and electrical industries in this country, as well as the atomic industry?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that is much too wide a question to answer "off the cuff". There would be serious objections to doing either in isolation from the general question which we are, of course, discussing.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount agree that similar difficulties would not arise in connection with an economic appreciation of the effect that going into the Coal and Steel Community would have upon our power industries, such as coal, oil, electricity, gas and the like?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should have to think about that before I accepted it, but it sounds sensible.

THE ROME TREATY AND BRITISH SOCIAL SERVICES
2.41 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: 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 what changes, if any, the "Social Harmonisation" proposals of the Rome Treaty would require in (a) the provision and (b) the method of financing of British social services.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Treaty of Rome provides for the introduction of a social security system to enable periods of insurance completed under the legislation of two or more of the members of the European Economic Community to be added together for the purpose of determining the right to benefit and to guarantee the payment of benefit by each member of the Community to migrant workers and their dependants who are resident in the territories of the other members. The Treaty provides also for close co-operation between the members in the field of social security and declares that the functioning of the Common Market will favour the harmonisation of the social systems of the members. While Her Majesty's Government understand that the Community has already adopted a regulation establishing a comprehensive system of reciprocity in the field of social security, they have no information about any proposals for the harmonisation of the social systems of the members.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that this is a most material factor in considering the desirability or otherwise of entering the Common Market; that it is one of the matters that ought to be considered by the Government and its effect on those services made known to the general public before we come to any decision?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords; I think we could all agree with that. We must distinguish between reciprocity and harmonisation. As the noble Lord knows, there have always been reciprocal bilateral arrangements between most of the countries in
284
Western Europe, including Great Britain, which have nothing to do with the Common Market at all; and the recent regulation in the Common Market about reciprocity does hardly anything more than recognise the bilateral reciprocal arrangements that already existed. The noble Lord's Question asks about harmonisation, which of course is quite different. That means assimilating the rates of benefit and the means of raising the money, and nothing whatever has been so far proposed about that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I just ask whether the noble Earl is aware of the statements that are being made by way of propaganda in favour of entering the Common Market, that social services as well as wages in some of these cases are higher than in this country now? Can he give us information whether that is correct or not?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, some social services—we had a long discussion about old age pensions in Germany, I remember, not long ago—are much higher than they are here; but they all vary between the different members of the Common Market. The various payments for different kinds of benefit—retirement pensions, sickness benefit, family allowances and so on—are all different. Nothing has been done yet to harmonise them. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was no doubt thinking of Article 117 of the Treaty, which states that:
"… the Common Market … will favour the harmonisation of social systems".
But no practical proposals have yet been made to give effect to that, and in the event of our becoming a member of the Common Market such proposals could not be without our approval, because they would have to be unanimous in order to give effect to them.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the thing that puzzles me is this. I believe most of us are in the same position as Her Majesty's Government in thinking very hard about this matter. But if we are to have fair competition within the Common Market such matters as the social services must be taken into consideration, and my question is really directed to ascertaining what consideration Her Majesty's Government are giving to all

285
these matters at a time when, presumably, they are seriously considering the advisability or otherwise of entering the Common Market.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, of course I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government are considering those issues. One point which the noble Lord probably has in mind is that most of the contributions in European countries are made by employers and workers, and there are practically no State contributions such as are made in this country. But it is right, I think, to point out, in considering this matter, that nothing practical could be done to harmonise these social security arrangements without the unanimous consent of all members of the Common Market; so that in the event of this country's becoming a member of it nothing could be done without our consent.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that these reciprocal arrangements have been in operation for some years, and it is a continuing process, I am quite sure that both sides of the House will accept that part of the noble Earl's statement. But surely what is of the utmost concern to both sides of the House, indeed to the whole country and to the Commonwealth, is what will be the effect upon their own social security systems. It is rather surprising to learn that the noble Earl has come to the House to-day as ignorant of the future as we are. Indeed, is it therefore possible that the Ministers are going to go to the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth countries, as we have been told during the last two days, to discuss these matters without being better briefed than the noble Earl is to-day?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lady has propenly apprehended the Answer which I gave to your Lordships. What I told your Lordships was that so far no proposals for the harmonisation of social security in the Common Market have been adumbrated at all; and there is therefore nothing to consider. Why should we consider hypothetical questions which have not arisen and which, if they did arise, could not be discussed or given effect to without our consent?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, surely the noble Earl will agree that the whole concept of the Common Market cannot be regarded at this stage as hypothetical. This is having the most serious repercussions, not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth; and for him to say that what is finally decided is a hypothetical matter surely must fill people with a certain apprehension. What I am asking is this: is there any chance of any further consideration being given to this matter so that the Ministers whose duty it is to explain the matter to the Commonwealth will be more fully briefed?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lady seems quite incapable of distinguishing between one point and another. There is nothing hypothetical about the Common Market; there is everything hypothetical about the harmonisation of social security arrangements under the Common Market. That is hypothetical, and surely your Lordships are capable of appreciating that simply distinction.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I must insist upon putting this further supplementary to the noble Earl. He really cannot slide away in this matter from something which is of tremendous importance. Surely even he can appreciate the importance of social security, let us say, to my political Patty when they are considering the repercussions of the Common Market. Perhaps he could address himself to that isolated point. If it does not appeal to him, if he is not concerned with it, I can assure him that the Labour Party in this country, when they are considering whether or not we should join the Common Market, are concerned with it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, yes; but the noble Lady has done nothing to question the fact that the possibility of harmonising social services is entirely hypothetical. No practical proposal has yet been put forward among the members and there is therefore no call to consider anything. With regard to sliding away from the question, I feel that the noble Lady would beat me in tobogganing any day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that the noble Earl's answers make me a little

287
anxious about the conversations which are being preferred at the moment either to a meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Conversations?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: The conversations that are going on. The answers make me anxious about those. It also makes me anxious about the possibility, as I take it from the Prime Minister's answer, that they would be formulating Cabinet policy before consulting Parliament. That is what I am anxious about. Is it not therefore strongly to be pressed that there should be, as was requested by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, the other day, a White Paper in which we shall at least get something which is not hypothetical and which we can consider—something which we hope will be at the full disposal of those representatives who are now negotiating in the Commonwealth?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I would remind the noble Viscount that the Question on the Paper which we are now dealing with is confined to asking
"…what changes, if any, the 'Social Harmonisation' proposals of the Rome Treaty would require in … the provision and … the method of financing of British social services".
The short answer to that is "None".
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? He quotes the unanimity rule on the harmonisation proposal, but is he sure that there are not certain "escape" provisions within the Treaty of Rome from the rule that all members must be unanimous before any harmonisation proposals can come into effect?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: All I meant was that a definite regulation, in order to become binding on the Common Market, would have to be unanimously agreed to. All the members would have to agree to it. Therefore, in the event of our becoming a member, no regulation could be made arising out of Article 117 without our consent.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not want to carry this matter any further to-day, but I do not think the noble
288
Earl has quite got what was behind my Question. It may be the fault of the wording. But I will put down a further Question to elucidate the matter.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am most anxious to understand everything that is behind the noble Lord's Question, and I have done my best to elaborate the subject, perhaps a little too far.

E.F.T.A. AND THE COMMON MARKET
2.52 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government wheher any and, if so, what consultations are taking place with the European Free Trade Association countries concerning possible entry into the European Economic Community.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, we are in close consultation with our partners in the European Free Trade Association about possible solutions to the problem of relations with the European Economic Community. This question will be further discussed at the next meeting of the E.F.T.A. Council at ministerial level in London on June 27 and 28.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I take it that at that Conference there will be a full consideration of the results so far of the operations of E.F.T.A. itself? If I read the trade figures aright, in the last six months of 1960, for example, our combined exports to them increased by 61 per cent. and their exports to us increased by 15 per cent., serving only to accentuate the trade balance difficulties between our countries.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that everything relevant will be considered, although that particular subject is outside the scope of the original Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that this evening dinner will be available between seven and nine o'clock for those of your Lordships who wish to dine, and those of your Lordships who do wish to dine are asked to give notice to the Refreshment Department.
RIVER RAVENSBOURNE &c. (IMPROVEMENT AND FLOOD PREVENTION) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
GREAT OUSE WATER BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

RIGHT OF PRIVACY BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in rising to move that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill, the Right of Privacy Bill, I should like, if I may, to offer one or two words of explanation and apology to your Lordships concerning the progress of the Bill. It is, after all, three months since your Lordships gave this measure a Second Reading: so long ago, in fact, that your Lordships may have forgotten what the Bill is about. May I remind you? This is a Bill to protect a person from any unjustifiable publication relating to his private affairs, and to give him rights at law in the event of such publication.
Three months ago we debated this Bill on Second Reading, and your Lordships were good enough to give it a Second Reading by a vote of 74 Contents to 21 Not-Contents. If I may say so, with respect, in the presence of many of my noble friends on the Front Bench, I do not really believe that all 21 of them had their hearts in their discontent. Naturally, I was delighted with the result. I acted as Teller for myself in my own Lobby, and I never thought the day would arrive when I should find myself counting such
290
distinguished heads as those of Lord Attlee, Lady Summerskill, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough and Lord Morrison of Lambeth—all voting for Mancroft! I was amazed and gratified. I think, if I may say so with respect, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was slightly startled, too, although—and it would undoubtedly be stretching the English language to say so—not gratified; because the Lord Chancellor, very courteously and kindly indeed, had advised your Lordships to vote against the Bill, but your Lordships had not taken his advice.
I do not think I am in breach of any confidence if I say that, after this event, I had some conversations with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and he said that, in view of what had happened in your Lordships' House, and the strength of opinion voiced in favour of the principles of my Bill, he would like a little while to think about it again. In particular, he asked if he might have a little while to think about the implications in respect of foreign law and other principles of law on this subject in America and elsewhere.
My Lords, I was naturally delighted at the prospect of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack being in the position of throwing me a bone or two, and I was particularly gratified that he should be able to do this in view of his greater preoccupation with much more important matters than my little Bill. However, this has put me in some difficulty. Your Lordships are aware, of course, of the difficulty which faces every private Member of your Lordships' House in trying to bring a Bill into another place at this stage of the Session when the Government are not supporting that measure. Your Lordships will have seen in The Times newspaper this morning a graph entitled "Legislative work facing both Houses". It looks like a cross between the final results of "Eights Week" and a street map of Birmingham. Unfortunately, my poor little Bill does not feature on it at all—not even in the back streets of Birmingham—so little does the Editor of The Times think of my chances of getting my Bill upon the Statute Book. I am afraid that the Editor of The Times may on this occasion be right. The chances of my getting my Bill upon the

291
Statute Book at the moment, in view of the legislative confusion of the timetable, are, to say the least of it, unemphatic.
Therefore, my Lords, I am faced with this problem. If I proceed with my Bill, and go through the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading, am I not in danger of facing a charge of wasting your Lordships' time and trifling with the procedure of the House? That is the last thing I should wish to do. If I take my little Bill forward—and, in view of what is happening in another place, I would add that there are good friends there willing to take my measure into the battlefield immediately—in view of what the Lord Chancellor has said, and in view of what is happening in another place, am I really hitting my head against a brick wall? If, on the other hand, I drop my Bill without any further words, am I being courteous to those of your Lordships who were kind enough to support my measure, and those outside the House who were kind enough to support and encourage me? That is the difficulty which I have to face; and it is particularly difficult in view of the fact that several noble Lords were kind enough on Second Reading to make suggestions for improving my Bill which I have sought to put into effect by the Amendments which are on the Order Paper to-day.
The first major Amendment, Amendment No. 1, is designed to prevent actions from being brought frivolously, for technical infringements of privacy to which no person could reasonably object. That is one point which your Lordships made strongly on Second Reading. The second major Amendment, Amendment No. 4, is an attempt to pro-teat the plaintiff against all methods of obtaining material calculated to cause distress and embarrassment even when there is no trespass. Those are the principal Amendments. The others are largely drafting.
That, therefore, is my dilemma; and, of course, I am in your Lordships' hands. As I say, I can see very little chance, in all reality, of my Bill finding its way on to the Statute Book this Session. If it has to be shelved—and I await the noble and learned Viscount's verdict on the fate of the Bill—I have at least given it a chance of being shelved in a tidier state than it was hitherto.
292
At the back of my mind there is always the instruction given to his followers by the late much-lamented W. C. Fields:
"If at first you don't succeed"—
said Mr. Fields—
"try, try again. Then give up; there is no point in making a jackass of yourself!"
The last private Member's Bill which I brought before your Lordships' House took eleven years to reach the Statute Book. That was the Marriage Enabling Bill. I will not be put off if your Lordships are not prepared to take my Bill further to-day. I have made these few remarks only by way of explanation so that I shall not appear discourteous to those of your Lordships who were good enough to support me as strongly as you did.
I am convinced by what happened on Second Reading, and from the very large postbag which I have received on this subject, as well as by the support I have received in the responsible Press, not only here but abroad, that there is strong support for the principles underlying my Bill. If I have not got the right answer to the way in which these principles should be put into effect, I have only myself to blame and I shall try again; but I shall wait to hear the noble Viscount on the Woolsack tell me exactly how long I must wait and in what direction I have to try.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft).
3.2 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I want to detain the House only for one moment, but I would remind the noble Lord that many of us who voted for the Second Reading of this Bill voted with a certain amount of hesitation and doubt. We felt that the Bill, as it stood, was an unsatisfactory Bill, but that it might be capable of improvement. The noble Lord had notice of that. Some of us said so—indeed, I said so myself. He has tried his hand at improving it. I do not think he has done very much with it, and it stands substantially where it stood on Second Reading. My advice to him is to let his Bill fade away, in the excellent company of the Weights and Measures Bill, the Road Traffic Bill, and others. It will be in very good company and will have the chance of popping up again next Session. I think it would save the time of the House if

293
we did not further proceed with the Bill, That is entirely a matter for the noble Lord, but it is one of the courses he himself suggested, and I think it would be the wiser and the realistic course.
3.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, may I say three preliminary things? The first is that I still, as I said on Second Reading, have great personal sympathy with the objectives of my noble friend's Bill. The second is that I should like to assure my noble friend that no one could have introduced or conducted the Bill with greater force and humour, and in a way more acceptable to the House, even to those who disagreed with it.
The third point is this. It seemed to me my duty, after the vote of the House, although the House had heard my views, to examine the subject again to see whether I could find any method by which the objectives might be attained. I have reconsidered very carefully the arguments which led me to advise the House on the earlier occasion not to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I should not wish the House to proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill under any misapprehension. Having considered the matter as carefully as I can, I remain of the opinion that it would not be possible to cure by Amendment what I consider to be a fundamental objection to the Bill. In spite of the Amendment Which my noble friend proposes to make to Clause 1—an Amendment which, I may say at once, would, in my view, improve the clause—I still think that the effect of Clause 2 must be to give a defence in the very case at which the Bill is aimed—intrusion on the private affairs of one whose name is before the public.
This is not, I believe, merely a question of drafting. However closely the right of action given by Clause 1 may be defined, it will still be necessary to give the newspaper a defence based on public interest—which is what Clause 2 seeks to do. I do not think it is possible to define in an Act of Parliament the circumstances in which that defence is to be available without either destroying the effectiveness of the right of action, or imposing a new and severe restriction on publication generally and the freedom of the Press. It would,
294
no doubt, be possible for Parliament to leave it to the courts to decide in what circumstances a newspaper could successfully raise a defence of "public interest". Matters of public interest might be defined as "matters on which a reasonable man would consider himself entitled as a member of the public to be informed". The application of this definition would mean conferring on the courts a discretionary power so wide that it must, in effect, constitute them, in this field, virtual censors of the Press. My own view is that such a course is neither acceptable nor desirable.
I think the House will wish to know as I was invited to make this study, that I have made inquiries into the law of other countries and, in particular, the United States of America. So far as I can ascertain, in each of the 20 American States which recognise some form of right of privacy such as this Bill seeks to create, this result has been achieved by judicial interpretation of the Common Law. In the only three States (New York, Virginia and Utah) in which any legislation has been passed on the subject, that legislation is practically confined to the use of a person's photograph or name without his consent in connection with advertising or for other commercial purposes. I observe that the Guardian suggested legislation an these lines. This would, of course, be much more limited in its scope and effect. In any case, I do not think we should assume that the courts here are powerless to provide a remedy where injury has been done by the unauthorised use of a person's name.
I have not been able to find any other examples of legislation which has successfully avoided the dilemma to which I have referred—that is, of giving an effective right of privacy without interfering with the legitimate freedom of the Press. There appears to have been no such legislation in any Common Law country in the Commonwealth. It is true that some countries whose systems are based on Roman Law have enacted legislation in this field; but their law is founded on a concept of "right of personality" which is foreign to our jurisprudence. Moreover, I understand that legislation in this field introduced in 1959 by the Federal German Government aroused strong opposition and has now been withdrawn.

