Sitting of 8 February 1962

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

  BUILDING LAND (REGISTRATIONS)
  Mr. Boydenasked the Attorney-General how many first registrations of title of building estates where the price paid per acre exceeded £5,000 were made by Her Majesty's Land Registry during the financial year 1960–61.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): This information is not readily available and it could not be obtained without a wholly disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.
  Mr. Boyden: Is the Attorney-General aware that this is an extremely important problem? Is the Chief Land Registrar just putting it in for fun when he states in his annual report that an increase of this kind of registration at this cost will have a serious effect on housing in the provinces? Surely this is a matter on which information should be ascertained, and one concerning which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be thinking of introducing legislation.
  The Attorney-General: The statement made in the Chief Registrar's report was not based on any statistical records kept by the Land Registry but was simply based on observation during the year.

  STREATFEILD COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  Mr. Cleaverasked the Attorney-General why there has been delay in the implementation of the Report of the Streatfeild Committee so far as criminal cases in Birmingham are concerned: and
  586
  what action he proposes to take to alleviate the delay in hearing civil actions.
  The Attorney-General: The only delay in implementing the Streatfeild Committee's recommendations is that the new assize arrangements will be brought into operation in May this year instead of in January as had originally been hoped. This short postponement, which was of general application and not confined to Birmingham, was due partly to the economic situation and partly to the desirability of awaiting the enactment of legislation authorising the appointment of more judges. The new arrangements will come into force in time for the summer assizes and I hope they will go far towards reducing the delays in the hearing of civil as well as criminal cases.
  Mr. Cleaver: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we are very pleased to hear that Answer? Would he bear in mind that, as far as civil cases are concerned, it is not thought that the relief which might primarily go to cases of crime would be restricted in civil cases? Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that there are a number of plaintiffs today who, under pressure of delay and because they are in need of money, are frequently accepting settlements on disadvantageous terms and against their legal advice?
  The Attorney-General: My noble Friend is fully aware of the congestion in the lists of cases awaiting trial, and that was one of the reasons that led to the appointment of the Streatfeild Committee. The new arrangements proposed are flexible and they can and will be changed if experience shows that they do not allow of sufficient time for the disposal of the business of the courts.

  BREACH OF PROMISE AND RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS
  Mr. Liptonasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to abolish causes of action for breach of promise of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights.
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Mr. Lipton: Is the Attorney-General aware that as regards breach of promise

  587
  public opinion would welcome the abolition of this Victorian relic of sex inequality, which is quite out of place in modern conditions? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that, as regards restitution of conjugal rights, even High Court judges are beginning to talk about the meaningless mumbo-jumbo entailed in that kind of proceeding?
  The Attorney-General: As far as the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is concerned, I am not aware of any change in public opinion with regard to breach of promise since he last asked me the same Question on 12th April, 1960. The hon. Gentleman then referred to the inequality between the sexes and I then told him that it is open to a man to sue for breach of promise as well as for a woman. As far as the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question with regard to conjugal rights is concerned, I am aware of the observations made by a county court judge recently. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce did not recommend the abolition of that remedy, which is usually a paving step towards securing other relief.

  MALAYSIAN FEDERATION

    Commission of Inquiry
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on progress towards the realisation of the Malaysian Federation.
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further steps he now proposes to take to facilitate the merger of the Federation of Malaya with Singapore and the British territories in Borneo.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): Since my right hon. Friend's statement on 28th November, the Commission of Inquiry has been set up, under the chairmanship of Lord Cobbold.
    Mr. Brockway: Whilst I welcome this proposal for a Malaysian Federation, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he appreciates that Singapore is likely
    588
    to be the critical area? In order to secure the support of its population, does the proposal include the right of Singapore to equal status as a State within the Federation? Does it include citizenship rights for all who are born in Singapore?
    Mr. Braine: That is another and wider question. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to put it down on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the hon. Gentleman state the terms of reference of the Commission. May we rely on him to see to it that the British Government appreciate the overriding importance and urgency of this matter and do everything in their power to facilitate a successful outcome?
    Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir. The terms of reference are to ascertain the views of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak on the issues of greater Malaysian integration. I entirely agree with the thought behind the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The object is to take the views of the people concerned and then, in the light of those views, to make recommendations.
    Sir J. Barlow: Will my hon. Friend make sure that the rights and privileges of the indigenous populations of Sarawak and North Borneo are carefully preserved? Is he aware that these people are not nearly so well organised as the Chinese living in the principal towns of those countries.
    Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir. That is one of the purposes of the Commission of Inquiry.
    Mr. Strachey: While appreciating the point behind the question of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that the rights and privileges of the aborigines of these areas will be far more seriously prejudiced if this project does not come to fruition than ever they will be by anything which happens if it does?

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Skilled Manpower
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he accepts the recommendation of paragraph 47 (b) of Command Paper

    589
    No. 1586, 7th Report of the Overseas Migration Board, that Great Britain's ability to provide for increased numbers of skilled and professional men and women for service in Commonwealth countries should be strengthened; and what steps he has taken, since the publication of the Report, to represent these views to the Government bodies concerned.
    Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir. It is very desirable that we should be able to meet requests from other Commonwealth Governments for skilled manpower to help in the implementation of their development programmes. As to the second part of the Question, the Oversea Migration Board's recommendation has been brought to the notice of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labour, the Department for Technical Co-operation and the Office of the Minister for Science; and, because of its special interest in the subject, the Robbins Committee on Higher Education.
    Mr. Boyden: I am grateful for that answer as far as it goes. Can the hon. Gentleman be a little more precise, however? On Tuesday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in answering a similar question, was very vague. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when we can expect to see some tangible results in the Ministry of Education and the Treasury in relation to say, raising the school leaving age in England, offering sixth form scholarships, or increasing maintenance allowances, so that our own stocks of people for these purposes are increased?
    Mr. Braine: As I understood it, my right hon. Friend said yesterday that every effort is being made to meet all requests from overseas Governments. I agree that every effort should be made. British "know-how" is more than a valuable export; it is a vital thread in the fabric of Commonwealth relations.
    Mr. Walker: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of establishing one central Commonwealth employment bureau, whereby any Commonwealth country in need of skilled people could advertise its requirement in that bureau and thus notify the jobs concerned to all those in this country possessing the necessary skill?
    Mr. Braine: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Department of Technical Co-operation was set up to assist recruiting of that kind. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman make it his business to tell the Minister for Science that the views expressed in the Report of the Overseas Migration Board appear to be somewhat in conflict with those in the Report on Scientific Manpower? Will he ask his noble Friend for his comments?
    Mr. Braine: I do not think that there is anything very surprising in that. There may be some occupations where the emigration of skilled and professional men from this country would cause difficulty and concern, but I think it is generally agreed that we should make every effort, where possible, to meet the requests of Commonwealth countries.

    Commonwealth Settlement Acts
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in accordance with the recommendations of the Oversea Migration Board, the Government intend to renew the Commonwealth Settlement Act when it expires this year.
    Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir. It is proposed to introduce legislation during the present Session to renew the Commonwealth Settlement Acts for a further five years.
    Mr. Fisher: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for that Answer which will, I know, be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter, and also to the main receiving countries in the Commonwealth?

    Blackburn Young Men's Christian Association (Grant)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why the Blackburn Young Men's Christian Association has not yet received the £10,000 grant awarded to it under the Government's Overseas Students Welfare Expansion Programme.
    Mr. Braine: I understand that the hon. Lady has received full information about this case from my noble friend.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Member aware that I have received no satisfaction at all in this matter from his noble Friend? Is he aware that proposals were put forward by the Y.M.C.A. National Council as long ago as last October which would have enabled this grant to be paid, but that no grant has yet been made? Is he also aware that the Y.M.C.A. in Blackburn has had to incur bank facilities for an overdraft of up to £20,000 to launch this scheme and has promised to pay back £10,000 by the end of this month, and that it is running up very heavy bank charges and that the whole scheme is in grave difficulties owing to the Government's failure to proceed?
    Mr. Braine: The terms of the original offer were that the grant was intended to finance the last £10,000 of the project and at the appropriate time it would be paid over to meet progress payments on the contract. I understand that the first of these payments became due in mid-January. There is a temporary difficulty arising out of the fact that where public money is disbursed proper accounting procedures must be followed. Precisely because of the very proper concern which the hon. Lady has shown, I would like to suggest that if she could find the time to come and see me I shall be pleased to discuss these matters with her.

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Constitution
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when the conference on the review of the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be resumed; and what will be the basis of representation of Governments and political parties.
    Mr. Braine: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) on 16th November.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is it proposed to hold up the constitutional review until
    592
    a general election in Northern Rhodesia is held on the basis of a new constitution? How long is that delay likely to be?
    Mr. Braine: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, my right hon. Friend said in his statement that until elections have taken place the review might be held up, and that we must also consider what should be the interim steps. I do not think that I should say anything further now, having regard to the fact that my right hon. Friend is now in Salisbury reviewing the whole situation with the Federal Prime Minister.
    Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 14 months have passed since this conference was adjourned? Is this not a terrible indictment of the Government for their dithering over the situation in Northern Rhodesia in this past year?
    Mr. Braine: Nothing of the kind. This is a very delicate and difficult problem. It is essential that we get the right answer.

  PAKISTAN

    Vaccination Certificates
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will consult the Pakistan Government with a view to their ensuring the validity of vaccination certificates of their nationals who are emigrating to Great Britain.
    Mr. Braine: Without accepting in any way the implications in the Question, I can assure my hon. Friend that we have been and are in close touch with the Pakistan authorities on the measures which we and they are taking to halt the spread of infection.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that confidence has been shaken in the quality of the certificates produced by Pakistanis entering this country? With a view to restoring that confidence, can he perhaps give us rather more detail by publishing a report on the subject.
    Mr. Braine: I am not at all sure about this question of confidence. I understand that for well over a month the Pakistan Government have been taking extremely strict precautions. I would like to add

    593
    that, out of 7,600 Pakistanis who came here during December and January, we know of only five who developed smallpox—and all five had valid certificates of vaccination.

  CYPRUS

    Constitution
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what request he has received from the Government of Cyprus for a modification of the Constitution.
    Mr. Braine: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 7th February.
    Mr. Wall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rights of the Turkish minority to its share in the Civil Service and to its own municipal councils is laid down in the Constitution, which cannot be altered except with the consent of the guaranteeing powers? Is it not far better to tackle this question on the basis of good will rather than of making threats to have the Constitution changed?
    Mr. Braine: I agree with the latter sentiment. Article 182 of the Constitution provides that certain basic articles cannot in any way be amended and that amendments to other articles require two-thirds majorities of each of the two communities—Greek and Turkish. The Constitution, of course, forms an essential part of the Cyprus settlement.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in practice, a number of the provisions of the Constitution have proved themselves unworkable? Will he assure the House that the British Government, as one of the guaranteeing Powers, look sympathetically at changes which have become necessary in order to make democratic government work in Cyprus?
    Mr. Braine: Cyprus is an independent member State of the Commonwealth. In any case, there has been no request from the Cyprus Government for a revision of the Constitution.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Constitution
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations he has had with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland concerning constitutional proposals in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Braine: During the past year, in accordance with established practice, there have been consultations with the Federal Government prior to announcements of constitutional proposals by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Healey: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for giving us knowledge which was already in our possession—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why ask, then?"]—and which is totally irrelevant to the purpose and meaning of my Question, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that all hon. Members on this side of the House regard it as vitally important that Her Majesty's Government should not be deflected from proposals which would give the Africans majority rule in Northern Rhodesia by any representations made by Sir Roy Welensky, and that any further steps taken to appease Sir Roy Welensky in this way could lead only to a situation in Northern Rhodesia very like that obtaining in Algeria?
    Mr. Braine: I am perfectly sure that the Federal Government would be the first to recognise that responsibility for a final decision on Northern Rhodesia rests with the British Government, but there is an obligation to consult which was laid down in the White Paper of January, 1953, and there is no point in consulting unless one seriously considers the views of the man with whom one is consulting.
    Mr. Healey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Federal Government's views on this matter must have been influenced by the fact that Her Majesty's Government appeased the Government in the middle of last year and allowed themselves to be shaken in the view which they took in January, 1961? In view of that, can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that this time at least Her Majesty's Government will

    595
    do what they know and believe to be right?
    Mr. Braine: I do not for a moment accept the premise upon which the hon. Member bases his Question.

    Disturbances (Report)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the state of public order in Northern Rhodesia; and what arrangements have been made to make available to Parliament and the public the Northern Rhodesia Government's Report on the disturbances in the Protectorate between July and October last.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 1st February.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that this Report came to the conclusion that "No other organisation or society",—I am quoting the exact words—than the United National Independence Party was responsible for these disturbances which involved cruel and brutal attacks on peace-loving individuals and grave damage to churches and clinics and other properties of benefit to the African population?
    Mr. Maudling: I have placed copies of this Report in the Library so that hon. Members who are interested can read them and draw deductions from them, For my own part, I think that it is an excellent and impartial Report.
    Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are in a position physically to exercise their responsibility for law and order in Northern Rhodesia during the difficult weeks and months that may follow without relying on assistance from the Federal Government, the attitude of whose troops may not be entirely impartial in this matter?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's implication about the Federal troops or about the possible developments in Northern Rhodesia. It is my hope that we shall get a solution to the Northern Rhodesian constitutional problem which will prevent these dangers arising.
    Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government are in a position, in case of need, to provide troops in order to carry out their responsibilities in this territory?
    Mr. Maudling: That is a hypothetical question, and to answer it would not help anyone.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Is it in accordance with the traditions of this House to cast reflections without justification on officers holding the Queen's Commission?
    Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that Mr. Justice Devlin's Report made exactly the comment which I have myself repeated?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that any point of order arises either way.

    Lusaka Municipal Council (Africans)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans are at present members of the Lusaka Municipal Council; how many Africans are on the voters' rolls; and what plans he has for a respresentative system of election.
    Mr. Maudling: There is no direct African representation on the council at present. The voters roll does not specify race, but the number of Africans on it cannot be large. The Northern Rhodesia Government are committed in principle to broader electoral arrangements and to direct African participation in the council; and it is hoped that legislation for that purpose will be introduced at the next session of the Legislature.
    Mr. Thomson: I thank the Secretary of State for that Answer. Will he do everything he can to expedite this matter? Does he not agree that the political progress made at the national level in Northern Rhodesia ought to be matched by the advance of Africans at the local level?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that we can expect legislation on this subject in the next session of the Legislature, which, I understand, will be next month.

    United National Independence Party
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Northern Division of the United National Independence Party of Northern Rhodesia has been refused the right to re-register its divisional headquarters.
    Mr. Maudling: The Registrar of Societies refused to register this divisional branch of U.N.I.P. as a society because on the application as submitted to him he considered it likely to be prejudicial to peace and good order. A second application is now under consideration.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has told the House that the ban has been lifted on this organisation but repeated evidence keeps coining to me of administrative interference with the political decision that he has taken? This is not the first case of refusal to reregister which I have brought to the attention of his Department. Is it not clear that the people on the spot are not carrying out his policy in the spirit in which he intended?
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. The Registrar has a clear duty in this matter. He took a decision which was confirmed by the Chief Secretary, and the applicants can appeal to the Governor if they wish to do so. The chance to appeal is still open. In the meanwhile, they made a second application which is being considered in the normal way.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the impartial report to which my right hon. Friend referred puts the blame for these disturbances wholly on the political party concerned with this question and, therefore, is it not wise to have a certain amount of circumspection before considering reregistration of the society?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that we can safely leave these applications to the Registrar and to the appeal machinery to which I have referred. I do not want to interfere with the discussions of the people on the spot.

    Constitution
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the proposed constitution for Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: As the Secretary of State is primarily responsible to the House for his policy in Northern Rhodesia, and in view of the difference of opinion between him and some of his colleagues about the policy there, is it not time that the House was consulted about what the Government are discussing and proposing, and ought not the House to discuss it first rather than refer it to other people outside?
    Mr. Maudling: It is my intention to make an announcement as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made clear earlier, we are obliged to consult the Federal Government before reaching a final conclusion on these matters, and consultation must mean real consultation.

    Mr. Kenneth Kaunda
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what current action he is taking regarding the threats made by Mr. Kenneth Kaunda that if his United National Independence Party is dissatisfied with Her Majesty's Government's constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia, he will paralyse that territory's copper-mining industry by illegal strike action.
    Mr. Maudling: I am satisfied that the Governor will take whatever action is necessary to deal with any breach of the law and to maintain order.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is not my right hon. Friend seriously perturbed at the possibility that these threats will result in outbreaks of violence such as occurred last year, and in framing the new constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia, will he see to it that the impression is not given that Her Majesty's Government will always give way to threats, intimidation and violence by a minority against the interests of the African majority?
    Mr. Maudling: I am disturbed by the potential dangers of the situation in Northern Rhodesia, and that is why I look forward to making an announcement as soon as possible. I am equally determined before making an announcement to consider every possible implication of it.
    Mr. Healey: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that after the Government's proposals last January the Northern Rhodesian Branch of the United Federal Party made similar threats?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that much is to be gained in present circumstances by raking over the embers of old disputes?

    Technical Education
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken in Northern Rhodesia on the recommendations of the Keir Report on Technical and Commercial Training, particularly to provide an expansion of technical education for Africans; and what resources his department will contribute towards improving educational facilities.
    Mr. Maudling: I am asking the Governor for a further report and will communicate with the hon. Member when I receive it. Responsibility for assistance towards technical education now rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation who, I understand, has recently agreed in principle to the making of a colonial development and welfare grant towards the completion of the College for Further Education in Lusaka.

  AFRICAN COUNTRIES

    Information Services
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps he is taking to improve the quality and quantity of material for use by British information officers in the African countries of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Braine: Both the quality and quantity of the material we supply is kept under close and constant review in consultation with our overseas representatives.
    Mr. Healey: While recognising the energy and devotion of our Common-wealth information officers in this respect, will the Under-Secretary press the Treasury to allow more money for this vitally important work? On the ques-
    600
    tion of quality, does he not agree that it is not satisfactory that Commonwealth propaganda, information material, in West Africa should be omni-direction material also available to Canada and Australia, and will he consider setting up a special African department to deal with that side of the problem?
    Mr. Braine: I agree entirely with what the hon. Member has said about the devotion and ability of our information officers in the field, and I take his point about the necessity for specially tailored material to meet the needs of these countries. But I am sure that the hon. Member would be the first to recognise that if information expenditure is to be kept within bounds, a large proportion of the material sent out should be suitable for use anywhere in the Commonwealth. On the other hand, we are moving increasingly in the direction he has suggested.

  MALTA

    Dockyard
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what agreement has been reached with Messrs. Baileys (Malta) Ltd. about the conversion of Malta Dockyard to civilian use; when the major contracts were placed; and when the work is expected to be completed.
    Mr. Maudling: My predecessor informed my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) on the 18th May last of the agreement reached between Her Majesty's Government and Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Ltd., on the financing of the revised and enlarged development plan for the Dockyard. I am glad to say that the main contract for the conversion of the Dockyard has now been placed and work should begin very soon. I hope that it will be completed in about two years.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and the Maltese people will be delighted that this overdue agreement has now been signed? Can he assure the House that the level of employment in the Dockyard will now be able to be maintained and that ship-repairing work will be continued during the period of conversion?
    Mr. Maudling: I would like notice of any question in which I am asked to give assurances about particular levels of employment or work.
    Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the observation just made by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that when public money is disbursed proper accounting methods must be followed? In view of the record of this particular firm, will that be done in future?
    Mr. Maudling: I accept my hon. Friend's principle and reject the hon. Member's supplementary question.

    Socialist International Delegation (Shooting Incident)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if an inquiry has been held into the shooting incident in Malta involving members of the Socialist International who were making an official visit to the island a few weeks ago; and if he will make the result of that inquiry available to Members of this House.
    Mr. Maudling: Police investigation and an inquiry by a magistrate continue. The findings of the latter will be made available in due course.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that although this incident was not serious physically, it could have political repercussions? If members of an international delegation visit the country and are subject to incidents of this character, it could become serious and stop people travelling from one country to another. Will the Minister deal with this matter and try to find the cause of the trouble?
    Mr. Maudling: The matter is in the hands of the police, who are investigating the position, and I am sure that I should not comment at this stage.
    Mr. Driberg: Can it really take them three months to investigate a simple incident of this kind?
    Mr. Maudling: It depends on the complexity of the facts.

    General Election
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the importance of the forthcoming
    602
    general election in Malta, he will arrange for a group of independent observers from all parties in this House to visit the island during the period of the election to note the methods and procedure and to make a report to him as the Minister responsible for the conduct of elections.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the atmosphere in Malta has become explosive during the last few weeks? As the election is to take place on Monday week, will he do something now and not wait until the election is over and trouble has broken out? Will he send someone there to report to him if trouble arises in connection with the election?
    Mr. Maudling: I am concerned about the election position in Malta, but I discussed this with the Governor, who has taken great precautions, and I think all possible precautions, to ensure peaceful and impartial elections. For my part, I do not think that a visit from a group of independent observers would help. In fact, it might give rise to incidents which otherwise would not occur.
    Mr. Healey: Is the Minister aware that members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Malta are threatening Maltese citizens with utter damnation if they vote for the Labour Party? [Laughter.] I can understand hon. Gentlemen in this House regarding that as a comic remark, but I assure them that in Malta this is a matter of the gravest personal concern to any member of the Roman Catholic Church. In the circumstances, is the Minister satisfied that there is freedom in these elections?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir, I am, and I have given great thought to this. It is extremely important, and I think that every possible precaution has been taken to ensure fair and impartial elections.
    Miss Lee: Is the Minister aware that it would be simple for him to send out several distinguished Catholic Members of the British Labour Party who could reassure the Maltese voters that they could vote Labour without incurring damnation?
    Mr. Maudling: It may be simple to do, but I doubt whether it would help with the elections.
    Mr. Wall: Is the Minister aware that the Roman Catholic hierarchy has taken action because of attacks by the Malta Labour Party on the Catholic way of life and Catholic spiritual beliefs?
    Mr. Maudling: One deprecates the way in which the election is involving religious issues, and I think that the sooner the election is over and settled the better. I believe that the Governor has taken every possible precaution to ensure that it is fairly conducted.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Constitution
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the constitutional conference on the future of British Guiana will be held; and what will be its terms of reference.
    Mr. Maudling: The conference will be held in May. It will discuss the date and the arrangements to be made for the achievement of independence by British Guiana.
    Mr. Brockway: I welcome that announcement. Is it the Government's intention to respond to the demand of the British Guiana Government that independence should be granted by the end of this year? In view of the situation in Jamaica and Trinidad, is it not very desirable that these three territories should be advancing together towards independence?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that I can make any comment on the date of independence of British Guiana because that is one of the things which we must discuss at the conference; and to suggest any date or point of view in advance of the discussions at the conference would be unwise and might prejudice the discussions.
    Mr. Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fears, both inside and outside British Guiana, that unless there are proper constitutional safeguards built into the new constitution that country might well become a base in South America for the propagation of Communism? Will he pay strict regard to those fears when the question of a new constitution for British Guiana comes up for discussion?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that there will be varying views in British Guiana itself about the nature of the independence constitution, and possibly even about the date for independence. Once again, as in answer to the previous supplementary question, while taking the point. I will ask my hon. and learned Friend not to expect me to anticipate the conference.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take a better view of the prospect for British Guiana than that taken by the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner)? Now that the West Indian Federation has unfortunately come to an end, will the Colonial Secretary at least attempt to rescue out of that the benefit that more flexible arrangements are possible over a wider Caribbean area, and will he encourage the Government of British Guiana to associate itself with the common services arrangements which he is planning for the Caribbean area?
    Mr. Maudling: I should be glad to see participation by British Guiana in economic and other arrangements in the Caribbean, but I doubt whether that could be put on the agenda for a constitutional conference.

  NYASALAND

    Hydro-electric Scheme, Nkula Falls
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Nyasaland Government will cooperate with the Federal Government's hydro-electric scheme at Nkula Falls; and what benefits the scheme is expected to bring in Nyasaland.
    Mr. Maudling: Discussions have been taking place between the Federal and Nyasaland Governments and final decisions on the project have yet to be reached. Apart from the increased power supply for development schemes that the hydro-electric station would provide, the barrage upstream would regulate the level of Lake Nyasa with benefit to navigation, tourism and lakeshore dwellers. It would also facilitate irrigation projects and assist riverside dwellers in the Shire Valley.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware

    605
    that Dr. Banda, the Minister of Local Government and Natural Resources, has said that he would rather the Nyasaland people starved to death than had the benefit of Federal funds for the purpose of constructing this dam?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that I am called upon to comment on statements of that character by individuals. I very much regret that there should be a dispute about this very valuable project. As I said, discussions are going on between the Federal Government and the Nyasaland Government and I hope that they will produce results.

  TRISTAN DA CUNHA

    Scientific Expedition
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the scientific expedition organised by the Royal Society which is visiting Tristan da Cunha; when he will send an expedition to find out the conditions on this island; and whether it will be possible for those who lived on it, and who may wish to go back, to return.
    Mr. Maudling: An expedition organised by the Royal Society to study the scientific causes underlying the eruption and its effects on the fauna and flora of Tristan was landed on Tristan on 29th and 30th January by the South African frigate "Transvaal". The expedition expect to return towards the end of March and I shall of course study their report. Meanwhile I have no plans for any other expedition. I doubt whether the island will ever be safe for permanent resettlement.