295
In our previous debate on this Bill, my noble and learned friend Lord Denning referred to the possiblity that our courts might evolve some Common Law rule akin to that prevalent in the 20 States of the United States of America which recognise some form of right of privacy. My Lords, I should not like to express any opinion on the possibility of your Lordships' House, in its Judicial capacity, establishing such a right here; but there is all the difference in the world between developing a rule of Common Law by the gradual and empirical method of judicial decision, on the one hand, and establishing it by "ready-made" legislation on the other.
It may be suggested—indeed, it was suggested in the article in the Guardian to which I have already referred—that the present state of the law should be reviewed by an authoritative body such as the Law Reform Committee. I think that there are objections to such a course. It would not be appropriate to ask any Committee, however authoritative, to express an opinion on whether there is already a right of privacy in Common Law which the courts could recognise, as my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has already suggested might be the case. It would be quite wrong to ask a Committee to express a view on a matter of this kind, particularly where the Committee included Judges who might have at any time to decide the matter in their judicial capacity.
Furthermore, I do not think that it would be satisfactory to ask a Committee to consider how intrusion on privacy could best be prevented with regard for the freedom of the Press, assuming that the right of privacy does not at present exist. I should certainly not want to refer a matter of this kind to the Law Reform Committee, because I think it is most important that that Committee should not be asked to consider questions which may become matters of political controversy. And the problem here, I think, is as much a political as a legal one, though not, of course, in the Party political sense. No doubt we could ask some other Committee, which included laymen as well as lawyers, to look at this matter, but I very much doubt whether any Committee could find a satisfactory solution to a
296
problem which has baffled everyone else who has considered it so far. The Porter Committee on the Law of Defamation, as I said on Second Reading, gave some consideration in 1948 to the question of privacy but were unable to suggest any satisfactory answer to a problem which dealt primarily, as they said, with offences against good taste. I am very ready to consider any solution which ma} be suggested, but I do not think that it would be very helpful for us to transfer the burden of finding the solution to a Committee in the way that has been suggested.
I apologise most sincerely to your Lordships for taking up so much of your Lordships' time on this question, but I was specially asked by a number of noble Lords, privately as well as publicly, to consider these aspects of the matter, and I felt that it was only courteous and fitting that I should explain to my noble friend Lord Mancroft that I had made these inquiries and their result. I am sorry if I have not been able to help, but I hope that my progress report will show my noble friend that I was not sulking in my tent after the defeat which he so nobly inflicted upon me.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I presume that after this exchange, the Bill is dead, like the Road Traffic Bill and the Weights and Measures Bill. I must say that this has been a sad performance. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who brought the Bill in, found complete support from some of us. I supported the Bill from genuine conviction, because I believe in the principle of this Bill. Now the noble Lord comes along and wants—or, rather, is prepared for—the Bill to commit suicide. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is clearly opposed to the whole idea of the Bill and wants it to be assassinated, and he appears as chief assassin on behalf of the Government. In the circumstances, I suppose that there is nothing to do but let it go; but if the noble Lord had divided the House, I should have voted with him. I think that the Amendments would have improved the Bill.
Most journalists are decent chaps and most newspapers are decently conducted, but there is an abominable minority who interfere with the private lives of people, including people who are suffering acute

297
distress because of bereavement. I have great respect for the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but in all my life I have never heard anyone make a more unhelpful reply than he made this afternoon. Obviously he wants the Bill dead, because he does not want the Press to be controlled in this legitimate and restrained manner. I think that the noble and learned Viscount's attitude is shocking. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me, but I do not feel too happy about him this afternoon. I am sorry about it. The Government have made a mess of their legislative programme and now the noble Lord has made a mess of it. I think that the best thing to do is to bring in this Bill, or a Bill like it, again next Session and let us have a good "go" at it.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, while not questioning one word which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, I do hope that my noble friend Lord Mancroft will take the excellent advice which he quoted and try again, because I feel that the principles behind this Bill are right. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said. There is need for legislation such as the Bill suggests. I am sure that my noble friend is able enough to introduce a Bill which will be more successful than this one.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, as one of those who both spoke and voted against the Bill last time, I feel that I must slightly come to the defence of the Government. I too, am greatly in favour of the principle behind the Bill, but I know from experience that many respectable local newspapers are exceedingly nervous about the implications of this Bill, as it stands, even were it amended in the way my noble friend Lord Mancroft has suggested in his first Amendment, which admittedly would make lit better. The Bill is causing some newspapers considerable worry about how to conduct their reporting in future. The local newspaper is very dependent on local news about local people and on the whole, in the opinion of many, they would not be covered by the second clause. So I hope that my noble friend will withdraw this Bill. Possibly if he can devise some method which would incorporate the principle, but not the
298
present words, he could reintroduce the Bill next Session.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, may I make a suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, of which he may see fit to take advantage, if, as I hope he will, he reintroduces the Bill in another Session? It is clearly a Bill that needs very careful and detailed consideration. It is clearly a Bill on which we ought to hear, in fairness, the views of the Press. Therefore, it seems to me eminently a Bill which should be referred, not to a Committee of the Whole House, but to a Select Committee.
When I first sat in your Lordships' House, many Bills of this character were referred to Select Committees and I very much regret that that practice appears to have lapsed. I would beg my noble friend Lord Mancroft to give consideration to this suggestion, which I think would reconcile a number of different views on the merits of the Bill.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for the kind and helpful advice over my little Bill. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack for the obvious care and attention which he has taken to go into the difficult and technical matters which I fully realise are implicit in the nature of the subject. I thank him warmly for the care he has obviously given to it, when he has so much more to occupy his professional attention. I quarrel with only one remark that he made. He said that the question had baffled everybody who had considered it. It did not baffle me. That is why I produced my Bill.
I realise, however, that your Lordships, with the possible exception of the Lord, Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who has proved such a stout ally, are not in favour of my proceeding with the Bill at the moment. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that my Bill is not dead. It has, for the moment, sunk, but not without a trace. It is sunk for the first time, and, in the company of the Weights and Measures Bill, the Road Traffic Bill and many others, it will come to the surface again in the not-too-distant future. I am happy to think that the

299
noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will be standing on the bank, with hand outstretched, to welcome it ashore. But, my Lords, I can take a hint as well as the next man; and the hint has been given to me clearly this afternoon. Bearing that hint in mind, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, this complicated measure has been examined at great length in another place, and doubtless many noble Lords are familiar with its proposals and expert on them. I hope, therefore, that I need not speak for too long, but I think I must give a broad picture of the events leading up to the Bill and an explanation of its more important provisions.
The basis of this Bill is the Report made by the Committee which sat under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Arthur Heneage. The terms of reference of that Committee were:
"To consider proposals and make recommendations for the amendment and modernisation of the law relating to land drainage in England and Wales."
The general position at the moment, before we pass this Bill, is that river boards have responsibility for rivers which are designated by them as "main rivers". The river board areas cover the whole of England and Wales except for London, and there are 32 of them. Internal drainage boards are set up where there are special drainage problems within river board areas. These cover about 10 per cent, of the country, and there are, I believe, about 300 such internal drainage boards. But there are two gaps in this structure, as your Lordships will probably have already noticed: first, that a large number of watercourses, especially what we term the "intermediate" watercourses, are no one's responsibility; and
300
secondly, that agricultural land, except in drainage districts, makes no financial contribution to the work of land drainage. This is because the river boards get their money by precepting on local authorities, and agricultural land is derated.
The proposals of the Heneage Committee were very sweeping. Broadly, they were that, first, every watercourse in the country that is not already the responsibility of the drainage authority (the drainage authority being either the river board or an internal drainage board) should come under the control of river boards. Secondly, to enable the river boards to meet this additional liability they recommended that all land within a river board area—including agricultural land, of course—should contribute to the funds of the river board by a new type of charge, which would be mandatory, and would be based on Schedule A values, there being no rateable values on agricultural land which could be used.
These proposals were, in the view of the Government, too far-reaching and, indeed, it was impossible to secure the necessary support for them from the organisations interested. As a result, negotiations were entered into with the interested organisations—that is, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the River Boards' Association and the Association of Drainage Authorities—to try to find a less drastic and more acceptable solution Ito the problem. The results of these negotiations were announced in a White Paper (Cmnd. 916) published in December, 1959, and as an Appendix to this White Paper there was published the text of the agreed principles which would form the basis of legislation.
It is true that it took rather a long time before these proposals now finally incorporated in the Bill were formulated and agreement was secured from the organisations mainly concerned, but I am confident your Lordships will agree that the resulting proposals which are now before us justify the wait. I should like to pay tribute to the organisations. They approached their task and their differences in a statesmanlike way and they showed themselves ready to make concessions where there were clashes of interest. The Government are grateful to them for their helpful approach, which alone made

301
possible the agreement that is set out in the White Paper.
The proposals now incorporated in the Bill are more flexible than those recommended by the Heneage Committee, but their basic purpose is still the same—to overcome the problem of neglected intermediate watercourses. While, as I have said, the Report recommended that all intermediate watercourses should be taken over, the proposals embodied in the Bill will give river boards freedom to take action where it is necessary to do so. We are convinced that this is the right approach. The powers are, in fact, permissive and not mandatory.
The main proposals of the Bill, which come under Part I, are designed to secure that river boards will be able to obtain additional revenue by means of drainage charges levied upon agricultural land outside internal drainage districts. At the present time this land does not make any contribution towards the cost of drainage works, and it is appropriate that for additional work the money needed by river boards should be contributed by a levy on this land.
There will be two types of drainage charge, the general charge and the special charge. To take the general charge first (we are now on Clause 1 of the Bill) river boards will be given this permissive power to levy a general drainage charge over the whole of their areas outside internal drainage districts, which are, of course, already contributing. This charge will be equivalent to river boards' precepts borne by the general body of ratepayers. Thus the agricultural occupier will pay for drainage work to the same extent and in the same way as his mainly urban counterparts, the general body of ratepayers. Its purpose is to enable the river board to do additional land drainage work on existing or new "main rivers". So far as agricultural land is concerned, a new principle is incorporated here which I must bring to the attention of your Lordships; and this, of course, also applies to the special drainage charge, to which I will come in a moment. The charge is not related to benefit, as is the case in internal drainage districts: it is a community charge.
I turn for a moment to the second type of charge, to be known as the special drainage charge, As the White
302
Paper made clear, this will be levied by river boards where there is a special agricultural need for additional drainage work in the river board's area, and the proceeds of this charge can be used only on designated watercourses. Broadly, it is proposed that river boards shall levy this charge over all, or at least a substantial part, of their areas. For, as I have said, this charge is not to be related to specific benefit, but is designed, as the White Paper makes clear, to meet circumstances
"where there is a special need for drainage work in the interests of agriculture."
When the Minister considers for approval schemes for levying the special drainage charge, he will have regard particularly to any contributions from local authorities and internal drainage boards which are likely to be available.
As proposed by the Heneage Committee, these drainage charges will have to be based on the Schedule A valuations of the agricultural land concerned. While we must admit that these valuations are in many cases out of date, they do, nevertheless, reflect the relative values of agricultural land and provide a practical basis upon which to assess the drainage charges. We have carefully examined the possibility of using other bases, but I am afraid I have to say that there are no other suitable official figures available. The limit of the two charges, the general charge and the special charge, taken together will be one shilling in the £. Therefore, noble Lords will appreciate that the charges are unlikely to be onerous.
River boards will need to obtain information about Schedule A valuations in order to levy the drainage charges. A great deal of thought has been given to how this should be done, and the Inland Revenue will do all they can to help by supplying river boards with the information which they have available relating to Schedule A assessment on occupiers. But a difficulty arises here where owners have elected to bear directly the Schedule A charges on their property under Section 110 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. Where they have done this it will be difficult for the Inland Revenue to give river boards the information they need to enable them to levy a drainage charge upon occupiers. So Clause 14 of this Bill, which

303
was introduced on Recommittal in another place, overcomes this problem. It provides that, where an owner has exercised his option to pay Schedule A charges, he will also, in the first instance, bear the drainage charges on his property, though subsequently, of course, he will be able to recover the charge from the occupier.
I admit that this is a complicated procedure, but it is eminently practical, and will overcome many difficulties that would otherwise have arisen. The point we must bear in mind is that Schedule A tax is a landlord's property tax, and the drainage charge is an occupier's tax. Owing to the fact that there are no rateable values for agricultural land we have to use the Schedule A assessments, which are primarily an owner's tax, to levy the occupier's charge. It is bound to be a complicated procedure but is, we feel, quite practical and gets us out of this difficulty.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question? I have not a copy of the Bill in my hand, but is the rate to be levied on what might be called riparian land, or on all agricultural land within the drainage board's area?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: It is to be levied on all the land. The whole principle of this general charge is that the rate will be leviable for the whole area of the river board. The special charge will, in many cases, be over the whole leviable area, and in all cases over a substantial area. I should like to say how much we appreciate the very helpful attitude of the Country Landowners' Association, and in particular of the noble Lord, Lord Do Ramsey (and I am very glad to see him in his place to-day), who has made this agreement which is now incorporated in Clause 14 possible. This means, of course, that landowners will be undertaking additional work in order to make this Bill work, and we are grateful for their co-operation.
I am aware that in certain circumstances the levying of drainage charges will be expensive in relation to the revenue obtained. I should like to make two points about this. First, the powers that we are going to give to these river boards to levy these charges will be permissive, and obviously river boards will
304
not levy the charges if and when it appears to them that it would not pay them to do so. Secondly, even where the collection costs may be high the net revenue made available to river boards will be valuable, particularly to the poorer boards, and I am glad to say that the River Boards' Association agree with us on this point.
I may be asked what sort of revenue this is going to produce; how much it is going to help the river boards. Of course it is difficult to estimate what the likely yield of drainage charges will be, because we do not know which river boards will take advantage of the new powers and levy the charge. But I think I ought to attempt to give some figures, as my right honourable friend did in another place.
He said there—and these are the best estimates that we have—that the potential revenue from the general drainage charge on the basis of present precept rates (which I think are an average of about 3d.) could be a yield of revenue of about £500,000 a year. Perhaps another £500,000 might be raised by the special drainage charge. That would represent a 20 per cent. increase in the income of river hoards. In addition, Exchequer grants for improvement works would, of course, be payable in the usual way; and this might be a further substantial contribution of, say, another £500,000. So we have a total of £1½ million of extra revenue coming to the river boards from the imposition of these two charges. So it is a substantial matter, and not, as has been said in some places, a matter which will mean a great deal of trouble and have very little result.
One of the criticisms (and I mention it because I should like to meet them halfway) which has been made about this Bill, is that the wording of the White Paper has not been exactly followed in the Bill. People do not generally worry about the actual words unless they feel there is some difference of meaning. The main reason for the criticism was the fear that river boards would not use this new revenue from drainage charges for additional work. We have explained that the exact wording of the White Paper, which is ordinary English, is not suitable for incorporation in a Statute which by no stretch of the imagination can be called ordinary

305
English. The Bill, as amended, goes as far as possible, and I can reassure noble Lords that we have an undertaking from river boards that the revenue from drainage charges will be used as intended. It will not be used simply to reduce the precepts upon county councils and county borough councils, which I think was the fear. The additional money will be for additional work. In other words, drainage charges will, broadly speaking, be used to undertake more drainage work, and not the same drainage work that was being undertaken before.
Clearly, where drainage charges are being levied, those contributing should be represented on the river boards, and whilst it would be wrong to upset the very carefully arranged existing balance, we have in Clause 15 made provision for this additional representation. We therefore propose that up to two additional members may be appointed to a board where the drainage charges are being levied.
Perhaps I may now turn to Part II of the Bill and the First Schedule. Your Lordships will not, I am afraid, be able to find any connecting theme in this Part of the Bill., other than the general theme of good government, because what has happened is that the opportunity has been taken of this drainage legislation to bring in a number of desirable Amendments to the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and the River Boards Act, 1948. These are dreadfully detailed matters, though I think each of them is important. I think we should not be alarmed about it. At this stage I do not propose to do more than indicate some of the most important.
I should like to emphasise that none of the miscellaneous provisions in Part II of the Bill, which refers mostly to the internal drainage districts of the boards, makes any alterations in the basic structure of the internal drainage boards. Those boards are doing excellent work, and all we are doing is simply to take the opportunity of overcoming the various anomalies which have come to light in existing arrangements.
Now, with the passage of time, it has become clear that certain inequities have arisen in drainage rating because the drainage rates are based upon Schedule A valuations. As I have said, Schedule A
306
provides a good basis of assessment. However, there are difliculties where properties have been re-valued on the basis of post-war rental values. Such valuations are higher than the assessments on comparable properties based on pre-war valuation, and clearly the levying of drainage rates on two different bases creates unfair situations, especially here in the internal drainage districts where the rate poundage may be considerable—it may be more than 10s. in the £. The Bill, as presented to your Lordships now, therefore contains two clauses which were not in it originally—Clauses 22 and 23—which I am sure will commend themselves to your Lordships because they overcome these difficulties.
I do not think I need weary the House with an exposition of the changes that the Government propose to make in the detailed arrangements of drainage rates, but I should like to draw your attention to the provisions in Clause 25 which will give drainage ratepayers power to take the initiative in securing a review of the differential rating arrangements made by an internal drainage board. As many of your Lordships will be aware, drainage boards are empowered under the Land Drainage Act of 1930 to levy different levels of drainage rates in districts according to their view of the benefit received.
This has hitherto been something which drainage boards have determined for themselves, but we now consider that it is equitable that the persons paying drainage rates should also be empowered to ventilate any grievances they have with drainage board arrangements. We are, therefore, providing in Clause 25 that where a representative body of drainage ratepayers think that they have a case they may petition for a change to be made. Decisions on the question will generally be made by the appropriate river board. Whilst dealing with differential drainage rating arrangements I should perhaps mention that we are proposing to give drainage boards greater flexibility in the kind of differential rating arrangements which they can make. Also in Clause 25, we propose to allow drainage boards to establish independent sub-districts where that is appropriate.
Now in Clause 35 the Bill will also empower drainage ratepayers to take

307
the initiative in asking for a review of a drainage district's boundaries where they consider alterations should be made to take account of charges arising from building developments. As the law now stands it is for the river board to take the initiative for a change of boundaries of an internal drainage district. The new proposal will be a great step forward to allow ratepayers to ventilate their grievances. Boundary reviews will be subject to the approval of the Minister, who will be able to take an objective view of the cases presented both by the drainage board and by the drainage ratepayers and will be able to consider the effect of a boundary review upon the viability of any drainage district. Again, in the same Clause 35, the Bill provides that it will, where appropriate, be possible to deal with the problem by means of a change in differential rating arrangements rather than by the more drastic procedure of altering district boundaries. As a result there will be a great deal of flexibility in the powers available for dealing with what is frequently a prickly local issue.
Another very important clause in the Bill is the new power which we propose to give local authorities. This is designed to enable them to deal with local flooding problems in their areas. The power will be conferred initially upon county boroughs and county districts. The county councils will also be able to act either in default or at the request of county districts. These powers will not in any way derogate from the responsibilities of river boards for the general oversight of drainage in their areas, and local authorities will not be empowered to undertake work on main river under this provision.
Some concern was expressed whether the Minister of Agriculture would be able to grant-aid local authorities under this clause where drainage schemes do not benefit agricultural land. I should like to take this opportunity of making it clear beyond doubt that approved schemes by local authorities under this provision of the Bill will be eligible for grant-aid by my Ministry. We are also proposing to bring up to date the powers available in Section 52 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, for the promotion of local improvement schemes. In effect, these powers, in Clause 29 now, will be
308
complementary to the powers which will be exercisable by local authorities and which I have just described. The local improvement scheme powers will be available to county councils, county borough councils and river boards, and are intended to help in the promotion of schemes in small areas of rural land where it would be inappropriate to establish a new internal drainage district. They will be a useful addition to the means of overcoming one aspect of local drainage difficulties.
So much for Part II of the Bill. I will just turn very briefly to Part HI. The provisions in this Part of the Bill are designed to overcome problems where the condition of ditches is causing drainage difficulties between neighbours.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt for one moment? I am not quite clear about river board arrangements. What happens when the land drainage is taken over by canals? To whom would the payments be made then?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not quite follow the noble Lord's question: what happens when the land drainage is taken over by a canal? The authority for land drainage must be with the river board or the internal drainage board. I do not think that a canal can ever be a land drainage authority. Perhaps I can come back to that matter in my reply. Perhaps the noble Lord will say something about it in his speech.
May I turn briefly to the ditching provisions? These are designed to overcome problems, as I have said, which have caused difficulties between neighbours. The Land Drainage Act, 1930, attempted to deal with this kind of problem by giving an owner or occupier whose land was suffering injury through a neighbour's neglect of his ditches the right to remedy the position by requiring his neighbour to put them in order. That sounds reasonable enough. He was empowered to enter and do the work himself in default, and the 1930 Act also made analogous provision for an owner or occupier to carry out improvement work upon a neighbour's land. The difficulty with these provisions has been that owners and occupiers are understandably reluctant to take direct action against their neighbours.

309
Part II of this Bill is designed to overcome this problem. Instead of having to take direct action against his neighbour, the new provisions will enable an occupier of land to apply to an agricultural land tribunal for an order enabling remedial or improvement work to be carried out on ditches of a neighbour's land. Thus the need for direct action which is so uncomfortable will be avoided. I am sure that these new provisions will provide a much improved procedure for use where neighbours have not in the past been able to arrive at settlements between themselves in their disputes about ditches.
I think at this stage that is all I have to say on the Bill, which is a very complicated measure. I will do my best in my reply to answer any points that may be of interest to your Lordships and which any of your Lordships may raise. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
3.50 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I first of all congratulate the noble Earl upon his extremely lucid exposition of what is, after all, a very complex measure. For those not immersed in the technicalities of drainage legislation the noble Earl has brought much light in many dark places within this Bill. One other word of cheer to the noble Earl before I proceed: I ought to tell him at once, to ease his mind, that we on these Benches welcome the Bill; he is assured of an unopposed Second Reading.
I must say that at first glance I had a great deal of sympathy with the vital recommendations of the Heneage Committee's Report, and I accept the more leisurely approach of the Government only because of my absolute confidence in the river boards. Before proceeding to touch upon the Bill, however, I should like to make a modest but a very sincere request: that is, that once the Bill has passed through this House, if it does pass your Lordships, since so many are in a state of suspended animation, I hone no time will be lost by Her Majesty's Government before they produce a Consolidation Bill, so that not only Members of your Lordships' House but also
310
those minions who have to administer the drainage law will be able to understand the modern, up-to-date drainage law, this Bill forming a part of it. I need only quote one paragraph in the Bill to justify my request. This is Clause 3, subsection (5):
"A scheme under this section may make provision for any of the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section four of the Act of 1930 (as modified by paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to the River Boards Act, 1948) and, "subject to subsections (6) to (10) of this section, those Acts shall apply to such a scheme as they apply to a scheme under paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1)."
That, your Lordships will agree, is as clear as mud, and Her Majesty's Government will do well to help all those technicians, as well as laymen, who have to administer this law by producing a Consolidation Bill at the earliest possible moment.
Might I also call the attention of noble Lords to the 35 paragraphs in the two Schedules, each one more or less explaining another Amendment, some of them extremely complicated? If noble Lords will look at those 35 paragraphs and read them carefully, I am sure they will agree with my modest plea. I can readily understand the difficulties both for the technician and the layman—and the layman largely makes up the river boards, since he represents some local authority—when they are confronted with these cross-references, all of which, of course, are utterly inevitable in the circumstances and I make no complaint about them.
I suppose my interest in land drainage commenced when large areas in and adjoining my own Parliamentary Division were flooded several times in the late 'twenties and early 'thirties, when some six or seven hundred men, women and children had to be taken from their homes to live in schools, generally for about two months, while their homes were cleansed and made once again habitable. I also saw on all those occasions, except one which was in the dead of winter, cereal crops floating down the river, and this painful experience turned me into a drainage enthusiast. I had also read that very revealing Bledisloe Report on land drainage in 1927. Later I was a member of the Standing Committee in the House of Commons when the

311
Land Drainage Bill of 1930 was under review. Finally, for my sins I was made responsible for negotiating the River Boards Bill to the Statute Book in 1948. Therefore, thanks to my very close contact with flooding problems and drainage problems over the years, the noble Earl has a very sympathetic ally in anything he does or tries to do to improve the drainage of our all-too-few acres of agricultural land.
The 1930 Act was a very good, if belated, start. The 1940 Act was an extension and an improvement—I know it was, because it was my Bill. I believe this Bill goes a long way towards filling in the missing links. Thanks to a very searching analysis in another place, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I feel that this Bill is much better than it was when originally introduced. It is true it took a long time to find its way into your Lordships' House, some ten years after the presentation of the Heneage Report, but I make no complaint. I know something about the long-drawn-out negotiations when so many interests are involved. I appreciate the wisdom of aiming at the maximum measure of agreement, especially where additional payments are imposed upon a large number of people, so long as those agreements do not result in frustration and inactivity.
As the noble Earl has said, Part I, is, of course, the important part of this Bill; it gives the river boards power to levy a general charge on all agricultural land outside the areas of internal drainage boards. That is an extension which is long overdue in the light of our experience over the last 30 or 31 years. I know how hesitant farmers are to initiate drainage schemes or set up internal boards if they fear that they are likely to be called upon to make a contribution to the cost, even though they are in most areas the only beneficiaries from any improvement schemes. Indeed, my experience of farmers, much as I love them, is that they are the most rabid anti-nationalisers in the country; but I never met a farmer who opposed nationalisation of drainage, particularly if someone else was going to pay for the cost of the work.
312
There are 32 river boards, as the noble Earl said, and two catchment boards still in existence, whose major responsibility is, of course, to deal with the main rivers. Most of their revenues come from the county authorities and their ratepayers. Also there are 300 internal drainage boards who derive their revenues from urban communities in the area for which they are responsible. But the intermediate watercourses—which the noble Earl did not emphasise too much, I thought, although I knew what he would be feeling—connecting farm ditch to the main river, representing thousands of miles of streams, large and small, but those that are outside the internal drainage districts, are just nobody's responsibility at the moment and of course little or no work is done upon them. That is the main weakness in our existing drainage law. The result, of course, is that 90 per cent. of occupiers of agricultural land make no payment at all towards drainage costs, except those occupiers within an internal drainage board's area. Much of the land must have deteriorated since 1930 when the original catchment boards were set up, simply because it was nobody's business to undertake it unless schemes were initiated by the farmers themselves. That meant more internal drainage boards, or a combination of farmers with foresight who knew that well-drained land was a good solid investment.
To enable river boards to take over some of the responsibilities so far neglected—and I ought to add, to deal with the forgotten areas—the resources of the river boards must be increased: hence the proposed new charge referred to by the noble Earl on agricultural land which is at present contributing nothing towards drainage. Fortunately, thanks to these prolonged discussions and negotiations, there is general agreement now on this new principle, and I think it is fair and just that those who benefit by land drainage should at least contribute something towards the work undertaken. The cost should be modest; in any case, as the noble Earl has explained, it is limited, and in the end I think it will be a good investment, not only for the farming community but for the whole nation.
The expenditure of the river boards over the past ten years, so the Minister

313
told us in another place, has been something like £50 million on capital improvement schemes, and the expenditure at the moment is running at about £6 million per annum. I shudder to think what might have happened last year had this £50 million not been spent both in my own old Parliamentary Division and in many other areas in various parts of the country. Some doubt has been expressed as to whether the river boards will tackle the job effectively, as their powers are only permissive. I personally entertain no doubts at all. I think the figures I have just quoted clearly indicate that the river boards are responsible bodies. They have plenty of initiative and enterprise, and all they need is more power and the resources to extend their activities.
Special schemes on which drainage works are required in the interests of agriculture in the whole or any part of the river hoard area will be possible when this Bill becomes an Act. I think this is a major step forward to deal with some of these forgotten acres; it should serve a useful purpose if full advantage is taken of it. As the noble Earl has said, to finance these schemes a special levy can be charged where the Minister is satisfied that agriculture will benefit, Such schemes may be large or small or widely scattered, but they will be helping to complete an unfinished job. Every scheme must satisfy the Minister that benefits will match expenditure. There are ample safeguards for the doubting Thomases in subsections (7), (8), (9) and (10) of Clause 3. Indeed, my worry is that there may be too many safeguards which will stultify the possibility of some schemes being undertaken.
These combined charges, the general and special charges, again as the noble Earl has said, and as I want to emphasise, cannot exceed 1s. in the £ over Schedule A value. The increased revenue from these two sources has been estimated in another place to be round about £1 million a year; but as capital improvement qualifies for a Government grant, the actual sum may be well up to £1½ million a year. I think that this will prove to be a first-class long-term investment to the farming community.
Part II of the Bill is designed to increase and modernise local authority powers on carrying out drainage schemes and, among other things, to improve the
314
machinery of the present law. These improvements and amendments are both timely and necessary if the job is going to be done. There are scores of anomalies and inconsistencies in rating law, both in general and in detail, and much outmoded law relating to the powers of local authorities. It would be wasting your Lordships' time, and, I fear, your patience, if I attempted to deal with them even in general and not in detail. They were dealt with rather faithfully in another place. Therefore, I prefer to call in aid the Government's White Paper (Cmnd. 916) paragraphs 28 to 44, where all the proposed Amendments which are embodied in this Bill are explained much more clearly than I could hope to explain them to your Lordships.
There are further explanations in the 35 paragraphs of the two Schedules to the Bill. They are chiefly in elementary language—a bit complex if one tries to memorise them all, and much more complex if one had to carry them out in practice. All I need say about them, therefore, is that they are largely based on the recommendations of the Heneage Committee, a body of high-ranking specialists on drainage who devoted years to their investigations. I think they did a magnificent job, and if the proposed amendments in the Bill and the new machinery work out anywhere near as well as we all hope, then I think they will have made a massive contribution to the better drainage of our precious land, and both town and country in the end cannot fail to benefit.
Before I close I should like to ask the noble Earl a question, to which I hope he will reply. I hope I may be able to be here, but as trains do not wait for one man there is just a possibility that I may not. I refer to a letter that I received from the Essex River Board. I am sure the noble Earl will know all about the subject when I raise it, and I raise it now merely so that he will be warned that at some stage in the passage of this Bill we hope to raise the question in an acute form. I would just read the first paragraph of this message from the Essex River Board:
"The Board, in common with other river boards, feel that the country is concerned that the powers proposed in the above Bill relating to the restriction of structures affecting water courses, are not wide enough to ensure that

315
drainage interests are not seriously interfered with by development on land immediately adjoining the water courses."
I am sure the noble Earl will understand what that is all about.
Since this question was raised in another place and the Government at that time were unwilling to accede to the request of the river boards, I hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill the noble Earl's right honourable friend will look more generously on what, after all, is the view of an expert body, for if the river boards do not know what the dangers are after having been in operation now since 1930 as catchment boards, and since 1948 as river boards, I do not think anybody else can really understand them. My Lords, I repeat my first few words: we welcome the Bill, we wish it well, we hope it accomplishes what we should all like to see, and we shall help it on its way through this House.
4.9 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I, too, welcome this Bill. I do not claim to be a great expert on drainage, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, who has just sat down, or Lord De Ramsey, who is going to follow me. But I have always had a keen interest in the subject, living as I do on very flat land on the edge of the Fens, though I am not myself in an internal drainage area. If it were not for the work done by the internal drainage boards and the river boards, of course, my neighbours would be ducks, instead of people farming some of the richest agricultural land in England. Moreover, I am very close to the scheme, which is costing something like £10 million, run by the Great Ouse River Board for the drainage of the Fens. So I have a tremendous admiration for the work of the river boards.
Although we have not had the criticism to-day, the criticism one has heard of this Bill is, first, the delay; and, secondly, that it does not go far enough. On the first point, that of the delay, my view is that the importance of getting agreement between all the interests concerned is worth a considerable amount of delay. Of course, this Bill introduces, as we have been told, a new principle for the payment of drainage rates
316
on agricultural land in that we are now paying rates, or may be paying rates, without benefit. There has always been this controversy over many years between the high land—though the high land is not necessarily high in altitude: it is, rather, land which does not necessarily benefit from drainage schemes—and the low. I know that near me there was an attempt to set up an internal drainage board, but because land which would have been included was sand on chalk, and the people felt that they would get no benefit, since any rain that fell went harmlessly through it, that scheme fell through and it never came into being. So I think it is a big step forward that all the interests concerned have agreed to this new level. I think it is a perfectly fair one, because in every other sphere people pay rates without getting immediate benefit; and, after all, the main contributors to the river boards are the local authorities and county boroughs, who in many cases get very little benefit, although they are some of the main contributors to the revenue of the river boards.
I am glad that we have not gone quite so far as the Heneage Report proposed, but that each area is to be dealt with on its merits. I am glad that the noble Lord has repeated the assurance that was given by the Minister in another place that this money would be spent on new works or extension of the main river, and not used simply as a supplement to the general income of the river boards. I think that that is an important point and one that perhaps sugars the pill a little. I myself am glad that we did not go as far as the Heneage Report suggested, because I think there was a very genuine fear, probably completely unfounded, that it might be the thin end of the wedge towards agricultural re-rating; and, unfounded as those fears may be, they existed and I think it would have been wrong to ride roughshod over them.
So far as the special levy is concerned, I agree with it in principle, and I am glad that there are the necessary safeguards. I hope that the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, will not be realised and that the safeguards will not prevent the river boards from taking effective action. But when we come to these drainage schemes I

317
think they require very careful consideration. After all, drainage is not just a matter of digging out the main river or the intermediate watercourse. If one is to get the full benefit from it one must have the co-operation of all the people in the area who are likely to benefit from the scheme, because digging out either the intermediate watercourse or the main river is only the start. If the full benefit is to be realised there are the farm ditches and all the drainage of the fields to be dealt with—work which involves a great deal of capital. But unless that part of the scheme is carried out, then the money spent may well be wasted. So I am glad there are the safeguards that the scheme will be considered on its merits.
In that connection, I am pleased, too, that there are the new powers in Part III of the Bill covering farm ditches, because we all know that one person who is obstinate or unable to do out his ditches may hold up the drainage of a number of other people. In some cases, if the lie of the land is right, it is possible for one occupier, merely by doing out his own ditches, to bring water down and flood out another who is obstinate, so that he has to do something about his own ditches. But, of course, that does not always apply. The fact that these powers exist may well mean that people will do out their ditches, rather than have all the bother of going to the Agricultural Land Tribunal and fighting the question.
It would, perhaps, as I think was suggested in another place, have been tidy to deal with all the questions of water—water conservation, flood prevention and drainage all at once. There is at the moment, I believe, a Committee studying the question of water conservation (and of course it has a big bearing on the subject), but we should remember the difficulties in getting agreement between all the interested parties—between the people whose land is going Ito be flooded and the people who want to use the water, the fisheries. If we waited for that agreement this Bill would be indefinitely postponed.
This Bill does something towards flood prevention, both by increasing the revenue of the river boards and by allowing them to carry out more necessary works, and also by giving this new power to the local authorities under Clause 33 to carry out their own
318
schemes in co-operation with the river board; and I feel that, when it comes to the major flood-prevention schemes, they should, in most cases, be dealt with as things apart, possibly by a Private Bill. In many eases they involve tens of millions of pounds, and cannot, I think, be covered quite by the ordinary general legislation. In fact, I regard this as a useful Bill; I welcome it, sand I feel that it will fill a gap which at present exists in the general drainage legislation.
4.20 p.m.
LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, I am naturally biased in favour of the Bill, having taken part in the discussions between the interested associations and the Ministry. I shall confine myself to Part I of the Bill. I believe that the Bill faithfully follows the White Paper and provides the mechanism for the solution of a very old problem, involving both land drainage and flood prevention. This mechanism is designed to prime the pump and not to run it. It is very similar to that recommended in Sir Arthur Heneage's Report, which has been so valuable to all of us concerned. But circumstances have altered greatly since then: there are no longer shortages of raw materials, and surpluses are back again, at home and abroad. To-day, more than ever, good economics are wanted, as well as good drainage, and to achieve this greater flexibility and greater discrimination in any scheme are needed. In other words, the emphasis needs shifting. So, while Heneage provided more scope for potential improvements at a time of shortages, the Bill, it seems to me, sets out to meet only the actual demand at a time of surpluses.
It should be remembered that, apart from capital grants, the improvements effected by the Bill are to he financed on a broad basis to benefit agriculture generally; and, although there is justification for this, the fact remains that, as the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, pointed out, only some individual farmers can derive benefit from it, and many cannot. It is therefore all the more important to ensure that no money is wasted, and that the bitter experience of Section 14 schemes during the war is not repeated.
The extent of the demand for improvements is even more difficult to assess than the area of land involved. The latter

319
could be calculated at great expense, but the former must inevitably vary with the times. The criticism that the Bill does not provide enough funds arises partly from this difficulty but also, in part, from a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem, which is essentially an economic one as much as a land drainage one. This is fully recognised in the Bill which, while making the general charge for drainage works, which one hopes will pay, makes a special charge "in the interest of agriculture", which clearly must pay. The solution does not, there-fore, depend simply on doing out hundreds of miles of derelict brooks, since a brook is not a drainage system; it is merely an outfall to one, and by itself drains very little land. Obviously, it would be a waste of money to provide outfalls, and maintain them, without a reasonable assurance that advantage would be taken of them.
I have noticed, like others, that even Fenmen, who rightly boast of the high standard of their land drainage, and without which they could not exist at all, are not a few years before they all take advantage of a new main drain, How much more likely is this to happen in the uplands, where perhaps only a small part of the farm is affected; where the crops are generally of less value; where the demands on capital are equally great, or perhaps greater; where the cleansing of the brook, however expensive, will be but a small proportion of the expense of providing or renovating the rest of the drainage system—an expense which can often equal the whole value of the land which could benefit? Nevertheless, the place to start any improvement must be the out-fall, and the Bill should enable this to be done wherever that, rather than lack of capital or enterprise, is the limiting factor to improvement.
Naturally, the river boards would like more money. What public authority would not—and, having got it, would not spend it? But they have loyally co-operated in the agreement the effectiveness of which so largely depends on them rather than on farmers alone. Since, rightly, most of their legislation is permissive, in theory they should not have to sell land drainage, but only meet the demand for it. In practice, much improvement work would never get done
320
if they were unwilling to put up with a great many kicks and few thanks for initiating works in the interests of land drainage and flood prevention. I am confident that those boards which decide to operate the scheme, dedicated as they are to their job, will do so successfully. However, the number that do so decide will depend on an important point raised in another place—namely, the collection costs of the charges. The criticisms expressed there were accepted, and the Minister inserted Clause 14 during the Report stage in order to meet them. The Inland Revenue and the C.L.A. both committed themselves to specific assistance, the details of which belong rather to the Committee stage. But the noble Earl did very kindly acknowledge the co-operation of the Country Landowners' Association; and, though it was far from popular with landowners, I am sure that the decision to assist will be loyally abided by.
The amount of money available for works, as opposed to administration, admittedly not large (for reasons which I have explained), depends on the smooth working of Clause 14. It is not overstating the case to say that the decision of some river boards whether or not to operate the scheme will depend as much on this point as on anything else. Any reassurance that the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary can give, to the effect that the Ministry will watch this clause, and will give both their moral and their practical support, it necessary, to its efficient working, will be very welcome. Finally, my Lords, it would be quite wrong to expect any immediate or spectacular results from the Bill—a not unusual feature of an agricultural Bill. But it does provide a way, where there is a will, to improving many, many acres. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
4.27 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I suppose I must confess to a certain tendency towards a spirit of contradictoriness—some might even call it "bloody-mindedness"—which makes me feel, in view of all the support that this Bill has had and the welcome it has received, that I should take a somewhat different line; but I am afraid I cannot. I think