  BERMUDA

    Ferry Point Bridge
    Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is expected that work will commence on the reconstruction of Ferry Point Bridge, Bermuda.
    Mr. Maudling: Responsibility for providing funds for the construction of this bridge rests with the United States Government, but that Government have to date been unable to get Congress to vote the money. Her Majesty's Government
    606
    continue to press that this long standing obligation should be fulfilled.
    Mr. Bennett: With no reflection on the Minister, this is not really good enough. It is over 15 years since the American Government entered into a solemn pledge to build a bridge to replace land highways that they had taken over as part of the Base Agreement. Since then, year after year, they have renewed that pledge but have always escaped the ultimate obligation by claiming that they could not get the consent of Congress. Is he aware that it is now five years since one of his predecessors, in answer to a similar Question, said that work was expected to begin in 1947, and when does he think that this promise will be kept? Is not this a bad example of a great Power failing a small country?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that it is very disappointing that progress has not been made on this. When the United States Government say that they cannot get approval from Congress towards certain expenditure, one cannot help feeling a certain sympathy with them.
    Mr. Bennett: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  KENYA

    Kenya African National Union
    Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many licences have been applied for by the elected representatives of the Kenya African National Union in the Kenya Legislative Council and their President, Mr. Kenyatta, to hold meetings in the Northern Province and the following districts of Kenya, namely: Baringo District, Elgeyo-Marakwet, Nandi, West Suk, Kericho, Laikipia, Samburu, Kilifi, Kwale, Tana-Lamu, Katiado, Narok, Uasingisho, Trans-Nzoia, and Elgon Nyanza; and how many such licences have been refused, and on what grounds.
    Mr. Maudling: Nine licences have been applied for by the President and other elected representatives of K.A.N.U. to hold public meetings in the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend, of which

    607
    one was refused on grounds of public order.
    Mr. Bennett: Taking into account the Minister's Answer, does he realise that this amounts to the fact that a party which purports to be a national one does not dare politically to enter into about two-thirds of the country as a whole? Does he realise that a parallel in this country would be if Members of the Opposition Front Bench dared not go to political meetings anywhere except in London and the Midlands?

  EDUCATION

    Teachers
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Minister of Education how many teachers' training colleges do not require mathematics at O level as an entry qualification.
    The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): A General Certificate of Education pass in mathematics is not normally required for entry to training, but four-fifths of the men and over half the women admitted to three-year courses possessed one in 1960.
    Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient emphasis is placed on mathematics as a basis for modern education?
    Sir D. Eccles: We are short of mathematics teachers, but I assure my hon. Friend that the training colleges are now doing some excellent work to increase the numbers.

    Roman Catholic School, Hammersmith
    Mr. Tomneyasked the Minister of Education why permission has been refused for the use of vacant class rooms at the Roman Catholic Primary School, Our Lady of Victory, for the education of Roman Catholic children from Hammersmith.
    Sir D. Eccles: This school has no accommodation of its own, and could only expand if the local education authority provided it with additional rooms under Section 109 of the Education Act, 1944. The local education authority has discussed the suggestion with representatives of the Roman Catholic diocese
    608
    concerned, but in view of various objections both parties have agreed not to proceed with it.
    Mr. Tomney: Is not the Minister aware that the problem of Catholic education in Catholic schools in Hammersmith and West London is daily growing more acute, in part due to immigration, and that the provision of these class rooms would alleviate the problem to some extent? I understand that at one time permission was given for their use and later withdrawn. This is difficult to understand, as the Catholic authorities were prepared to pay the cost of providing transport for these children from Hammersmith to this school.
    Sir D. Eccles: As the Roman Catholic authorities concerned have agreed with this, I think that we had better leave it there, but the hon. Gentleman is right that the problem of sites for Catholic schools in North Hammersmith is very difficult.

    Direct Grant Schools
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Education what grants are at present available for experimental work on special projects under the Direct Grant Schools Regulations.
    Sir D. Eccles: Regulation 4 (d) of the Direct Grant Schools Regulations, 1959, empowers me to pay grant in respect of special or experimental work involving extraordinary expenditure. The grants regularly paid under this Regulation are towards the cost of the employment of foreign assistants. I have also recently agreed to pay a small grant to one school taking part in a pilot scheme in the teaching of atomic physics at Ordinary level.
    Mrs. White: As there are 179 direct grant schools in special relationship with the Ministry and in a privileged position, does not he think that he might be a little more enterprising in this matter? Does not he recognise that there are a number of problems in education in respect of which he might take an initiative and ask some of these rather privileged schools to help to solve them?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am taking steps to increase research, but I do not think that

    609
    the direct grant schools are in any better position than any other schools to help us there.

    Ashmore Park Estate, Wednesfield
    Miss Leeasked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the unsettling effect of the frequent change of school accommodation experienced by many of the younger children of Ashmore Park Estate, Wednesfield, Staffordshire; and, in view of the fact that this is an overspill area where the child population is growing rapidly, why provision has not been made for adequate up-to-date school accommodation.
    Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of the needs of Ashmore Park, and have approved new primary schools to provide 1,120 additional places. The building of two of the new schools is still delayed by difficulties of site acquisition. Meanwhile, one new school on the estate has opened and the authority has provided temporary classrooms at existing schools. It also provides free transport for children who have to attend schools off the estate.
    Miss Lee: Is the Minister aware that his free transport has had to be used to take children as young as seven years of age to three different schools, and that he has not answered my Question? I have asked him why he has failed to provide accommodation. Is he aware that he has had ten years to do this? He knows that this is an overspill new housing estate, with a lot of young children. Is he not ashamed of the priorities of the last ten years, under which money and materials have been spent on issues very much less necessary, and when he is still telling me what he is going to do and not what he has done?
    Sir D. Eccles: This is an unfortunate case, because the sites could not be acquired voluntarily and the compulsory purchase order is, unfortunately, now subject to an action in the High Court, and, therefore, sub judice. I hope that it will not be too long before the sites can be acquired.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of concern about the inadequate building allocations of the Staffordshire County
    610
    Council? In view of this concern, will he agree to receive a deputation to discuss the matter with him?
    Sir D. Eccles: That is another question. I cannot see every local education authority on the subject of its building allocations. As the hon. Member knows, it is the practice not to do so.

    Steel Framed School Building
    Mr. Proudfootasked the Minister of Education what are the comparative costs of a steel frame school building of up-to-date design and a reinforced concrete building.
    Sir D. Eccles: It is difficult to generalise on this subject, but an analysis of the tenders accepted in 1961 for schools in the major building programme shows that the difference in the average cost per place between steel framed buildings and buildings in reinforced concrete was not significant.
    Mr. Proudfoot: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he bring to the notice of the local education authorities that steel can now be bought off the shelf?
    Sir D. Eccles: I know that in the area which my hon. Friend represents there is steel to be bought, and I have asked the local authority to look at the problem of the Constantine College.
    Mr. Willey: Has the Minister taken any action on the Estimates Committee Report on school buildings?
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir—not on the Report. It is rather a satisfactory Report.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE UNIT)
  Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate the activities of the Ministers of Health, Labour and Works with a view to establishing an occupational health service unit in the Palace of Westminster.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Occupational health service units are normally provided in factories under the Factory Acts so that

  611
  people who are subject to industrial injury or industrial disease can be treated on the spot. I do not think that any analogy between this House and a factory ought to be carried too far.
  Mr. Pavitt: Is the Prime Minister aware that many hon. Members, Press men and the staff owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) who acts as an unpaid general practitioner in this House? Is he further aware that although there are over 2,400 people in this establishment every day, including more than 500 people in the manual grades, we do not even employ a State registered nurse for first-aid purposes? Is he further aware that many establishments with far fewer people have a far better occupational health service than we have, and should not we set a good example to industry and commerce, especially as we suffer from the modern illnesses of nervous strain and emotional exhaustion?
  The Prime Minister: I can see the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and if it were thought desirable I am sure that consultations could be held with the Leader of the House.
  Mr. K. Lewis: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we on this side of the House have for a long time believed that the Opposition's morale has sunk rather low, but we are rather surprised that they should now express a preference for making baskets?

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if he will advise a general election before agreeing to Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) following my statement on 31st July last year.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Would not the Prime Minister agree that it would be quite unprecedented and wholly against the spirit of our Constitution for a Member of Parliament to be whipped into voting for the undermining of our fundamental
  612
  institutions and their merging with Europe, particularly bearing in mind that Conservative candidates, including the Prime Minister's right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, at the last election were telling the electorate that it would be impossible for Britain to agree to the Rome Treaty for these very reasons? Is not the electorate entitled to be consulted about this?
  The Prime Minister: When the negotiations are brought to a conclusion, it will then be the duty of the Government to recommend to the House what course we should pursue. I do not think that it is necessary to anticipate it now.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will the Prime Minister reply to the Question, and also to my question of 31st July, 1961, and not merely repeat that he will bring the matter before Parliament? What he is being asked is whether he will consult the electorate? Apart from the economic aspects, surely the political implications involved in joining the European Economic Community justify asking the electors whether they are prepared to accept this constitutional change?
  The Prime Minister: All these are matters for consideration, but I think that the first thing to do is to see how the negotiations proceed and in what form they are concluded.
  Mr. Rankin: Surely the Prime Minister will agree that before he takes this step he ought to consult the country? Is he hedging on that question?
  The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to answer a hypothetical question.
  Sir C. Osborne: As the Opposition are so bitterly divided on the question of the European Economic Community, is not the suggestion quite impracticable?
  The Prime Minister: I think that we may as well see how the negotiations go on.

  DISARMAMENT AND NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mrs. Butlerasked the Prime Minister what proposals he will make in his forthcoming discussions with President Kennedy on action for progress in banning nuclear tests.
  Mr. Morrisasked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have consented to the use of Christmas Island for United States nuclear tests.
  Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government now have for another series of nuclear tests; to what extent agreement has been reached to allow the United States of America to use British testing areas such as Christmas Island; whether consideration is being given to joint testing of nuclear weapons by the United States of America and the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of discussions with President Kennedy, he will now state the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to atmospheric nuclear tests in co-operation with the United States Government.
  The Prime Minister: I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the other hon. Members to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.
  Mrs. Butler: Is the Prime Minister aware that people are tired of the nuclear Powers behaving like silly schoolboys, with their attitude of "You have tested your bombs and therefore we must test ours" when the only parity possible in a nuclear arms race is the parity of death? Will not he even now see that a lead is given by this country for an uncontrolled test ban, by making personal visits to Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Kennedy and asking them to support such a ban before other countries join in this tragic race?
  The Prime Minister: I appreciate the hon. Lady's feelings, but I still think that it would be more convenient to deal with this matter as a whole when I make my statement.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in view of the fact that he has already handed over this country to America, nobody should be surprised if he gives them a present of Christmas Island, too?

  BERLIN
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his correspondence in the last two months with Mr. Khrushchev about Berlin.
  The Prime Minister: Any correspondence I might have with other Heads of Government would be confidential.
  Mr. Allaun: I appreciate the need for privacy, but cannot the Prime Minister write to Mr. Khrushchev, referring to the recent mutual withdrawal of tanks from Checkpoint Charlie as a hopeful sign and the creation of a hopeful mood, and as a symbol of bigger things, such as guaranteeing West Berlin's security and also vetoing nuclear weapons for West and East Germany?
  The Prime Minister: All these are large issues. So far as Berlin is concerned, they are being dealt with at present by the United States Ambassador in Moscow. He has had three meetings with Mr. Gromyko and is trying to establish whether a basis can be found for a fruitful negotiation.
  Mr. Shinwell: If the Prime Minister cannot disclose conversations which he regards as confidential, will he at least inform the House whether he has been in correspondence with Mr. Khrushchev?
  The Prime Minister: If I were to answer that question it would take away a great deal from the value of any correspondence that there might have been.
  Mr. Jeger: Does not the Prime Minister realise that he may be arousing suspicions by conducting secret correspondence with Communists? Does he not agree that, in general, it would be a good thing if all correspondence, contacts and business arrangements with all Communists were made known to this House?
  The Prime Minister: If I were to have any correspondence, it would be confidential.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Whaling
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent his Department was consulted before the transfer to Japan of four-ninths of the British whale quota, to take effect after the 1961–62 whaling season; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of this new situation.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The need to transfer part of the United Kingdom quota for pelagic whaling arises from the agreement by a British firm to sell an expedition to a Japanese company at the end of the present season in the Antarctic. My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland were consulted as regards both the sale and the proportion of quota to be transferred. The sale of this expedition will not change our policy, which remains to seek inter-international agreement on effective action to conserve whale stocks, with due regard to the interests of our own industry.

    Lavender
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to preserve and develop the production of lavender in this country; and what help his Department gives when a lavender grower wishes to obtain planning permission for buildings in connection with such production.
    Mr. Vane: The production of lavender in this country is protected by import duties on fresh and dried lavender. The Ministry's advisory officers are available to give technical advice to lavender growers. Planning applications are for the local planning authority, and, on appeal, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to consider on their merits. Where the planning authority proposes to reject an application for agricultural development or to approve it subject to conditions, it is required to consult the Ministry's Land Commissioners, whose instructions are, in accordance with Ministry of Housing Circular 43/58, that they should support such applications when the development is, in their judgment, necessary in the long term for the efficient farming of the land.
    Sir B. Janner: In view of the very encouraging statement made by the Minister, will he go a step further and say that he will take practical steps to implement the inference to be drawn from his statement, and see that a business which has been in existence in Hertforshire for 140 years shall not be put out of existence because no planning per-
    616
    mission has been given for a building to be erected on the 5-acre farm of a well-known lavender developer?
    Mr. Vane: I think I know the case which the hon. Member has in mind. I can assure him that it is still the subject of inquiry.
    Mr. Mawby: Does my tight hon. Friend agree that it might have been better, or more fruitful, if the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) had worn lavender in his buttonhole this afternoon?

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Brixton Prison (Special Wing)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners, in all, have now been accommodated in the special wing at Brixton Prison; how many of them have been returned to ordinary prisons; how many have been transferred to mental institutions; how many have been released on the completion of their sentences; and if he will publish in HANSARD a summary assessment of the results of this experiment.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): Of the nine prisoners who have passed through the special wing at Brixton four have been transferred to mental hospitals under the Mental Health Act, 1959, two improved enough to be given a chance in a training prison where they are making reasonable progress, two have been transferred to ordinary prisons and the ninth has been sent to Wormwood Scrubs to receive treatment for an old physical injury.
    Mr. Driberg: On the whole, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this experiment is regarded as successful?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: On the whole, with certain reservations, yes, a success.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to continue this experiment, which, as he knows, has caused a certain amount of upheaval and dissatisfaction among prison warders?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give notice of that rather different question.

  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
  The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
  Mr. HALE: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether, in view of the dissatisfaction with recent appointments of magistrates for the County Borough of Oldham, he will reconsider the membership of the advisory committee on magistrates with a view to the appointment of a more representative committee;
  (2) what steps are taken in the County Palatine of Lancaster to ensure that the appointment of magistrates is reasonably representative of the various classes of the community and of their political and ethical views.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 45 and 46 together.
  I regard the making of judicial appointments as one of my most important duties as Chancellor of the Duchy. In this task I am guided by the Report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace, 1946–48, to which I adhere as closely as possible.
  As the hon. Member will understand, much of this work must take place in a confidential atmosphere, but I am always ready to consider representations received from any source.
  I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the hon. Member and with the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp).
  Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware with what joy we see him emerging from the secret chrysalis to the vocal butterfly, that there is in this Question implied no criticism of persons, but a desire to discuss the question of working-class representation on the bench, and that I and my colleagues welcome his invitation and would like to thank him for it, and hope that it will be a happy and a productive meeting?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY—Supply
[6th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the Civil Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (No. 4) Order, 1961.
TUESDAY, 13TH FEBRUARY—Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.
Report stage of the Health and Agriculture Supplementary Estimate.
WEDNESDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY—A debate will take place on the Opposition Motion on the Growth of Private Monopolies.
Consideration of the Motions on the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure).
THURSDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which it is proposed to take formally to allow for a debate on an Opposition Motion on Shipping and Shipbuilding.
FRIDAY, 16TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
A debate will take place on a subject to be announced later.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malta) Order.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can say when the debate on the proposed change in London government is likely to take place; whether he can yet say whether it will be a two-day debate and whether he will say that the Motion, which, I think, has now been put down officially by the Government, to take note of the proposals in the White Paper, indicates that the Government have not yet decided their attitude on this matter,

619
that they are not committed on the question of principle, but merely wish at this stage to take the views of the House as a whole?
Mr. Macleod: I hope that there will be a two-day debate and, in the event, I think that it will take place in the week after next.
My right hon. Friend made a statement on 29th November and announced the general acceptance of the views of the Royal Commission, that is, that the borough should be the main unit. But a vast number of matters, including the size and make-up of boroughs, the size of the central education authority and its area and how that authority should be chosen, are open, and we shall be very glad to hear the views of the House upon them.
Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he proposes to have a debate on Kenya?
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I answered that question last week. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary and we do not think it advisable to suggest that there should be a debate in advance of the Kenya Conference, which opens next week.
Dame Irene Ward: As it is such a long time since we have had a debate on ships and shipbuilding, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is now being taken formally, is exempted business? Can my right hon. Friend arrange—so that every hon. Member knows about it—for the period of debate to be extended, at any rate until eleven o'clock, because there are many hon. Members who would desire to take part in this very important debate?
Mr. Macleod: The arrangements this year are rather exceptional and I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for making this possible. The position is that there is an extra Consolidated Fund Bill this year, made necessary because of the Supplementary Estimates for health and agriculture. A debate on the Bill itself would be very narrow and restricted to those subjects. Such a debate would be exempted business. It will be for the
620
advantage of the House if we follow this procedure, that is, to take the Second Reading formally, and then have a discussion on shipping and shipbuilding on an Opposition Motion which would follow the ordinary course of debate for the day.
Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for us to have an extra hour, which was what I asked in my first question?
Mr. Macleod: I should consider any representations made on that point, if it be the general wish of the House.
Mr. M. Stewart: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the debate on London government, may I ask whether the Leader of the House will make clear, setting aside matters like boundaries of boroughs and details, whether it is the resolve of the Government—whatever may be said in the debate—to legislate in accordance with the main principles of the White Paper? Or is it envisaged that the Government might change their view on those principles in the light of arguments which might be advanced in the debate?
Mr. Macleod: On a considerable number of matters, we shall, as I have said, take the view of the House. That will affect the attitude of the Government towards legislation. But, as the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made the attitude of the Government clear on the 29th November in a statement to the House. Naturally, during questions on business I should not wish to embroider on that.
Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has now been able to consider—as he promised to do last week—the appeals made to him to provide facilities for the Racial Discrimination and Incitement Bill, and whether he would be prepared to receive an all-party deputation of hon. Members on this subject?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I have considered this very carefully indeed and have consulted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I believe that the view which I expressed last week on this

621
matter is the right one, and after careful consideration I think that I should adhere to it, that is to say, that I do not think, however admirable—as I am sure they are—may be the desires of the hon. Member, or the motives behind the Bill, that they could effectively be carried out by legislation. I am, of course, ready to receive a deputation from all parties on the subject.
Mr. David James: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of myself and about 130 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House? In vew of the interest in this subject and in the hope that one day there will be legislation on the Roberts Report, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend can hold out any hope of a debate on the matter?
[That this House, mindful that the export of British ideas and British books depends on a live home market, and that eleven books are borrowed from public libraries for every one purchased, urges Her Majesty's Government to look sympathetically at the resultant effect on authors and publishers.]
Mr. Macleod: I saw this Motion with considerable interest and even, for a moment, contemplated signing it. However, I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and he is not convinced of the case which my hon. Friend puts forward in his Motion. I can only suggest that the Motion would provide a suitable opportunity for the use of private Members' time, if my hon. Friend is successful in the Ballot.
Mrs. White: Reverting to the question of the Bill on racial discrimination, may I ask whether the Government have studied this matter and looked at what has been done by legislation in New York City and Massachusetts? Is not the Leader of the House being completely irresponsible in suggesting that this matter cannot be dealt with by legislation when it has been tackled with great success in Boston and New York City?
Mr. Macleod: There are many precedents, many by no means successful, but the position is that the law of this country does not recognise racial discrimination. That is a very serious step to
622
contemplate before legislating in the sense of the hon. Member's Bill. I will gladly discuss this with hon. Members, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) knows that the provisions of this Bill, in one way or another, have been before the House for a very long time. I can assure her that the matter has been most carefully considered by the Home Secretary and by the Government.
Mr. Rankin: Has the Leader of the House yet found time for a debate on the Toothill Report?
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. There is no news on Toothill.
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.
Sir J. Pitman: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that in last Monday's debate it was made quite clear that on both sides of the House there is a great deal to be contributed on what might be done in regard to the United Nations? Would the Government consider the Motion, signed by a large number of hon. Members, asking the Government to consider what they might do to carry out improvements to the United Nations?
[That this House, noting the numerous areas of likely conflict in the world and the need to prevent them exacerbating the main ideological conflict, and noting the effort made by the United Nations in Sinai and Congo, believes that such efforts would be more effective, were they to be within a framework of law enforcement known in advance, and to this end urges that Her Majesty's Government should propose at the United Nations that an autonomous commission should be set up to explore and report on the creation of a permanent force with an individually recruited personnel owing allegiance direct to the United Nations and paid by it, and whose prime purpose would be the enforcement, in areas where it was directed to operate, of laws preventing the ownership, use or manufacture of arms, or the incitement to such, except by consent of the United Nations and in fulfilment of the United Nations' force's task of preventing violation of frontiers; and that Her Majesty's Government should announce in advance that if

623
acceptable proposals were to result, it would give its support and supply bases and personnel.]
It was made evident on Monday that there is this desire on both sides of the House.
Mr. Macleod: I shall certainly draw that specially to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but, clearly, it is not concerned with next week's business.
Mr. S. Silverman: The Leader of the House said that it was proposed to take the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill formally. Will he tell us who has made that proposal and who has agreed to it and whether hon. Members are to have their rights curtailed in this way without their consent? Or does he agree that their rights are not in any way curtailed by any such proposition?
Many of us consider that the fact that the Consolidated Fund Bill is exempted business affords private Members one of their few opportunities of raising matters of their own choice. Does he agree that if he does not put it in this way the desire of hon. Members to make some other matter the subject of the main debate is in no way prejudiced, whereas if he does put it in this way the time is cut short and withdrawn from private Members?
Mr. Macleod: On an ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill that is perfectly true and I dare say that as a matter of doctrine it is perfectly true also on this Bill. In the usual spring and summer Consolidated Fund Bill debates hon. Members have an opportunity—as is traditional—of raising grievances before Supply is granted, but this is a special and extra Consolidated Fund Bill which is made necessary for the one purpose of these Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, it seemed, after discussion through the usual channels, that it formed a suitable opportunity for discussion, not of the narrow subjects we would have if we stuck to the Consolidated Fund Bill alone, but of wider subjects which the House may wish to debate.
Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman talks about consultation with the usual channels. I am not inviting him to enter into private arrangements,
624
or even private disputes, but he, as Leader of the House, must know that there are hon. Members who are not represented in the discussions which take place in what he calls the usual channels. We are just as much entitled to have our rights consulted as any other hon. Members.
Mr. Macleod: I do not dispute that for a moment. I am very ready to receive representations from unusual channels, as well.
Mr. Pym: Could my right hon. Friend say when and if he intends to put down a Motion on House of Lords reform?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, I propose to table such a Motion today.
Mr. Mellish: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that next Thursday we shall hear about the desperate plight of shipyards of Northern Ireland, but that this is a most unsatisfactory way of discussing the economic problems of that part of the United Kingdom? It is about time that we stopped the nonsense of having to pester the Leader of the House every week on a subject which concerns a very important part of the United Kingdom. Will he take us all seriously and tell us when we can debate thus question properly?
Mr. Macleod: The very important part of the problems of Northern Ireland will be very relevant in the debate we may have next week. For the moment I cannot go beyond that.
Mr. McMaster: May I add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) said? Will my right hon. Friend consider favourably her request to extend the time of the debate on shipping and shipbuilding because of the considerable amount of redundancy at Messrs. Harland and Woolf and in other shipyards and the desire of many hon. Members on both sides of the House to take part in that debate?
Mr. Macleod: I have certainly noted that, but I never think that an extension of one hour—except in most unusual circumstances—really meets the convenience of the House. If such a general wish is expressed, we can discuss it through the usual channels.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Leader of the House be a little more specific about the scope of the debate on shipbuilding? Will it be wide enough to include unemployment in the shipbuilding ports, where it is growing? Will it include ship-repairing and the recent foreign competition, which has been encouraged by Government policy?
Mr. Macleod: This debate will take place on an Opposition Motion, so perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would be able to tell his hon. and learned Friend what Motion he intends to put down for the debate. I should have thought that the opportunity for asking questions on employment and unemployment would be bound to be a major feature of the debate.
Sir D. Robertson: Can my right hon. Friend now state when time will be provided to debate the Motion dealing with the breach of Standing Orders by the Selection Committee?
[That this House regrets that the Committee of Selection by not appointing the hon. Members for Banffshire and Caithness and Sutherland to the Standing Committee on the Sea Fish Industry Bill failed to observe the provision of Standing Order No. 58 which requires the Committee to pay attention to the qualifications of Members appointed to serve on Standing Committees.]
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. It is not, in my view, a breach of the Standing Order. If I may summarise it, the position is that this House set up the Committee of Selection on 2nd November without discussion; the Committee reported in relation to the Sea Fish Industry Bill on 22nd November, and it operated strictly under a Standing Order of the House, as was said last week by the Chairman of the Selection Committee. I cannot feel that the House would think it right to move any censure on a Committee of this House which has strictly carried out the wishes of this House. If, however, beyond that the wording of the Standing Order is in any way thought to be unfair to those who are in what may be, I hope, temporary disagreement with their parties, I shall be glad to have discussions at the proper time.
Mr. Lipton: Will the Leader of the House say why this House has not been given an opportunity of tendering loyalty
626
to Her Majesty on the tenth anniversary of her accession? While it is true that, according to reports of which this House has no official knowledge, some kind of message went from the Cabinet, is it not rather slighting on everyone concerned that this conspicuous event should have been passed over in this somewhat niggardly way?
Mr Macleod: It is not in accordance with precedent to pass such a Motion, but, although it is not for me to say it, I take the opportunity of what has been said by the hon. Member of offering our very humble and respectful good wishes to Her Majesty on this occasion.
Mr. Mellish: May I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the debate next Thursday? We shall have a very ragged debate in so far as there will be an emphasis on unemployment in various parts of the shipyards, but many of us feel that this is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the question in Northern Ireland, where the unemployment figure is over 9 per cent. Surely he knows the urgency of the matter and that we cannot talk in isolation about shipbuilding.
Mr. Macleod: As I have told the hon. Member, I had hoped that it would be possible to find time for a debate on the affairs of Northern Ireland as such, although the key part of the problems of Northern Ireland will be in order in Thursday's debate.