321
it is a good Bill, I think it is a well-thought-out Bill, and I think it is essentially a practical Bill which will be very valuable and will achieve the purpose which it sets out to achieve. The only point which I have on the Bill itself is an extremely minor one; so minor that perhaps it is not worth mentioning here, but I feel I should mention it, as one of the farmers living on the high land who are going to be affected in the future—and, I think, quite rightly affected.
It is, I believe, Clause 15 of the Bill which allows the Minister to appoint two extra representatives of the new areas which are going to be brought under the Bill. I do not know if two is the appropriate number. The maximum number allowed is forty. In other words, that number of two will represent approximately 5 per cent. of the board. If that is in line with the total contribution that is to be expected from that group of people, then I think it is correct; but possibly the noble Earl can tell us at some stage later, if not this afternoon, whether, in his view, it is worked out very roughly as in proportion to the contribution which is expected or whether it is simply a modest figure thought up for no particular reason.
The other comment which I have on the Bill is of a much more general nature, and possibly it is unfair to make it here, but I think it is worth making. The Bill is a drainage Bill, but drainage is only one aspect of the general water question. Let me put this problem in its smallest form, again from a personal point of view. As I have said, I live and farm on the high lands. The area is not very high, but it is one where there is no drainage problem whatsoever. We have to get rid of our very modest amount of water, and we get rid of it quite easily and cheaply into occasional ditches, into streams, and thence down to the rivers and out to the sea. That water presents a problem to the people lower down, and it is quite unfair—I admit it, and that is why I welcome the Bill—that they should have to pay extra charges for getting rid of land water. I should have to pay something to help in getting rid of it. But I do not want to get rid of the water at certain times of the year; I would far rather keep it on my land, because it is very dry. Especially during the summer months,
322
I should be prepared to pay a considerable amount of money to be able to lay my hands on water which has gone away and which I have paid for to get away. And it is not only I; there are many other farmers in my area, and throughout the whole country, who feel the same as I do.
Clause 3, subsection (1), which is dealing with special charges which may be made, says:
"Where it appears to a river board that the interests of agriculture in the river board area or any part of it require the carrying out of drainage works in connection with any water courses in the area,"
and so on, a special charge can be made. If that could be so enlarged as to bring into the scope of "drainage works" the conservation of water, which is the second stage of drainage, it would make the Bill an infinitely more valuable one. It would mean that instead of taking the water right away, carrying it out to sea where it disappears for good, it could be stored, even at greater expense to that special area. I am sure that many farmers would be prepared to make a larger contribution in order to enable this to be done. The double purpose, then, of drainage and of irrigation would then be served.
I have mentioned this point from a restricted and personal aspect, but I think the general importance of water supplies is worth underlining, and particularly water supplies to agriculture. The amount of water consumed rises every year, not only because people get cleaner but because piped water supplies, when it is just a question of turning on a tap, encourage the use of water in country districts. People will use a greater gallonage daily than if they have to walk 100 yards or further to the village pump or well. In various aspects of agriculture, milk production, and livestock production of all kinds, a greater amount of water is every year being used. That water, as things are at present, finishes up wasted. Perhaps "wasted" is the wrong word, because the water has been used once; but it does go off into the sea and is never seen again, until by some mystical process it comes back in the form of clouds and rain, probably having fallen on Russia in the meantime.
We require that water. Farmers are increasingly conscious—to return to the

323
solely agricultural aspect of this subject—of the benefits that can be obtained from irrigation. I believe I am right in saying that the ideal amount of rain which is needed for crops during the six growing months is something in the neighbourhood of an inch every week; in other words, about 24 to 25 inches during the six growing months of the year. There are certain areas of England, but mostly those where arable crops are not known to any great extent, which have rain in excess of that; but where the bulk of our arable irrigation is carried out, our rainfall for the whole year does not exceed the 24 inches required for the six growing months. For that reason, 'irrigation has been seen to be a most valuable part of agriculture.
In certain places there are farmers who are well situated in this respect, having large rivers running through their land from which they can pump water on to their ground in a very effective and reasonably cheap manner. But even in those places where the rivers are fairly large, if this practice is developed to any increased extent, as I hope it will be in the interests of agriculture, we shall find ourselves running into the very serious problem of shortage of water. Undoubtedly, in the drier areas where there are not even large watercourses, that problem is already beginning to show itself.
I think it would be very unfortunate if, having produced this admirable Bill to deal with the removal of water where there is an excess of it, we were to sit back and say that we have now finished that work and can get on to something else. Even if we said that each is a watertight compartment, one getting rid of water and the other bringing it back, the two must be carried together; the thinking must be in sympathy with the two different interests. I hope before long, even if it is not possible with this actual Bill, to see some proposal put forward by the Government which will not only control the abstraction of water in an orderly and reasonable manner, but will encourage the conservation of water which otherwise would disappear, so that irrigation problems will be made that much easier for agriculture. My Lords, I do not want it to be taken that these remarks that I have made are in any way critical of the Bill, because I repeat what
324
I said at the beginning—and other noble Lords have already said it—that it is a good Bill and a well-thought-out and useful one.
4.36 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am very grateful 'indeed for the general support that your Lordships have given to this Bill. If I may say so, we have had what I would term both political support and technical support. There is no one who knows more about the technical side of land drainage than the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. He supported the Bill largely from a technical aspect, and contributed a very valuable speech which we shall read with great interest. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, who is well known as a former Minister of Agriculture (but it may not be remembered that he was Minister at the passing of the 1948 Rivers Board Act, which we are also now discussing) was also able to support the Bill.
He asked whether this multitude of small clauses and Schedules did not mean that we really ought to try at some time to introduce a Consolidation Bill for land drainage. I sympathise greatly with what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, said about this, but he knows, as we all know, how very difficult it is to find Parliamentary time for what really cannot be described as more than simplifying or tidying-up legislation when there are so many other urgent things to consider. Admittedly, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, chose an extraordinarily good example of the difficulty—or, if I may so put it, the difference—between statutory English and White Paper English, which I referred to in my opening remarks. Nevertheless, I feel it would be wrong for me to promise that there would be time in the foreseeable future for more legislation on land drainage in the form of a Consolidating Bill, though I sympathise with what lay behind his remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, quoted a letter from the Essex River Board. I do not think I had actually seen that letter myself, but I am well aware of the problem which was in the mind of that river board and to which they were referring. Without going into a lot of technical jargon,

325
that letter was about what are known as "flood plains". I would assure the noble Lord, who courteously told me that he would not be able to hear my reply, that this matter, which affects Clause 30 of the Bill, is being most urgently and carefully considered. I sympathise with the river board in their feelings about this matter, and I fully agree that something must be done.
But here we are really dealing with a planning issue. We have the statutory planning authorities. Are we to take the powers away from a statutory planning authority and, in this particular instance where there are structures in a flood plain, give planning powers to the river boards? I do not think that we should do any such thing lightly. We ought to give the administrative arrangements that we are making a chance to work. A joint circular will be going to planning authorities about consultation with river boards. Your Lordships will appreciate that it is difficult to write statutory consultation into legislation. I think we have to see first whether these fears are real or exaggerated, and allow the administrative procedure to work, as I believe it will.
My noble friend, Lord Amherst of Hackney, supported the Bill and said he was glad that I had reiterated the assurance that this was additional money for additional work. I cannot emphasise too strongly that that is what the charges in the first part of the Bill are. There is no conception that the charges are simply a method of shifting the burden from the ratepayer to the agricultural occupier. It is a sharing of charges and they will not be levied unless the additional work calls for additional money.
I have already referred to the extremely valuable speech of my noble friend, Lord De Ramsey. Again, I assure him that we shall watch carefully the collection costs and the net revenue that will be available to river boards from these charges. It is extremely hard to assess these matters before the boards have actually started to do their work. It may be in certain cases that the charges will be considerable in the first years while the new assessments are being prepared by the river boards. But I hope that with the help of not only the Revenue authorities but also the landowners, for instance
326
under Clause 14 procedure, there need be no excessive collection costs and this difficulty will not be one that will cause the Bill to lose its value. The principle of non-specific benefit for agricultural land, as my noble friend reminded us, appears in this Bill for the first time in land drainage legislation. My noble friend can rest assured that we shall take every possible care to see that this new principle is not abused.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who always speaks in a most interesting way on any subject connected with agriculture, and he raised several points of interest. He spoke of the value of water conservation and of the new techniques of irrigation which are becoming so prevalent. I would remind him that the River Boards Act, 1948, I think in Section 9, lays the duty on river boards of conserving the water resources of their areas as far as is practicable, and therefore in a sense the legislation which he asks for is already there. The 1930 Act also defines drainage as including irrigation and the supply of water. As the noble Lord probably knows, this matter is having special attention at the present moment. The Central Advisory Water Committee are likely to report very shortly on water conservation and the powers required for the further control of water resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, raised one other matter which has been discussed at some length in another place and up and down the country by people interested in and concerned with this legislation—that is, Clause 15, to which I referred in my opening remarks and which gives extra representation on the river boards to the new payer, the agricultural occupier. The noble Lord was not quite correct in saying that there are 40 members on each river board. That is the number that may be on the boards. The Bill provides for up to two additional members to be appointed where drainage charges are levied, and we hope that this will give the new drainage charge payers an effective voice. What we cannot do in this Bill is to upset the whole existing pattern of representation on the river boards. The membership of those boards is not proportionate to the contributions, and once we start to upset the present balance we should be in grave difficulties. We believe that the addition of two others to a board would

327
not upset the balance but would give the new payers representation to the proper extent to which this point should be met.
My noble friend, Lord SoM̃ers, asked what happens when drainage is taken over by a canal. I am afraid that I misunderstood his intervention. I thought he meant drainage authority, but what he meant was that the drain actually went into a canal. He had particularly in mind the Kennet and Avon Canal, which is largely used for drainage. The position there is that the Kennet and Avon Canal comes under the Thames Conservancy, which for the purposes of the Act is a river board. Perhaps that is not the correct way to describe it—it is White Paper English, not statutory English. There is no difference in the financing of land drainage work, whether the channel happens to be a canal or an ordinary river; in fact, some canals are main rivers. In the jargon of this legislation, they have been mained. So I think that my noble friend need have no fear that any violent difficulties occur where land drains into a canal. I am sure that this is a good Bill and will have a real effect on this important subject, and I am glad that your Lordships have welcomed it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PRINTER'S IMPRINT BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CHEMICALS IN FOOD PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION
4.51 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH rose to draw attention to the contamination of food by pesticides, herbicides, preservatives and synthetic additives and alterations in its quality by processing, chemical treatment and abstraction of
328
nutritive elements; to the insufficiency of the measures taken at present to protect consumers; and particularly to the need for adequate labelling which will disclose the content of foods offered for sale; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now some ten years ago since I first ventured to draw attention to this matter in your Lordships' House. I was then greatly concerned about the danger to health arising from the use of chemicals in the growing, storing and processing of food. Now I am much more alarmed. Many more chemicals have been brought into common use without adequate knowledge of their effects on human beings. More information has become available to show that chemicals previously thought harmless are in fact dangerous. But very little has been done to safeguard the consumers. The British Medical Journal said recently that
"The effect on human health of 'processing' foods has received scant attention",
and it added:
"The sophistication of foods has become such a fine art that few of them reach the family table without some chemical treatment designed to improve their appearance, taste, keeping qualities and ease of preparation."
One could go further and say that many foods reach the consumer after having received not one but many chemical treatments. In the growing of food poisonous chemicals are used at every stage. Considerable amounts may remain in the soil from spraying of earlier crops and may be taken up into the circulatory system of the plant. Some are deliberately applied so that they may find their way into the sap with a view to protecting the plant against fungi or insects. Who can say how much of these poisons will reach human beings or what their effect may be?
Chemical sprays are used in great profusion for the purpose of killing weeds, or as insecticides or fungicides. They are blown from powerful pumps, or spread by aeroplanes. They may drift for hundreds of yards, or even for miles, tainting crops for which they were not intended, or killing bees and other useful insects, or contaminating flowers and the honey derived from them. In fruit-growing, particularly, multiple sprayings are given at various stages of growth. Almost all, if not all, the chemicals used

329
are poisonous. Many of these substances are very persistent, or are combined with other chemicals to make them adhere, and are not removed by rain or by washing. It is hardly safe to eat the peel of any fruit, for there is no certainty that some chemical has not been used which penetrates into the peel, and even, in some cases, into the flesh. Mercuric compounds are an example of one of these things which is known to penetrate into the interior of tomatoes, and hence may be found in tomato juice. Some years ago in the United States it was found that oranges were being treated with thiourea as a preservative. The Food and Drug Administration tested them by feeding the juice to mice. Next morning the mice were dead.
Oranges are one among many examples of multiple treatment. Not only are they sprayed with pesticides while growing, but they are treated with chemicals after they are picked. In this country we permit them to be treated with diphenyl as a preservative, although its safety has been called in question; and in order to enhance their appearance they are dyed and waxed. Paraffin waxes are prejudicial to health; dyes may be cancer-inducing. There is nothing to warn the consumer about all this. And I need hardly point out that, even if none of these things passes through the skin, yet the peel of citrus fruits is extensively used in marmalade and for other culinary purposes.
Animals, as well as plants, are subjected to chemical treatments during growth. Synthetic sex hormones, such as one known as diethylstilboestrol is used in the rearing of chickens for table birds, and it is now almost impossible to buy a chicken which has not been subjected to this dangerous drug. The effect of it is to alter the function of the sex glands; it renders the male bird sterile and gives it female characteristics. It has been authoritatively stated that it may have something to do with causing cancer and leukæmia. If that is so, the ingestion of even the smallest dose may be dangerous, for it now appears that there is no minimum safe dose of cancer-inducing chemicals. There is also, of course, the chance that, through carelessness or lack of skill, larger doses may be taken. Some years ago the United States Department of Agriculture advised mink growers to feed their animals on
330
the necks of Chickens which had been implanted with pellets of this hormone. The mink ceased to breed. The growers suffered severe losses, and in the end Congress compensated them at the expense of the taxpayers. Who is going to compensate the human victims of these drugs?
Hormones have also been used extensively in beef production in the United States. How far they are used in this country, no one knows. Another common practice is to give antibiotics to pigs and other animals being reared for food. As these substances are distributed through the circulatory system, it is fairly certain that some residue will reach the human consumer. It is well known that the extensive use of antibiotics may lead to the proliferation of bacteria more dangerous than those which the antibiotic is designed to destroy. A similar problem has arisen in the use of pesticides, where the more susceptible pests may be killed, but new and more resistant varieties arise. The bacteria and the insects are thus able to save their species by their adaptability to new conditions and by the rapidity with which generation follows generation. Man, however, will not be saved in this way from the consequences of his own folly. The time required for a more resistant race of men to evolve—if that be even possible—is to be measured in the millennia and not in the very short periods in which new varieties of micro-organisms or insects may emerge. Positive action is therefore needed now.
As one more example of the accidental results of toxic sprays, I may mention that it has recently been found in British Columbia that D.D.T. was used to kill a worm which affects the bud of the spruce tree. But the D.D.T. finds its way into the rivers and may kill the salmon. Even if the fish survive, they will store the poison in their fat, to the detriment of human consumers. Not only are D.D.T. and other even more toxic chemicals used in agriculture; they are also used in storehouses, in the garden, in shops and in the home. The opportunity of getting small doses from many quarters is therefore rather high.
It must be remembered also that the pesticide itself is not only extremely poisonous, but it is usually suspended in

331
some vehicle which is a poison also. Aerosols are being sold freely and without any control. They are being used for all kinds of purposes, not merely for insecticides but in hairsprays, deodorisers, shoe polishes, water repellants for treating clothing and dry cleaners. Many other chemicals may find their way into the home—for example, paint strippers. These things require attention because they may reinforce the ill-effects of chemicals in food.
One of the worst aspects of this problem is the use in foods of substances which have no nutritional value whatsoever. Although the Food and Drugs Act contains a provision, which was inserted at my instance, that in making regulations for the protection of the public health Ministers should have regard to the desirability of restricting the use of substances of no nutritional value, little has been done. Dyestuffs are extensively used. They have no nutritive value, and their purpose is to deceive. The fruit, which has been preserved with sulphur dioxide and had the colour bleached out of it is dyed with a synthetic dye. The kipper which has not been made by kippering is dyed in order to deceive. All the synthetic or coal tar dyes are open to grave suspicion. In 1954, a list of permitted colours was issued. In 1955, a new list of permitted colours was issued, eliminating three of those which had previously been allowed but
"which have been shown, or are suspected, to have harmful effects on health."
Of the 30 colours then permitted, no fewer than 17 were described by the Food Standards Committee as
"colours for which the available evidence is deficient or conflicting"
although they did not
"expect them to be harmful in the amount ordinarily consumed."
The list of permitted colours in this country differs from that in other countries. In the United States, only fifteen colours are allowed.
My Lords, the importance of this matter is that many synthetic dyes have been found to cause cancer in man. This is something which has been discovered accidentally through workers in chemical factories contracting the disease, There is no certain means of knowing whether a particular dye is or is not
332
dangerous. Animal experiments are not conclusive. Substances are known which produce cancer in man, but not in any animal on which they have been tested. Moreover, nearly half the population is exposed to dyes in another way, for they are extensively used in cosmetics, and this use is in no way controlled.
It has recently been announced that the Food Standards Committee is once more to revise the list of permitted colours. The result, no doubt, will be to restrict still further those that may be used, but there is no certainty that even then those still allowed will be safe. Meanwhile, what will be the fate of those who have consumed colours permitted in the past, but now banned or soon to be banned? If they develop cancer 20 or 30 years hence, who will be to blame? There is only one safe course, and that is to prohibit the use of all synthetic colours, for they have no nutritive value: they are only deceptive, and the potential danger to consumers is very great.
Flavouring agents also are used for purposes of deception, either because the food has lost some of its natural flavour by processing, or because the natural flavour is not considered strong enough. This is a subject upon which little is known. The actual composition of the agents used by manufacturers for this purpose is often a trade secret. Under our law there is no obligation to disclose it. However, there are some cases in which it is known. Coumarin, for instance, has a taste somewhat resembling vanilla. It is a liver and kidney poison. In the United States its use in food is prohibited. In this country there is no prohibition. A flavour like that of honey can be obtained by reacting glucose with a chemical betaphenylamine, but there is no reason to think that it is safe for use in food. Nearly all the canned meats which are sold have monosodium glutamate added to them. The total quantity consumed must be considerable. This is said to bring out the flavour and to have no ill-effects, but what is the matter with the meat if its natural flavour is no longer adequate?
Nearly all the cooking fats and margarine which are sold as substitutes for butter and other natural fats are derived from oils which have been processed

333
or hydrogenated in order to give them the desired degree of hardness. It is now widely held that in this process the essential fatty acids which play an important part in nutrition are either destroyed or transformed into abnormal fatty acids, which are toxic. A deficiency of essential fatty acids is thought to be at least a contributory cause of neurological diseases, of cancer, heart disease, arterio-sclerosis and various other degenerative conditions. But the substitution of the abnormal acids for the essential ones is still more serious than a mere deficiency, because the abnormal fatty acids interfere with the utilisation of such essential fatty acids as still may be present.
Closely associated with the use of fats are the emulsifiers, which are used to break up fats and oils and give them a creamy consistency. Many chemicals are used for this purpose and, in particular, various polymers; and many polymers are suspected of causing cancer. Polyoxyethylene derivatives are widely used. In test animals these are found to interfere with nutrition and to slow down growth. In the United States this particular group of emulsifiers has been banned, but not here. Emulsifiers, or surface active agents, belong to the class which includes detergents. Owing to the widespread use of these substances large number of people are now drinking water which has been polluted by them. Some are suspected of being definitely toxic, and the long-term effect of others is not clearly known. At any rate, it is known that substances of this kind have the curious effect of facilitating absorption from the large intestine and this may cause the body to be invaded by other toxic substances or by non-toxic substances in abnormal and dangerous amounts. There is a short list of prohibited emulsifiers. It would be much better if the use of all emulsifiers and surface active agents were disallowed.
My Lords, not only is food injured by the process and additives to which it is subjected but it has in many cases deteriorated by having been kept for long periods. I am told that the milk supplied in large cities is often three or four days old when it reaches the customer; really fresh eggs are now hardly obtainable because of the time they take in passing through the monopolistic system of the
334
Egg Marketing Board. In days gone by there were grocers who prided themselves on supplying eggs only two or three days old. They can do so no longer.
Among other means of preserving foods it has even been proposed to use antibiotics. There is no doubt that these substances will kill bacteria which normally give warning of their presence by changes in the smell and colour of the food. They do not appear, however, to kill other organisms which may be more dangerous, and thus they may actually increase the risks to the consumer by concealing them. It has also been proposed to preserve food by irradiation, and no one knows all of the changes which may be so induced. In the United States it was planned to build plant for irradiating food in plastic containers for use by the army. Injurious effects of such food were found in animals and the project was abandoned.
The examples which I have given are but a minute sample. Hundreds of chemicals are used in agriculture, in food processing, as preservatives, colouring, flavours, humectants, emulsifiers, stabilisers, and as substitutes for natural foodstuffs. More and more synthetic chemicals are being devised for this purpose. Hardly a week passes without new applications for patents for such things being filed. The ingenuity of the manufacturers has far outrun the vigilance of the authorities who should protect the people's food. Naturally, manufacturers do not intend to poison us, but they themselves are not able to foresee all the consequences of what they do. We have the melancholy history of chemicals used in foods for long periods and yet in the end found to be toxic.
The danger, it must be remembered, does not lie mainly in the things which cause prompt and acute symptoms of poisoning. It is in those substances which produce no evident or immediate effects, although they may, in the end, be more evil. Diseases such as cancer may manifest themselves only after many years. In such cases, it becomes virtually impossible to determine what was the actual cause—indeed, there may have been several contributing factors. There is also the possibility of the poison being transmitted by the mother to the unborn child or in her milk to the newborn infant. The increased incidence of cancer

335
in the younger age groups is perhaps significant.
What is to be done about this problem my Lords? Present methods are inadequate. So far, the reaction of Ministers appears to have been to appoint more and more Committees to advise on one aspect or another of the problem. This is not sufficient. Positive action is needed. We are lagging far behind other countries. In France, for instance, the bleaching of flour is prohibited. The same is true in West Germany, where the use of chemicals as baking aids, or as colouring or preservatives in flour products, has also been banned.
I have referred to the United States Food and Drug Administration, with its highly skilled staff and extensive powers. We have nothing comparable. We do not even attempt to control the residues of pesticides and weed-killers in foods; nor do we control the use of fat extenders, flavouring agents and other chemicals used in processing foods. We simply do not know the extent to which they are used. The local authorities are responsible, in the main, for the enforcement of our food and drugs legislation. In carrying out the routine analyses to enforce the law the public analysts do not look for residues of pesticides, weedkillers, hormones and antibiotics, for the law does not prohibit them. Nor do they endeavour to find out what fat extenders are used, or what changes have taken place in processed foods. These things are not in themselves illegal. Whether foods containing such things are not, in the words of the Statute, "of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser", and so in breach of the law, is a difficult problem, and it would lead to very difficult legal arguments.
The main responsibility has so far fallen upon the Food Standards Committee. Some four years ago I attended before it in order to give evidence on flour and bread, and other flour products. My evidence and the questioning took nearly two hours. When I left the secretary asked if he could borrow my notes. I gave them to him. More than a year later they had not been returned. When I wrote for them I was told they had been lost. I asked to see the shorthand note of my evidence, and I discovered that only a longhand note of
336
evidence was taken. Another thing I discovered was that the research officers of the bakers and the millers were sitting in the Committee as assessors, whatever that may mean. The Food Standards Committee has no research staff and no organisation of its own; it depends entirely upon the evidence which it may discover in public sources or which may be tendered to it by other people. It is no wonder that the protection of the consumer lags far behind the ingenuity of the manufacturer.
When the Foods and Drugs legislation was being amended, some of us sought to have positive safeguards written into it. We were assured that ample use would be made of the power to enact regulations. This has not been so. For my part, I should like to see the use of synthetic chemicals banned completely or, at the very least, except for a short list of substances which have long been used and seem to be beyond suspicion. To do so at one blow would certainly be highly inconvenient to the food industry, and I know that the Government would shrink from that. Alternatively, we could proceed by stages. The first would be to prohibit the use of any new chemical not hitherto in general use. In the United States no new food additive may be used unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that it is safe, and I must stress that proof of safety is essential, not the mere absence of evidence of ill-results.
The second step should be to require food manufacturers to produce within a limited time positive evidence of the safety of those additives already in general use; and if they fail to do so those additives also should be banned. Concurrently, there should be imposed a minimum requirement to label all food so as to disclose the additives or processing to which it has been subjected. Manufacturers will object, but this is already the law in many countries, and when they export their goods to such countries they comply with the law. British consumers are just as much entitled to know what is in the food which is offered to them.
Exact labelling is essential. When I appeared before the Food Standards Committee the Chairman asked me whether I would be satisfied if bread made from bleached flour were labelled

337
"fortified with added vitamins". I said that that would be begging the question twice, for it would conceal the fact that many vitamins had been abstracted or destroyed and would imply that what was added more than replaced what had been lost. It will be said that if the labels disclose the exact constituents people will not be able to understand the long chemical names; but to say that is to say that it is right to trade on people's ignorance. If they are told the truth, some, at least, of its significance will not be lost. If the Government permit additives to be used the least they can do to protect the consumer is to let him know what he is buying. We cannot afford to run the risks to health now being incurred. The cost in invalidity and illness can be very great. But that is not all. It is not right that we should allow our fellow citizens to be exposed to dangers which can and should be avoided, and which may imperil life itself. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.28 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, it is with customary trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships for the first time. It is also with more than usual diffidence perhaps, because, if I may start on a personal note, neither of my personal predecessors here presumed to "break his duck" over a combined period of 40 years, whilst I find myself on my feet having waited to pluck up my courage for a mere decade. I can only hope that as this is not only a maiden but, if I may use the phrase without indelicacy, a maiden in the family way, it may be accorded the consideration normally shown to young ladies in that condition. I do, however, feel to some extent reassured, because the subject under discussion is very near to my heart and because I am in close agreement with the noble Lord who has just sat down. Like him, I am a member of the Soil Association, and it is hard indeed for a disciple to follow a master who has spoken so cogently, so forcefully and so convincingly of so many of the most important aspects covered by his Motion.
When I began farming ten years ago I reached a decision to follow organic principles as far as practicable. Even then we organic farmers were more or less considered cranks; and when I
338
wrote articles about the desirability of making compost on an agricultural scale I was more or less accused of practising black magic—of course, in a way compost is black magic, but that was not the way in which my detractors meant to imply it. I believe that the situation is very different now, after only ten years, with more and more farmers questioning the desirability of putting poison and other chemicals on their land, and also (which I think is more important) with more and more consumers demanding unadulterated food with what I can only call the right taste and with full nutritive values.
I think it is evidence of this new and increasing demand for properly grown food that the Soil Association was able, a year ago, to give successful birth to a retail establishment in London which sells only such produce. After the usual teething troubles, this infant is now becoming a bouncing baby, and it is hoped that it will soon have a number of brothers and sisters in other parts of London and in other parts of England as well. Such a conception and parturition I think would have been impossible only ten years ago, owing to lack of public support. While the conception might have been possible, and even the birth, I think the child would probably have died from lack of nourishment. This shows that there is a real and growing demand for what I would call properly grown and properly manufactured food.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has drawn particular attention in his Motion to the need for adequate labelling, and has spoken most convincingly on this subject. I agree completely with him. I am speaking only for myself, but I believe that all packaged goods should show all the ingredients exactly and by name. I do not think it is enough that it should be stated "Colouring matter added", or "Preservatives added" and so on, but that the exact chemical should be named. I should like to give an example of the kind of thing I have in mind, and for this purpose I am choosing bread, because it is the basic foodstuff. It is supposed to be our staple, the staff of life.
I have here an article by Mr. Fyfe Robertson—it was published some time

339
ago, but the facts, with one small difference, are the same—entitled, appropriately, "The Bread Racket". Mr. Robertson here suggests that we should no longer say "Give us this day our daily bread", but that we should say instead, "Give us this day our daily chalk, our daily benzoyl chloride, our daily potassium bromate, ammonium persulphate, glyceryl stearates, superglycerated fats"—and fourteen or fifteen other chemicals around which I am not going to try to tie my tongue. Since this article was written I understand that chlorine dioxide has been substituted for nitrogen trichloride, if that is any consolation to your Lordships. But what I feel is that if, when we think we are buying this staff of life, we are actually purchasing a chemist's shop, then we should know that by the label.
In this field there are many different subjects which are crying out for attention, but I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to only one or two. I wish first to speak about herbicides, which I know as weed killers. I should like to put in a plea for more extensive use of hormone weed killers in preference to those containing poison. I know that even hormone weed killers are not fully acceptable to the purist organic farmer: the correct solution is that indefinable commodity, good husbandry. But good husbandry is not always so easy to find, and, in its absence, I feel that hormone weed killers are certainly the lesser of two evils. I have used them myself with great success, and I think it would be helpful if there could be more official encouragement for them rather than for putting poisons on one's land.
Turning to colouring matter and preservatives, I think these have already been very well dealt with by the noble Lord. I believe almost all of them have now been declared illegal in Germany, and many of them in Switzerland, because of the fear of carcinogenic. I know of the iron British constitution, but are we less susceptible to these poisons than the Germans and the Swiss, or is it that Her Majesty's Government are trying to breed a race of Rasputins? I believe there are 17 dyes permitted at present in this country, and all but one of these are illegal in other countries—not necessarily in the same countries, but in one country or another all but one are illegal.
340
Does this not show how little is positively known about the harmful effects of such additives? I suggest that this is the whole danger: that we simply do not know. We are ignorant about the full effects upon the human organism of new chemicals and combinations of chemicals which are being used, especially when these are ingested in small quantities over long periods. Of course, it is true that many tests as to the toxicity of the various additives have been carried out. These usually take the form of feeding experiments on small animals. I want to pause and wonder exactly what these feeding experiments prove. We know that different animals react to the same poisons in different ways. It should not be necessary for me to say that we are not white mice, nor are we rats; we are not hamsters or guinea pigs. We all know that rats and mice are susceptible to some vermicides which do not kill other animals—this is advertised as being a great advantage for the vermicides in question. But can it not also happen the other way round—that rats and mice and hamsters may survive diets which, over a long period, would prove fatal to the human being?
Even when we consider the effects of the same poisons on animals of different sizes, we find that there is practically no consistency. I have here a report which many of your Lordships may know of a lecture by Sir Edward Mellanby on "The Chemical Manipulation of Food." He is here talking about polyoxyethylene, which is one of the chemicals used in this country in the production of bread, although it has been banned in the United States. What was found in experiments? When this chemical was incorporated at levels of up to 25 per cent. in the food of young rats it had extremely unpleasant repercussions—nasal haemorrhage, gangrene of the tail and legs, severe diarrhoea and so on. At the level of 12·5 per cent. the rats were unaffected. The same chemical was then tried on hamsters, which, taking one rat with another, were about the same size, and with hamsters it was found that when it was fed at a level of only 5 per cent. of their diet the effect was harmful in that some of the animals died—which I think is very harmful! My Lords, does this not throw doubt upon the validity of all such tests unless they are carried out very much more

341
extensively with many more animals and over a much greater length of time?
Furthermore—and I feel this is very important—insufficient attention is being paid to the cumulative effects over long periods; and by that I do not mean months or years, but over generations. I do not think I could do better on this point than to quote from the evidence given by Dr. Milton, the representative of the Soil Association, to the Research Study Group on Toxic Chemicals, whose Report, incidentally, is eagerly awaited. Dr. Milton said to the Research Study Group:
"We"—
that is, the Soil Association—
"feel that the aspect of the possible long-term effect of continued ingestion of small amounts of these substances (which are undoubtedly toxic in larger amounts) upon the general health is being entirely overlooked".
He went on:
"We consider that immediate research should be put in hand to find the cumulative effect upon small laboratory animals of the long-term feeding of very low concentrations of the various chemicals now used in agriculture. This should not only include the toxic substances themselves, but also their breakdown products and metabolites, which might possibly have a completely different long-term physiological effect from the original substances.
"In addition, the synergistic effect of various toxic chemicals taken together (or in different foods at about the same time period) should also be investigated since this period) to be an aspect apparently overlooked."
This is a different point, but I think it is important because research is mainly upon the results of the effects of certain chemicals, whereas combinations of chemicals can produce new substances which are many times more toxic. This is another fact which should be taken into account in future. Dr. Milton went on:
"These experiments should be carried out on a good many generations of small animals with a rapid generation turnover"—
some very interesting experiments have been clone upon cats going through four generations; fortunately cats, like rats, breed rapidly and we can get results very quickly—
"so that it might be ascertained whether or not any changes occur in the fed group vis-à-vis controls on similar foods not so contaminated."
I think it is very important that tests should go beyond one lifetime, and we should consider the effect upon subse-
342
quent generations. I hope I have done something to show the need for far more extensive tests as to the harmful effects of all synthetics.
It is true that the British industrial Biological Research Association (which I believe is known as B.I.B.R.A.) has been set up and hopes to start operating by the end of next year, working on the biological testing of chemicals used in the growing and manufacture of food, and also lipsticks, incidentally, which are also ingested in small quantities by some. B.I.B.R.A., I understand, is financed on a 50-50 basis by the interested manufacturers and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Whatever is put up by the manufacturers will be matched, pound for pound, by the Department. But, my Lords, the interested manufacturers in this case have at present guaranteed, I understand, only the sum of £28,000 a year for five years for the setting up of this research association.
I consider that this is a most paltry sum, in view of the industrial giants which should be contributing to it. It means that B.I.B.R.A. will have an income of less than £60,000 a year, and that is out of a total of between £4,000 million and £10,000 million spent annually on food. My own reaction to that is to feel that the problem has not yet been tackled seriously, because that does not give enough backing to carry out the tests which should be carried out. In conclusion, therefore, want to express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will tackle this problem seriously and give assurances that they appreciate the gravity and urgency of the situation.
5.46 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am sure that I shall have the agreement of all your Lordships in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, on his maiden speech, which was interesting and well-informed. I am sure that all your Lordships hope that it will not be another decade before he addresses your Lordships on other subjects.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has made a speech which was extremely frightening. He painted an extremely gloomy picture. All the information one has is to the effect that

343
people are living longer, that they are more healthy and that children are growing taller. That is surprising if the situation is, in fact, quite so serious as the picture which Lord Douglas of Barloch paints. We must realise that insects are the most formidable competitors to man on earth, by reason of their extraordinary reproductive capacity and their destructive capacity against foodstuffs, and the remarkable number of generations which are capable of living in a very short time. It has been said that the last thing on earth is likely to be an insect eating a cabbage. The depredations of insects face us with a problem of how to feed the vast millions of mankind, how to secure the intensive production of agricultural products required to feed the present and future populations—and we know how rapidly the populations are increasing all the time. This brings in its train the need to control and to combat their depredations, which, in turn, brings the necessity, unfortunate as it may be, for insecticides and pesticides.
No doubt in due course mankind will develop the process known as biological control by the introduction of the natural enemies of the insects that prey on the foodstuffs of mankind. That would reduce the need for insecticides that are lethal. There have been one or two dramatic examples not quite on the lines of this Motion. The introduction of the cactoplastus insect from Australia to Latin America was responsible for the complete destruction of prickly pear which had rendered useless millions of acres of fertile land. What happened to the cactoplastus insect when it finished up the prickly pears I do not know; I am not sure whether it went on to something else. Then, of course, there is the myxomatosis, which has made a tremendous improvement in the control of rabbits in Australia.
A good deal has been done on this subject of biological control, but this is a very long-range business. Meanwhile, there is a continued use for lethal insecticides. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord has said, the insects become more and more immune to them, and more and more poisonous insecticides have to be produced. If mankind is to be fed, these insecticides will have to continue to be used, and this means that we have to protect ourselves against the poten-
344
tially evil effects of their use in the form of occasional poisoning by their misuse. I understand that the Government have availed themselves of the services of Sir Charles Dodds, the Director of the Courtauld Institute of Biochemistry at Middlesex Hospital—a world authority on this subject. Then, as the noble Lord has also said, there has been built up over the years a network of committees and sub-committees to investigate, report and advise the Ministry on what insecticides and pesticides to use, when to use them and in what strength. I understand that there have been very few instances of any mishap through their improper use.
There still remains the precaution of washing the skins of fruit and vegetables before they are eaten, although that is not, as the noble Lord has said, a complete answer, because some of these poisons get into the skin of the fruit. But it is always laid down in the instructions that these should not be used within a certain time of the picking of the fruit.
LORD AMWELL: Will the noble Lord say what he means by "instructions"? Whose instructions, and where?
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: If I may say so, my Lords, an endless stream of instructions goes out to the growers of fruit and agricultural produce from the Ministry and from the manufacturers, and they are given in all the agricultural Press. I do not think there is any excuse for somebody using a chemical on fruit within the time it would have, or is supposed to have, harmful effects.
LORD AMWELL: I was thinking of the consumer.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I meant on the consumer. The instructions are that the grower should not spray so late that the effects are there when the person eats the apple. With fruit, of course, it is fairly easy to detect the fruit that has not been sprayed if one wishes to. Fruit that has not been sprayed at all is usually, unfortunately, not the best sample of fruit. Although I should be sorry to deprive the noble Lord of sharing an apple with a fat maggot, one does not want to force everybody to do the same.