DISARMAMENT AND NUCLEAR TESTS
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the subject of disarmament and nuclear tests.
As the House knows, successive British Governments have, since the last war, devoted major efforts to the attempt to reach disarmament agreements. We have tried broad negotiations, such as those in London from 1954 to 1957, and again in Geneva in 1960; we have tried narrower negotiations on specific points like the negotiations which took place in Geneva from 1958 onwards about nuclear tests and those about surprise attack measures. We have attempted, as regards the narrower negotiations, to

627
begin with technical discussions like the 1958 Conference of Experts on nuclear tests, in the hope that these would clear the ground in advance of what I might describe as political discussions.
In addition to these international conferences, we have also discussed disarmament frequently at private meetings, as during my visit to the Soviet Union in 1959 and in my talks with Mr. Khrushchev in New York in 1960. So far, as the House knows, although there have been ups and downs and even moments of hope, we have as yet achieved nothing. Indeed, since the dramatic failure of the Summit meeting in 1960, the general international climate has deteriorated to such an extent that the prospects of any agreement about disarmament between East and West have seemed more remote than ever.
Last autumn, this situation was reflected in the massive series of Soviet atmospheric nuclear tests. After these had taken place I explained to the House on 31st October last the position of principle as regards further testing which Her Majesty's Government had felt bound to adopt. President Kennedy made a similar statement of the United States' attitude on 1st November. It was against this background that President Kennedy and I met just before Christmas in Bermuda. As the communiqué issued after this meeting explained, we there considered the position both as regards the military situation and as regards the future of disarmament. Since our meeting in Bermuda, the President and I have been in close touch about the situation and about the future of Western policy in these fields.
In my statement I said that the West would conduct further tests only for compelling military or scientific reasons and that, if possible, these would be made underground. The United States has, in line with this principle, for some time been conducting a series of underground tests of nuclear devices. In this connection, we are now satisfied that substantial technical and military benefits can be obtained by testing one particular British nuclear device underground. The United States Government have agreed to make available suitable facilities in Nevada so that this test can be conducted there within the next few weeks.
628
At Bermuda, we also discussed the question of atmospheric tests about which the House, I think rightly, feels a more lively concern. President Kennedy explained that in accordance with his statement on 1st November he felt it militarily necessary now to make preparations for a limited series of atmospheric tests for specific purposes. In the world of ballistic missiles offensive power remains far ahead of defensive power, and we know that some most formidable practical problems stand in the way of devising a defence against missiles. Yet, while the arms race continues, we dare not fall behind in the struggle between offensive and defensive capabilities, with their increasingly complex systems of countermeasures and counter-counter-measures. We must bear in mind the claims, true or false, made by Russian military leaders at the time of their nuclear test series last autumn that they have solved the problem of destroying ballistic missiles in flight. As I said in the debate on 31st October, I conceive that
"we have a duty to maintain the balance of power in the world…and to ensure that the security of free men is not overthrown because an aggressor suddenly becomes possessed of an overwhelming advantage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 32.]
I felt myself bound to accept, therefore, the military and scientific arguments in favour of preparations for a resumption of tests—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and when President Kennedy asked for the use of facilities at Christmas Island for them, Her Majesty's Government thought it right to agree. Accordingly, an agreement is being discussed in Washington at the moment under which Her Majesty's Government will allow the United States the use of facilities at Christmas Island for a limited period and for a specific programme of tests with which we shall of course be associated. On this point, the following announcement is being issued immediately in London and in Washington. I will quote it textually:
"It is the joint view of the United States and the United Kingdom Governments that the existing state of nuclear development, in which the recent massive Soviet tests are an important factor, would justify the West in making such further series of nuclear tests as may be necessary for purely military reasons.

629
The United States and the United Kingdom Governments have, therefore, decided that preparations should be made in various places, and as part of these the United Kingdom Government are making available to the United States Government the facilities at Christmas Island."
That is the announcement.
Mr. John Rankin: Shocking.
The Prime Minister: I will now resume my statement.
While our two Governments have reluctantly accepted the need to prepare for further tests, both President Kennedy and I were deeply distressed at this necessity and at the future position in the world if a halt cannot be called to the nuclear arms race. When I was in Bermuda I made this point strongly to the President, who was very receptive, and accordingly, on my return after consulting my colleagues, I made a definite proposal to President Kennedy that the Western Powers should make another determined effort to reach some agreement with the Soviet Union on the question of disarmament. We have already agreed to join in the work of the Committee of Eighteen which meets in Geneva on 14th March, and I believe that this will offer an opportunity for renewed serious discussions.
I am glad to say that President Kennedy very much welcomed the idea of trying to give special impetus and effectiveness to this conference. Accordingly, the two Governments have today communicated with the Soviet Government, and have invited them to send their Foreign Minister to a tripartite meeting to assemble before the Geneva meeting and to begin this meeting also at the level of Foreign Ministers. I have addressed a personal letter to Mr. Krushchev appealing to him to agree to this proposal and President Kennedy has done the same. It is our hope that a preliminary meeting of Foreign Ministers may reach broad agreement on the type of work which could be studied in the Committee of Eighteen and that the presence of Foreign Ministers at the start of the meetings of the Committee will give an impetus to its work. In order to record this agreement, the following announcement is being issued at this moment in
630
Washington and London—following on the first part which I have read:
"The two Governments are, however, deeply concerned for the future of mankind if a halt cannot be called to the nuclear arms race. The two Governments are, therefore, determined to make a new effort to move away from this sterile contest. They believe that a supreme effort should be made at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee which will begin meetings on the 14th of March at Geneva, and that the Heads of Government of the United Kingdom, United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should take a direct personal interest in these negotiations. The President and Prime Minister have, therefore, addressed a joint communication to Chairman Khrushchev, proposing that this meeting be initiated at the Foreign Minister level and that their Foreign Ministers should meet before the conference starts and also be prepared to return as personal participants in the negotiations at appropriate stages as progress is made."
That is the end of the announcement.
I earnestly trust as, I am sure does the whole House, that this new initiative will be fruitful.
Mr. Gaitskell: The House will wish to consider carefully the long and important statement made by the Prime Minister. Many questions arise out of it, and I take it that in due course arrangements will be made for a debate on the statement and on the important problems associated with it.
Meanwhile, may I ask a few questions by way of clarification? First, the Prime Minister will recall that in the statements made by the Government at the end of October and the beginning of November both he and the Minister of Defence made it plain that at that stage it was not believed to be necessary from any military or technical angle to resume atmospheric tests. What has happened since then which has led to an apparent change of attitude in this matter?
Secondly, can he give us an assurance that the decision as to whether or not atmospheric tests are resumed will be deferred until after the meetings in Geneva in March?
Thirdly, do we have the right to participate as a Government in the final decision as to whether or not atmospheric tests will be made, or has the Prime Minister agreed carte blanche, so to speak, to allowing the American Government to use Christmas Island

631
and to allowing them alone to make this decision?
Fourthly, can he say what exactly is meant by our being associated with these tests on Christmas Island?
The Prime Minister: In reply to the first question, it is clear now, certainly on the assessments which we have agreed, that there is a military need, if we are not to risk being left behind in the field of anti-missile weapons, to make some tests for particular purposes connected therewith. I should like to make it clear that there will be continuous consultation between us. We have the British Scientific Technical Committee and the President's Committee. They are keeping in close and constant touch and they will be charged with the duty of ascertaining that any specific tests fall within the undertakings which the President and I gave last autumn, that they will be carried out only for essential military purposes and not for what I think I called then political or terrorist purposes.
On the second point, concerning the date when atmospheric tests will take place, the first thing we must do is to see the immediate reception of this new initiative. I should not like to go further than that today.
With regard to the association with us, we supply Christmas Island for this purpose and we will be informed under the agreements that we have already negotiated. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have the closest interchange of all information that follows.
The right hon. Gentleman's third question was whether we have the right to participate in the final decision. I would put it in this way. There will continue to be, as there is, very close consultation between us both on the scientific and political aspects. I really do not think that we shall disagree, or that there will be any question of veto, but, of course, I am hoping that we will be able to agree that further tests can be postponed. If this initiative led to any really great results, then our political and military situation would be transformed; but I must make it clear to the House that we have reached agreement in principle about the moral justification for making further tests—
632
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that neither Government would, in the end, in the unlikely event of there being disagreement, stand in the way of the other.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister answer two questions arising from that reply? First, would it not be perfectly possible to state that these atmospheric tests will not in any event take place until after the discussions in Geneva? Is there really anything to be lost by making this proposition or, indeed, stating, even if the Prime Minister does not wish to go as far as that, that if Chairman Khrushchev agrees to the proposal of the President and himself then the decision will not take place in any case until after the Geneva talks?
Secondly, can he clarify the position of the British Government? Have we already decided that, for technical, military and political considerations, it is necessary in the interests of the West for these atmospheric tests to take place? Is that really the case? It does not coincide with reports in the newspapers. If there is still a possibility of a different decision being taken, can he make it clear whether or not the British Government have any say in the matter?
The Prime Minister: The scientists are continually at work together, but we have reached the conclusion that it was necessary to prepare and that, in principle, we have, alas, the duty to make these tests if we are to maintain our position. That is what we think at the moment.
The Leader of the Opposition asked what would happen if, which I think is very unlikely after our close co-operation and working together, we should reach different conclusions. I say now—I must be frank—that neither Government will stand in the way of the other but I do not think that this will arise, for we do not work like that.
My answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, which was whether we will postpone this decision until after the negotiations, is that they may be very prolonged. I do not think that I ought to go as far as that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] After all, we carried the other ones on for three years and all the time the Russians were

633
preparing. I think that we must see where we stand after this first initiative, but I would hope that we could put our full weight on them, because if we can make an advance here nobody will be more happy, I am sure, than our people—of all parties—and the American people.
Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has made a profoundly depressing announcement to the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite do not think that it is depressing, I am astonished. Many of us who support deterrence are terrified in case it develops a sort of competitive momentum of its own and it becomes impossible ever to stop these tests.
Is it now the view that the Russian tests were of some military value, because up to now we have always been told that they were of no military value? If that is the case, can the right hon. Gentleman explain a little more why it is necessary for purely military reasons for us to hold tests in America and for the Americans to hold them on Christmas Island?
Secondly, will the Prime Minister clarify further why he has coupled his announcement of a further approach to Mr. Khrushchev about disarmament, which I am sure the whole House will welcome, because it is the only ray of hope in what he has said, with this announcement of further tests? What would be his own reaction if Mr. Khrushchev had written to him and said, "I am about to explode another bomb in Siberia, but come to conversations about disarmament"? The timing is most extraordinary.
The Prime Minister: I really think that the right hon. Gentleman has slightly, but, I am sure, unintentionally, misrepresented the situation. Last November, I said that we would not make them except if we were convinced that they were necessary militarily. We have now had the assessment, which I am bound to say has shown us that substantial advances were made in particular fields by the Russian tests. I therefore felt—I do not say happily; nor did the President—that we could not afford not to make, on however small a scale, some tests in this particular
634
scientific field, which is of so much importance.
On the other hand, it was with a very heavy heart. Therefore, we said, "Surely this is an advance. We make the preparations and then we come to you. We have not exploded 40 bombs a few months ago. We come to you and say, 'Cannot we call it off? Cannot we somehow stop this?'" Surely that is the right approach and the right posture for us to adopt.
Mr. A. Henderson: On a point of clarification, are we to understand that these proposed tests by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government are to be held up pending the achievement of a test ban agreement or, alternatively, pending the achievement of an agreement on general disarmament? There are two separate possibilities.
The Prime Minister: It would be very nice to get a test ban agreement. It would be better still to get a movement towards general disarmament. But I could not ask the American Government to hold them up until that was achieved. For three years, under great pressure, the last President held them up. We managed to keep the moratorium from one year to another. I should like to pay tribute to President Eisenhower's personal intervention in that, under great pressure.
I could not—no Prime Minister could—ask the American authorities, after what has happened, after the three years' moratorium, followed by an immediate explosion and tests on an immense scale, to say that they must postpone not only all the preparations, but even the final decision to test until these agreements are reached. However, if this initiative meets with some response, then we have a situation which might transform not only this problem, but many of the other problems which divide East and West.
Mr. Morris: Having regard to the tremendous disappointment and alarm that this announcement will cause to millions of people, and as the Americans keep to themselves many of their own nuclear secrets, how has the Prime Minister been able to satisfy himself of the absolute necessity, on military

635
grounds, of these atmospheric tests? Does he know on what reliance is being placed, and who has made this so-called assessment?
The Prime Minister: Under the two agreements of 1958 and 1959 we have a complete interchange of information, and there is complete co-operation between us. Our scientists are very distinguished men, and greatly respected in the United States, and they all work closely together. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working in absolute partnership on both the scientific and the political levels.
Mr. Mason: Is it not a fact that since the Russians unilaterally breached the test silence both Her Majesty's Government and the American Government have been placed in a very invidious position indeed; that if they decide to go forward with a series of tests they are themselves jeopardising a future international test agreement, but that if they do not there would be a danger of our falling behind in the quality of our nuclear weapons?
If the Prime Minister had the latter part in mind, and if that is responsible for the statement he has made this afternoon, will he not assure the House that the tests planned by Her Majesty's Government, and those that are to be undertaken by the Americans on our testing station, will be "clean" tests, so that there will be no radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere? The Russians, of course, managed relatively to do this, in spite of the fact that they reported tests of some of the largest of these weapons we have ever known.
Finally, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should make the case, and that it should be fully understood, that the tests are militarily necessary?
The Prime Minister: I quite appreciate that intervention which, I think, is helpful. I can assure the hon. Member that with modern techniques, the kind of atmospheric tests, if they are made, will not add significantly to fall-out. We have had this, at least, rather comforting thought, that even the massive Russian tests have not added as much fall-out as was at one time feared. The British test will, of course, be an underground
636
one, and with our particular mechanism the question of fall-out will not arise.
Sir J. Pitman: In view of the disappointing record of what has been achieved in disarmament during the last seventeen years that the Prime Minister mentioned, and in the period before the war—indeed, really going back to Charlemagne—is it not perfectly evident that the present methods of approach to disarmament are either quite impossible with nations that are sovereign States, or that they cannot give assurance that agreements will be adhered to by such sovereign States, if agreement were to be achieved?
Secondly, would what has been announced in any way preclude the Prime Minister from carrying out, what was his own proposal, the setting up of a security authority so that those who might in future be considering disarmament might then be able to look to a new body to give them the security they so badly need, and the lack of which is the reason for their continued arming?
Thirdly, while we are, though regrettably, on a balance-of-power basis, is it not absolutely clear that we must continue that balance and maintain the equilibrium in the interests of our people, and that it is thus the Government's duty to preserve it?
The Prime Minister: I think that the first parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question are valuable contributions to the, perhaps, wider aspects of the problem, but this is an immediate problem. I know that we have failed up to now, and that we may not succeed this time, but there are great forces, it may be, working on both sides, for calling a halt to these tests. If the equilibrium is to be kept, and both sides advance into this new field of very sophisticated anti-missile and other weapons, the expenditure of resources, money and effort will be tremendous, even for the United States and even for Russia.
What could be done if all that expenditure could be diverted into another field might, at this stage, be more attractive to the Russian Government now that there is, an any rate, an equilibrium. It is simply a question of whether or not to advance into the new field over a

637
long period of years at an immense expenditure of money and human resources.
Mr. G. Brown: While we all recognise that it was the Russians who broke the moratorium which held for so long, and not the West, nevertheless any announcement of a possible resumption of tests by the West is obviously of grave concern. Is there any significance in the fact that the Prime Minister used today words different from those he used in October, to which he referred? He then said that we would only resume tests for compelling military or scientific reasons, but today, referring to our own Nevada test, the right hon. Gentleman said that we intended to have the new test there because we were convinced that we could get substantial benefit from it? There is all the world of difference between one side thinking that it is getting substantial benefit, and a clear and inescapable recognition that it faces a compelling need. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend his words to be different and, if so, does he think this is the absolute inescapable need of which he spoke?
Secondly, in view of the extent to which the Prime Minister has spoken today about the defensive countermeasures to make sure that the offensive balance is not disturbed—which I understand very clearly—and in view of the very firm statement made by the Minister of Defence, on 1st November, that, in his view, the future development of nuclear weapons could lie only in the field of this kind of weapon, which he thought, as he then said, could be kept underground, can the Prime Minister assure us that the tests which are to take place in Nevada are for these defensive purposes, and are not an attempt to extend the British offensive capacity?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider what my right hon. Friend has said to him about being willing to defer both our test and that of the Americans on Christmas Island in order to see what response we get to the suggestion that there should be a meeting of the three Foreign Ministers?
The Prime Minister: I think that I have already dealt with the last point. In fact, the technical preparations in Christmas Island have not even begun.
638
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's other point, I think that I made the distinction in November—I certainly meant to—between the underground and the atmospheric test. The underground test is for a purpose about which I know he will not press me; it is connected with the existing weapon system—I will put it that way. There may be some other advantages, and it has none of the disadvantages of the atmospheric test. The Americans have made one or two lately.
There comes the question of doing this only for compelling military reasons, for getting back into this terrible thing—because it is terrible to start again—the atmospheric tests. On the other hand, I put it quite frankly to the House, I do not believe that any British Prime Minister could ask any American President—after the experience of the three years' moratorium, and after the sudden explosion of these tests, prepared all the time when we were not doing them—to call them off. What I do think—and I know that the President feels this deeply—is that we should make another effort, and we have today joined together to do that.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all unprejudiced people will recognise the patience which Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government have shown over a number of years in continuing these negotiations in the face of great duplicity on the part of the Russians? Is he further aware that the Russians' knowledge that we have a determination in the West to protect ourselves against these dangers can be a strong incentive to coming to some agreement over testing?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I feel that the British Government have tried to do their duty here. We owe a good deal both to the last American Administration and to the present one for the way in which they have approached this problem. The last Administration, under very great pressure, held off from one year to another, largely under President Eisenhower's own personal direction. I am sure that no one is more anxious to see disarmament and a movement forward than is President Kennedy, as we all know.
Mr. Driberg: Is the Prime Minister aware that some hon. Members on this side of the House are strongly prejudiced—in favour of human survival? When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of "compelling military and scientific reasons" for this new essay in genocide, will he treat with the utmost reserve any information that emanates from the United States Atomic Energy Commission, which has, in the past, put out to the public information which has subsequently been proved false—though it has been retracted and corrected very reluctantly?
The Prime Minister: I regard—and I think that the House as a whole does, also—the maintenance of the equilibrium as being essential to the maintenance of our liberty. I do not think that it was fair of the hon. Gentleman to have made the imputation in the second part of his question. I have the utmost faith in the scientists working on both sides and I know from experience—and I believe that the House knows—the immense skill and knowledge of the scientists who represent us and who advise us.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: While, for my part, I welcome the initiative which the Prime Minister and the President are taking with Mr. Khrushchev and while I regard it as much the most important part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon, can he say, regarding the tests, whether he has seen the full and frank statement made by Dr. Bethe, who was the Chairman of President Kennedy's Commission of Inquiry into the Russian tests? In view of the great importance of the conclusions which Dr. Bethe reaches, might the House have the text of that statement available for the use of hon. Members?
The Prime Minister: If it was a public statement I will certainly try to see whether it can be made available in the Library. Scientists, of course, like other experts, differ in the emphasis they make, but I have absolute confidence in the advice I have been given today. Our two committees meet the whole-time; we are in close touch. I am quite sure that we are only anxious to reach the right solutions on the advice given to us, both the President and myself.
Mr. Brockway: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the
640
House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to initiate discussions to make Christmas Island available for the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons by the Government of the United States of America.
First, this question is, I submit, definite. The right hon. Gentleman has said that a decision has been reached in principle, that discussions are to be initiated and that Her Majesty's Government will not be able to repudiate a decision by the American Government if they regard these tests as necessary. Secondly, it is urgent. Whenever the testing takes place, the determining decision has been made now. This decision will prejudice the disarmament discussions which are to take place in Geneva and, however unreasonably, they will incite counter-action by the Russian Government. Thirdly, this is a matter of public importance. It will be of paramount influence not only on the course of disarmament, but maybe the occurrence and nature of war. And it is the matter of the gravest concern to large numbers of people in this country.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to initiate discussions to make Christmas Island available for the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons by the Government of the United States of America.
My duty in deciding whether or no to leave this to the House clearly depends on the timetable. What I am told is that no one has started making any preparations on Christmas Island yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That was the information given to me by the Prime Minister in the presence of the House a moment ago. If something were to happen tomorrow, or Saturday, or short of the weekend, the situation would be different, but I do not see how I can get this within the Standing Order on that information. Accordingly, I must decline the application of the hon. Member.
Mr. Brockway: May I respectfully suggest that the Prime Minister stated in the House today that discussions are to

641
be immediately initiated for the preparation of these atmospheric tests? In view of that, is it not important that the House of Commons should have an immediate opportunity to declare its opinion on that decision?
Mr. Speaker: I am following the hon. Member's argument and I had it in mind. The distinction from the point of view of my duty is whether it is a matter which should be discussed today or at some early opportunity. Taking that view, I do not consider it a matter of urgency requiring the House to discuss it today.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Silverman.
Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the urgency indicated not in the discussions which are to follow upon the decision which has been taken, but the decision itself? The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that a decision has already been taken—an agreement has already been made—to make Christmas Island available for this purpose to the United States. Is that not urgent, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I really do not want to argue on this. I do not accept that view. The decision is a past matter and, therefore, does not assist me in this. If something were to be done effectively under it in the sense of launching a test on Christmas Island before the House could discuss it, I would be dealing with a different position. I am sorry—and I have thought about this; I did so, of course, before I came into the Chamber—but I do not think that this comes under the Standing Order and that I must ask the House to take my Ruling on it.
Mr. Harold Davies: Further to that point of order. I respectfully submit that there is a matter of human rights because the decision has been made. There are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen who have no representation at all, who have appealed to the United Nations about the growing chances of leukaemia and who have pointed out to the scientific authorities——
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is quite clear is that the hon. Gentleman may not make a speech about it. I will hear him if he has a point of order.
Mr. Davies: The point is that there are subjects of Her Majesty who have
642
no other forum, but who will be immediately affected, namely, the inhabitants of Christmas Island. They have appealed, but the massive Powers have taken no notice whatever. We ought, therefore, to be concerned immediately about their future and their human rights.
Mr. Speaker: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman does not touch the point of urgency in relation to the Standing Order. I must ask the House to take my decision about it and deal with me if it does not agree.
Mr. Bowles: May I put this to you, Sir? You said a few moments ago that there was not any urgency about a discussion in the House because the decision has been taken. If we have a proper discussion of the matter, it could mean the Government's downfall. That is the whole object of the exercise.
Mr. Speaker: I receive all propositions of that kind with the greatest neutral enthusiasm in the kind of active neutralism which I practise, but it does not assist me in ruling in relation to urgency under the Standing Order. I do not propose to hear further points about it.
Mrs. Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—a new point of order.
Mr. Warbey Mr. Warbey rose——
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: Order—on both sides of the House. I do not propose to hear any argument about my Rulings upon points of order. I hear the hon. Lady saying that she has a new point of order. If it relates to my Ruling, I respectfully say that I do not wish to hear it. If it is another point of order, I will, of course, hear it.
Mrs. Hart: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to grant facilities for the testing of nuclear weapons at Christmas Island in direct contravention of the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which the United Kingdom is a member, of 16th November, 1961, which declared the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons to be contrary to the spirit, letter and aims of the

643
Charter of the United Nations, and in direct violation of the Charter inasmuch as the testing and development of nuclear weapons carries with it an assumption that they may be used.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter which ought to be discussed by the House immediately in that it is not the testing of the weapons but the decision to grant facilities which constitutes a violation of the Charter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to grant facilities for the testing of nuclear weapons at Christmas Island in direct contravention of the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which the United Kingdom is a member, of 16th November, 1961, which declared the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons to be contrary to the spirit, letter and aims of the Charter of the United Nations, and in direct violation of the Charter inasmuch as the testing and development of nuclear weapons carries with it an assumption that they may be used.
I cannot accede to the hon. Lady's application. It does not add to the
644
urgency aspect of the problem within the Standing Order from my point of view. No doubt, it will be an admirable argument when we come to discuss the matter later.
Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I want to be sure that the hon. Gentleman is raising another point of order. If not, I am asking the House to take my Ruling.
Mr. Warbey: I am raising a point of order in respect of the submission made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). Am I allowed to do that, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: I must ask the House to take my Ruling.
Mr. Warbey: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which I have been given an opportunity to put a point on a matter of vital public importance.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot argue my Rulings on points of order. If the House wishes to challenge them, it must deal with me in the proper way.

ARMY RESERVE BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Report [6th February] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]
The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 165.

Division No. 76.]

AYES

[4.36 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Aitken, W. T.

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Gammans, Lady

Mawby, Ray

Allason, James

Gardner, Edward

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Arbuthnot, John

Gibson-Watt, David

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

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Gilmour, Sir John

Mills, Stratton

Balniel, Lord

Glover, Sir Douglas

Montgomery, Fergus

Barber, Anthony

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Barter, John

Goodhart, Philip

Morgan, William

Batsford, Brian

Goodhew, Victor

Morrison, John

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Bell, Ronald

Green, Alan

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Berkeley, Humphry

Gurden Harold

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Biffen, John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Biggs-Davison, John

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Bingham, R. M.

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.w.)

Partridge, E.

Bishop, F. P.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Black, Sir Cyril

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Peel, John

Bossom, Clive

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Bourne-Arton, A

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Box, Donald

Hastings, Stephen

Pitman, Sir James

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hay, John

Pitt, Miss Edith

Brewis, John

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Brooke, Bt. Hon. Henry

Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

Prior, J. M. L.

Brooman-White, R.

Hendry, Forbes

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Brown, Percy (Torrington)

Hiley, Joseph

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Bryan, Paul

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Ramsden, James

Buck, Antony

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Rawlinson, Peter

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Hirst, Geoffrey

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Burden, F. A.