345
As regards synthetic additions to canned and bottled fruit, which I think is a very serious matter, the public have considerable protection from the regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act—and, after all, we have just celebrated the centenary of that Act. It has been in existence here for 100 years, and there are regulations similar to those made under that Act in almost every civilised country. Further, as again the noble Lord has said, there is legislation on the question of colouring matter, preservatives and emulsifiers. I cannot entirely agree with the noble Lord that there is going to be much protection if one prints on the can the technical descriptions of all the ingredients of the can, of all these chemicals. It seems to me that if the noble Lords who have just spoken are right, there will be a great deal of writing on every tin, which will be almost self-defeating.
It seems to me that the main protection for the public should be through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and through the food and drugs authorities of the local authorities. They are the watchdogs, to protect the public and to enforce the law. I believe that one of the protections for the public is the urge of the food processers and canners to preserve their own good name. A prosecution for infringement of the law is a very serious matter indeed as regards their good name.
I agree that the whole subject is not by any means completely known, but more is becoming known about it each year by research and control. As regards further legislation on the question of poisonous substances sprayed and chemicals used in agriculture, there are the regulations made under the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act of 1952, by which manufacturers have to notify if any new product is likely to be a hazard, either to the users or to the consumers of the product. That applies not only to the use of new chemicals, but also to new uses of old chemicals. There is also the Agricultural Chemicals Approved Scheme, a voluntary scheme under which chemicals are submitted for approval. It is really a guarantee that they do what the manufacturers claim they do, and have no injurious effects other than anything stated. It seems to me that, on the whole, it is better to keep this side voluntary. After
346
all, at the moment we have a mass of legislation and we have a mass of committees looking into the various aspects of it. I do not think I agree with the noble Lord that there are many further steps which we ought to take at this moment.
6.0 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I think the whole House, indeed the whole country, should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, upon raising this matter to-day and giving us the opportunity of speaking on it. I agree with him that a great deal of research has to be carried out, and most of the things which have been said to-day on this subject must be tentative because of our limited knowledge of the effects of many of these substances.
I was surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, who rose in his seat, turned to the noble Lord and said that, in view of the fact that we are living such a long time, he could not see why there was any need for this debate. Indeed, I think he asked why we should emphasise the importance of this debate. I would remind him that that could be said of every decade. As the expectation of life becomes longer, everybody could rise up and ask: "Why are we making a fuss?". Again, may I remind him of his final sentence? Has he read the history of public health in this country? Has he read that, whereas we invited all kinds of people to do things on a voluntary basis, in order to clean the water, the milk and the air, these people refused to do it and it was necessary finally to introduce legislation to make it compulsory? The air of this country is now being cleaned only because of the Clean Air Act which went through the House. The water of this country is clean now only because of legislation; and the milk of this country was cleaned the year before last only when the Clean Milk Act finally came into operation. How can he say that, in this field, we must be so magnanimous as to leave it to the manufacturers of food? I do ask him to consider his last sentence.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am not leaving it entirely to them, of course. After all, there are all

347
the Food and Drug Acts and the regulations thereunder which control this matter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Probably the noble Lord has not given sufficient consideration to the failure of the voluntary methods which he advocates.
May I take him up on the next point, with regard to the increased expectation of life, when he implies that we have finally defeated disease? May I remind him that the incidence of various fatal diseases is very high to-day? Indeed, in his brilliant exposition of this matter the noble Lord who introduced the debate accentuated that point. But it may be that some of the things about which we have talked to-day may throw light on the etiology of some of the diseases, the cause of which defeats us to-day. When one thinks of the advances in public health, one realises that many of our discoveries have been made as a result of the kind of tentative approach we are making towards this subject in this debate to-day. Indeed, there is a tragic ignorance of the cause of some of the fatal diseases of which people die to-day.
The difficulty in this matter—and I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me—is that of discovering some process which can be related to some specific sympton, a symptom, of course, which can be pinpointed by clinical observation. That is our weakness here. Therefore, we can only make those contributions which we each feel rather strongly about. To-night, I want only to emphasise what I consider are two practical points. I am sorry that the Minister for Science has left the Chamber, because I was hoping that he might have gone forth from this debate as a kind of knight errant crusading against food which is unfit for human consumption—because let us regard this food as unfit for human consumption. I think that nobody can believe that we are discussing a highly scientific subject to-day. They can see the coloured foods, and the frozen foods which last a very long time, and which therefore must be subject to certain additives to ensure that they will not deteriorate for a considerable period.
I should like to say this at the outset. Far from deploring any change of
348
a labour-saving character in our eating habits, I welcome anything which will relieve men and women from the tyranny of the sink. I should not like it to go out from this House to the country that your Lordships condemn some of these new packs, these new ideas in the field of contemporary eating. But, of course, we must exercise the greatest vigilance to ensure that our ingenuity, whether in the field of atomic power or in the field of food preservatives, should be directed only toward adding to the sum of human happiness.
I speak to-day in three roles. I spent four years of my very active political life in the Ministry of Food, at a time when the Ministry of Food was under attack. Again, I speak as a woman anxious that her family and other people's families should not have to eat adulterated food. Thirdly, I speak as a doctor. However, I do not speak in this regard as somebody with any very special scientific knowledge of the chemistry of food preservation, though I do speak as a doctor who feels very keenly about preventive medicine. This, after all, is a preventive approach to disease.
During the time I was at the Ministry of Food one of the things which lightened my labour was the fact that one of our advisers was Sir Jack Drummond, who subsequently, your Lordships will recall, met an untimely death while on holiday in France. I would remind your Lordships that this was 20 years ago. Since then, frozen food has come into its own, and there have been other kinds of developments. But Sir Jack Drummond was particularly concerned with the harmful effects of preserved food, especially canned food—tinned food, as we called it then. He believed that this food could be easily contaminated by the microscopic particles of metal substance in the solution.
He told me a little story which has always remained in my mind. He told me of a little colony of nuns in a remote part of Africa who were concerned with a mission. It so happened that, in order that that little colony could be fed, regular supplies of tinned food were sent to them over the years. If a scientist in this country said that we could feed a certain group of people for years on a

349
certain food, this, after all, would probably lead to certain deductions or conclusions upon which we might base certain scientific advances. This noble little colony of women happened to be there for years, and happened to be fed in this way on preserved food in tins. Sir Jack Drummond was shocked when he looked at the statistics and discovered that the mortality rate from cancer over the years was very high. The fact is that our approach to cancer is still tentative, but we cannot disregard any possibility of the assimilation of inorganic material by human beings. Indeed, all the evidence which the noble Lord gave in his excellent speech to-day showed quite clearly that the ingestion and the assimilation of inorganic material has no doubt been responsible for cancer.
Of course, the longer the food is in the tin, the greater the possibility of contamination. Perhaps people who have 'Clot considered this very carefully will say: "I had a tin of fruit for many years, and when I opened it, it was absolutely fresh". Yes, the food may appear fresh, but there may be particles of material in the solution which are harmful, if ingested. Why cannot we label all canned food with the date of canning? At least that would be something. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of 13arloch, has already made this demand, and I want to emphasise its importance. It could be done so easily. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, was throwing bouquets at the food manufacturers. They will say that it would mean more trouble and more expense; but we know that the real reason is that the consumer may not be attracted to food which has been canned for a long period and may fail to buy it, with the result that the manufacturers will be involved in loss. When we wanted clean milk, there was the same story. The farmers could not be involved in expense. When it came to clean air, the industrialists could not be involved in expense. They refused to put in the right kind of boilers and so on. And when it comes to clean water, again expense rears its ugly head. I ask your Lordships to ignore these objections, which have delayed progress in this field for so many years, and to provide at least that all canned food should be labelled with the date of canning.
350
Cancer has been induced by chemicals and we know that the symptoms may not occur until years afterwards. Dr. Franklin Bicknell has quoted the case of 82 men who developed cancer of the bladder as a result of working in a dye factory. And we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, of the dyes used in food. Of these 82 men, one has stopped work for 35 years, one for 33 years, 9 for more than 15 years and 9 for between 10 and 15 years. When thinking of the effects of these additives, we must bear in mind that often the immediate effect is not apparent, and it is easy for people to say, "You have eaten this for years; where are the symptoms?" The symptoms may be latent and show themselves much later on.
As the tendency is for more food to have preservatives and colouring matter added, we should make it compulsory to state on the packets what has been added to food. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, said that we could not ask people to put a list of ingredients on food packets. Why not? The noble Lord and many other people think it unnecessary because they think that our standards in this country are very high. On the contrary, other countries demand a much higher standard than we enjoy. May I read, for the noble Lord's benefit, the label on a tin of English biscuits sold in Egypt? It will be seen that the Egyptians demand a standard much higher than we do. If exporters fail to comply with the request of the importers to give this information, they will lose their profits, and in such circumstance there is no objection to giving the information. This is what the label on a tin of English biscuits sold in Egypt says:
"Deordorised coconut oil and palm kernel oil and peanut oil; palm kernel stearine; powdered milk, dried egg, pectin; citric acid, oil of lemon, spirits of wine; artificial flavours of bourbonal, vanillin, heliotropine, raspberry, nutmeg; artificial colours of yellow, lemon, tangerine, red."
If it is practicable for manufacturers to label in this way food which is exported, why it is not practicable for them to do so for food sold here?
I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, that the drug manufacturers adopted the same attitude as he anticipated the food manufacturers would adopt. They were against stating

351
on the containers the contents of proprietory drugs, but finally public opinion prevailed. Would the noble Lord object if he bought a drug and found it labelled? It is in his interests, and in the interests of his family, that that should be so. I agree that there are many honest manufacturer, but the noble Lord will agree with me that Parliament is not legislating for honest, upright people but for the minority of dishonest people who are prepared to abuse their powers and exploit the public. Therefore, I ask that these two limited demands should be met: that the date of packing should be on the packet, and the ingredients of foodstuffs should be included on the label. I feel that the time has come when food manufacturers must reveal the secrets of their trade in the interests of the safety and health of the community.
6.18 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, although I am not on the list of speakers, as the time is easy I may be pardoned for wishing to intervene with a sentence or two. May I suggest, from my own experience, that we are in danger of merely scraping the surface of the problem? Why is it that all these 700-odd chemicals are necessary in the growing, manufacturing and distribution of food? Surely it is because we have absorbed the idea that Britain cannot feed herself: we must export or perish. I do not believe that that is correct. However, that is not the subject, but I would refer to the fact that at the last meeting of the British Association the matter was regarded as debatable, since it was debated by experts upon the subject of food production in this country.
The effect of this idea that we cannot feed ourselves has tended to turn the agricultural and food manufacturing industry into a system of mass production. I suggest that mass production is bad for farming and for food. Anyone who is acquainted at all with farming in this country knows that good husbandry means the interest of the individual farmer in every field that he owns and cultivates, in every crop at every time of its development. The idea of production on a mass scale is economically unsound.
I remember when, some years ago, I had just over one acre of land on the out-
352
skirts of London, we had a co-operative society upon the principle of production for use, where we got expert advice, where certain essentials were bought for us and arrangements were made for the use of small machinery upon a cooperative basis. The result of that—although I am not a farmer and know nothing about the cultivation of land—was that I was able, in my own spare time, pleasurably, and with the employment of some amount of skilled labour, to produce all the food and vegetables that my family required and more—I had to give some away; and the total in cost to me was half as much as I should have had to pay in the shops.
Why is there the difference? If you ask any advertising man in this business to-day he will tell you that it costs, not only in agriculture but in everything else, an average of five to six times as much to sell an article as it does to make it. Multiple costs, distributive costs, transport, insurances and all the higgledy-piggledly of modern competitive commerce come in. That is why it does not pay to go back to the old system of healthy agriculture; it has to be mass production, machinery, a big accumulation of capital and so on. But the result of that is that there are 700 chemicals, the majority of them poisons, which are used in the growing of food, in the processing of food, and in the manufacture and distribution of food, so far as it is necessary to preserve it.
All that is the result of the fact that we have gone away from the land; we have absorbed the doctrine that the machine age, as it is called, means the necessity for mass production upon a highly technical and high-powered scale. I think that is quite unnecessary, especially in regard to food. Betjeman, and one or two other experts of that character—Julian Huxley, for instance—have said on this subject that we require only one-third of the amount of mass production that we have today. One does not deny that mass production is necessary, especially in the transitional stage. I am not a reactionary; I do not want to get back to the old times. But I want to face the real facts of the case.
This question of food is hygienically important, but it is also economically important; and we are neglecting our

353
agriculture because we have been led away by false issues. I am not against the use of machinery or against the machine age; but I am a Socialist, and Socialists were always taught, until Socialist principles were forgotten, that the purpose of a machine is to lighten human labour and not to indulge in a rat-race round the world. That is the difference. You believe in the competitive process and in modern capitalism. That is why you have the problem that has been so clearly brought to notice in this debate. I will not go into the details, although I have studied them. I know the value of good, clean food straight from the earth. We ought to get back to that and we should be much better, happier and more moral if we did.
6.24 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, if I exercise the privilege of a Privy Counsellor and speak from this Box it is because advancing years and poor eyesight and hearing have made it difficult for me to speak at all, and I have not spoken in your Lordships' House for some live years. I felt, however, that this was a most important debate, and I warmly compliment my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch on having introduced it. I will begin, if I may, by quoting from a speech which I delivered some five years ago, which described the bread as it then existed. Perhaps your Lordships will watch out for proof that a certain amount of it has come true. I then said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 197, col. 793]:
"The result is not a health loaf; it is a whitewashed political loaf. More than that, it is a caricature of a loaf, denatured, shorn of its bran, with its precious store of nature's best replaced by three synthetic products of a chemical factory … bleachers, perhaps to make it as white as bone dust; a loaf which is calculated, in my opinion, to bring us fewer teeth and more dentures, brittler bones for our athletes, more constipation … more aperients, more minor ailments and skin troubles, more major disease, more antibiotics, more operations, more hospitals and bigger ones, more 'mentals' and mental homes, more work for the undertaker, and more expenditure, In.short, it is an accentuation of all the evils which white bread … has contributed to make our Welfare State into a chemist's dream and a doctor's nightmare."
I am afraid that some of those things have come true, and I think that has been shown to-day. I was much concerned to find out what the bread (and
354
I am confining my remarks to bread) is like to-day. Not having another source to go to, I went back to the old source, the much abused Food Standards Committee. This is not quite the same Food Standards Committee that was mentioned by my noble friend; it is a reformed Food Standards Committee. I found that that Committee had produced a report on bread and flour, which is dated August, 1960, rather less than a year ago. That Committee's Report is of 70 pages, all of which I have read with the greatest care. It has no pretence to being a literary document, but is the result of a number of sub-committees which were set up by the Food Standards Committee.
As regards white bread which, of course, is the main production, there is a great deal of detail. They mention some things that ought to be changed, but I was struck by the fact that there is no enthusiasm in the Report. Then I came to passages which bear on whole-meal bread. They are very short, but they seem to me to be of great importance, and with your Lordships' permission I should like to quote them. I would say that it is from a summary of conclusions, and they run from letter A to letter X. Three of them are of great interest from the point of view of wholemeal bread. The first is:
"Only flour containing the whole of the product derived from the milling of cleaned wheat should he described as 'wholemeal'."
That was conclusion D. The next I wish to quote is conclusion F. That says:
"Wholemeal should not contain any added nutrients."
That is to say, it is quite unlike white bread. Then conclusion H says:
"The exemption of wholemeal from the re, quirement to contain ceta præwarata should continue."
That is, of course, that the exemption should continue. That seems to me to be an admission that here you have an almost perfect food. It can be described as wholemeal bread only if it contains the whole of the product of the milling. It is a complete food. It does not want any of these other things added, and if they are added it must not be called "wholemeal". So if you eat wholemeal, you are eating a complete food without contamination.
The rest of the summary deals with white flour. There is much less chance

355
of your wholemeal bread being messed about. If you can secure it, it really does contain all these qualities—and you can secure it. After I made my last speech, I had an enthusiastic letter from a miller in Scotland, who sent me an enormous packet of wholemeal. From that day to this—and that was almost the day after I made the speech—all the bread I eat is made by my wife from this wholemeal, which is absolutely reliable. The miller was an enthusiast. I am sorry to say that he is dead now, but the business is being carried on.
Of course, that gave me to think: What can be done about it? Many speakers have spoken wisely on that. I thought a great deal about it, and it seemed to me that the best thing to do would be to go back to the abused Food Standards Committee. It would be a good thing if they could be asked to go into this question very thoroughly. There are a great many branches of this question that have not been touched upon to-day. There is the comparison with foreign nations. There are some nations—Germany is one—whose bread is very superior to our own; that is to say, very much nearer to wholemeal bread. There is a great deal to be learned by the study of that. I will not go into that tonight, because it is a very big business indeed to make comparisons with the nations, and especially to compare them with the statistics published of certain physical differences which result from the better food that they have.
I think the Food Standards Committee ought to be asked how it would be possible to get much nearer to the wholemeal bread, and what would be the effects. Of course, you must overcome public preference—there is no question about that. We can all talk here and say that we ought to eat wholemeal bread, and we can do it ourselves, as I do, but that is not much good. What you must do is to persuade people, not so much that wholemeal is perfect, but that it is much better for you than the other kinds of food. People simply will not look at wholemeal bread because it is coloured. Until you can get out of their heads what has been put into them by propaganda, that white bread is much better, you will do no good. I think it would be a good thing if the
356
Food Standards Committee itself were asked to go very carefully into that. As it has shown us how good wholemeal bread is, it should be asked to show how the popular objection to it can be overcome.
6.40 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, for introducing this extremely important debate. It is a matter for regret that it has had to be moved at a late hour, when the attendance is somewhat thin, because this is a subject of tremendous importance. Most noble Lords who have taken part have practical experience on this subject, either from committees or from Ministerial experience. I have not, and I speak merely as a consumer. I believe that the implications of this Motion, which has been phrased very widely, will be very important for the future. We are moving more and more into a scientific age, and food must take its place in this rampage of progress—and I hope that I am not being cynical in that description, for it is a very necessary phase in our lives. But the time may well come, if we are not careful, when fresh food will be a thing of the past. I do not want to be an alarmist, because canned food, processed food and frozen food all have their places in our diet.
I should like to dwell first on the subject of hygiene. I have read fairly carefully the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954, which includes some interesting legislation about hygiene. But I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether a tightening up of the Food and Drugs Act in this particular context will be forthcoming. It may well be that a new Food and Drugs Act will soon be necessary. I speak especially with regard to bread, which has been mentioned in several of the speeches during this debate. It is true that one can now get the cut, wrapped loaf but the deliveries of bread, and the way in which an ordinary unwrapped loaf is handed to the customer by a great many of our bakers, is nothing short of appalling. In many parts of the Continent this would not be permitted, and I feel that legislation for very much more hygienic wrapping and delivering of bread is overdue. There are still a number of occasions on which one finds