Holland, Phillip

Renton, David

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

Hollingworth, John

Ridsdale, Julian

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hornby, R. P.

Rippon, Geoffrey

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Cary, Sir Robert

Hughes-Young, Michael

Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

Channon, H. P. G.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Roots, William

Chataway, Christopher

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Russell, Ronald

Chichester-Clark, R.

Iremonger, T. L.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Seymour, Leslie

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

James, David

Sharples, Richard

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Shaw, M.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Cleaver, Leonard

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

Cole, Norman

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Collard, Richard

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Cooke, Robert

Kerens, Cdr. J. S.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Cooper, A. E.

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Corfield, F. V.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Stodart, J. A.

Costain, A. P.

Kershaw, Anthony

Storey, Sir Samuel

Coulson, Michael

Kirk, Peter

Studholme, Sir Henry

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Leavey, J. A.

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

LeggeBourke, Sir Harry

Tapsell, Peter

Curran, Charles

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Currie, G. B. H.

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

Dance, James

Litchfield, Capt. John

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

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Teeling, Sir William

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Temple, John M.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Longden, Gilbert

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Doughty, Charles

Loveys, Walter H.

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Drayson, G. B.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

du Cann, Edward

McAdden, Stephen

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

McLaren, Martin

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Eden, John

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Turner, Colin

Eliot, Captain Walter (Carshalton)

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

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

McMaster, Stanley R.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Emery, Peter

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Maddan, Martin

Vane, W. M. F.

Errington, Sir Eric

Maitland, Sir John

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Manningham Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Farr, John

Marshall, Douglas

Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

Fisher, Nigel

Marten, Neil

Walker, Peter

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Woodnutt, Mark

Ward, Dune Irene

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Woollam, John

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Worsley, Marcus

Webster, David

Wise, A. R.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Whitelaw, William

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Woodhouse, C. M.

Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

NOES

Albu, Austen

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Probert, Arthur

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Proctor, W. T.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hilton, A. V.

Randall, Harry

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Holman, Percy

Rankin, John

Bence, Cyril

Holt, Arthur

Redhead, E. C.

Benson, sir George

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Reynolds, G. W.

Blackburn, F.

Hoy, James H.

Rhodes, H.

Blyton, William

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Hunter, A. E.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Bowles Frank

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Ross, William

Boyden, James

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Short, Edward

Brockway, A. Fenner

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Janner, Sir Barnett

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Skeffington, Arthur

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jeger, George

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Callaghan, James

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

Small, William

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Snow, Julian

Chapman, Donald

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Cliffe, Michael

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Spriggs, Leslie

Cronin, John

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Steele, Thomas

Darling, George

Kelley, Richard

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Stonehouse, John

Davies, Harold (Leek)

King, Dr. Horace

Stones, William

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Deer, George

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Swingler, Stephen

Diamond, John

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Symonds, J. B.

Dodds, Norman

Lipton, Marcus

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Donnelly, Desmond

MacCott, James

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Driberg, Tom

McKay, John (Wallsend)

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

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Thornton, Ernest

Edwards, Robert (Bileton)

McLeavy, Frank

Thorpe, Jeremy

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Manuel, A. C.

Tomney, Frank

Evans, Albert

Marsh, Richard

Wade, Donald

Fernyhough, E.

Mellish, R. J.

Warbey, William

Fitch, Alan

Mendelson, J. J.

Weitzman, David

Fletcher, Eric

Millan, Bruce

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Milne, Edward

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mitchison, G. R.

White, Mrs. Elrene

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Monslow, Walter

Whitlock, William

Galpern, Sir Myer

Moody, A. S.

Wigg, George

Ginsburg, David

Moyle, Arthur

Willey, Frederick

Gourlay, Harry

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

Grey, Charles

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Oliver, G. H.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Oram, A. E.

Winterbottom, R. E.

Gunter, Ray

Owen, Will

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Paget, R. T.

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Parker, John

Zilliacus, K.

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Parkin, B. T.

Hannan, William

Pavitt, Laurence

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Peart, Frederick

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and

Hayman, F. H.

Pentland, Norman

Mr, Lawson.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

Prentice, R. E.

Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report,
put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee):—
The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 163.

Division No. 77.]

AYES

[4.46 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Balniel, Lord

Bell, Ronald

Aitken, W. T.

Barber, Anthony

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Barter, John

Berkeley, Humphry

Allason, James

Batsford, Blan

Biffen, John

Arbuthnot, John

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgats)

Biggs-Davison, John

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Bingham, R. M.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Bishop, F. P.

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Peel, John

Black, Sir Cyril

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Bossom, Clive

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Bourne-Arton, A.

Hastings, Stephen

Pitman, Sir James

Box, Donald

Hay, John

Pitt, Miss Edith

Boyle, Sir Edward

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Brewis, John

Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

Prior, J. M. L.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hendry, Forbes

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Brooman-White, R.

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Ramsden, James

Bryan, Paul

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

Rawlinson, Peter

Buck, Antony

Hirst, Geoffrey

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Holland, Philip

Renton, David

Burden, F. A.

Hollingworth, John

Ridsdale, Julian

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

Hornby, R. P.

Rippon, Geoffrey

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

Cary, Sir Robert

Hughes-Young, Michael

Roots, William

Channon, H. P. G.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Russell, Ronald

Chataway, Christopher

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Scott-Hopkins, James

Chichester-Clark, R.

Iremonger, T. L.

Seymour, Leslie

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Sharples, Richard

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

James, David

Shaw, M.

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Shepherd, William

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Cleaver, Leonard

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

Cole, Norman

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Collard, Richard

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Cooke, Robert

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Stevens, Geoffrey

Cooper, A. E.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Corfield, F. V.

Kershaw, Anthony

Stodart, J. A.

Costain, A. P.

Kirk, Peter

Storey, Sir Samuel

Coupon, Michael

Leavey, J. A.

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Leburn, Gilmour

Tapsell, Peter

Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Curran, Charles

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r.Moss Side)

Currie, G. B. H.

Litchfield, Capt. John

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

Dance, James

Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Teeling, Sir William

d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Temple, John M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Longden, Gilbert

Thomae, Leslie (Canterbury)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Loveys, Walter H.

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Doughty, Charles

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Drayson, G. B.

McAdden, Stephen

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon

du Cann, Edward

McLaren, Martin

Turner, Colin

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Eden, John

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

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

van Straubenzee, W. R,

Elliott, R. W. (Nwcatle-upon-Tyne, N.)

McMaster, Stanley R.

Vane, W. M. F.

Emery, Peter

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Errington, Sir Eric

Maddan, Martin

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Maitland, Sir John

Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Walker, Peter

Farr, John

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Finlay, Graeme

Marshall, Douglas

Ward, Dame Irene

Fisher, Nigel

Marten, Nell

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Webster, David

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Gammans, Lady

Mawby, Ray

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Gardner, Edward

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Gibson-Watt, David

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

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Gilmour, Sir John

Mills, Stratton

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Glover, Sir Douglas

Montgomery, Fergus

Wise, A. R.

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Goodhart, Philip

Morgan, William

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Goodhew, Victor

Morrison, John

Woodhouse, C. M.

Grant, Rt. Hon, William

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Woodnutt, Mark

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Woollam, John

Green, Alan

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Worsley, Marcus

Gresham Cooke, R.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Gurden, Harold

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Mr. Whitelaw and

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Mr. Gordon Campbell.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Partridge, E.

NOES

Albu, Austen

Blackburn, F,

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Blyton, William

Brockway, A. Fenner

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Bowen, Roderick (Cardigan)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Bence Cyril

Bowles Frank

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Benson, Sir George

Boyden, James

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

650

651

Callaghan, James

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Chapman, Donald

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Ross, William

Cliffe, Michael

Jeger, George

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Cronin, John

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Short, Edward

Darling, George

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

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Skeffington, Arthur

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Deer, George

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Diamond, John

Kelley, Richard

Small, William

Donnelly, Desmond

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Snow, Julian

Driberg, Tom

King, Dr. Horace

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Spriggs, Leslie

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Steele, Thomas

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Evans, Albert

Lipton, Marcus

Stonehouse, John

Fernyhough, E.

MacColl, James

Stones, William

Fitch, Alan

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Fletcher, Eric

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Swingler, Stephen

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

McLeavy, Frank

Symonds, J. B.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Manuel, A. C.

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Marsh, Richard

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mellish, R. J.

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

Ginsburg, David

Mendelson, J. J.

Thornton, Ernest

Gourlay, Harry

Millan, Bruce

Thorpe, Jeremy

Grey, Charles

Milne, Edward

Tomney, Frank

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wade, Donald

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Monslow, Walter

Warbey, William

Gunter, Ray

Moody, A. S.

Weitzman, David

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)

Moyle, Arthur

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Noel Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby, S.)

White, Mrs. Eirene

Hannan, William

Oliver, G. H.

Whitlock, William

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Oram, A. E.

Wigg, George

Hayman, F. H.

Owen, Will

Willey, Frederick

Healey, Denis

Paget, R. T.

Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Parker, John

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Parkin, B. T.

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Pavitt, Laurence

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Hilton, A. V.

Peart, Frederick

Winterbottom, R. E.

Holman, Percy

Pentland, Norman

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Holt, Arthur

Prentice, R. E.

Woof, Robert

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Probert, Arthur

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hoy, James H.

Proctor, W. T.

Zilliacus, K.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Randall, Harry

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Redhead, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hunter, A. E.

Reynolds, G. W.

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers add

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rhodes, H.

Mr. Lawson.

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That, subject to the provisions of the Order [25th January],—

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration of the Army Reserve Bill shall, it not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at half-past Seven o'clock on the day which under the Order [25th January] is given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading; and

(b) the Proceedings on Third Reading of the Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion in pursuance of that Order at half-past Ten o'clock on that day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ARMY RESERVE BILL
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the
  652
  Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 21, and Clause 2, page 2, line 36, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. George Wigg.—[Mr. Wigg.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  ARMY RESERVE BILL

    Clause 1.—(RETENTION OF NATIONAL SERVICEMEN IN ARMY SERVICE.)
    4.56 p.m.
    The Chairman: In calling the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in page 1, line 21, to add a new subsection (3), I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with it the second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, in Clause 2, page 2, line 36, to add a new subsection (4).
    Mr. George Wigg: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
    (3) Any person retained under this section shall be deemed to be a member of the Territorial Army for the purposes of section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, and by an order made under the said section eleven on release from full-time service shall receive a sum equal to the excess over his actual pay of what he would have received during the period of his retained service as a soldier serving an engagement of six years or an officer holding a regular commission (as the case may be).
    On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for War was kind enough to give the House information about the rates of pay that the men who are either held under Clause 1 or recalled under Clause 2 will receive. If I may quote the words used by the right hon. Gentleman then, he said:
    "If a volunteer was called up, he would receive the appropriate Regular rates of pay and allowances that I have already described."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 53.]
    We noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, in making this announcement about the appropriate Regular rates of pay, did not say anything about officers, and I believe that the assumption has gone out that an officer will receive rates of pay under Appendix 2, or perhaps Part II of Appendix 1, as shown in the Army Estimates, page 212. At that point, the rates of pay are divided up as between a National Service officer's rates of pay during the first eighteen months of whole-time service, and the second part of the rates of pay, which is headed "After eighteen months of whole-time service."
    The purpose of my Amendment concerning officers is to ensure that an officer shall be treated as a Regular or short-service officer. It may well be that it always has been the intention of the Secretary of State that officers who are held under Clause 1 or who are recalled under Clause 2 shall receive the rates of pay in that category, and not in the second part of the category applicable to National Service officers. If that is so, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will think that I have done him a good turn in giving him an opportunity to make his purpose plain, and it will also cheer up the National Service officers who are to be held, so that the right hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty about accepting that part of my Amendment.
    654
    When we come to the other ranks, we are in some difficulty, because what the right hon. Gentleman said was that the pay increases would be at the appropriate Regular rates, and I quote from what he said on Second Reading:
    "From the date when they would have been released they will receive the increased rates of pay laid down for men on three-year Regular engagements—".—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 27th November, 1961; Vol. 640, c. 49.]
    In announcing that, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman thought that he was going to be generous, but during the Committee stage he was brought face to face with the consequences of his policy by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I am sure that this was in his mind, and that he thought he was being generous, but let us look at the facts. The rates of pay these men are to get are the rates of pay in category A of the Schedule contained in the Estimates, and they are related to men who are serving on a three-year engagement.
    I was never an admirer of that engagement, to put it mildly, and I regard myself as one of the minor prophets in having foreseen what the consequences would be. Seven years after it happened, the Government came to my point of view in the middle of 1957 and withdrew the short-service engagement as the basic engagement for the Army as a whole, but retained it for certain categories. They retained it for the Brigade of Guards and the Household Brigade. It was retained for certain categories in the Army Catering Corps and the Intelligence Corps. The Government made clear that they would limit the number of men who could join on the short-service engagement. I would not say that they did it because I asked them. At least, the point was reached, as in all defence matters, when they were forced to face the logic of their own policies. The country is still paying the price.
    5.0 p.m.
    The overwhelming majority of the men who will be either recalled or held will not be serving in the Brigade of Guards. I should not be surprised if the Brigade of Guards is so popular that it gets all the Regular recruits that its wants so easily that it will not need to have anyone back. They may be wanted in the

    655
    infantry and, perhaps to a lesser degree in the Royal Armoured Corps, but certainly they will be wanted in the R.A.M.C., the R.A.S.C. and the R.A.O.C. In these units, normal engagement will be six years
    The test of the generosity of the War Office is not the kindly heart of the Secretary of State for War, but the pay packet as it is received on Fridays. What will be the effect on a man who is either held or recalled to find that all those around him get a bigger pay packet? A man may have enlisted on a Regular engagement, but his twin brother who is either held or recalled will find that all he gets is a little bit extra. Such a man could not switch to a short-service engagement, for the minimum engagement will be six years. In other words, the rates of pay which the Secretary of State asks or will compel these men to accept are rates which are not applicable to the arm of the Service to which the overwhelming majority of these men will be recalled.
    In the past, there have been the queerest anomalies about Army pay. I remember—I was serving at the time—when a clean break was made after the First World War and for a few months everything was straight. One had either a tradesman's or a non-tradesman's rate of pay. Then, in 1920, an Army order was issued about proficiency pay. We all knew where we were. It was not long, however, before exceptions were made about such things as reserve rights and qualifications. Nothing did more to cause and bad feeling in a unit than when men were doing the same job but one of them got one rate of pay, another got another rate of pay and nobody understood what the entitlement was.
    Mr. A. R. Wise: Except the colour sergeant.
    Mr. Wigg: And not always the colour sergeant. He may have done some explaining, but he did not always know. What should have been something quite simple became extremely complicated. Here, we are at it again.
    Those who are as old as myself or a little older will remember that nothing caused more in the Army in the First World War than the exigencies of
    656
    the Service which compelled the War Office, because of its lack of forethought, to give an R.A.S.C. driver 5s. or 6s. a day to take the ammunition up to the line, whereas the man who did the firing and took the can back got 1s. a day. In the last war, the major discontent was that the further away a man was from operations, the more pay he got.
    The star system was to the credit of the Labour Government, although I can only think that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State and his colleagues did not know what they were doing, for I do not know why the system was abandoned without protest from our own benches. Today, the fighting soldier is a mechanic who handles complicated equipment costing a great deal of money. That fact was recognised in the star system and the ordinary fighting soldier was given pay for the techniques which he had to acquire and use. That seems to me to be fair.
    Again, the Secretary of State for War has lost another fight with the Army's ancient and permanent enemy, the Treasury, which has abandoned the policy of buttering the paws of the troops. As one would expect, the Treasury is generous only when it must be; and when it can be mean, it is. The decision of the Secretary of State as reported in column 49 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 27th November, which appears to be a generous policy, was certainly not thought out, if that announcement is correct, in relation to officers. In the case of other ranks, it is less than fair because it does not face the facts of the situation.
    My Amendment is a simple one. It would put right the wrong concerning the officer. Therefore, the Secretary of State should accept that the case for the Amendment is overwhelming. In the case of the other ranks, I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman has had time to consider the Amendment and will consider the debate on my previous Amendment concerning the bounty, when, with only one exception, hon. Members on both sides who spoke supported my Amendment. I believe that the same thing will happen today. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will enable us to make up some of the time we have lost by accepting

    657
    my Amendments, both on Clause 1 and and Clause 2, without further discussion.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) feels when speaking to a Committee packed to full capacity with standing room only. What is it that drives hon. Members away when we are discussing Army matters? These are matters of considerable importance, particularly when we are discussing the situation of the National Service men who either are to be retained for an additional six months or, having left the Service, are to be brought back into it for an additional six months, and, in particular, when we are now discussing an Amendment concerning the emoluments of the men in question, for whom it is an important and vital consideration. However, there it is and we have to make the best of it.
    I am not very much concerned with the technicalities of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley argues learnedly on matters of this sort. I am concerned with the practical application of the matters that we have had under review in Committee in relation to remuneration. Before we dispose of the Amendment, I should like the Secretary of State for War to tell the Committee the exact rates of pay which the two categories of National Service men are to receive.
    First, we have the category of men who are retained for an additional six months. The Secretary of State and I had some controversy on this subject during the earlier Committee stage. I gather from what he wrote to me and from what subsequently was said in Committee that the National Service men of a certain grade and after a certain period of service would receive the same remuneration as privates second grade who had enlisted in the Regular Forces for a period of six years. That is how I understood it. Boiled down to practical considerations, that would mean that National Service men in this category who are to be retained for six months will receive 16s. a day. I should like to be reassured about that.
    Now, I come to the second category, the men who after two years with the Colours as National Service men, then leave, either to resume their civil avocations or to embark on a career of what-
    658
    ever kind it may be, and are then drawn back into the Service because of this alleged crisis or emergency and have to serve another six months. I want to know What they are to receive.
    It has been pointed out over and over again, on Second Reading and in Committee, that nobody doubts the unfairness and possible injustice which are likely to emerge as a result of the provisions of the Bill. Men who have served two years will discover all of a sudden that they have to stay for another six months, when they were hoping to leave the Service and embark on a career, engage in a trade, or resume an apprenticeship. There will be men also, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) has remarked, who will have left the Service after two years and embarked on a career. Perhaps they will have entered the medical profession or will be about to enter a practice in that or some other profession. Perhaps they will have just terminated their apprenticeship, have become craftsmen or have engaged in small business operations. These men are now to be forcibly taken away from their civil occupations and brought back into the Service.
    There may be a case for this. I have never been happy about it and perhaps we can discuss it on Third Reading later today. The Secretary of State for War knows his own business best, and those who have served in Service Departments know that extraordinary difficulties arise the details of which cannot always be conveyed to people outside the Department. I accept that, but if men are to be treated in this fashion, which will seem unjust and unfair to them and to their friends and relatives and to the public generally, then for heaven's sake let us treat them reasonably in the matter of pay.
    The right hon. Gentleman rejected the idea of a bounty for these men. It is to be paid to the "Ever-readies", the men who volunteer through the Territorial Army for Regular service. I take no exception to that and I have said so previously in Committee. I do not dislike the idea of the "Ever-readies". It is the best part of the Bill, but if a bounty is to be applied to the "Ever-readies" surely some additional remuneration should be paid to the ex-National

    659
    Service men and the men who are to be retained for another six months so as to bring them up to the level of the Regulars. They should be paid, if not the "Ever-readies" bounty, then at any rate something approximating to it. This is the purpose of the Amendment, which I think is very reasonable.
    I should like to have from the right hon. Gentleman some reassurance of my impression, and it is no more than that, that the intention was to see that the National Service men who with 16 months' to 18 months' service receive about 11s. a day will go up to 16s. a day as a minimum, because they have entered the grade which is approximate to the Regular grade where men have enlisted for six years. If there is injustice and unfairness, and if there is apprehension in the minds of the men concerned and of their friends and relatives and of hon. Members, we can at least say to these men, "If you are being extracted forcibly from your civil occupation you will lose a great deal both as regards your career and your remuneration, but at any rate the Army will treat you reasonably." That is what I would do if I were in the right hon. Gentleman's place and I hope that he will do it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned what was done when we had a Labour Government and we had the star system. He was a little mischievous when he said that the reason why we adopted that scheme was that we did not know what we were doing. Very well, but we raised pay, pensions and gratuities beyond the expectations of the men in the Army.
    Mr. Wigg: I congratulated the Labour Government. I supported them, over and over again, but the difficulty was that I was the only one to take the trouble to find out what they were doing. All I said was that I could not understand why, having been introduced, the star system has been done away with without protest.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: That is better. As long as my hon. Friend discharges adequately his duty of criticising the present Government as well as occasionally expressing his displeasure with the Labour
    660
    Government, I do not mind. However, our co-operation was effective, and I am sure quite adequate. It has been maintained over a period of years, to the surprise of many people who cannot understand how co-operation of this kind can stand up to the ravages of time and the criticism to which it is subjected in certain quarters.
    At any rate, that is what we did. Our purpose at the time can be expressed in a phrase which I then used. When I left the Ministry of Fuel and Power I said, "I want to treat the soldiers as well as the miners should be treated." In other words, I wanted to see the men in the Services, whether National Service men or Regulars, including the officers, treated as well as men in similar capacities in civil life. I hope that that is what the right hon. Gentleman would do and that if he cannot accept the Amendment he will give an assurance that the men will be treated as well as they expect and we hope.
    Mr. William Yates: I follow the right hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) in saying that I also should have thought that the Committee would have been better attended. I have had a great number of letters from young people in this category who have been or are to be doctors or members of some other profession. It is astonishing when one thinks of their predicament. They may be about to take up a scholarship to some university abroad. They may want to attend a course in America, or they may have an appointment in one of the London hospitals, and they are to be recalled. Some of them in this class of recall do not know whether they will be recalled. It seems to be altogether a most unfortunate position for many of them.
    If we are to treat these specialist people like this then frankly, judging from what I have been told by constituents, both officers in the R.A.M.C. and other ranks, the Committee should accept the Amendment and make absolutely certain that those who are called under this pernicious form of selection shall be treated during the time in which they have to serve the country as if they were part of the Regular Forces of the Crown. I therefore support the Amendment in relation to those officers and other ranks. The country has put these

    661
    young men into a very difficult predicament, and we must therefore pay them an adequate reward for their service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I am sure that the Committee will agree with me when I say that I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) back with us and in good voice. We missed him during our last discussions and I thought that even the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was not absolutely his own brilliant self without the stimulus of his hon. Friend. We are glad to have heard them both in action again today. Something was said about there not being a great number of hon. Members present. In a sense that may be understandable, because, in the absence of the hon. Member for Dudley, we had a fairly exhaustive discussion of this subject at the conclusion of the Committee stage. But that is not to say that the hon. Gentleman has not done the Committee a service in moving his Amendment and giving the Government another opportunity of trying to explain exactly how this matter stands.
    The hon. Gentleman began by asking me a question about the rates of pay of officers, and I think that I could well begin by giving him the assurance that he seeks. The pay of officers is differently based from the pay of other ranks, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it depends in all cases on rank and length of service. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is to be found at page 208 of the Army Estimates where he will see the rates of pay and allowances of Regular officers and short-service officers, and those are the rates which will be applicable to National Service officers under my right hon. Friend's proposals.
    During the debate in Committee, there was a certain amount of discussion between the right hon. Member for Easington, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about comparisons between rates of pay, and I shall endeavour later in my remarks to answer the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked and try to clear up the matter once for all. But I do not want to go too deeply and become too involved in giving specific figures about specific rates because they are difficult to understand across the Floor of the
    662
    Committee. I have the details with me and I shall, in order to elucidate the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman, refer to the Army Estimates where the information is all set out, but I do not believe that the principle raised by the hon. Member for Dudley turns on these details. I think it is a matter of principle which I can discuss and explain better, leaving the details apart.
    The question, as I see it, is simply this. In his speech on Second Reading my right hon. Friend announced that retained and recalled National Service men would get the rate of Regular pay applicable to men serving on a three-year Regular engagement. He went on to explain that this increase of pay for those affected was intended as some measure of compensation for what they are being told they must undertake.
    The hon. Member for Dudley today has, I think, sought to imply that this increase is not enough and that we are not being sufficiently generous. All I can say is that if he will refresh his memory—he may not even need to refresh it—and consider, for example, what was proposed in 1950 when hon. Members opposite were in our position and when National Service men who were retained were brought up to the Regular rate at the beginning of the Korean War, and compare that with what my right hon. Friend is now proposing, noting the respective increases that were made then and are being proposed now, I do not think that the figures will entitle him to press any charge of a lack of generosity upon my right hon. Friend's proposals. I think the comparison stands up extremely well.
    The right hon. Member for Easington asked me about some details on which he had had correspondence with my right hon. Friend. The comparisons that were given to him by my right hon. Friend were selected comparisons picked out from among the various grades and trades in the Army, as mentioned in the Estimates, but the comparisons were made between Regulars in those various grades and trades, and National Service men in comparable grades and trades. The best way to clear this up is to refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 220 of the Army Estimates where he will find the rates of pay of National Service men.

    663
    He should compare the details that he finds there with the same classifications which he will find on pages 216 and 218, and he will see there set out the answer to his question. Comparable grades and trades among National Service men will go on to the rate as laid down for Regulars, but it will be in accordance with my right hon. Friend's original proposal, the rate for three-year men. I will go on to explain that in reply to the hon. Member for Dudley.
    I always study with great care the speeches of the right hon. Member for Easington and I was struck by something that he said in Committee on 31st January of this year. He said that the disparity between the pay of the National Service men and the Regulars
    "has been operating ever since the beginning of the National Service Act. I had something to do with it. We provided a differentiation in pay. It was done for this purpose, in order to persuade the National Service men to join up for a longer period in the Regular Force, and it succeeded to a considerable extent"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 1162.]
    The right hon. Gentleman's ideas have stood the test of time, and this principle of a higher rate of pay for an obligation to do a longer term of service was, as I think he knows, taken up in 1956 when a new pay code was introduced which improved all Regular rates of pay. As a result of that, men on engagements of less than six years get one rate of Regular pay, those doing six years and more but less than nine get another rate, and those doing nine or more get a higher rate still, and so on.
    The hon. Member for Dudley rather dismissed this principle of a higher rate for a longer term of service——
    Mr. Wigg Mr. Wigg indicated dissent.
    Mr. Ramsden: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought he rather played down the question of a higher rate for a committal to a longer term of service. He said there would be discrepancies as between what one man in a corps was paid and the pay of an other man in the same corps. Of course, that happens all the time. We have in a corps, side by side with each other, doing the same job of work, a man who is committed to the six-year term and a man who is committed to the nine year term, and they will be on different
    664
    rates of pay. They will be doing the same duties but will be paid differently.
    Mr. Wigg: Let me explain that I supported the differential when my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) introduced it. The acceptance of the principle of the differential, to my mind, was a very brave step for my right hon. Friend to take, particularly as the Labour Government had a narrow majority of six. It had my support then, and the principle has my support now. I think it is absolutely the right principle. What the Under-Secretary overlooks is this. The differential will be operating, let us say, in the Ordnance Corps. The flaw is to be found in the rate of pay which the men will get in their pay packets. If in the Ordnance Corps there will be men serving a short-service engagement in Category A, where these men are going to be, I should not have tabled this Amendment. But the hon. Gentleman is introducing a minimum below the rate which will be applicable in the units to which the overwhelming majority of these men will be sent. That is the point to which he ought to address his mind.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ramsden: I take the point put by the hon. Gentleman. I think that what I shall say shortly will go at least some way to meet it. He has explained the principle of the differential. I think that it is a good principle and one that is clearly understood. It would be a mistake to breach it even in favour of these National Service men. It would not be fair to the rest of the Army.
    The principle of the Regular Army pay code is that the longer a man is prepared to undertake to spend in the Army the higher the scale of pay which he will get as a Regular. That scale is easy to understand. It would be contrary to that principle to pay men who were not so committed as though they were committed to serve for six to nine years. Even supposing we were persuaded that it was right to throw aside this principle in the case of the retained men and give them the higher rates, then we should again arrive at a position where it would be unfair to the men who are on Regular engagements of less than six years. I

    665
    do not see how we could justify paying National Service men higher rates than these Regulars are getting.
    The hon. Member for Dudley rightly said that the three-year engagement is less used now than it was. But it is still in force and does not apply only in the Brigade of Guards, which he mentioned. I have a list of eight corps where it is still in force, although it is now going out. There were 6,000 Regulars serving on this engagement on 1st January last. It would be impossible for my right hon. Friend to try to justify to these Regulars that their Scale A rate of pay should continue to apply while National Service men were being given the higher Scale B rate. It would be an impossible position.
    I can see what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. He may say that a National Service man kept in for an extra six months is not strictly comparable with a Regular. But that comes down to how much of an increase over what he gets now is a fair quid pro quo for what we expect him to do. One cannot in the last resort measure this sort of thing in terms of cash.
    I believe that my right hon. Friend's proposal is fair and reasonable. I think it compares more than favourably with anything done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in roughly similar circumstances. I believe it is a not unreasonable quid pro quo, which we can fairly give without breaching the important principles of Army pay. This will be fair to all the men in the Army, whether Regulars or National Service men.
    I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Wigg: If there is one word which no member of the Government can use in connection with this argument it is the word "unfair", because there can be nothing more unfair than to call a man up for two years and then keep him in for an extra six months. But that is being done in the interests of the State. The Under-Secretary of State keeps harping back to the Labour Government, but that Government did an awful lot for the Services. They set a new pattern for them and gave them a new deal which successive Conservative administrations have followed. It was
    666
    the Labour Government which breached the past, to their credit, and they often did so in difficult circumstances.
    The hon. Gentleman cannot make a valid comparison with what happened in the Korean war. He ask me if I remembered what happened then. I do. An elephant never forgets. At that time my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) did something else which was right. He held back the Regulars, saying, "If I have to hold National Service men back for an extra period I am going to hold the Regulars as well." The Secretary of State has half admitted that principle, because he is restricting discharge and the purchase of discharge by Regulars. But, on the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, he is going no further because it would be unpopular politically or from the point of view of Regular recruiting. He has not done that which my right hon. Friend had the guts to do.
    Then he says, "Now I am going to give them the rate of pay under Scale A." Perhaps we can toss for it. I want to give them Scale B, he wants to give them Scale A. Do not let him imagine that he is standing over the Old Bailey with the Scales of Justice in his hands, because he is not. He has lost the fight with the Treasury, which is the Army's ancient enemy, as I have many times said. But having lost that fight he should have come and sought the support of this Committee instead of giving in.
    If this matter were left to a free vote of the Committee there would be an overwhelming majority for the higher pay and he knows it. If he cannot do what I ask, then it shows that one must get in a position to be able to force one's will. Let the one-day strikers take note. Let the union leaders take note. These National Service men were called up for two years. They have been sold down the river and are to be kept in for an extra six months. But the Secretary of State will not give them extra pay, or give anything in terms of a bounty, in order to make up for the financial ruin which this Bill will mean to many of them. What we propose would remove from many young men the fear of financial hardship, but the Secretary of State has refused because the Treasury is so

    667
    hard. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will support me in the Lobby.
    Mr. Ede: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) uttered the last sentence, because I was afraid that this was degenerating into a three-way contest between him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the Under-Secretary of State for War. They have used technical jargon which those of us who have not been in the Army recently do not find quite consistent with the language that was used when we were personally interested in this matter.
    The Committee should know what amount of money is in dispute. I am told that I can find it in the Army Estimates if I look at three separate pages, but surely the Secretary of State can tell us how much a private in a certain unit which is affected gets as a National Service man, how much he would get on Scale A and how much he would get on Scale B. I do not care whether the figure is more or less, but it should be put frankly before the Committee.
    My hon. Friend referred to the severe disability that is being inflicted upon these men who were called up for two years but now find they must stay in the Army for another six months, and for those who have left the Service and are being recalled—especially the officers and, doubtless, some N.C.O.s as well, who come into the categories prescribed by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates).
    I sincerely hope that those who wish to do the right thing in this matter as between man and man will be given a statement about numbers and ranks and regiments sufficient to enable us to make up our minds about whether the Government's proposal can be justified, so that if we meet a National Service man who complains, we shall be able to feel that we can tell him that the Government have behaved reasonably, or that he has not been justly treated.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend will not be deluded into thinking that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley is the only Member who has served in the ranks of the
    668
    Army. I recollect that my friend, whom some hon. Members will remember, Mr. Thurtle, who was the Member for Shore-ditch at the time, used to jeer at me for the rank which I had managed to get in the Army, but I was able to say that at any rate I have never joined the officer class.
    If there is a feeling among the rank and file that they just do not count and that their voices are not heard in these matters and that their feelings are not considered, we will not build up that reasonable body of men doing an essential job which is what everybody wants to see. I hope that we shall be told something definite so that we can understand what this hot dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington and the Secretary of State is all about.
    Mr. Wise: I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment and I only hope that my right hon. Friend will note that great hardship is being inflicted on a certain number of men. I have never been wholly convinced that the difference between national peril and national salvation rests on about 16,000 men, but I am prepared to accept that, if necessary. However, I make the plea that if it is not possible to go all the way to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), my right hon. Friend will do something for the worst hit class of all—those called back from civil life. They will suffer to an extent not approached by the men who are retained. Many of them will have started careers which they may have to sacrifice, and, although no compensation is likely to be adequate, at least this small number of men should receive the pay of a Regular soldier on a three-year engagement.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. George Lawson: I, too, support the Amendment. I have never been satisfied that the National Service man—quite apart from the National Service man who is now being compelled to serve an additional six months—should have been paid as badly as has been the case. It should always be remembered in any discussion of the differential rates of pay for a Regular and a National Service

    669
    soldier that the Regular chooses to go into the Army and knows what are the conditions, but the National Service man has no such choice.
    It may be said that he ought to serve his country, but we must also consider the considerable interruption to his career and the considerable hardship which often follows calling up a man for National Service, especially if he is an older man, the sort of person with whom we are now dealing who has delayed his call-up in order, for instance, to finish an apprenticeship. When a man is compelled to serve an additional six months, he ought not to be paid at the rate of the lowest category of those who choose to be professional soldiers for three years. At the least he should be treated as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) suggests.
    I recall a recent case which the Under-Secretary may have in mind. I was very grateful for what was done in this case which concerned a constituent of mine, a woman with a child, who came to see me and who told me that her husband was serving in Germany and affected by the Bill. She was sick and unable to work and was receiving from the Army less than she would have received on National Assistance. I took up the matter and it was examined and I was subsequently told that her husband was entitled to apply for an Army grant which existed for the purpose of meeting this type of difficulty. My constituent was awarded an additional 90s. a week for a number of weeks.
    While I was grateful for that, it ought never to be necessary for a young woman whose husband has been called up—in this case he had been a skilled craftsman earning an excellent wage—to receive less than she would have received on National Assistance. It is quite wrong that young men who find themselves in these circumstances should have to leave their wives to submit to a means test. If the State takes a husband from his wife and child, or his wife and children, or even just his wife, the State takes on an obligation to look after them while he is in the Forces.
    What the Amendment says is merely that men who, despite their wishes, find themselves compelled to continue their service for another six months, should be given at least as much as is paid to
    670
    those who volunteer for six years. I do not know what the figures are, but I understand that the number of men volunteering for three years is very small, the trifling number of 6,000 The lads who are being compelled to continue their service will be associating mostly with men who are paid on at least the six-year basis, so that these lads will be the poor relations, unable to maintain themselves as their colleagues can. In addition to that, they will have the worry of having left families at home.
    The least which can be done is to pay them on the suggested basis and remove this slight. I should feel humiliated if I were drafted into the Army and my wife were left in a position of having to receive less than National Assistance. Indeed, I should be not humiliated but enraged. I hope that we will get away from the belief that National Service men have been properly paid. They have not been paid properly and they are not being paid properly now and they will still not he paid properly if they are paid for their extra service at the rates of the lowest grades of those who volunteer for service.
    It is very important to keep in mind that the three-year men volunteer for their service and consequently accept its conditions. They may volunteer for three years just to have the opportunity to sample life, for instance. That is probably the reason why many of them volunteer and in general they do not have the domestic commitments which, we can justly think, many National Service men have. If they choose to go in, it is their free choice, but it is not the free choice of the National Service men who are compelled to stay on for another six months. The least that can be done is to give the retained men the rate of pay given to the six-year engagement Regular soldier. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. John Hall: I find myself approaching the Amendment with a rather divided mind. I can sympathise very much with the plight of the National Service man who finds himself compelled to serve for a period over and above that which he thought he was liable to serve in the first place. As many

    671
    hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, this is an unfair form of selective service. On the other hand, I am not at all sure how we can measure hardship in cash terms.
    One of the problems is that if my right hon. Friend had decided that he would apply Scale B, for example, to remaining National Service men, the arguments now being advanced in support of the Amendment would be devoted to showing that it should be Scale C. We have already been told that about 6,000 men are on the lowest figure, which is paid for a three-year engagement. They might feel some sense of aggrievement if National Service men staying on for a further six months were paid at a higher rate than they received for a Regular engagement. It would have been much better if we had given special cash compensation for the particular hardship which we are asking these men to suffer, in the form of a bonus or gratuity at either the beginning or the end of their service, rather than play around with the pay scales which are the basis of our present discussion.
    Mr. Wigg: It is perfectly true that the latest figure is that 6,000 men are serving a short-term engagement of three years, but the figure is running down fast and the target which the Government themselves have set is a run-down of 1,000 or 1,200 a year; so that the present number will quickly be reduced by half. What we are arguing is that we should give a bounty at the end of the service.
    Mr. Hall: I was agreeing with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that that would be a better way of doing it, if it is felt necessary to give a form of cash compensation. As I said, I do not think that it is easy to assess this hardship in any form of cash. My own personal opinion is that it would have been better to scrap the Bill and start all over again. I do not blame my right hon. Friend, for he is dealing with a situation which he has inherited.
    The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) will not be led into going beyond the two Amendments which we are now discussing.
    Mr. Hall: I apologise. I appreciate that I was straying beyond the bounds
    672
    of order and being led into expressing an opinion about the Bill which I ought not to have expressed.
    I conclude by saying that I do not think that we can fairly assess this hardship in terms of cash. However, to pay retained National Service men the rate of pay suggested may cause some sense of aggrievement among existing Regular soldiers, and for that reason I could not support the Amendment as it stands.
    Mr. Shinwell: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would respond—and respond favourably—and perhaps that is his intention. I should like to put two or three additional points to him. May I follow up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in the course of his interjection While the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was speaking, about the men on three-year engagement. Not too much can be made of that because, perhaps in the course of twelve months or, certainly, in the course of two years, there will no longer be a three-year engagement. It will have completely disappeared from the Army.
    I understand that this is very largely a long-term proposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said so when he introduced the Bill. He said that it was not a matter for immediate attention because these men might not be called up for a long time, if at all, apart from the "Ever-readies". By the time he proposes to call up these men for another six months or to retain the National Service men for another six months, the three-year engagement will have been completely abandoned. So there is no analogy.
    The right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear when he introduced the Bill that his intention was not to call up blocks of men, but to single out men for special selection. He wanted technicians, tradesmen and the like. If that is his intention, he cannot treat these men as he would treat the generality of men called up for National Service. It is a quite different proposition. If he wants to get men into the Service on the cheap he had better say so, and we shall know where we are, but I do not suggest that that is what he is after. I submit that if he calls up these men for additional service and selects them as

    673
    technicians, craftsmen and the like, he should pay them proper rates of pay.
    I agree in part with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) Let us take the case of a man who is recalled for another six months. He has left the Service and found a job. He may be receiving what is called the average rate of pay which, I understand, is about £13 a week. That is what I am told, but there are many men—I know of them in my own constituency—getting very much less. Nevertheless, I accept that the craftsman, the engineer fitter and the like, has an average wage of about £13 a week. With a wife and a couple of children he manages to string along pretty well.
    Then he is recalled. What is the first thing that happens? His remuneration is reduced. But here is something even worse. The man can, of course, provide an allotment out of his pay to be sent to his wife—perhaps a couple of pounds a week at the very most. He deprives himself of funds with which he might be able to obtain more recreation or amusement to soften the asperities of the Service. If he applies for the National Service grant what does he get? About £3 or £4 a week at the outside.
    Thus the family income is substantially reduced. So the hardship is not only on the man himself, but also on his wife and family. That is asking too much. We say that these men should be remunerated in an adequate way. As my hon. Friend has said, these things cannot be assessed in terms of hard cash. I agree that when it is a matter of serving one's country that principle certainly applies. But there are more issues involved. After all, what have we done with this Army of ours?
    6.0 p.m.
    For the past seventeen years since the end of the war, we have constantly raised the pay and increased the emoluments to attract more men into the Service, and we have managed to obtain a fairly large standing Army. Without these additional emoluments we would not have been able to retain these men. They would not have joined on long-service engagements unless they had been offered reasonable rates of pay. Everybody knows the difficulty about getting officers into the Army. It is exceedingly difficult to persuade young
    674
    men from the scholastic institutions which are inferior to the universities to come into the Service and be trained for a commission. They have to be offered higher rates of pay.
    These National Service men are not asking for grandiose rates of pay. They are merely asking to be treated reasonably, and it is unfair for the Under-Secretary to say, "You cannot expect these National Service men to be paid a higher rate of pay than that received by the Regular soldier of a three-year engagement". But suppose they were? What would the three-year Regular service men do? They will be leaving the Army month by month, and it will make no difference to them.
    If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend are concerned about the effect on these three-year Regulars of a higher rate of remuneration for the National Service man, I suggest that the engagement of the three-year Service man should be extended. The right hon. Gentleman has never thought of that. If he has, he has not brought forward such a proposition.
    What did we do when we were faced with the Korea affair? We retained National Service men and made no distinction in respect of Regulars. We kept them all in, and it was fair all round. Had we not done that, we should not have been able to make our contribution to the Commonwealth Brigade, in spite of having 400,000 men in the Army.
    The Chairman: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line of argument.
    Mr. John Hall: Would it be in order to ask whether there was a difference in pay at that time between the Regular and the National Service man?
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not think that it would be out of order to reply to the hon. Gentleman's pertinent question. We started with a rather low rate of pay for the National Service man, but after 18 months his rate of pay was increased, though I am not prepared to say that in every case it went up to the rate of pay for the Regular soldier on a long-service engagement.
    Mr. Ramsden: What I think is true to say is that at that time there was

    675
    not this business of higher rates of pay for a longer committal to serve. All Regulars were on the basic rate of pay.
    Mr. Shinwell: There was a basic rate of pay for Regulars, but after a number of years' service, men received proficiency pay, star pay, tradesmen's pay, and so on. All the National Service men were on lower rates of pay for 18 months of their service. I insisted that something had to be done. It was not reasonable to expect National Service men after 18 months' service to receive only 4s. a day. The figure was raised to approximate to the average rate of pay of the Regular. This was done to persuade men who were doing their National Service to join the Regular Army.
    If the right hon. Gentleman cannot provide some additional remuneration by way of a bounty for these men at the end of their service, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—and it may well be difficult to do this because of Treasury opposition—I suggest that the rates of pay of National Service men who are retained, or who are recalled, should be altered to approximate to the rate of pay of Grade II private.
    I think that I am right in saying that when the National Service man is recalled he will get 16s. a day.
    Mr. Wigg: Not all of them.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I give the undertaking that it will be 16s. a day.
    Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend must not fall for that one. A Group 3 Class A man receives 16s. a day. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to give many of these recalled men an Irishman's rise. My right hon. Friend ought to stick to Scale B without equivocation.
    Mr. Shinwell: I will be obliged if somebody will tell me what the scale is. Is it 17s. or 18s.? In any event, I will take the highest figure.
    Mr. Wigg: The scale is 18s. 6d. for Class III; 19s. 6d. for Class II and 20s. for Class I. A National Service man is not eligible for Class I rates of pay be-
    676
    cause it is not possible for him to have enough service to qualify, and when making a comparison it must be remembered that the National Service rates are increased by 6d. a day for the National Service man over 21.
    Mr. Profumo: This is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to persuade the Committee that we ought to pay them 16s. Now that he has found that this is not the scale, he wants to change what he proposed. He accepted that 16s. would be fair, and that is what the figure will be.
    Mr. Shinwell: I said that I wanted the rates of pay for these men to approximate to the rates of pay of the second-grade private on Scale B. If I was misled, it was the right hon. Gentleman who misled me.
    I do not think that the hon. Member for Wycombe was here last week when we were discussing this matter. The right hon. Gentleman and I had some correspondence about this. It was all very friendly, and everybody was amiable about it—certainly I was. The right hon. Gentleman informed me about the two rates of pay. The National Service man received 11s. and the Regular received 16s. I said that this was too great a disparity. Apparently I was mistaken about the figure, but that is the information I received from the right hon. Gentleman. I suggested that instead of giving the National Service man 11s. we should give him 16s. If the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned that latter figure, it would not have occurred to me.
    If my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley thinks that I am falling for something, I am going to fall in with the higher rate of pay if the right hon. Gentleman will agree to it, but at any rate I hope that he will be reasonable about the whole matter and conform to the views of the Committee. It is obvious that everyone in the Committee wants the National Service men who are called up and retained to get a fair deal. We do not want these men to be more discontented than is necessary. Let us, at any rate, present an appearance of justice and fairness, and let the men understand that we are thinking about their needs and are anxious to provide for them and their families the kind of

    677
    life which is comparable to the kind of life we want for people in civil occupations.
    Mr. Ramsden: It seems that the Committee is fated not to have a discussion about this matter without getting drawn into techincalities about rates, which I began by saying that I was anxious to avoid. I want to give some details in reply to questions raised by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked for some examples of the rates of pay National Service men were now getting, and what they would get when they go on to the three-year Regular rate. The ordinary Grade II private—and the majority will be in Grade II—who is over 21 years of age and has completed over eighteen months' service, as a rifleman, fusilier, or whatever the case may be, is now receiving 11s. a day and will go on to the Scale A rate of 16s. a day.
    Among the later release groups which may be retained there will probably be a rather higher than normal percentage of tradesmen and technicians, because among them will be many who will have been deferred. A tradesman, receiving 12s a day as a National Service man, will receive 17s. a day, and a National Service technician who is at present receiving 12s. a day will receive 19s. 6d. The pay of the ordinary lance-corporal will rise from 11s. 6d. at the National Service rate to 18s., and if he is a technician it will rise from 12s. 6d. to 21s. 6d.
    These increments are what we, in the North Country—and the right hon. Member for South Shields will understand it—call into-pocket increments, over and above the ordinary allowances in respect of food and quartering which a soldier receives. This is a fair point to make. When we take into consideration the commitments which other people in civilian life have to allow for out of their pay packets, we see that many of these will have previously been met for the soldier, so that the increases we are proposing are direct into-pocket increases.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Member answer the question I raised about the recalled National Service man who has a wife and child? What will the wife and child receive, and what will the
    678
    soldier have to give up in respect of them?
    Mr. Ramsden: We have been over all this ground. The National Service man, if married, will receive a marriage allowance, which will rise from the present rate of £2 2s. a week to £3 17s. a week, because he will be drawing marriage allowance at the unaccommodated rate. He will be eligible for a National Service grant which, as the hon. Member knows, is assessed by taking the family's needs and then by deducting the amount of marriage allowance and the qualifying allotment which the soldier makes to his wife out of his pay in order to get the allowance. Subject to that, National Service men on the higher rate of pay and with marriage allowances will continue to receive National Service grants.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) asked about special treatment for men falling under Clause 2. We debated this matter earlier, but my hon. Friend may have forgotten that we are to pay a special gratuity to men recalled under that Clause.
    From the remaining points which have been raised since I last replied it is clear that hon. Members of the Committee find themselves in fundamental disagreement. I have a feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) was right when he said that it is very difficult to assess this matter in terms of cash, and that, in all probability, if the Government had suggested the rate for which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is asking, the human feelings that animate Oppositions at these times would have prompted hon. Members opposite to ask for an even higher rate. There is a fundamental disagreement between us. I regard what my right hon. Friend is proposing as fair, for the reasons which I tried to give the Committee when I first spoke, and I regret that the Government cannot accept the Amendments which the hon. Members are proposing.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I cannot agree with the closing words of the Under-Secretary. I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that it is completely wrong to approach this problem by trying to compensate by a cash payment

    679
    the tearing away from his home and family for a period of up to six months someone who is recalled under Clause 2. We cannot properly compensate such a person. But we are on a completely different argument at the moment. We are considering whether such a man should be paid on the three-year scale or on Scale B. The argument that such a man should be paid on Scale C instead of Scale B would not stand up for five minutes.
    The only justification that we have had for not accepting the Amendments and paying these men on the three-year scale is that 6,000 men at present in the Army are serving a three-year engagement, and that they will feel dissatisfied if men who have done eighteen months or two years' National Service are called back for a further period and are paid on the three-year scale.
    That argument completely ignores the fact that these 6,000 men are serving voluntarily on three-year engagements; that they have signed on the dotted line to serve for a certain time at a certain rate of pay, knowing that, in the vast majority of cases, they could probably have signed on for a period of six years or even longer and obtained a higher rate, if they had so desired. They signed on for a period of three years and they knew the conditions under which they were going to serve.
    The National Service men with whom we are dealing will have had no choice in the matter. They thought that they would serve only for a specific period, but they will find that we are changing the rules of the game and that they are being asked to serve for another six months. There is no comparison between the National Service men whom we are talking about and the 6,000 men who have entered into voluntary agreements to serve for three years.
    Further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) pointed out—and this has not been contradicted—most of the men who will be recalled for a period of up to six months will in all probability be serving in units which will not contain any of the 6,000 men on three-year engagements. My hon. Friend took the line that it was most unlikely that, in a unit containing men who had been recalled for a period of
    680
    up to six months, there would be any men serving a three-year engagement, although there would probably be a considerable number of men on six-year engagements.
    We were given a categorical assurance during the Second Reading debate, by the Secretary of State himself, that when these men were retained for six months or recalled for a period of up to six months they would be given Regular rates of pay.
    Mr. Profumo: I specifically referred to Regular rates of pay, Scale A.
    Mr. Reynolds: I am open to correction on that point, but I cannot remember any reference to a scale. Perhaps one of my hon. Friends will he able to find it.
    Mr. Wigg: The Minister did not mention any scale. He said:
    "From the date when they would have been released they will receive the increased rates of pay laid down for men on three-year Regular engagements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 49.]
    Mr. Profumo: I did not try to delude the House in any way. To be absolutely accurate, it would be the three-year rate. I have said that from the beginning.
    Mr. Reynolds: I accept that. But it was not until I looked at the Army Estimates a few weeks later—and not being an expert I had to do that to find the particular rates of pay applicable to certain grades—that I realised that such a man would not receive the rate of Regular pay that the overwhelming majority of Regular soldiers are receiving at present.
    When I sat in the House and heard the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, I was under the impression that these men were to get a fair deal. But when I looked at the matter to find out exactly how much extra money they would get, I saw that something quite different was to happen from that which I concluded would happen while I was listening to the Minister. The vast majority of hon. Members—I think it safe to say every hon. Member in the House except my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who probably realised at the beginning the exact importance of the right hon.

    681
    Gentleman's statement—were under the same impression as myself.
    All hon. Members, surely, feel that if a man is to be recalled and is to serve in a unit which is being reinforced by men recalled under Clause 2 for a particular purpose and a particular emergency, then he will be treated as a Regular soldier and he should be treated as the same type of Regular soldier as the other men in that unit. I do not think that we should take for the purposes of comparison an unusual element of the Army, the comparatively small proportion of men who voluntarily signed on for three years at a lower rate of pay than the majority of Regular soldiers are receiving, and say that this is the rate of pay which the National Service man having these
    obligations placed upon him should receive.
    I am certain that most hon. Members thought, as I thought on Second Reading, that this National Service man would get the same pay as most other Regular soldiers. We were extremely disappointed when we found that this was not so. We are even more disappointed now to learn that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State are not prepared to accept the Amendment.
    I hope that an overwhelming number of hon. Members will vote in favour of the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there added:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 160, Noes 227.