357
foreign bodies in bread, and prosecutions still occur. Of course, even in a rnechanised age the human element is apparent but when the matter of hygiene is examined I think bread must be high on the list.
We all listened with very great interest to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and I would fully agree with his comments regarding brown bread. Personally I find brown bread very much more wholesome and appetising than its white counterpart; and, of course, it is very much better for one's health.
Now I turn to another topic which has been mentioned and that is the publishing of contents in food, particularly tinned foods and processed foods. I think it would probably be impracticable to publish every single content of every single item, but I should particularly like to refer to pork pies. The term "pork pie" seems these days to cover a multitude of sins, if I may put it in that way. You can go to one shop and probably get a very good pork pie. You can go to another and get something which has a taste that I can describe only as a combination of sawdust and bad grease. I feel that, if we are to have a content label on foodstuffs, pork pies, and also sausages, should rank very high in priority. I do not think there would be any difficulty in stating on the wrapping the amount of pork contained in these pies. Unfortunately the Weights and Measures Bill, in which a number of us had quite a big part to play, has been killed off, which is a very great pity, particularly when taken in context with certain aspects of this Motion.
That takes me on to a similar subject, that of advertising. One well-known firm of paste manufacturers shows pictures of whole lobsters, whole salmon and whole duck being displayed as going into their products; and having sampled their pastes, which I find most excellent, I should say that their claims are quite justified. But I cannot help feeling that some of the products which one sees on the market and for which great claims are made, would perhaps justify some examination. Section 5, subsection (2), of the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954, says:
"It is hereby declared that for the purpose of the said section six, a label or advertisement which is calculated to mislead as to the nutria-
358
tional or dietary value of any food is calculated to mislead as to the quality of the food."
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government how strict are the requirements to enable the true content of items such as paste to be ascertained.
Turning to vegetables, these days we have a great many frozen products. They are very good and a boon to the busy housewife. That is particularly true of frozen spinach, and I am informed that spinach in frozen form is often as economical as fresh spinach grown in one's garden. Nevertheless, it would be a great pity if fresh vegetables were to be completely superseded by frozen foods, useful and often nutritious as they are. Of course, these days we have a great variety of sauces, many of which contain colouring matter—cochineal, and so on—but while intending no disrespect to the manufacturers of these sauces, who are all reputable people, I feel that we are as a nation becoming somewhat inured to these products. So often we get a really tasty piece of fish and then smother it in tomato ketchup. In some restaurants that sometimes becomes rather necessary to detract from the taste of the so-called fish. But I feel that in one's home it is often an insult to one's wife's cooking. I confess that at home I rarely have recourse to any form of sauce, though quite often eating out it does become a necessity.
May I say a word about aerosols, which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, mentioned. I would say, in defence of aerosols, that the manufacturers take considerable trouble in printing instructions as to how they should be used; and they state specifically that they should be kept clear of foodtuffs. In other words, if one wants to spray one's larder, it is obviously common sense first to remove exposed foodstuffs. In the garden, weed-killers and grass killers and so on are becoming more and more numerous—so much so that in many cases hand-weeding has become a thing of the past. I am not talking here about commercial gardening, where, for obvious reasons, mechanical and chemical means must be used; I am talking about the ordinary gardens of the small house. There are indeed perfectly good non-toxic weed

359
killers, but there is still a tendency to use the toxic ones.
Of course, all this boils down to one thing. There must be co-operation between the manufacturers and the retailers on this matter, and by the general public. It is obviously necessary, in some cases for the general public to be educated into using food to the best advantage. So often people see an advertisement for some labour-saving product and they rush to buy it. But it is becoming very necessary for a fresh food campaign to be launched, and I feel and hope that this Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has moved to-day will encourage more people to buy fresh foods.
6.55 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I gladly join with the noble Lady who has spoken, and with other noble Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, on once again initiating a debate on this all-important question of the use of chemicals in agriculture and food. I support the case that the noble Lord has submitted to your Lordships, though I do not propose to follow him with a further series of scientifically based statements. My reason for not doing so is that I am under the impression that committee and sub-committees are sitting that can provide the answers to many of the questions that arise this afternoon. If I am correct, might I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should as soon as possible embody all the findings of such committees and sub-committees in a White Paper to which additions may be appended as they become available?
Could the noble Lord who is to reply give particulars of the committees that are investigating the safety of the deliberate additions to food, such as artificial flavours, anti-oxidants, emulsifiers, flour-bleachers and the like? I believe that a committee is investigating the safety of hydrogenated fats, and also the safety of residues in food of agricultural chemicals, and I should like to ask about the methods for their measurement. Might I suggest the desirability of fully stating on all packed foods the exact composition of all substances added, and, finally, the desirability of permitting no additions to
360
food until the safety of such additions has been proved?
I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is all too difficult to find out just what is being done by the Departments concerned on matters broadly touched on to-day. For example, there is some evidence that hydrogenating, or hardening, of vegetable oils to make margarine creates abnormal and possibly harmful fats. I would ask whether feasible methods exist for measuring the amounts of many of the agricultural chemicals left in food. Your Lordships may remember the illness that arose last year in the Netherlands over the addition of an anti-spluttering agent to margarine. I would appeal again to Her Majesty's Government to make widely known information on all these matters as soon as available. Your Lordships are becoming ever more deeply conscious of the danger of chemicals in food and farming, and are determined that these matters should be thoroughly understood and checked, where necessary. From my own point of view, may I tell your Lordships lilt I have found a small book entitled, Chemicals in Food, by Dr. Franklin Bicknell, of great use in studying these involved scientific matters.
6.59 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I join with everyone who has taken part in this debate in warmly congratulating and thanking my noble friend, Lord Douglas of Banloch, for his wholly admirable speech. We are all well aware that he has been extremely persistent with this topic, and I think his persistence is a valuable public service. No one listening to the facts as he marshalled them, and following the measured way in which he put his case, can be in any doubt whatsoever that action is needed t that he has drawn aside the veil which shrouds the iniquities which are practised for the sake of profit, and that there is in this matter at least a helpless, ignorant and long-suffering public. I was pleased to hear, too, the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, which I thought was both informed and uninhibited. He told us it was a speech which had been gestating for ten years. I can only think that its freshness in delivery was due to the fact that he has lived on compost-grown food, and food without any additives, for the last ten years.

361
I am bound to say that one part of my noble friend's Motion—namely, the adequate labelling of contents—although quite right and necessary, would, in my view, do little to protect people because they just will not take the trouble to read; or, if they do read, they will not take any notice of it. If we are to stop these dangerous practices I submit that they must be prohibited at the source, because ordinary people just do not know, and could never know, the amount of poison which is pumped into and on to the food they eat between seed time and harvest, arid from farm gate to breakfast table. Kings used to guard against poisoning by employing food and wine tasters. I feel that the Government should act as the people's food taster in the prevention of the distribution of harmful poisons.
One of the difficulties about debates of this kind is that there is a tendency for people to push one of their own theories or special ideas about food, and they tend therefore to be labelled as something that is faddist. I have to confess right away, therefore, that I am an absolute "low-brow" so far as food is concerned—I will eat anything once. Yesterday, at a Guildhall luncheon I actually ate, for the first time in my life, shrimps nesting in an avocado pear. I ate all the shrimps but the avocado pear I left. But I am a low-brow because I eat food if like the taste; and I unashamedly confess that I usually prefer the taste of white bread to brown bread. I know that brown bread is much better for me, yet I go on merrily eating white bread. But it seems to me utterly ridiculous that the manufacturers of bread carefully, and by highly scientific and chemical processes, kill all the goodness in the flour or extract the goodness of the wheat from the flour, and then proceed, by other equally expensive processes, to put back in an artificial way the goodness which they have extracted from it.
I am glad to see on the Government Front Bench, the noble Earl. Lord Waldegrave, because it may be that, as he is listening to this debate, he may find a reason for something that he has never been able previously to explain—, namely, why it is that the 1¾lb. loaf in 1956 cost 6d., whereas it now costs ls. Old. It may be that, although wheat has gone down to £18 a ton, from £30
362
a ton in 1957, there is no wheat used at all, but that we are using all these expensive chemicals, and that questions about bread and flour ought not to be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture but to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House as Minister for Science, Perhaps that is a matter that we might consider in future.
But I say to my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch that I cannot see anything essentially wrong in adding, provided that it is not harmful, something to give a better artificial flavour, or a process to give a better colour or a more attractive appearance, or a preservative, so that food has a longer shelf life. The point is that, if you see a more attractive object, if you like the taste better, you naturally buy and consume that article; but you are entitled to the belief that you are not thereby endangering your health or shortening your life. That is where the Government's responsibility comes in.
I always remember that as a small boy I was fascinated to see fruiterers making pyramids of apples or oranges, putting one on top of the other in the show, and a piece of pink paper in between. I remember watching one fruiterer fascinatedly, because he took every apple and polished it vigorously on the seat or side of his trousers and then put it into the pile. When I had waited long enough he gave me one for myself —fortunately out of the barrel—which I then used to clean. But it is a most disturbing thought that, unhygienic as those polishing processes were 40 years ago, they did less harm to those who ate the apples than the present process of spraying them with insecticides and poisons and all the other various polishes which are imparted, largely to imported fruit, in order to make it so much more attractive.
The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, who I regret is no longer in his seat, asked the rhetorical question: why is it, since we have heard all these dreadful things, that people are living longer: are taller and healthier and all that kind of thing? One of the reasons is that people are now eating more.
LORD AMWELL: They are eating less.
LORD STONHAM: They are able to afford to eat more than they did twenty years ago. They are putting on weight for that reason, and that is a progressive course. Equally, when they drink milk, they are drinking much purer food and better milk. If they are eating more eggs, again they are eating a pure food. That is the reason. But, hundreds of years ago, there were people who lived until they were eighty or ninety; they survived all kinds of things by a process of selection.
LORD AMWELL: Would the noble Lord like to know that I am eighty-four and, except for a local disability, I think I am pretty healthy. I eat just about half as much food as I did when I was twenty years of age on £1 a week.
LORD STONHAM: That is most interesting. I have heard that theory. Life must be much duller than it was formerly. Quite frankly, I enjoy eating. It may not be of any interest to anybody, but I am the same weight now as I was thirty years ago, and since eminent doctors told me that, with the various troubles that I had, if I went on living as I was living, eating what I liked, drinking what I liked, smoking just as much as I liked, I should be dead before I was forty, I am still going on to enjoy as much as I can in the years that are left to me. I hope that my noble friend goes on eating half as much as he did forty years ago, and I hope that he will live to be one hundred and fifty.
A few weeks ago we were rightly deploring the destruction of birds and other wild life through the use of weed-killers and toxic sprays. Many of these losses, could, in my view—I say this to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave—be avoided by the simple and laboursaving process of using the weed-killer with the fertiliser as a top dressing. As the noble Earl knows (and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings knows this too), it is when the weed-killer stays on the leaf and the birds drink the dew or moisture off the leaf in the early morning that they take in the poison. On my farm, we put weed-killer down with the fertiliser when there is not a leaf, and it is just as effective, so far as the weeds are concerned. Weed-killers are always killers so far as we humans are concerned,
364
because eventually they come to us in one form or another in our food.
The trouble, as I see it, is that everyone concentrates on short cuts to profit, on cure of the immediate problem rather than prevention of disease. The successful control of plagues like cholera and typhoid have been achieved by preventative means, not by cures. The point is that short-term cures always set up long-term new diseases. We get a quick increase in food production by using chemicals to kill living organisms: weeds, insects, bacteria. But they have only a limited effect, because the living cells adapt themselves to resist the chemicals. Then we have to use stronger doses or concoct new and stronger poisons.
The chemical slaughter of malarial mosquitoes enabled new territories to be opened up for habitation. Now there are resistant strains of mosquitoes and we have to think again. Antibiotics have been used in hospitals to cure hundreds of thousands of people of diseases which were formerly fatal. But dangerous bacteria have emerged, resistant to antibiotics, so that the danger of infection to newborn babies is three times greater if they are born in hospital than if they are born in their home. The unhappy truth is that in food production we have permitted the virtually unrestricted use of a multitude of poisons without a thought about the ultimate effect on the health and lives of our people. It is more than time the Government called a halt. That is the point. Prevention is far better than cure, and our researches should be directed not to poisons which eventually build up resistance in the pests, but to the building up of plant strains which are themselves pest resistant without being a danger to animal and human life.
It is the same in medicine. Throughout the ages, because of our very understandable desire for life, we have held the art of medicine in awe. Our fears have allowed the doctors to act with imperious authority, cloaking their lack of knowledge in our greater ignorance. Now, of course, we know that it is only in the last quarter of a century that medicine has become a more or less exact science. Yet how the Victorian medicine men thundered their false certainties! We can look back

365
on many of them now as butchers and charlatans. But in their day their authority was unquestioned.
I think we should question present-day experts about the things that they and we do not know. As my noble friend Lady Summerskill so candidly admitted, we just do not know. One of the things we do not know is the extent to which the use of pesticides, fungicides, antibiotics and aerosols in the growing and preparation of food causes or promotes cancer in the human body. My noble friends Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lady Summerskill both mentioned this, and in my view it is the point of attack upon which the Government should concentrate their expenditure and their researches. At present the Government spend only £650,000 a year on cancer research, but receive hundreds of millions of pounds every year from the tax on tobacco, which is itself a suspect carcinogen. No one can yet be positive, but the things we are certain about all point one way; that is, that cancer is mainly a disease of our faulty civilisation, because modern civilisation has become toxic.
In 1932, when cancer caused one death out of every nine, an eminent physician forecast that before many years the death rate would be one death from cancer in four. My Lords, that proportion has already been reached in American cities. Another basic certainty—we do know this—is that life itself is respiration or, to put it another way, oxydation, and the incidence of cancer is greater among people who breathe air in which the oxygen is polluted with poisonous chemicals; for instance, sulphur dioxide released into the air through the burning of various types of fuels. In other words, if you destroy or reduce the oxygen intake you increase the risk of cancer. This is precisely what we are doing with our food production.
In food production and in food preservation we are using chemicals which are potent poisons for the respiration of cells. They kill the bacteria and insects all right, but in the process they destroy the catalase content of the food, and this catalase is a most important enzyme in the prevention of cancer. Our bodies are capable of handling naturally harmful substances, but we are now being bombarded with poisons and chemicals
366
in small quantities with every meal we eat. It must upset our fundamental biological mechanism, making us prone to the contracting of new diseases. Above all, there are strong reasons for thinking that all this dead poisoned food is a major agent in increasing the incidence of cancer. I would submit in all friendliness (because this is a big and grave problem, and I must confess we do not know, although the signposts are all pointing one way) that it is unthinkable that the Government should continue to allow people to run these risks. They should institute the fullest investigation and, if the fears that have been expressed in this debate prove justified, then, in my view, the Government should immediately prohibit the use of these poisons in the growing, manufacture, preservation and storage of food.
7.18 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, we have had a very good debate, I think, and some most interesting speeches. I am quite sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, not only on bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House but in rendering very considerable service in doing so. I am glad, personally, that he has succeeded in getting his Motion, which has been on the Order Paper for some time, to the stage when it is finally debated, because a great deal of interest has recently been shown in your Lordships' House on this particular subject. I think it is good that we should air this problem and that the present situation should be made known to the public. It is a very complicated problem, and perhaps during the course of this debate and, I hope, during the course of my reply we may have succeeded in reducing this very complicated subject to some order and logical sequence which ordinary people can understand and so see the whole matter in perspective.
Before proceeding further I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, on a most interesting maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested that his organic farming had considerably assisted his delivery and the purity of his tone. I certainly would agree with that. I hope that we shall hear him often in the future, and that, whatever form of farming he continues,

367
he will visit your Lordships' House more often and let us hear him, not only on this subject but on other subjects as well.
My Lords, there is no doubt that there has been grave anxiety in your Lordships' House in particular—and perhaps that reflects a growing anxiety amongst the public—as to the effects on general health of the use of all these additives. That is not a very good word, but I understand it has now been absorbed into the technical jargon, and is accepted and used whenever people are discussing this subject. I would just say that I think that possibly the precise words used in the noble Lord's Motion give a slightly false impression, perhaps because he refers to the "contamination of food" by pesticides and all these other substances. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who did point out that substances added to food do not necessarily contaminate them; and it is only the ones which do, of course, which are harmful. Therefore I should have preferred the wording to be, "To draw attention to the effects upon food" of these substances, rather than, "the contamination of food" by them. I think my version might be a little more accurate, and would give the right impression.
I am sure we want to take a balanced view of this whole subject. As several speakers have said, we are speaking rather in the dark: it is a tentative approach. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said the implications of this debate may be very important for the future, and I think that is very likely the case. We want to take a balanced view. I do not want to give any cause for panic. I do not think any of us wants to do that; and I really do not think there is cause for panic, although no doubt there is cause for tackling this subject sensibly and systematically. First of all, we have to take into account, as the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, has said, the fact that there has been a very remarkable general improvement in health. That has been rather "played down" by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, but it is a fact that the health of the people of this country has improved enormously since the war, and that does point to a far higher nutritional standard. Longe-
368
vity naturally has to do with medical science as well, but the actual physical health of people is better, and they are enjoying a much better diet. That is for the immediate present; but we are also concerned with the long-term future, and I shall have a good deal to say about that.
My Lords, this is such a complicated subject that I want to try, if possible, to get a sense of system, order and logical sequence into it. One can talk about this, that and the other substance, but one wants to tie the whole subject together if possible. I have tried to divide my reply into two distinct parts. The first part will deal with the type of offending material we are debating—the pesticides, herbicides, preservatives and synthetic additives referred to in the Motion—the reasons for their use and their possible as well as their known effects. Then, the second part will deal with the measures taken to protect consumers—and that, of course, is the part with which your Lordships are very much concerned.
My Lords, I come first to the types, the reasons and the risks. Dealing first of all with pesticides and herbicides, which include, of course, those insecticides which are used in spray and on seed dressings, we have, as we know already from a previous debate on wild life, the chlorinated hydrocarbons, including aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor; and D.D.T. and B.H.C. are included in that as well. Then we have the organo-mercury compounds, such as parathion; and, thirdly, we have, and must not forget, the metallic pesticides, such as mercury and lead, which are used for mixing in the soil and for sprays or smokes in horticulture. The second group we have to deal with are antibiotics and hormones. The third group are the preservatives and synthetic additives, which have among them antioxidants, which are used to prevent fats from going rancid; emulsifying and stabilising agents for fats; and preservatives which are used, among other things, in jam, beer and cider, and in dry fruit. Then there are artificial sweeteners; colouring matter; bleachers and improvers; solvents; nutritional supplements, and a few other things of less importance.
My Lords, why are all these alien substances, as we might term them, being used? It is well known that pesticides

369
and herbicides are used in agriculture to help the crops resist disease both before and during growth; to control the weeds and, as a result, to increase the yield; and, as your Lordships have heard, they are also used in bulk storage. The antibiotics and hormones are used in the feeding of certain animals to improve growth and food conversion, and also the quality of meat, all of which things they in fact do. The preservatives are used, naturally, in storage and for the preservation of food ready for the consumer. There are other additives, notably the colouring matters, which, frankly, are used to attract the consumer.
Now is it necessary to use all these things? You have heard from one or two noble Lords that the world population is increasing. It is increasing very rapidly; and nowadays the international conscience is such that we are very concerned to feed under-developed countries as well as our own. In addition, not only is the world population increasing, but in the more-advanced countries industrial civilisation is increasing, and you get these vast gatherings of urban populations. Now you cannot feed such gatherings of people without wasting an immense amount of food unless you take steps to preserve it and store it fit for human consumption; and you cannot grow enough food to feed all these people unless you use these modern pesticides and herbicides. The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, deplored the necessity, which I think he admitted, for this system of mass production, as he called it, in agriculture; but, in spite of that, we still provide only half our own requirements of food in this country, even though we have increased our food production since the war by 70 per cent. I think it is very doubtful whether this could have been done without the use of these modern methods.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords the noble Lord would agree, I think, that there is a vast literature upon this subject; and, really, you cannot be quite so sure and dogmatic about it when it is a fact that many experts differ upon this question of whether we can feed ourselves naturally and properly. I believe we can, but that was not so much my point. My point is that if you depend upon remote markets, you must have preservatives because of the fact that you have mass production
370
and a remote market arrangement instead of producing for use. I gave an instance of what can be done with regard to producing for use. It is economical to do so, and I showed it was economical. I think that is the best way to do it, naturally, as far as we can. I am not asking for the moon; I know the difficulties as well as the noble Lord does.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord made the point about the use of preservatives for overseas supplies, but I cannot continue that argument because that subject is one for a full agriculture debate. I was dealing with the reasons for using these materials. It is really a general process of civilisation. It is so easy to argue that our grandfathers were better off because they were not being poisoned bit by bit, all unknown to themselves, by what they were eating. You might say that they were better off because they had no motor cars and were not being killed by them in thousands, such as are our contemporaries. But we have to take the disadvantages with the advantages in modern civilisation. Would we be prepared to give up anæsthetics, X-rays, and medical science, or even modern education? No, my Lords. We have to live in the times in which we are born, and these things are the result of our civilisation. But as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, it is, of course, up to us in general, and up to the Government in particular, to protect the consumer against any harmful effects that may possibly occur.
Now, what are these possible risks and known effects? Returning to the pesticides and herbicides, it is interesting and important to know that so far there have been no serious outbreaks of food poisoning from these substances, although residues may remain in milk and in dairy products, in food and in vegetables, because they may be excreted in the milk by the cows which have eaten them. At the same time, mercury may be found actually in the pulp of fruit; and lead, if sprayed on fruit within six weeks of picking, will remain on the skin. Meat and grain, on the other hand, are apparently hardly affected, although in some cases the birds which eat them, especially crops which have been grown with certain treated seed dressings, are affected, as we heard in the debate on wild life a short time ago.