    Division No. 78.]

    AYES

    [6.22 p.m.

    Albu, Austen

    Healey, Denis

    Peart, Frederick

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, B.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)

    Pentland, Norman

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Prentice, R. E.

    Baird, John

    Hilton, A. V.

    Probert, Arthur

    Beaney, Alan

    Holman, Percy

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Holt, Arthur

    Randall, Harry

    Bence, Cyril

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Rankin, John

    Benson, Sir George

    Hoy, James H.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Reynolds G. W.

    Blyton, William

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Bowden, Sir H. W. (Leics, S.W.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Bowles, Frank

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Boyden, James

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Rodgers, G. H. R. (Kengaington, N.)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Jeger, George

    Ross, William

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

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

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Short, Edward

    Butler, Mn, Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Callaghan, James

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Chapman, Donald

    Kelley, Richard

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Cliffe, Michael

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Small, William

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    King, Dr. Horace

    Snow, Julian

    Cronin, John

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Darling, George

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Deer, George

    Lipton, Marcus

    Steele, Thomas

    Diamond, John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Dodds, Norman

    MacColl, James

    Stonehouse, John

    Donnelly, Desmond

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stones, William

    Driberg, Tom

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)

    Edwards, Robert (Bllston)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Swingler, Stephen

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Marsh, Richard

    Symonds, J. B.

    Evans, Albert

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Fitch, Alan

    Mendelson, J. J.

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

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Millan, Bruce

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Milne, Edward J.

    Tomney, Frank

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mitchison, C. R.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Monslow, Walter

    Warbey, William

    Ginsburg, David

    Morris, John

    Weitzman, David

    Gourlay, Harry

    Moyle, Arthur

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Grey, Charles

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Phillip(Derby, S.)

    White, Mrs. Elrene

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Oliver, C. H.

    Wigg, George

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Oram, A. E.

    Willey, Frederick

    Hall, Ht. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Paget, R. T.

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Hannan, William

    Parker, John

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pavitt Laurence

    Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Woof, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Zilliacus, K.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Green, Alan

    Percival, Ian

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Allason, James

    Gurden, Harold

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Arbuthnot, John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Pitman, Sir James

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Balniel, Lord

    Hare, Rt. Hon. John

    Pott Percivall

    Barber, Anthony

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Barter, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Batsford, Brian

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tulton

    Hay, John

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Bell, Ronald

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Ramsden, James

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Hendry, Forbes

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Biffen, John

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hiley, Joseph

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Renton, David

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Bossom, Clive

    Hobson, John

    Robertson, sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Holland, Philip

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Box, Donald

    Hollingworth, John

    Roots, William

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hornby, R. P.

    Russell, Ronald

    Brewis, John

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Seymour, Leslie

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Shaw, M.

    Brooman-White, Ft.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Shepherd, William

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Jackson, John

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

    Bryan, Paul

    James, David

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Buck, Anthony

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Speir, Rupert

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

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Kaberry, Sir Donaldd

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Chataway, Christopher

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Chichester-Clarke, R.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Tapsell, Peter

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Kirk, Peter

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r.Moss Side)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Leavey, J. A.

    Teeling, Sir William

    Cole, Norman

    Leburn, Gllmour

    Temple, John M.

    Collard, Richard

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon.S.)

    Costain, A. P.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Coulson, Michael

    Longden, Gilbert

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Turner, Colin

    Curran, Charles

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    McLaren, Martin

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Dance, James

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

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Vane, w. M. F.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Maddan, Martin

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Doughty, Charles

    Maitland, Sir John

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Walker, Peter

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Eden, John

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Wall, Patrick

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Mawby, Ray

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Emery, Peter

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Webster, David

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

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

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Mills, Stratton

    Whitelaw, William

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Morgan William

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Farr, John

    Morrison, John

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Neave, Airey

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Gammans, Lady

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Gibson-watt, David

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Woollam, John

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Partridge, E.

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R,

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(RECALL OF NATIONAL SERVICEMEN INTO ARMY SERVICE.)
    The Chairman: I understand that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) does not wish to move his Amendment to page 2, line 36, at the end to add:
    (4) On release from full-time service, any person recalled under this section shall receive, as a member of the Territorial Army or of the reserve forces by an order made under section eleven of the Army Reserve Act, 1950, or section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act. 1953, a SUM equal to the excess over his actual pay of what he would have received during the period of his recalled service as a soldier serving an engagement of six years or an officer holding a regular commission (as the case may be) with an equivalent length of full-time service.
    for the purposes of a Division.
    Mr. Wigg Mr. Wigg indicated assent.
    Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House pursuant to Order [25th January].
    Bill reported, without Amendment as amended, considered.

    New Clause.—(NATURE OF FURTHER SERVICE.)
    No person retained or recalled under sections one and two of this Act shall be required against his will to serve in an arm of the service other than that in which he is or has been employed:
    Provided that the Army Council or any officer not below the rank of major-general deputed by them may direct him so to serve having taken into account all the circumstances of the case.—[Mr. Wigg.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I shall not detain the House for very long, but this new Clause contains a matter which is important, not only in my view, but, I think, in the view of the Secretary of State for War. There is no doubt that as the Secretary of State uses powers under Clause 1 he will find it necessary to post men from one unit in the same arm to another, and I should think it very likely from one arm of the Service to another. This will exacerbate the already outraged feelings of men coming from, say, a "crack" Army unit in the Middle East or the Far East, to Germany, and finding themselves posted to a hospital as orderlies. What
    686
    they would say would have to be heard to be believed.
    I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of this. It seems inevitable that such happenings should occur, the proposals by the Secretary of State being what they are. I therefore think it right that the men who are called upon to suffer what they will regard as an outrage should be safeguarded to the fullest possible extent. The decision to post a man from one arm to another should not be taken lightly. One of the ways of safeguarding the rights of the soldier is for the powers to undertake such action to be vested in an officer not below the rank of major-general to whom the powers will have been directly deputed by the Army Council.
    I am not, and never have been, an uninhibited enthusiast for what I call the "tribal system", but, as we have got it, I respect the fact that our men are better soldiers because they serve in particular regiments. I think that the argument is often overdone and many times in the course of our debates I have pointed out that men serve with as great loyalty and pride in the Royal Artillery or the Royal Army Ordnance Corps as they do in a county regiment which is proud of its traditions.
    In the past I have asked what has happened to the Corps of Cavalry. There was a time when it was Cavalry of the Line. When it was formed thirty years ago, men were transferred from one regiment to another in the days before the appointment of the Royal Armoured Corps. A tradition grew up in that corps which was observed and of which men were proud. It may be overdone, but men have great pride in their cap and collar badges and in their regimental traditions.
    If the transfer has to be made at the end of a man's National Service and he is to be taken—say, in an extreme case—from the Royal Armoured Corps in the Middle East and put into one of the other arms, this power should not be taken lightly. It should be exercised with great care and with due regard to the feelings of the men so posted. I ask the Secretary of State that such a man during that service, even if it were service with the R.A.M.C., the R.A.O.C. or R.E.M.E., should be allowed to retain his cap badge and regimental traditions.

    687
    He should not be regarded as a soldier of the R.A.M.C., but as still belonging to the regiment of the line to which he was originally posted. This would be a minimum act of sympathetic understanding of a great tradition in the Army which ought not to be passed over lightly.
    I do not excuse myself for bringing this matter before the House tonight.
    Mr. Profumo: Under Section 3 of the Army Act, 1955, a Regular soldier may not be transferred in peace time, without his consent, from one corps to another unless an order to that effect has been made by a member of the Army Council. In war, or if men of the Reserve are called out on permanent service, he may be transferred without the necessity for an order at Army Council level. The position is quite different with regard to National Servicemen of all kinds. They may be transferred between corps in peace or in war without their consent.
    Under Clause 4 (2) of the Bill the Army Act is applied to all men affected by the Bill as it applies to National Service men. It follows that retained, and, of course, recalled, National Service men may similarly be transferred between corps without their consent. This is by intention. The position of National Service men has never been any different during their service. While, generally speaking, it would be a misuse of resources not to use a man in the branch of the service in which he has been trained, none the less to accept the new Clause would restrict the ability to make the best use of the powers of the Bill.
    Power to transfer between corps is essential for certain trades which are common to most arms, for instance, drivers. In relation to such trades it would impose unacceptable delay to have to refer the need for transfer for a review by the general officer commanding, or more so, at Army Council level. This is particularly important with reference to recalled men who might have to be used in conditions of an emergency where it may not be possible to arrange for a reference which the new Clause envisages in the time available.
    688
    Under Clause 1, we should not retain any man—I have said this before—who is not required for strictly military purposes. But if a man is a driver in, for example, the Royal Armoured Corps in B.A.O.R., and assuming that there were enough drivers in the Royal Armoured Corps but that there was a considerable shortage of drivers in the R.A.S.C., for strictly military reasons this man—as was envisaged by the hon. Member for Dudley—might be transferred for the remainder of his service.
    I can give the hon. Member an assurance: in practice, it is unlikely that this will go on to any great extent. But if we are to work on the understanding that we shall retain as few men as possible, I cannot agree to have our hands tied legislatively in the way in which they would be by the acceptance of the hon. Member's Motion. The few transfers which might have to take place will be authorised only by the War Office. I can give that as an undertaking, but I cannot have it made statutory. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
    The extent to which recalled men may be transferred between corps would depend on the circumstances of the recall. Broadly speaking, they would be called up to their own corps. As I see it, there will be no question of a "general post". But we must have freedom to direct men to serve where they are needed. I do not feel that I can go further, except to say a word about the problem of the cap badges. It is not quite so easy as it might appear to be. Let me divide it between the "teeth arms" and the "tail". I do not think that there will be difficulty regarding the "tail", the transfer, for example, of a man from the R.E.M.E. to, it may be, the R.A.S.C. He could keep his badges. That could be arranged.
    It would breach a very long tradition if a man were to move from one corps to another in the "teeth arms" and not change his cap badge. I can go no further than that, but I will give an undertaking that so long as the two commanding officers concerned have no objection I will see that in such an instance no objection is raised by the Army Council. I should like to leave the matter there, with that elasticity. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the

    689
    House that there will not be an abuse on the scale which the hon. Member for Dudley might fear.
    Mr. Shinwell: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman, his intention is not to transfer any recalled National Service man from one corps to another, or from one unit to another, or, it may be, from one theatre to another, in time of peace without a definite understanding that the War Office has so directed. It seems to me that that is all the assurance that is required.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) regards this matter from the standpoint of a professional soldier and is concerned about what is called the "tribal system". But in the position occupied by the right hon. Gentleman, who has to make do with the number of men at his command, and bearing in mind the rather difficult circumstances, it seems to me that it would be asking too much to tie his hands in this way.
    The only caveat I would venture to enter is that it would be a very odd proceeding if a National Service man who was recalled, and who was perhaps a tradesman, an expert driver or a technician, could be transferred to a unit where he might be called on to undertake tasks not strictly military in character. The right hon. Gentleman has said—we took note of it—that transfers would occur only if there was a strictly military purpose for them. But it depends on the interpretation placed on the term "military purposes".
    If it is to be left to the War Office, I should not mind. But I should not care to leave it altogether in the hands of commanding officers of units. It might well be that the commanding officer of one unit was short of a particular type of man, and he might make representations to the C.O. of another unit asking for the transfer of a number of men for a particular purpose which was not strictly military in character.
    In the past, unfortunately—it may not be so today, I hope not, and I hope that it will not occur in the future—there have been occasions when National Service men were used for purposes which were not strictly military purposes. There was too much of the "tail" and too little of the "teeth". I
    690
    hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the men he is so anxious to obtain in one category or another—those who are serving at present who will be retained for a further six months, and the men to be recalled for another six months—will not be used except for purposes of a strictly military character. If he gives such an assurance, I for one should not care to press this Motion.
    Mr. Wigg: With the permission of the House, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Motion. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his acceptance of the spirit behind the proposed Clause. I should be grateful if he would see whether the principle of long-attachment could be used, rather than men being actually transferred, and whether it is possible to safeguard a man who is at the end of his 2½ years' service. I am satisfied from the evidence given by the right hon. Gentleman that he realises what I am seeking, and I am content to leave the matter in his hands. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2.—(RECALL OF NATIONAL SERVICE MEN INTO ARMY SERVICE.)
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to insert:
    (d) if on the date of the issue of the notice referred to in subsection (1) of this section he—

    (i) is married; or

    (ii) having been married has residing with him children of his marriage; or

    (iii) is residing with his widowed mother.

    Bearing in mind the limited time available for discussion, I have endeavoured to select a suitable Amendment. As hon. Members will appreciate, there is time to discuss only one Amendment, although obviously one would have liked to discuss a good many more, since the discussion during the Committee stage, because of the timetable, was not so thorough as we might have wished. Just at the point when one began to ferret out something, the guillotine always fell.
    This Amendment relates to people liable to be affected by the provisions in Clause 2, people who, having served their country and returned to civilian

    691
    life and established themselves, are then recalled to the Service. I consider that they suffer the greatest hardship and they are by far the most numerous. I am not certain of the precise figure, and for the purposes of my argument it does not matter. It will depend in some measure on how many are taken out of the ambit of Clause 2 by having been called up under the provisions of Clause 1. But the sort of figure we should have in mind is 100,000. That is, roughly, the number who will fall under the provisions of Clause 2 and be liable to recall from civilian life.
    According to the right hon. Gentleman, only a small number, if any, are likely actually to be required. Taking it that the object of this Bill is to keep the Army at a figure which has always been in mind, that of 182,000, I calculate the position roughly to be this. In April, when the Bill begins to operate, there will be rather under 160,000 Regulars and about 25,000 National Service men. Those will be the National Service men liable for retention under Clause 1, although not all of them will be retained. Of those 25,000 probably about 17,000 will be retained.
    In 1963, if the Bill is not operated, all the National Service men will come out, but for the first half of 1963 it will again be a question of the retained men, in the main. By that time, by January, the Regulars should have risen, according to the trends of recruiting, to 165,000 and the numbers necessary for retention between then and June will be about the same—16,000 to 17,000—although in the later months—perhaps from March onwards—some call will have to be made on the Clauses 2 and 3 men, the "Ever-readies".
    By June, 1963, unless something goes wrong with the recruiting figures, the Regular content ought to be up to about 172,000. So at that point—and this is the peak from the point of view of Clause 2—about 10,000 men will be required. That should tail off during the succeeding year from 172,000 to nil in June, 1965, when, again, assuming that the recruiting figures continue, the Regular figure will be up to 182,000. This is on the assumption that there are no "Ever-readies" but, plainly, there will be some.
    692
    Thus we are really dealing with a maximum figure of 10,000 and a possible figure of nil. We are, of course, dealing with that figure out of about 100,000 men who will be affected. Whatever the Government may say about the difficulties of having categories under Clause 1—where they are requiring so few, so doubtfully, out of so many—surely it is not unreasonable to have a category which covers the family man?
    Do the Government really want the husbands and fathers of children when they are living with their children and supporting them? Do they want the sons of widowed mothers who are living and supporting those widowed mothers? Those are the categories which, I am suggesting, should be omitted. They may not be required at all, but, while the provision remains, it will hang over them and will cause them great anxiety. More than that, it will probably cause the most anxiety to their dependants.
    This is not a category which can effectively be dealt with by hardship tribunals. In Committee a number of Amendments were tabled dealing with students, doctors and people who have entered into commitments, and we had some—but not very satisfactory—assurance that hardship tribunals would be able to look at such cases. I am referring to categories which are quite out of it. One cannot say that being a married man is a hardship—though some cynics may say so, but I doubt whether wives would altogether take it as a compliment if that were suggested. This appears to be something which can not be dealt with save by category.
    Therefore, remembering the small number wanted out of so many and the great anxiety of so many people which can be removed by excluding this category, surely this is not an unreasonable thing to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do. The right hon. Gentleman may say "Yes, it is true that we shall not want many of these people, but we do want particular ones." Will he mean the hospital orderlies about whom we have heard? Will he mean doctors, radio technicians and people to whom this will be the greatest hardship?
    In all conscience, since the Bill arises from the Government's own fecklessness, must their convenience be considered exclusively? In the rare case when they

    693
    have difficulty in finding some particular hospital orderly who is not married, should they not be put to the trouble of doing so?
    I understood that primarily the "Ever-readies" were to be the technicians, held on one side to cover these difficulties. We are dealing not with "Ever-readies" but with the people who have done their service and who are being recalled. In all conscience, cannot we have a single concession from the Government to mitigate the injustice of the Bill? There has not been a single concession in Committee and surely, at this late stage, we might have just something? Since we have had no concessions to meet this injustice, and since everyone agrees that this is a Bill which imposes great injustices, cannot we have this one concession?
    Mr. Profumo: Although I have not been able to give any statutory concessions, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will read my speeches—although I realise that he has been here for most of them—he will find that I have given a certain amount of satisfaction by explaining what is to be done to mitigate hardship.
    Mr. Paget: We have been told about a hardship committee and au advisory board which will be under a general connected with S.S.A.F.A. and we have also been informed that the definition of the grounds of hardship for these men will be widened to this extent, that where people have bona fide entered into commitments in reasonable expectation of relief, that is something which can be considered. But I imagine that that—at least, we have been given no assurance that it will, and I should welcome it—will not extend to commitments entered into before the Bill. It is a very small concession. Here, however, is a concession not of something which might be done administratively but something which might be put in the Bill to exclude just these people from the other large number.
    The Amendment would not exclude these people altogether. These part-time National Service men have an obligation under Proclamation. They are still available in the major emergency. What we ask is that they should not be used simply for the purpose of keeping the
    694
    numbers up. In so far as, without Proclamation, it is proposed to recall these people not in circumstances of crisis but merely because one wants a very small number, one should be put under a duty to find unmarried men. It is a reasonable concession to make and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I am sorry that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has been delivered at a time when very important engagements have taken hon. Members out of the Chamber. He has raised matters of substance. I say at once that I do not accept, and would not urge upon my right hon. Friend, the first two categories set out in the Amendment. It is, of course, very disagreeable for fairly young married couples to be separated even for six months. On the other hand, those of us who have been through these disagreeable events, as have all of us, perhaps, during the last war or at other times, realise that six months does not mean the end of the world and that the reunion after six months is all the sweeter for having been delayed.
    The third category quite rightly excites more sympathy. I believe that a widowed mother depends not necessarily so much on the earnings of her son living with her, but far more on the companionship he gives in the maintenance of their family life. I am sure that widowed mothers regard with the gravest anxiety the prospect of their boys leaving home, an anxiety which people of a different age and in different circumstances cannot really share. It is a matter of great human interest.
    Although I realise that each case deserves to be taken on its merits and that a concession which is granted in some cases would be quite unnecessary in many others, this is, I feel, a type of case which my right hon. Friend would wish to acknowledge if he can. Whether the administrative arrangements for it and the degree of fairness or unfairness involved really justify a broad exception of this sort we shall hear, but I confess that I feel some sympathy for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested.
    Mr. Profumo: In previous discussions I have already explained the general reasons against being able to accept statutory classes of exemption on grounds of hardship. I will not weary the House by repeating the arguments now. I must tell the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that, although I have much sympathy within the reasons prompting him to move the Amendment, I cannot, even at this stage, make the exception here.
    We had a string of Amendments in Committee which were designed statutorily to exclude certain people from the operation of the Bill. The Notice Paper for the Committee stage contains a mass of them: some were called and some were not. In my view, if I were to accept any one of these statutory exemptions I should have to accept them all, and I dare say that the ingenuity of hon. Members would have enabled them to extend still further the list until the whole purpose of these Clauses was altogether frustrated.
    Basically, it is a matter of principle. Some hon. Members believe that the only way adequately to protect the interests of those who may be affected by the Bill is to do it by statutory exemptions. I do not. I think that the only way which is not only efficient but really fair is to judge each case on its merits. That is what I propose to do.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that the hardship categories which he proposes demand, in their special reference to the conditions under which Clause 2 might be applied, particular and special consideration. I do not doubt the force of the arguments, though the difference between these and all the other categories of hardship which I have been pressed to consider is, I think, one of degree rather than kind. I do not think that any hon. Member would feel content with the situation if I accepted this Amendment because of its special character and, at the same time, rejected all other similar Amendments proposed so far not only on this Clause, but on Clause 1.
    The House would rightly feel that that was the height of illogicality. Either we accept the principle of statutory exemption for certain cases—and this may well be one—or we deal with individual cases by administrative action. I know that
    696
    hon. Members, although they have pressed their Amendments, will appreciate the very real difficulties that a policy of statutory exemption would impose.
    I agree with what the hon. and learned Member said when emphasising that the men we need, if we have to exercise the powers under the Clause, will not be just additions to the ration strength but will be needed to fill shortages which may then obtain and which, of course, I cannot possibly foresee at this stage. In the given circumstances in which we might have to use these powers, we should probably need to call people up at very short notice. If, for instance, we want 125 signallers it would not be good enough to have 125 drivers or general duty men just because they were not married and were available in our total figures.
    So far as circumstances at the time would allow, we should, obviously, be discriminating. Apart from anything else, it would hardly be efficient or economical to call up the first men we could lay our hands on and then, possibly, have to incur the expense and administrative bother of releasing a number of them on grounds of hardship. Therefore, quite apart from any other reason, I give that undertaking. To be a little more specific, if it is possible to make a selection and there are two men available for one post, one married and the other unmarried, we should, naturally, take the unmarried man.
    I should like to leave the House with this thought, which must not be construed as an undertaking or a pledge, that in the exercise of these powers, if we are called upon to exercise them, we shall, naturally, for simple administrative reasons, quite apart from the humanity which we should wish to exercise, tend to select those men for whom there will be the least hardship incurred. This, added to the various undertakings I tried to give in Committee, will, I hope, make the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) less concerned about the point raised in the Amendment. I cannot accept the Amendment as such, but I hope that I have gone some way in meeting their views.
    Mr. Paget: By leave of the House, may I say a word about that? The

    697
    right hon. Gentleman has made quite clear that he is not giving any concession other than a statement that the War Office will work this, obviously, in a manner most suited to its convenience and that that convenience will, in general, other things being equal, involve a preference for unmarried rather than married men. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to be satisfied with that.
    The Secretary of State also said that, if he made this concession, a whole series of other concessions would have to be made. That, if I may say so without being rude, is untrue. All the others were discussed. From them the most meritorious was selected, the one which caused the least inconvenience to the Government and which removed the maximum amount of anxiety from the greatest possible number of people. That is why we selected this Amendment. Its acceptance would cause very little administrative inconvenience to the Secretary of State. This is something which he ought to concede, and if he cannot go any further than he has gone I shall have to ask the Committee to divide on the Amendment.
    Mr. John Cronin: Unfortunately, I have not heard the whole of the debate on this Amendment, but it concerns something about which I feel rather strongly. During the last few weeks, I have been approached by many constituents who have felt considerable anxiety about the future. I have been approached by young women whose husbands are serving in the Army. Some of them have been worried almost to the extent of being in a psychiatrically pathological condition. This is merely one hon. Member's very limited experience of what is likely to happen in future.
    The Secretary of State suggested that he could make some concession, but I cannot see why he cannot accept the Amendment and have it in black and white. Certainly, it will not cause any real difficulties in spite of what he says. Obviously, a very small proportion of the young soldiers affected will be married. If the Secretary of State has any figures on that matter, we should be glad to have them. Bearing in mind the
    698
    ages which are involved, it seems unlikely that more than a very small proportion of the soldiers concerned will be affected by the Clause. We are, therefore, asking him to make a very small concession.
    The Secretary of State said that he would give consideration to the plight of married soldiers affected by the Clause, but he did not give any undertaking with regard to soldiers who have children living with them or soldiers who normally live with their widowed mothers. These are points which require consideration equal to that given to the question of married soldiers.
    Basically, the Secretary of State is a kind-hearted man, although he puts on a rather stern face when declining to accept our Amendments. However, I hope that he will seriously consider the position of widowed mothers and the children. I think that we can ask him to give even further consideration to other cases, such as the soldier who is a widower himself and has young children. He is not covered by the Amendment, but his hardship is possibly greater than that of those we are discussing.
    7.15 p.m.
    In many ways the Government tend to be rather hostile to the institution of marriage. Soldiers and officers in the Armed Forces tend to be rather ill-treated when it comes to arranging postings and compassionate postings and service in distant stations. We all know how obdurate the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on things like family allowances. I do not intend to dilate on that matter, because if I did I should be encroaching on the bounds of order, but I feel that the Government adopt in many ways a rather austere attitude towards the institution of marriage. I am surprised that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State smile at this. It suggests that a rather light-hearted attitude is adopted towards a most important social and family bond.
    In due course, the Bill will be considered in another place. Perhaps some qualification can be made in the Bill to meet our objections there. In the meantime, we can only express regret that the Secretary of State, who, as I have said, is normally a kind-hearted man, should adopt such an obdurate attitude to this very helpful Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 205.

    Division No. 79.]

    AYES

    [7.17 p.m.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Holman, Percy

    Redhead, E, C.

    Beaney, Alan

    Holt, Arthur

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hoy, James H.

    Rhodes, H.

    Bence, Cyril

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Benson, Sir George

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Blyton, William

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

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

    Bowden, Sir H. W. (Leics, S.W.)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Ross, William

    Bowles, Frank

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Boyden, James

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Short, Edward

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

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

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Slater Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Small, William

    Callaghan, James

    Kelley, Richard

    Snow, Julian

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Chapman, Donald

    King, Dr. Horace

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Cliffe, Michael

    Lawson, George

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lipton, Marcus

    Steele, Thomas

    Darling, George

    MacColl, James

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Deer, George

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stonehouse, John

    Diamond, John

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Stones, William

    Dodds, Norman

    Manuel, A. C.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Driberg, Tom

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Symonds, J. B.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Millan, Bruce

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

    Evans, Albert

    Milne, Edward J.

    Tomney, Frank

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fitch, Alan

    Monslow, Walter

    Warbey, William

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Morris, John

    Weitzman, David

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wigg, George

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Oliver, G. H.

    Willey, Frederick

    Gourlay, Harry

    Oram, A. E.

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Grey, Charles

    Paget, R. T.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Parker, John

    Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Peart, Frederick

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Pentland, Norman

    Woof, Robert

    Hannan, William

    Prentice, R. E.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Probert, Arthur

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

    Proctor, W. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Randall, Harry

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Hilton, A. V.

    Rankin, John

    Mr. Cronin.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Aitken, W. T.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Allason, James

    Cole, Norman

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Collard, Richard

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Corfield, F. V.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Barber, Anthony

    Coulson, Michael

    Goodhew, Victor

    Barter, John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Batsford, Brian

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Curran, Charles

    Green, Alan

    Bell, Ronald

    Dance, James

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Berkeley, Humphry

    d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Gurden, Harold

    Biffen, John

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Doughty, Charles

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    du Cann, Edward

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Bossom, Clive

    Eden, John

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Box, Donald

    Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Hay, John

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Emery, Peter

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

    Emmer, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hendry, Forbes

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Bryan, Paul

    Farr, John

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Buck, Antony

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Channon, H. P.G.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hobson, John

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Gammans, Lady

    Holland, Philip

    Hollingworth, John

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Jackson, John

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Teeling, Sir William

    James, David

    Partridge, E.

    Temple, John M.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Percival, Ian

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Kaberry, Sir Donaldd

    Pitman, Sir James

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Turner, Colin

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Pott, Percivall

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Prior, J. M. L.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Kirk, Peter

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Vane, W. M. F,

    Leavey, J. A.

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Wakefield, Edward(Derbyshire, W.)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Ramsden, James

    Walker, Peter

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Wall, Patrick

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Longden, Gilbert

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Webster, David

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Renton, David

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Whitelaw, William

    McLaren, Martin

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Roots, William

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Russell, Ronald

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Maddan, Martin

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Wise, A. R,

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Shaw, M.

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

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

    Woollam, John

    Mawby, Ray

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Woreley, Marcus

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

    Speir, Rupert

    Mills, Stratton

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Morgan, William

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Mr. Peel and

    Neave, Airey

    Stodart, J. A.

    Mr. Gordon Campbell.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    7.27 p.m.
    Mr. Ramsden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I intend to be as brief as possible, so that the restrictions on time may operate as little as possible to the disadvantage of hon. Members. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that anybody could complain truthfully that we had done too badly so far, or that anything in the Bill, or, at any rate, any major issue in the Bill, has gone by default for want of opportunity for adequate discussion.
    When my right hon. Friend moved the Second Reading of the Bill, he was perfectly honest with the House, and made no attempt to conceal the fact that, in regard to Clauses 1 and 2, it would be unpopular, or that it bore hardly upon the men concerned. We were certainly not taken aback by the reception that the Bill has been given by the House. The House of Commons is very jealous of individual rights, and what we are seeking to do in the Bill obviously approaches the limit of the length to which the House as a whole is prepared to go in the infringement of such rights and in subjecting individuals to military compulsion. No Government could ask
    702
    the House for such powers as these without overriding reasons, but in the present circumstances there are such reasons, and there is no other course open to the Government which meets the situation than to ask for these powers. That, and that alone, is the basis for the first two Clauses of the Bill.
    During the recent stages of the Bill we have been engaged in the discussion of details, and perhaps it will be appropriate if I now attempt to remind the House of the reasons the Government decided that these powers are necessary. It was always recognised that there would come a time while conscripted National Service men were running out, and before Regular strength had been built up sufficiently, when Army manpower would be stretched in relation to our commitments. The present situation in Europe, to put it at the very lowest, underlines the importance of our obligations to N.A.T.O., and, for this purpose, there is no alternative to the retention of National Service men. We need trained men; we need men in 'the next few months, and the National Service men whom we plan to retain are the only ones who could be available.

    703
    Different ways of meeting this problem and alternative suggestions have been made in various parts of the House. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and others wanted us to try to effect the necessary stiffening of B.A.O.R. by a withdrawal from other theatres. Even had such a solution been feasible on general military grounds, we could not have brought it into effect in the time available. Nor would the men who would have been made available by the kind of re-deployment envisaged by the right hon. Member for Belper and some of his hon. Friends have measured up to the needs of the British Army of the Rhine.
    Some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Members for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) wanted another solution. They would have liked us to go on with some form of National Service. When I spoke on Second Reading, I tried to give full weight to their arguments, not because I was convinced by them, but because I felt that it would be altogether wrong if the Army or the country were to suppose that we were shirking the introduction of such a system for fear of the political consequences. Sometimes it has been implied by hon. Members who hold that view of what the right solution should be that we were shirking it.
    I do not think that the introduction of some form of National Service on the lines advocated by its supporters would be so difficult politically. It might in many ways have been easier than this Bill, but that is not important. What is important is that it would have been, in our view at least, an inadequate solution militarily and that neither in the short term, because it would not have produced the trained men, nor in the long term, because it might well have saddled us with numbers which I do not believe we shall need, would it have measured up to the military requirement.
    The Bill, although unpalatable, meets both requirements. It will give us the men we need in the right place at the right time, and if my right hon. Friend's plans for the T.A.E.R.—the "Ever-readies"—under Clause 3 develop, as there is every reason to suppose that they will, it will give us the long-term
    704
    reserve as well, and a reserve which will have been raised in a way that is wholly consistent with the voluntary principle.
    I should like to mention one or two points of detail which have cropped up on certain Clauses. In our earlier discussions on Clause 2, there was talk—I think it originated with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—about how accurately informed we are of the whereabouts of the men whom we might want to call up under Clause 2. As this is a point which touches the ability of the Bill to work, perhaps I should say a word to clear it up.
    As hon. Members will know, all part-time National Service men are posted to serve either with a Territorial Army unit or with the Army Emergency Reserve. The bulk of those posted to serve with the A.E.R. are pre-posted, against the advent of an emergency, to a certain unit and are sent an instruction book telling them where to report. In the normal course, these men are written to from time to time to keep their instructions up to date, with the result that we will have been in touch with the vast majority of them within a comparatively recent time and so be sure that we know their current addresses. Even in the case of a few men who may have changed their homes and not told us their new addresses—which, incidentally, they are statutorily bound to do—I believe that such a short time is likely to have elapsed that any letter sent to an old address will in all probability be forwarded. So much for the men attached to the A.E.R., who comprise the bulk.
    In the case of the men posted to the Territorial Army, it is the duty of the commanding officer of the unit to which they are posted to ensure that he has at all times an up-to-date list of addresses. A few weeks ago, my Department wrote to all Territorial Army commanding officers telling them to check their lists if they had not recently done so and to continue doing so at intervals of six months. This is now being done and it will ensure that the addresses of the vast majority of those part-time National Service men who are posted to the Territorial Army will be known to us.
    In addition to those two ways of keeping addresses and to supplement them,

    705
    there is a third method which, in the case of all part-time National Service men, we use from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is in a position to know the current address of any man who pays National Insurance and his Department co-operates with mine to check the address of any man whose latest address we cannot find through the other two systems. I hope that this will assure hon. Members that if the need arises, we shall be able to get in touch quickly with the men whom we want.
    I hope the House will not feel from this latest part of my remarks that anything that my right hon. Friend said about his hopes of not having to employ these powers has been lessened, but as the effectiveness of the power was called in question by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton I felt that I should explain our system for keeping in touch with the men whom, if the worse came to the worst, we might need.
    There is one other point which is, perhaps, worth mentioning again in connection with Clause 2, and also touching the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, about the part-time National Service men who may prefer to exchange, and to have instead, the obligation of some form of voluntary service in certain circumstances for the chance of being made to go compulsorily under Clause 2. Under subsection (3, d) of the Clause such a man, if he has the necessary qualifications, can always volunteer to join the A.E.R.1. That has been rather overlooked during our debate in Committee. If a man does that and is accepted, he will have a less drastic obligation than a member of the T.A.E.R. and a correspondingly lower bounty, but he will have eliminated the uncertainty from his position as being liable in certain circumstances under Clause 2.
    The main burden of the debate on Clause 1 was concerned with the possibility of exempting one or other class of persons on compassionate grounds or grounds of hardship. My right hon. Friend has explained in great detail how we should propose to deal with all these cases, and, I think, to the general satisfaction of the House. He has explained how every man concerned will be made
    706
    aware of his right of appeal, how appeals will be forwarded and dealt with, the composition of the hardship committee, the advice that he will give to it and the circumstances in which he proposes to seek its advice.
    In so far as the great majority of these cases will be dealt with in the first instance by the appropriate branch of the War Office, I do not believe that any Member of the House, particularly those hon. Members on the benches opposite who continuously are concerned with Army matters, on the basis of past experience of constituents' cases, will not be content with this position. I claim no credit for it, although in the course of correspondence with hon. Members I see a large number of these compassionate cases. There is a tradition of fair and sympathetic dealing in this branch of the War Office which goes on while Under-Secretaries of State come and go. I believe that the House as a whole accepts this, and from that knowledge will be the more confident in the administration of the Bill.
    Since, therefore, the Bill, although we have not pretended that it is popular with anybody, is necessary for what it does and in the assurance that these powers, although it goes against the grain for the House to grant them or, indeed, for the Government to ask for them, will be sympathetically exercised, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
    7.38 p.m.
    Mr. Reynolds: I cannot support the Under-Secretary's hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading. We have been discussing the Bill, both in Committee and today, under a Guillotine, which has not only limited the amount of time for discussion but, what has been far more important, has made the discussion of the important Clauses of the Bill rather more dead and lifeless than was the case before the Guillotine was introduced.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) drew attention earlier today to the apparent lack of interest in the provisions of the Bill and the small number of hon. Members who were attending the Committee. That was exactly the position. Before the Guillotine was introduced, however, a

    707
    considerable number of hon. Members were showing an interest in the Bill and making excellent contributions to our debates in Committee.
    Nevertheless, the Guillotine was brought in. It is a great pity that on a controversial Bill of this nature such action should have been taken and that it should be having its concluding effect tonight by leaving us only three hours for the Third Reading of this important Bill. Even the Financial Secretary to the War Office has just said that no Government could ask for such powers without over-riding reasons. I am sorry that I keep on using the hon. Gentleman's various titles but since he has two we might as well make use of them.
    I do not think that the House has been given the principal reason which makes the Bill necessary. We know that there are reasons at present concerning the short-fall of men to provide conventional forces in B.A.O.R., but the principal reason for the Bill, in our opinion, is the way in which right hon. Gentlemen opposite have dealt with the problem over the last few years. We feel that they are to blame for the position which we are in today, not any international situation or any particular action taken by the Army. They decided to abolish National Service primarily for political rather than defence reasons. They have decided on many occasions since to limit the amount of money spent on our conventional defences. All these decisions in the past have led us eventually to a position which the Under-Secretary made out a few moments ago that everyone knew would come when National Service men gradually ran out of the Army before we had a full complement of Regulars. Everyone has known it, but only for about twelve months; years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said so.
    Sir Fitzroy Maclean: We have been saying so for five years.
    Mr. Reynolds: I agree that some hon. Members opposite have been in cahoots with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley on this, but no indication was given to us from the Front Bench opposite that this problem would arise. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for
    708
    Dudley say that this would probably happen and we have heard it again tonight from speakers on the Front Bench opposite, but it ill behoves the Under-Secretary to say now that this had been foreseen for a considerable time.
    We heard on Second Reading that the Bill was designed to meet a definite short-term requirement as well as to provide a reserve of trained men in the long term. That is the Government's intention, but as far as I can see there is a certain amount of double-dealing going on in this matter. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I have the honour of serving as a member of the Defence Committee of Western European Union and I know that that is not the reason for the Bill which is given by Her Majesty's Government to some of our Western allies.
    We are told there of provisions made by all Western countries to counter the threat which has grown up in central Europe over the past few months. We are told of the 45,000 men sent over and the billion dollars of money spent by the United States to strengthen its forces in the European theatre. We are told of two divisions brought from Algeria to central France, though I do not know how long it will be before they receive their full Central European equipment. We are told of the steps taken by the Benelux countries to bring their forces up to something more like the required strength. And we are told that this Bill is part of the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to build up their conventional forces in Central Europe.
    This is a reason completely different from that given to us in the House and completely different from what we know to be the reason or the Bill. All hon. Members present here know that the provisions in the Bill will in no way increase the number of men made available for B.A.O.R. or increase the strength or defensive power of our conventional forces in the B.A.O.R. area. What it will do is to stop them getting weaker than they are at present. That is the main reason for the Bill and that was the reason given here by the Secretary of State on Second Reading and in Committee.
    I cannot understand why a completely different reason is given to our Western

    709
    allies. They are given the impression that this provision increasing the period of National Service by six months is primarily designed to compare with what the Americans are doing in bringing over 45,000 men and the French in bringing in from Algeria two divisions, however ill-equipped. The British contribution to the N.A.T.O. request to build up our forces in Central Europe is to extend National Service for six months. Everyone knows that this will not increase our forces. It will simply serve to stop them declining to even a worse manpower position than they are in at present.
    Even though the Bill will receive a Third Reading and will presumably go fairly quickly to another place, the Secretary of State does not intend to start using the provisions of the Bill until April anyway. Therefore, I do not see how the Bill can affect directly what has happened in Europe in the last six months. It may be expected to affect what may possibly happen in Europe during the next six or twelve months, but I am sorry that different stories are being told here and in Europe about the reasons for the Bill.
    Everyone knows that the Government have broken their pledge to our European allies about the number of men and the amount of equipment we are prepared to contribute to Western European defence. We know that we have only 51,000 men in B.A.O.R. at the moment. I have heard the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), in conversations with European colleagues, employing fanciful arithmetic to make out that we have more men in Europe, bringing in the Air Force and the N.A.A.F.I. to get the number up to 64,000. Those are the lengths to which many of us have to go in talking about our position in the Central European area at the moment, but the Secretary of State said that we have 51,000 in Central Europe, and the Government can prevent the total from dropping below that figure only if the House passes this Bill.
    That is the position, but we must be clear that the Bill will not reduce the dangerous over-reliance on nuclear weapons in Northern Europe and will not stop B.A.O.R. operational fronts being shortened in future by getting Ger-
    710
    man units to take over responsibility for certain fronts in Europe due to the complete inability of B.A.O.R. to carry out the duties which the Government have put upon them in the Central European area. Neither will it stop the next commander-in-chief in Northern Europe being a German rather than a British general, because we shall not have sufficient forces in that part of the world to justify our claim to hold a command post of that nature
    In addition, the House is asked to pass the Bill in unfortunate and unusual circumstances. We have not yet been given any detailed information about the type of men who will be required under Clauses 1, 2 and 3. The only information which I cam recall the House or the Committee being given is that half will be in fighting units and half in the tail. The House is entitled to more information than that before being asked to give the Bill a Third Reading. Surely the Secretary of State is aware by now of the type of technician and the various groups of men who are most likely to be required under the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2. He knows how recruiting has been going on in the last few months and he must have a reasonable idea of the classes of men and the trade groups of whom he is most likely to be short during the last six months of this year.
    The right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, be able to give the House some information about the type of men most likely to be affected. We are entitled to the information and, whilst it could not be regarded as binding in any way, the information might serve to lessen the fear of a large number of National Service men at the moment. If they realise that they do not happen to be in the trade group that is most likely to be required it may ease their minds to some extent although it will not mean that they may not be required eventually.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has from time to time protested that we are being asked to discuss a Bill which deals with reserve forces without being given any information about those forces. He said that only he and the Secretary of State at the moment know of our position.
    Mr. Wigg: I did not make so bold a claim. I said that anyone could do the

    711
    same sums and work it out for himself. I am amazed that the House has not pressed for this information.
    Mr. Reynolds: I am glad that my hon. Friend supports my support of what he has been saying during earlier stages. I hope that, before we finish the debate we shall be given more information about the general position of our reserve forces.
    Even more strange is the position about the financial aspect. We have had a rather unusual arrangement—a Report from the Estimates Committee on the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum. We were in the ridiculous position, having given the Bull a Second Reading, that, when one or two of us endeavoured to ask questions about the Financial Resolution, three Ministers, plus the Leader of the House, were sitting on the Front Bench opposite unable to answer our questions. One got the impression that some of them had not even looked at the Resolution before we voted on Second Reading, and that they then suddenly realised that hon. Members were likely to ask questions.
    We got very conflicting answers to our questions. Eventually the matter had to come to an end under Standing Orders. There was an even more fantastic position at the beginning of the Committee stage. The Secretary of State had to ask leave to move to report Progress in order to answer points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. I am not even now completely clear as to exactly what those answers were, but we wasted three hours of Committee time in order to get the matter cleared up. That arose because of the inefficiency of the Ministers in charge.
    Then the Estimates Committee issued a special Report criticising the information given to the House in the Memorandum. The Report said that the Secretary of State was able to inform the House that about 15,000 men would be retained under Clause 1, and that the Committee could not understand why this information and the estimate of expenditure based upon it were not given in the Memorandum.
    Now we have the information about the number of men but, to the best of my knowledge, we have not yet had the
    712
    information which the Committee felt should have been included in the Bill about the estimated cost. The Committee also suggested that estimates could have been prepared, based on certain illustrations, about the cost of other parts of the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the Estimates Committee's strictures and let us have that information before the debate ends.
    We are being asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill which will place 120,000 men in considerable suspense. These will be affected by Clauses 1 or 2 over the next four years or so. Until next April, we are told, no one will be retained, and then, for six months after that, only men in B.A.O.R. may be required to stay on. This does not apply, however, even to Berlin, and neither Cyprus nor Tripoli nor anywhere else will be affected. After that stage, however, men may be retained in all parts of the world and sent to do extra service in B.A.O.R. They may never have been there before, which will mean a certain amount of retraining. I believe that this will produce an unsettling effect on the units already there which will have to receive and retain these men.
    We have reiterated throughout that this is not only unfair to the 120,000 men concerned, but particularly unfair to those retained for the six months' period or who are liable to be recalled for up to six months after they have left the Service. Not one of our Amendments to exempt specific and deserving cases has been accepted by the Government.
    Clause 3 provides that these "Ever-ready" reserves, as the Secretary of State has christened them, must be linked with the Territorial Army. We discussed this in Committee and I am still not convinced that it is absolutely necessary for every member of this reserve to become first of all a member of the Territorial Army. It is possible that, in some circumstances, the Secretary of State may well be stopping from doing so men who might have been prepared to join such a reserve, and who have specialist qualifications, because they are not members of the Territorial Army at present.
    It is easy to say that anyone, including National Service men, can join the Territorial Army and then go into the

    713
    "Ever-readies". But the first step, which is irrevocable for a certain period, is to join the Territorial Army and it is then to be twelve months before a man can apply to join the "Ever-readies".
    Then there is the possibility that there may be no vacancies for a man's particular group. There is no certainty, either, that a man's commanding officer will recommend him for the "Ever-readies", or that whoever deals with such recommendations will accept him. It is not quite as easy as the Secretary of State has tried to make out. It is not enough merely to say to National Service men or anyone else, "You should join the Territorial Army to get into the "Ever-readies"; you will get £150 a year—buy a fur coat for your wife or take the family for a holiday."
    I do not see the necessity for linking the "Ever-readies" closely with the Territorial Army. It may have an unfortunate effect on the Territorial Army. The hon. Member for Stroud mentioned the fact that one did not want to see members of the Territorial Army wearing side-flashes and saying "We are 'Ever-readies'—the rest do not matter." I hope that that does not happen, but there is a danger that such an attitude may develop.
    I have a strong suspicion that many of the types of men the Regular Army is short of will, in all probability, be the same types of men or groups which the Territorial Army itself is short of. I cannot prove this because we have not been given any information by the Secretary of State as to the types of men or the particular groups required for the "Ever-readies".
    I am surprised that, contrary to normal practice when announcements are made about the Territorial Army, when the Bill was published, and up to Christmas, none of the brigadiers engaged in working with the Territorial Army had been given any information about the way in which this scheme was to work. I know that individual Territorial Army soldiers made inquiries, but at brigadier level information was not available. On earlier occasions, however, when announcements have been made about the Territorial Army, these officers have had the information on their desks the morning after.
    714
    I realise that, on this occasion, legislation was involved, so perhaps the Secretary of State could not be definite before the Bill was passed. But something could have been sent out to be passed down to the ordinary soldier making inquiries. On the other hand, this strengthens my suspicion that some of the provisions of the Bill have been rushed in at the last moment and that all the details had not been worked out at the time the Bill was published.
    I ask the House to refuse the Bill a Third Reading. It will not solve the long-term recruiting problem of the Regular Army. It does not make provision for the proper use of the available manpower already in the Army. No attempt is being made at this stage—although we hear rumours of what might come in the Defence White Paper—by the Government or the Secretary of State to make better use in Central Europe of troops we have in other parts of the world.
    The Bill does not go any way towards dealing with that problem. It does not strengthen our conventional forces in any way, and it does not reduce our dreadful dependence on nuclear weapons in the Central European theatre. In addition, it is unfair to 120,000 men, and will be grossly unfair to that proportion of that 120,000 who are eventually called up for service. For those reasons, I hope that the House will not give the Bill a Third Reading this evening.
    8.0 p.m.
    Brigadier Sir John Smyth: Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I shall be brief in order to give hon. Members the maximum possible time to make their speeches, particularly hon. Members opposite who may feel that they are handicapped by the Guillotine.
    I do not think that many people will agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) that time for discussion has been very limited on what is a very short although undoubtedly important Bill. There has been time to go into every detail about which hon. Members have wanted to know and for my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend to give very detailed replies. I gathered from his remark about National Service that the hon.

    715
    Member for Islington, North did not agree with our abolishing National Service and adopting our present system of a voluntary Regular Army. I was surprised when he said that in Europe it was not known what was the object of the Bill. I have not found that. I was broadcasting about the Bill to Europe on Friday morning and it seemed to me that everyone was quite clear about what the Government were trying to do, although not necessarily in agreement with it.
    There is no doubt that the Bill is important from two points of view. First, it is necessary in the present military situation and, secondly, it is important because of its effect on the lives of thousands of young men who have done or who are finishing their National Service. This is a form of compulsion which we all dislike, but the Minister deserves the fullest credit for his great pains and patience in going into all the measures to see that those who ought to get relief or be excused are suitably dealt with. We cannot complain about his action in that respect.
    My own experience is that, considering that the Bill is an unpopular Measure, being a form of compulsion, it has been well received by the country. It has been very much better received than would have been the case if we had had to reintroduce conscription in some form or other, as some hon. Members want.
    Mr. Wigg: Surely the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) is not suggesting that the Bill is not conscription in some form or other?
    Sir J. Smyth: I disagree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on that point. If he were reintroducing conscription instead of the Bill, I think he would find that he was on a very uneasy wicket.
    Mr. Paget: Are not the gentlemen who are recalled to the Services or required for another six months conscripts? Are they not conscripted? If not, believe me, they will not be there.
    Sir J. Smyth: All I can say is that the Bill is much the same thing as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) did when he wanted to get the
    716
    men at a certain time for a certain period.
    Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) never denied that he was exercising conscription. The point is that the hon. and gallant Member is denying that what the Government are now doing is some form of conscription.
    Sir J. Smyth: I was saying that it was some form of compulsion. I would not say that it was some form of conscription. If we were reintroducing conscription, we would be calling up a whole lot of young men and that would do no good at all in this emergency for at least nine or ten months, so that we would be undertaking something to no purpose.
    The intention of the Bill is quite clear. It gives powers to the Secretary of State to strengthen our Armed Forces in Germany. The hon. Member for Islington, North said that it would not increase our forces in Germany, but that was something of a quibble. Calling up a certain number of men and keeping others there must be to increase our strength in some form. Our reason for doing so is that this is a time of transition between the end of conscription and the beginning of a new scheme of a voluntary Regular defence force. This year will be the difficult year, the worst year.
    Mr. Reynolds: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that I maintained that the Bill would not increase our forces in Germany. I drew attention to the fact that on Second Reading the Under-Secretary said—and I base my case on this because I cannot think of better information—that our present strength in Europe was about 51,000 and that it could be prevented from dropping below this figure only if the House passed the Bill. I think that that is a fair enough statement.
    Sir J. Smyth: The fact remains that it is producing more men. It may not be increasing our strength but only keeping it up, but we will not argue about that. That it is producing more men is
    The Bill is designed to meet what we all feel to be a time of tension in Europe. The very fact that we have brought in common sense.