371
I should like to say something about that, because it has been suggested, I believe, that people eating birds who die in that way may themselves be affected. It has been found that birds which have died from eating residues contain up to 8 milligrammes of mercury per kilogramme of body weight, and the minimum fatal dose is 150 to 300 milligrammes. Therefore, anybody eating two pounds of pigeon or pheasant—or whatever the game may be—would not suffer from anything more than mild indigestion, although, of course, mercury should rarely exceed more than 0·1 parts per million, which is a very large safety factor indeed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I have read in famous murder trials that the victim who eventually met his death through arsenical poisoning suffered only from mild indigestion at first because of the small dose!
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the long-term effects, it is admitted, are not known, because really these substances have not been in use so long that they could be known; and I shall have more to say about that.
May I turn now to the antibiotics? The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Bar-loch, rather gave the impression, I think, that they were "fed to pigs and other animals", as though they were fed to all animals; but that is not strictly correct. Antibiotics are given only to pigs and poultry. It is possible, of course, that it may lead to a building up of resistant strains, but I will come back to that later in my speech. The hormones, which in the agricultural world are called "oestrogens", as a result of the Agricultural Research Council's investigations in 1958 were found to be harmless to human consumers of tainted meat as well as to the animal itself in the case of cattle and sheep; but there could be some carcinogenic risk from poultry meats, and I will deal with that later on.
With regard to preservatives and synthetic additives, the human body has excellent mechanisms for disposing of substances for which it can find no use. In particular, the liver and the kidney perform those functions. Occasionally they will come up against some substance to which they are completely unaccus-
372
tomed and which defeats them; and the example was given, by one noble Lord, of the Netherlands margarine, where an emulsifier (I think it was) badly poisoned a very large number of people because it contained something that had never been put in food before, a mixed triglyceride to prevent spluttering during frying. Nothing similar Chas happened in this country; and it is thought that if additives are a very small fraction of the smallest dose known to have a bad effect, so that that dose cannot injure the body's metabolism, there is little reason to fear poisoning from repeated ingestion of small doses. Several noble Lords have referred to the repeated swallowing of small amounts of these residues or additives, and I shall have more to say on their long-term effects, which admittedly are not fully known at the moment.
Among the other additives, of course, are the colouring matters. It has been suggested, in particular, that these dyes cause cancer, and an example was given of how people working in a dye factory had apparently been more prone to contract cancer later in life. It is not necessarily the dye itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said, but the chemicals into which the body converts it. Therefore, it is not every human being who will convert a particular dye into a carcinogenic substance; nor is it every animal. Therefore, further investigation has obviously to be carried out in that regard.
It has been mentioned that there is no sort of international standard or agreement in the matter of colouring material. There are 15 dyes in the United States of America, compared with 30 in this country. But what the noble Lords have not mentioned is that of the American 15, we ban no fewer than 7; and of our 30, they ban a very large number. Yet our 30 had been reduced already from an original number of over 80. I think the impression has been given that the Continent is ahead of us in these matters; but I am informed that, as regards colouring materials, there are 15 permitted dyes in each of Germany and Switzerland.
That brings me to the second part of my speech, the part which your Lordships will wish to hear, about what is being done. Your Lordships will see how seriously Her Majesty's Government

373
are taking this matter and the amount of work that is being done upon it. In respect of pesticides and herbicides, the first thing we have is the Voluntary Notification Scheme, which has already being spoken of in the debate in your Lordships' House on Wild Life, in Questions and again to-day by my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, who confused it with the provisions of the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act. This scheme is one which obliges or induces manufacturers to provide data which go to the main committee dealing with the subject, the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances, which recommends precautions to safeguard users, consumers, domestic animals and wild life. They allow for a very large safety factor to ensure that no harmful residues are left in edible crops after harvesting.
That Advisory Committee has working with it—and I am not sure that this is appreciated by noble Lords who have spoken—a scientific sub-committee, whose job it is to collect and consider data and assess their significance for the guidance of the parent committee. The result of these two Committees working together, it is claimed, is that no chemical that may be dangerous is put on the market without close screening, as thorough as that given to pharmaceutical preparations.
Also concerned with pesticides and herbicides is the Research Study Group. Its terms of reference are:
"to study the needs for further research into the effects of the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and food storage."
That Committee, which is a practical scientific Committee, studies the possible dangers from the repeated ingestion of very small chemical residues not in themselves enough to cause any symptoms. It is actually preparing a Report, which is expected to be pub-fished this year. So I hope that noble Lords who brought up that aspect of the matter will derive some comfort from this information.
I should like to go to a certain extent into the composition of these Committees. This was a question particularly asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, but I had already prepared this information because I remember the questions to which I was subjected at some considerable length a month ago by noble
374
Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who I know would have liked to take part in this debate, had he been able to be here. These noble Lords were concerned about the composition of the Committees, about whether they had any scientists on them and, frankly, about whether they were doing any work. This was also a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, to-day.
The Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances has twenty members, with Sir Charles Dodds, Courtauld Professor of Biochemistry at the University of London, as Chairman. The Scientific Sub-committee has seventeen members, two of whom are on the parent Committee, and sixteen have scientific degrees. The Research Study Group has ten members, half of whom are either on the Advisory Committee or on the sub-committee. The Chairman is Professor Sanders, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Minister of Agriculture. All have either scientific or medical degrees. Therefore your Lordships will see that here we have forty people of a diversity of talent covering a wide range, and with a strong liaison between the committees through some number serving on two of them—and two members serve on all three committees—thereby getting continuity of knowledge and direction.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, are the three committees purely advisory or do they have any research staffs on which they can depend?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the Scientific Sub-Committee collect data and information. But, in fact, all these people are working scientists in their own fields, in plant pathology, toxicology, biochemstry and so on, and are very representative. They are collecting scientific knowledge in their own fields and then assembling it, so to speak, when in committee. That is more or less the procedure.
Turning to antibiotics, and hormones, I would point out that antibiotics are controlled under the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, which permits only one part in 10,000 of a specified antibiotic in pig and poultry feeding stuffs. It is obligatory that the labels must indicate the amount, and these labels are approved only for feeds for young pigs

375
and poultry for early slaughter; these are the only animals which are affected by antibiotics. Nevertheless, a special committee has now been set up to review their use. The Chairman of this Committee, which has seventeen members, is the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorp. It has also attached to it a scientific subcommittee to examine the evidence, and the Chairman of that Committee is Professor Miles, Director of the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine. And, of course, there is the National Agricultural Advisory Service's leaflet No. 418 which is issued to farmers interested in pigs and poultry.
On hormones, or oestrogens, I have to admit that there Is actually no legislation controlling their use in feeding stuffs or by implantation, which your Lordships know is clone in the case of the caponisation of poultry. As I said, the Agricultural Research Council investigated the matter in 1958 and their first notice was issued in April, 1959, to the effect that the fattening of cattle and sheep was harmless to humans. Nevertheless, the matter has since been referred to the Ministry of Health's Standing Committee on the medical and nutritional aspects of food policy and they have set up a standing committee on carcinogenic hazards, about which shall say more in connection with food additives.
Coming to food additives in general, first of all, we have the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, under which the Ministry has wide powers to make regulations with the advice—and this is the second leg of protection—of the Food Standards Committee, which I am afraid has been spoken ill of by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, but well of by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. As the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said, the Food Standards Committee was reconstituted only last year, but during its previous existence—it was sot up in 1947—it has reviewed the preservative regulations, with the help largely of its Preservatives Sub-committee, over a period ranging from 1951 to 1960. During that time reports were produced on antioxidants in 1954, and legislation implementing the findings was passed in 1958; a report on colouring matters in 1954 and legislation implementing it in 1957, and a report on emulsifying and stabilizing
376
agents in 1956 and preservatives in 1959, regulations for both of which it is hoped to make this year. Bleachers and improvers were dealt with in a report on bread and flour—which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey—in 1960, and that is now being considered. As well, reports on arsenic and fluorine in food had legislation implemented in 1959, and that on lead is, I believe, to be made this year.
I said that these reviews have been carried out largely by the Preservatives Sub-committee, and that was reconstituted in 1960 and renamed the Food Additives and Contaminants Sub-Committee, with new terms of reference as follows:
"To consider problems referred to the subcommittee by the Food Standards Committee in relation to all substances added to food, whether deliberately or not",
That is a considerable widening of the terms of reference to which they were working before.
Again, before turning to the future of what they are doing, let me give the composition of this Food Standards Committee and the Food Additives and Contaminants Sub-Committee. The main Committee has ten members: the Chairman, three members from the trade, three scientific members and three independent members. The sub-committee has eleven members, and the Chairman is again Sir Charles Dodds, who is Chairman of the main Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances on the purely agricultural production side. Three of these eleven are on the parent Food Standards Committee. One is on the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances—that is Sir Charles Dodds—and one on the scientific sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances. So there again we see an addition of sixteen new people; a diversity of talent and new blood, a link-up with the other Committees and continuity of direction through five people on this food sub-committee.
What is the immediate future? What is the work they are doing? At the moment they have reviews in hand on solvents and flavouring agents, and they are to undertake later this year an important review on colouring matter; and then anti-oxidants. It has been agreed that not more than five years should elapse between these reviews, and

377
whereas hitherto there has been considerable delay in implementing the original legislation, it is hoped now to keep matters very much more up to date and to be able to handle legislation, if it is necessary, within, say, two years, instead of four or five years, of the recommendations being made. As will be appreciated, a great deal of agreement has to be reached between the various Departments.
Colouring matter is a subject which is being treated seriously. As I said, our list has been cut from 80 to 30; we know the American list is only 15, and there is also a short list on the Continent. I cannot anticipate findings, but I feel that it is reasonable to say that it would not be surprising if there were a considerable reduction in the number of colours and dyes which are, in fact, allowed. As I say, the Committee will start its work this year, and one hopes that the findings will not be long delayed.
Then there are going to he investigations on nutritional supplements and things known as sequestrants, buffers and humectants; and finally, substances introduced accidentally in preparing and processing foods, including leeching from wrappers—and I have no doubt that that would also embrace the possible contamination by metallic particles of canned food which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill.
There is the one final Committee, and it is a most important one. Both the Food Standards Committee and the Advisory Committee on Poisonous substances are aware of possible carcinogenic risk from food additives and pesticides and asked an expert panel to report, which it did in January, 1960. As a result, a Standing Panel on Carcinogenic Hazards in Food Additives and Food Contaminants has been set up (and I referred to that under the sub-heading of "oestrogens") with very wide terms of reference. This Committee has nine members, six of whom are specialists in cancer research. The Chairman is once again Sir Charles Dodds, himself an authority and also Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the British Empire Cancer Campaign. There again one sees a continuity of direction and knowledge running right through the whole organisation.
On top of all that we have the Biological Research Station, which I men-
378
tioned in your Lordships' House in reply to a question last month, set up jointly by the D.S.I.R. and British industry to investigate toxicity of materials likely to be ingested by the public through consumption of food and drink. That covers the whole field about which we have been talking. I hope I have been able to convince your Lordships that these Committees are covering the whole field; that they are active; and that they are of a comprehensive nature and very much alive to the urgency of their task.
I should say a special word on the question of labelling, which figured not only in the Motion but in many of the speeches made. It is not at all an easy matter. The Food Standards Committee has considered piecemeal the question of the disclosure of the presence of additives by labelling, and they have done that from the reviews which have been made and the reports to which I have referred. But now they are going to undertake a comprehensive review of the Labelling of Food Order and of the labelling provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, and they will then deal thoroughly with the whole problem. There are exemptions from Part II of the Order dealing mainly with pre-packed food, and they are going to be reviewed; and goods other than pre-packed food, which are not at the moment covered by the Order, are to be considered. The noble Baroness suggested putting a date on the tins, and I have no doubt that the suggestion will be considered, but it has been pointed out that what is ready more important is the method of tinning rather than the date the food was put into the tin, because if it is done badly, quite recently canned stuff can go bad sooner than something that has been tinned for quite a long time.
In connection with the removal of nutritive elements from food, and the fact that food is not so nutritious as it used to be, that, to a certain extent, is inevitable in processing. But the deliberate extraction of elements in such a way that it would be injurious to health is legislated against in Section 1 of the Food and Drugs Act; and Section 2, I think, refers to the quality. You may not sell to the purchaser food which is below the quality which he demands. There are, of course, both in the case of labelling and of nutritive

379
elements, compositional standards laid down, so that even though the ingredients are not detailed on the label, if they conform to a compositional standard which is recognised, then you can be sure that those foods are perfectly all right.
If I may, I will glance briefly through my notes in case I have omitted to reply to any particular point, although I think I have covered most of the matters which have been brought up and which were largely questions of labelling and long-term effects. As I say, I have set out all the committees, which I hope will refute the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, that we are lagging behind other countries in these matters. I hope I have succeeded in setting out the whole picture in a coherent, comprehensible and comprehensive manner, and I hope also that I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships, and making it known to the public at large, that, while there are risks inevitably attached to these substances which are used because of the nature of the civilisation in which we live, nevertheless the risks should not be exaggerated; that the Government are taking active steps to bring the situation under proper control; and that in a comparatively short time—and when I say that, I suppose even five or ten years is not very long in political life and in' history—the Government hope and expect to get this whole subject under complete control so that the public can eat their meals with safety. In this I should include especially the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who can go to his favourite restaurants, and even try out completely unknown restaurants, with complete safety.
8.3 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and particularly I would mention the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, who gave us such an interesting and helpful maiden speech. I do not want to detain your Lordships very much longer, but there are a few things which I feel I must comment upon in what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has said. First of all, his speech at any rate is a recognition that the Government are beginning to awaken to the seriousness of this situation. But
380
I do not withdraw the statement that we have been lagging behind other countries.
I drew attention to this matter ten years ago. What I said is of no particular importance, but I drew attention—and I have no doubt that Government Departments knew about it—to the investigations which were made by a special committee of the House of Representatives in the United States, which took several volumes of evidence from the most eminent scientists, who pointed out a great many of the dangers which I have indicated to-day. All that information has been in the hands of the Government, and it is only in the last year or so that they have really begun to act.
I welcome the appointment of all these committees. I have no comment to make about that, except that it is still the position that they have no adequate investigative machinery at their disposal. They are collecting together the information that individual members of the committee may happen to have acquired, or which they can obtain from published surveys in technical papers, but they have no organisation of their own to which to refer questions for experiment and research. My Lords, remember, I beg of you, that research on subjects of this kind is extremely expensive. We have been told to-day about some £60,000 a year being made available for one purpose. It has been estimated in the United States that to make an adequate and complete investigation of a food additive may cost £20,000 or £30,000, because the investigations have to be so prolonged, so complicated and so expensive, and we are still only toying with this thing.
I am sorry the noble Lord has suggested that we are obliged to use all the chemicals which are at present being used in order that we should be able to feed ourselves, or, I think he put it, in order that we should be able to feed people in other countries. This statement is not correct. It is not true that if all these things were not used we should all be starving. After all, most of these substances have been introduced only during the past 25 years or so, and we were not all starving before that. I agree that the standard of living has risen in this country. Productivity has risen, people are able to buy more food than they used to be, and that explains

381
why they are able to live better. But their inability to obtain all the food that they required in times gone by was not due to lack of ability to produce it; it was due to their lack of purchasing power.
Let us get this thing quite clear. In this connection, although this is not primarily an agricultural debate, let me also point out that practically no research is being conducted and hardly anything being spent, except by a few private organisations, on finding means of increasing agricultural production by other processes than the use of chemicals. And there is a very large and important field of investigation there. After all, that is the way in which agriculture was developed through the ages, and we ought not to ignore entirely the lessons which can be drawn from the past.
The noble Lord has said that there have been very few instances of mishaps; that there have been no outbreaks of food poisoning. I have not suggested for a single moment that there has been anything of that kind in the sense of immediate and drastic symptoms of poisoning. That is not the point which I have been making at all. The point which I have been making is the potential dangers of long-term ingestion of small quantities of chemicals, pesticides, or whatever they may be, and the noble Lord has not given the slightest indication that the Government are prepared to make any regulations whatsoever limiting the amount of pesticide residues, or other chemicals which may be found in foodstuffs. Whereas other countries, for what it is worth, have elaborate regulations limiting the number of parts per million of any of these things which are to be allowed in food, there are no regulations of that kind in this country. Therefore, we have to go on waiting for the results of these researches, as the noble Lord has said, perhaps for five or ten years, and meantime what is happening? Nobody knows for certain.
LORD HASTINGS: May I just interrupt the noble Lord? I did not mean to indicate that nothing useful was coming out of these reports for five or ten years. We are reviewing them consistently the whole time. At the end of five or ten years the very thing for which the noble Lord is asking will, in fact, be completed.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Well, let us hope so. On this question let me also remind the noble Lord that the problem is even wider than he has stated, because some kinds of chemicals, as I have already pointed out, are reaching people from many other sources. I referred to cosmetics, which contain dyes and other substances; I referred to all the industrial products, aerosols, solvents and so on, which are being used in the home, garden and elsewhere, and it is absolutely essential that regard should be had to the total toxic effect on human beings of all these sources of poisoning. It is extremely serious. I hope that the investigation which is going on will pay regard to those things, and that we shall have in the near future some positive limitation upon the use of new additives and pesticides in foods so that a halt can be called somewhere. But at this moment I cannot see that there is any immediate prospect of it, as the noble Lord has not held out the slightest indication of it. I am disturbed at that. I am sorry to say so, but it is time that we faced the facts of this situation, took note of what has been discovered in other countries and dealt with things more promptly. I am sorry to have taken so long. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with, drawn.

  CONTRIBUTIONS OF U.N. MEMBER STATES
  CONTRIBUTIONS OF U.N. MEMBER STATES
  EGYPT: COMPENSATION FUND CLAIMS
  EGYPT: COMPENSATION FUND CLAIMS