    717
    the Bill, even before it is operated, has had a good effect in Europe. Just as it used to be said that a tank force exercised its most powerful influence when it was out of sight over the horizon, the very fact that we are bringing in an unpopular Bill, which has met with great opposition from the party opposite, has had a good effect and shows that we intend to do something about the present situation.
    The first part of the Bill may be a breach of contract, just as the right hon. Member for Easington might have been accused of a breach of contract. However, we supported him because he had to take some measures at the time of the Korean war and we are now having to take similar measures. I am certain that the Army fully supports the Bill, accepting it as the only measure which can produce anything to meet the present eventualities. Hon. Members will carefully watch the cases of hardship, of which there will be a number, to see that the Minister implements the various measures which he explained to us.
    My own constituency of Norwood is generally regarded as something of a weather vane in matters of this sort, and I have had hardly a letter on the subject of the Bill. I presided at a meeting of Young Conservatives the other evening and asked for views about the Bill, and I was somewhat surprised that there was so little grousing about it. Those young people have accepted it as a necessary measure, and I think that the rest of the country has, too. That is unlike the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill about which people in my constituency and in other parts of south London are very worked up, about 90 per cent. of them in favour of the Bill. The strong opposition of the party opposite to that Bill is very unpopular. This Bill has been well received.
    The Bill brings in a new form of volunteer reserve, the Ever-readies". The hon. Member for Islington, North was somewhat doubtful about attaching them to the Territorial Army, thinking that that might live a bad effect on the Territorial Army. I do not agree. I believe that this imaginative measure will have a good effect on the whole set-up of our new voluntary defence force and that the "Ever-readies" will
    718
    be enthusiastically supported and will provide a much-needed reserve.
    Some hon. Members have been doubtful about the training which these men will get in the Territorial Army, and the right hon. Member for Easington seemed to be somewhat of that opinion. On this side of the House there are several hon. Members who know a great deal about the Territorial Army. There is my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn), my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison). They are all much more experienced than I am about the Territorial Army, particularly about its training and organisation.
    The acid test for the Territorial Army is, however, how it gets on in war, in active service operations. As a Regular officer, I had the experience of commanding a Territorial brigade during the time of Dunkirk. It was with some considerable apprehension that I did so, knowing that we had to go out almost at once to oppose the best trained mechanised army in the world. I was amazed by that brigade's performance and I am sure that the same will be true of the "Ever-readies". I frankly say that Territorial soldiers are not of the same standard as Regulars. The chief reason is a matter of basic training, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Dudley will agree about that. They do not have the grounding which the Regular soldier has, and find it very difficult to attain the same standard of individual training and weapon training.
    I beg my right hon. Friend, whatever else he does about the "Ever-readies", not to skip their basic training. If they do not get their basic training and their weapon training right, but go to the more amusing side of tactical training before they are really ready for it, they never recover. In the Territorial brigade I found that there was not the background which the Regular soldier has.
    The other point which has been raised by a number of hon. Members is the advantage of trying to train them if possible in small Territorial units. That was the great strength of the Territorial divisions which went out to France in

    719
    1940. My brigade was known as the Manchester Brigade. Many of those in it had been to school in Manchester, played games together and soldiered together. They had tremendous comradeship and friendship, and that undoubtedly was a very great factor in their favour when it came to military operations.
    Sir F. Maclean: Surely that will not apply to the "Ever-readies". They will be in strange units, having never met before.
    Sir J. Smyth: My hon. Friend is quite right. I know that that will be so at the beginning, and the idea is, as the Minister has said, to produce round pegs for round holes with the "Ever-readies". I hope that when this scheme catches on and the numbers increase they will, even in a small way, be able to do some training with their own friends and in their own units.
    Now that the Bill has got so far and will become an important part of our general scheme for a voluntary defence force, which we are determined to see through, I hope that the House will accept it tonight. Hon. Members opposite have made their case, particularly the hon. Member for Dudley, at great length and with great thoroughness in bringing out every possible point. Having done so, I hope that Members in the House as a whole will do their best to see that it works. As I have said before, Members of Parliament are really our best recruiting agents. There is no one like them for knowing the young people in their constituencies, and they can help enormously. If we are to do this, then for goodness sake let us do it properly, and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
    8.17 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) is, as everyone knows, a distinguished soldier whose views on military matters are worthy of the highest respect. Nevertheless, I am sorry to have to disagree with him. The Bill will no doubt receive the support of the majority in the House, but it is, whether we and hon. Members opposite like it or not,
    720
    a confession of the failure of the Government's recruiting policy. It is as simple as that.
    We recall the optimistic utterances of right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench, of the previous Secretary of State for War, the present Secretary of State for War, a residuary legatee, and the Minister of Defence. Speech after speech, declaration after declaration, has been made, full of optimism about the future and about reaching the target. One day it was to be 165,000, the next day 185,000, and all under the shadow of the Report of the Hull Committee. This Committee was presided over by the present Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Sir Richard Hull, and its report made it clear beyond a peradventure that nothing short of 200,000 men in the Regular Army would suffice.
    Sir J. Smyth: I want to point out, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that Sir Richard Hull is now the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and that I am quite certain that he would not have taken on the job of Chief of Staff of our set-up unless he thought that it would work.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. and gallant Member, even on that issue. I do not know any high-ranking soldier who would refuse to accept the dignified and exalted position of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. There have, of course, been very many frustrated generals who had ambitions in that direction. I say nothing disrespectful about General Hull. I remember him as a young officer at the War Office. Indeed, once when I was asked by one of his superiors what I thought of him I suggested that one day he would become an even more important officer in the Army; and so it has turned out.
    Mr. Paget: When my right hon. Friend says that the Hull Committee reported that 200,000 men would be required, that was on the basis of the B.A.O.R. being confined to 45,000. On the present requirements for the B.A.O.R., the figure would be 220,000.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am always ready to accept reinforcements, even if they are National Service men.

    721
    The principle that I was enunciating has some validity, if nothing more, and that is my first point in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood.
    I repeat, because it is extremely important that this should percolate through the minds of hon. Members and those people in the country who apparently accept this piece of legislation with unqualified enthusiasm, or, at any rate, with a dignified silence, as in the case of the Young Conservatives who were addressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that one of the reasons why the Government introduced this legislation was because they were told to do so by their masters in the Pentagon.
    We recall those protracted discussions between the present Minister of Defence and his opposite number in the Pentagon. What were they all about? We used to ask questions, the form of which usually was, "Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what was the nature of the conversations that he had with his opposite number"? We were always told that the discussions were confidential.
    They are no longer confidential. The United States came to the conclusion that the N.A.T.O. forces should be stepped up. We recall the time when there seemed to be a switch from the nuclear theory to the theory of having adequate ground forces. All this happened not long ago, and must be within the recollection of every hon. Member present in the Chamber. Then, of course, the conversations took the inevitable and natural form of devising a method of building up the ground forces. This is still proceeding, and this Measure represents the Government's contribution.
    We therefore have two relevant points. First, the Government's failure to recruit men. Secondly, the pressure exerted by the United States authorities, with the unqualified support of N.A.T.O., with General Norstad in command giving instructions that this should be done. He said so in several speeches, and made no bones about it. I make no complaint about this, because he had a task to perform and I would not expect him to do otherwise.
    What is the nature of the contribution that is to be made by the other N.A.T.O. countries? Is this the only country which is to make an increased contribution?
    722
    I could understand it if the Belgians had increased the length of military service by six or twelve months. I could understand it if France, with all her commitments, but with vast forces, had made an adequate contribution in ground forces to the N.A.T.O. establishment. I could understand it if the Netherlands had made a contribution, and if Norway and Denmark, the only two Scandinavian countries in N.A.T.O., had increased their contribution.
    But, of course, that has not happened. The only country which has increased her contribution, apart from that which we are now about to make, is Western Germany. Indeed, so adequate is that country's contribution that the West Germans have now become the strongest military force in Western Europe.
    That is the position. The Treasury Bench ought to give us the statistics of increased forces contributed by the various N.A.T.O. countries. The whole picture would then unfold, and we could determine Whether our contribution was in proportion to that of other N.A.T.O. countries, or out of proportion, and if so, why.
    I add this, because it is significant. There has been considerable controversy about support costs for our forces in the B.A.O.R. I cannot discuss this in any detail, because it is another question, but it has a bearing on what we are now considering. Obviously, if difficulties have been encountered because of our inability to meet the support costs of our troops there, and we are now engaged in negotiations with the West German authorities to ascertain whether they will make a financial contribution to the support costs, or whether they will purchase arms from this country, and thus help to maintain what is called full employment in the armament factories——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he will appreciate that this is not a Second Reading debate and that we are considerably more confined on Third Reading. I hope that he will relate his argument to the contents of the Bill.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am aware of the principle of the Standing Order, the

    723
    traditions of the House, and the rules under Which this debate is taking place.
    The question of how we are to find the money to support increased ground forces of B.A.O.R. is very relevant. Unless we find that money we cannot increase those forces. Only today, in Committee and on the Report stage of the Bill, we have been discussing how we can provide adequate remuneration for the men who are to be retained and recalled. That involves a considerable sum of money, and that money has to be found. Where are we to get it? Will it be from the pockets of the taxpayers, or will Western Germany make a full contribution towards the support costs? That matter has a very definite bearing on the subject under review.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough: May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether my right hon. Friend's arguments were not relevant points to put forward as reasons for rejecting the Bill—simply because it does not contain references to those important subjects?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for supporting the case that I am endeavouring to put before the House.
    The next question we have to ask is whether the Bill is necessary. I yield to nobody in my desire to see that our ground forces are adequate and capable of effective striking power, so that if they are engaged in a quarrel they can give a good account of themselves. No hon. Member on this side of the House, or on the other side—whatever his views or ideologies—would wish to have our forces engaged in war if they were inadequately served in the matter of equipment and training. If they have to enter into battle, let them at least have something to fight with—and, of course, something to fight for.
    Therefore, we must consider whether the Bill is necessary. My submission, which I made in the Second Reading debate and repeat now, very briefly, is that merely to increase our forces in B.A.O.R. by 10,000 or 15,000 men will not make a substantial difference. As far as I can understand it, that is not the purpose of the Bill. As I understand, its purpose is to pick out men here and there to fill gaps, strictly on a military
    724
    basis, or so I hope. A great deal will depend on the commanding officers who decide the tasks that the men will have to perform.
    Let us assume that the Bill is necessary, and that the men are required. The question then arises whether the Bill's proposals provide the fairest and most just method of raising the necessary numbers. I dislike conscription, and I have opposed it, although I had something to do with its introduction—it was inevitable in the circumstances, and, in any event, it was not my decision alone, but that of the Government—but it would have been fairer and more just to have imposed conscription, by extending the National Service Acts and bringing into the ambit of legislation all the men, apart from exemptions and deferments which are always necessary in the circumstances.
    Then there would have been a measure of fairness. But to pick and choose—to tell men who have undertaken two years' service, "You will extend your service by another six months, irrespective of the circumstances"—is wrong. I know all about the hardship tribunals, and the rest, and I appreciate that it is always difficult to be fair in matters of this sort, but I think that it is wrong to bring back men who have left the Service and have entered into vocations, businesses, or trades in civilian life.
    Is there anything in the Bill to which any credit can be attached? I believe there is. It is the "Ever-ready" proposal. I can understand that. It seems quite fair to ask men to volunteer and to undergo a period of training, providing them with a very remunerative incentive in the form of a bounty of £150 a year, plus other emoluments. If the Government had contented themselves with that provision I doubt whether anybody on this side of the House would have opposed the Bill. There is no reason why they should. Nobody takes exception to the voluntary principle. There is nothing exceptional or objectionable about volunteering, by way of the Territorial Army.
    Here, I am speaking for myself, but I am not sure that I do not also speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who deserves the praise of the House for his industry in dealing

    725
    with these matters, and for his foresight and, incidentally, his hindsight. He has been correct about everything concerning the Army, except one particular—his demand that we should revert to conscription. I have told him on many occasions that, although that is technically admirable, it is politically very unpopular.
    Of course, we know that that is so. I could understand that proposal, and the "Ever-readies" would be acceptable. But not the other, not the imposition of this hardship. There is no hardship about asking a man to volunteer for the Regular forces of the Territorial Army and to become a kind of Regular soldier, to be described as an Ever-ready".
    The question I wish to ask is: will they really be effective? I am very worried about the training aspect. It is not, I think, entirely irrelevant. Speaking from my experience in the Service Departments, I was always worried about the inadequate training of National Service men and, indeed, of some of the Regular forces. On many occasions I discussed these matters with the different Chiefs of the Imperial General Staff with whom I was in cooperation. Going round the depots in Germany and elsewhere, it seemed to me that in many respects the training was casual and inadequate. If we are to have these men, they must be trained effectively and efficiently. They must be trained under proper guidance. Will these men be trained effectively?
    I come to the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood regarding the Territorial Army. I have been critical of the Territorial Forces Auxiliary Association. I have never been critical of the officers in the Territorial Army. The other day there was a misunderstanding, when hon. Members opposite thought that I criticised the junior officers, and even the higher ranking officers. I never did anything of the kind. I referred to the Territorial Auxiliary Forces Association. I knew all these gentlemen. Nearly all of them were members of the House of Lords, or at least they were in my time—dukes and earls and all the rest of it, the whole aristocratic "bag of tricks." One could not be a "top sergeant" of the Territorial Auxiliary Forces Association——
    Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: We do not have "top sergeants."
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not know whether the hon. Member, who is a great educational expert, knows much about these matters.
    Sir K. Pickthorn: I know enough about them to have served in the Territorial Army—which is more than the right hon. Gentleman has done.
    Mr. Shinwell: If I were you—not you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I would not advise the hon. Member—the gallant Member now——
    Sir K. Pickthorn: Certainly.
    Mr. Shinwell:—to go into that subject. I have probably done more fighting on the dockside than he has done in his life—real fighting; and I have been shot at, too. So do not let us talk about that——
    Sir K. Pickthorn: I have seen the right hon. Gentleman doing it.
    Mr. Shinwell: Without being irrelevant, I will take on the hon. Gentleman at any time, in spite of my venerable age.
    I was dealing with the question of the Territorial Auxiliary Forces Association. I am not prepared—I say this deliberately and with respect—to leave these "Ever-readies" and their destiny at the mercy of the gentlemen at the head of the Territorial Auxiliary Forces Association. Why should they be responsible for that administration? Let the task be imposed on the Army Council. That I would accept.
    That is the reason why I oppose the Bill. I have never disguised my dislike of the Bill; of its unfairness and the imposition of hardship; its inadequacy; its cost and its ineffectiveness. At the same time, I am bound to say to the Minister, disliking the Bill as I do, that I only hope that it will turn out well.
    Like many of my hon. Friends who are concerned about the nuclear deterrent, tests and the rest, who, some time ago, agreed that it was far better to build up our ground forces and make that a useful deterrent—if not an effective deterrent, a useful, so far as it can be useful, deterrent—I accept the need for this scheme as conditions are,

    727
    the uncertainty and disquietude in Euorpe and elsewhere. We need a measure of security, or, at any rate, the appearance of security. Therefore, I can only hope that this scheme will turn out well.
    I say to the right hon. Gentleman, let him be warned in time. If we discover—I cannot speak for other hon. Members—if I discover the slightest evidence of unnecessary hardship being imposed on any ex-Service man who is retained in the Service, or recalled to the Service, or any of the wives and families concerned, I shall have no hesitation in making things as difficult as I possibly can. I shall do so with the utmost good will to the right hon. Gentleman and respect for his integrity and ability. He can rely on me; I shall do everything I can to make things difficult for him and will try to induce my hon. Friends to do the same.
    That is what I feel about the Bill. I am sorry that it came before us. It will be carried tonight, of course; the other side have their majority. There is some disquiet even over there about the Bill and its consequences, but we have to accept it. We are in the minority, but, if it should turn out as I suspect it may, it will not go too well with the Minister.
    8.42 p.m.
    Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I find myself in agreement with a certain amount of what has been said on the other side of the House this evening, but I feel that what has been said with such eloquence by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) would have carried much more weight if it had been said sooner—if it had been said five years ago.
    I see the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) looking very virtuous. It is perfectly true that he and some of his more enlightened hon. Friends have been taking a much more sensible line. That does not relieve the Opposition Front Bench as a whole from the responsibility of having tagged along blindly behind the Government in the last five years. Even now that they are more enlightened they still do not carry
    728
    their enlightenment to its logical conclusion. They are still not prepared to accept the need for National Service—for conscription.
    I had hopes of the right hon. Member for Easington. I thought at one moment that he was going to say that he was in favour or conscription. I am not sure that in the past he has not said that he was. He has come very near to it once or twice. If they want a proper Army, the only hon. Member opposite who can with a clear conscience vote against this Bill tonight is the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who consistently in the past five years has made clear exactly where he stands on this matter.
    There is one good thing about the Bill. It marks irrevocably the collapse of the Government's defence policy of 1957. It marks the end of the five-year defence plan we were told so much about, but which we do not hear so much about now and it also marks its collapse. For five years the Government have been telling us that everything was going splendidly, that they had got the right target, were going to attain it and so on. Now suddenly, partly under pressure of circumstances and partly, as the right hon. Member for Easington suggested, pressure from our allies, I suspect that they have had to indulge in a delayed and, I hope, agonising reappraisal of their policy. They have had to rush through this panic, stop-gap Measure.
    The trouble was that the target which they adopted in the first place was wrong. The right hon. Member for Easington spoke of the Government's failure with recruitment. I do not agree with him. I do not think that the Government have failed with recruitment. I think that they will get the number of men they set out to get, namely, 165,000 or thereabouts. I always thought that they would, because I have great faith in the Government actuaries, who established that figure in the first place. The trouble about that target is that it is not the number of men they needed; it is the number of men that everyone thought that, with any luck, they could get by voluntary recruiting. They were quite right about that, if about nothing else.
    My right hon. Friends have put some of their most loyal supporters in a very

    729
    difficult spot, because many of my hon. Friends have taken the line, as have all hon. Members opposite, with one or two exceptions, that nothing could be more disastrous than selective service, that it would wreck the Army, that it was unnecessary and that they would in no circumstances support it. Now they are having to vote for selective service, because that is exactly what the Bill represents—and a very unfair form of selective service, too. They find themselves in almost as illogical a position as I, for, having pressed my right hon. Friends to introduce selective service, now that he has introduced it, I vote against it and they have to vote for it.
    I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said when he opened the Third Reading debate. He said that this Measure would no doubt be politically more unpopular than outright National Service, and he is probably right. There is a certain poetic justice about this, because no doubt the chief reason for abolishing conscription in the first place was to win political popularity. It is ironic that they should be reduced to an expedient which is politically unpopular—and I think rightly so—and which incidentally is bad for morale and bad for recruiting, too.
    It might be argued that those of us who want to see a good Army, an Army which is up to strength, a properly balanced Army, should help the Government out of their jam, in spite of all that has happened, by voting for this miserable Bill. We have been told—although I do not think that it carries much weight—that the Bill is designed to meet a special and specific crisis. We were told that by the Prime Minister. That crisis has been over for some months and, if one surveys the international situation, superficially one may say that we are in for a period during which tension will be somewhat relaxed. But that does not mean that this same crisis—or another crisis like it, or worse—will not occur again soon. We are facing a series of crises—a permanent crisis—which in all likelihood will last for the rest of our lives. That perhaps justifies all the arguments that the Bill was designed to meet one special emergency. Of course it is urgent that there should be enough troops in the Army and that they should be properly trained.
    730
    The Under-Secretary said that conscription would be inadequate militarily and he gave two reasons for that. The first was that it would not provide the Government with enough trained men quickly enough. That may be so, but the Government should have thought of that sooner, five years ago, when they made their original mistake of abolishing conscription without being certain that they could get the number of men they needed by voluntary recruiting.
    The second reason my hon. Friend gave was that the Government would get more men than they needed if they were to introduce selective service. If they were to introduce a carefully worked out form of selective service, such as that existing in America, the story might be different. If they were properly to fulfil their obligations towards N.A.T.O., it would take a great many more men than they would get under the Bill—and I have no doubt that the American Government and our other allied Governments remind them of that from time to time.
    That brings me on to my own attitude towards this Measure. No one is more anxious than I to see a properly manned and properly balanced Army and, for that reason, I might have been inclined to vote for the Bill on Third Reading. But I am against its stop-gap character, and that is what is particularly dangerous about it.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said that the Bill showed that we really mean to do something about the matter. I feel bound to disagree with him, for it merely shows that we are in a jam and that we have had to yield to the pressure of events and the pressure from our allies. I do not think that it shows that we mean business.
    The Bill will provide men to fill the gaps for a short time but, by its nature, the length of time during which it can do that is bound to be limited. Further, in order to keep men on for a further six months or to recall them, a disproportionate amount of disturbance will be caused to the private lives of the men as well as disturbance to the units concerned and the economic and social life of the country. I hope, as does

    731
    everyone, that the "Ever-readies" will be successful, although I cannot say that I feel very confident about that. They may be successful as long as there are a number of former National Service men to join them.
    When the supply of trained men runs out, I wonder whether we really have the answer? I hope that the Measure will prove to be the answer and that, in the long term, there will be sufficient men. But I do not believe that in the sort of running emergency which we must face today either the reservists who are called up or the Territorials can be the ultimate answer. We need more men on the ground, and I think that they can be provided only by an adequate number of soldiers and, in turn, that adequate number of soldiers can be got only by conscription.
    Sir J. Smyth: My hon. Friend talks of the good old days when we had a proper Army. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is always very frank about the fact that, when he had an Army of double the numbers we have today, we could not find even one brigade to go to Korea. At the time of Suez, as my hon. Friend knows very well, we had not anyone who could go quickly. Therefore, I do not think that we ought to believe that pure numbers of men necessarily make what my hon. Friend calls a proper Army.
    Sir F. Maclean: As regards Suez, whatever view may be taken of it politically—we are getting rather away from the Bill—I think that no one will deny that, when the decision was taken to send a force to Suez, that force got there and acquitted itself extremely well in the task it was called upon to do and, indeed, could have acquitted itself better still if it had not been withdrawn.
    What worries me about the Bill is that it will serve to mask the symptoms in the patient. It will serve to tide things over for two years until too late, until the situation is irreparable. It has been said before and will, no doubt, be said again—it certaintly will be said by me—that one cannot fill an empty Army as one can fill an empty bath simply by turning on the tap. This is what my right hon. Friend is finding now.
    732
    It is no good panicking. If one has done away with conscription, one cannot bring it back suddenly. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said earlier, men are suddenly needed. We need trained men. The Government have decided to freeze the men who are already in the Forces. In two years, when the usefulness of the Bill is exhausted, they will not even be able to do that. Then the situation really will be desperate. It is on that account, because of the ultimately disastrous effect which this masking of the symptoms, this sedative administered to the patient, will be likely to produce that I, for one, propose to vote against the Bill.
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. Wigg: Like the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), I am a victim of the illogicalities of the Bill. It creates for me, as for him, a personal dilemma. Ever since the lamentable White Paper of April, 1957, we have shared similar views in our assessment of the defence situation. We have foreseen a situation which has now arrived. Each of us in his own way has to face the personal obligations involved.
    I abstained on Second Reading. At that point, I was asked to approve the principles on which the Bill was based. I carried my logic a stage further and voted against Clause 1, the Clause which, willy-nilly, without regard to personal circumstances, without regard to the honour involved in the Government's policy and its effect upon thousands of young men, keeps them for a further six months. I regarded that as an outrage and I voted against it. I still regard it as an outrage.
    Coming to Clause 2, in which the Government seek power, in order to meet an emergency, to recall National Service men who have undergone an obligation imposed on them by, I think, the almost unanimous will of Parliament, I could not find it in my heart to vote against it. I abstained on Clause 2.
    I argued then as I argued with myself before I became a Member of this House in 1939. I opposed the foreign policy of Neville Chamberlain. I thought that it was disastrous and that it would lead us to war and to the brink of defeat. But I thought that, having opposed the

    733
    foreign policy, I had to accept the need, not for a weakening of our defences, but for a strengthening of them. I was, therefore, in favour of conscription in 1939, and I am in favour of the principle of it now, although I deplore the shilly-shallying and muddling which has led to it in Clause 2 and the obligations which it imposes.
    What should I do tonight? I think that on balance I should vote against the Third Reading, because I have to declare by my action that this is a bad Bill and that the Government who have imposed it ought to vacate their office and that a new administration should tackle 'le problems afresh. It is for those reasons that I shall take the action which I propose to take.
    I could not understand the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). I have a great respect for him. I read his writings. I am always glad to talk to him and I accept him as an honourable and gallant gentleman in the truest sense of the words, who says what he thinks. However, I think that he strains loyalty to his party too much when he seeks to deny that the Bill extends a form of conscription by the most unfair, most muddle-headed and least efficient means from a military angle that it is possible for the human mind to devise. That is not because the Government are a Government of stupid men or of wicked men but because they are a Government of men who have lost touch with things and have been driven step by step by force of circumstances into the difficult position in which they find themselves. The reason for that as much an anything was the subborn, supine blindness of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
    At least the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is logical. He never changes his mind. He is so masochistic that he has a sheer delight in banging his head against a brick wall. I hold in my hand a copy of a speech which he made in June, 1958, when he offered to lay ten-to-one that the Government would get sufficient recruits by the end of 1962 to get rid of National Service. I always take ten-to-one about an even money chance. I fell over myself to get a pound on as quick as the post could take it. It was
    734
    a case of ten pounds to one for me. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would not be my banker but he would take the bet. I have had a great deal of correspondence with him, but I have not had the ten quid. I won the money all right and I offered to give it to the British Legion in my constituency. I hope that one day, perhaps in his will, the right hon. Gentleman will discharge his debt of honour.
    What the right hon. Gentleman said in the same speech, in this forecast, this certainty which had to be a certainty for the narrowest of party political reasons, was this:
    "There will continue to be some difficulty in finding all the storekeepers, clerks, lorry drivers, hospital orderlies and others needed for administrative duties".
    Now settlement day has arrived.
    Is this something novel? Is this something invited by the Almighty for the special persecution of the British people? Is this something which has descended on us because, as apparently my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) thinks, we are shouldering the great burden of defence, facing our obligations and doing much more than all our other partners in N.A.T.O.? If so, this is pure chauvinistic bunk. Of course it is not true.
    I have here a copy of the Annual Report of the Director of Selective Service in the United States. I have done the best I can to understand what they have done in that country. It is stated:
    "Contemporary selective service has been in existence almost continuously since 16th September, 1940. There was a lapse of about 15 months from 1st April, 1947 to 24th June, 1948".
    The astonishing thing is that at no Presidential election has this matter been in issue. It is accepted as part of the modern way of life. I will not go into all the circumstances, but will quote one sentence:
    "The selective service system is essential to the maintenance of military strength."
    That is what it says. Again:
    "Selective service is also indispensable in helping the Armed Forces to meet their needs for medical and dental officers."
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that? What is to happen to the Royal Army Medical Corps and the

    735
    Royal Army Dental Corps when the last National Service man has gone? As for the powers in the Bill, either in Clause 1 or Clause 2, a levy en masse for calling up Tom, Dick and Harry, whether we want them or not, is out of date. In the modern world, whether it is in America, Britain, Germany, France or on either side of the Iron Curtain, if we want balanced military forces, we have to have some form of selective service.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood, in his anxiety to defend the Government, tried to make a case out of what happened to the Labour Government in 1950 about the brigade group going to Korea. But we produced the brigade group. The Korean war broke out on 25th June, and, starting from scratch, with tremendous commitments, and while our demobilisation was still not complete, we got together a brigade group which went into action and met its military obligations.
    Sir J. Smyth: I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that if we had had to depend on that brigade group to get to Korea in time to save the situation it would have been weeks and almost months too late. It was only the action of the Americans that saved the situation in Korea. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is always much more frank about this than is the hon. Member for Dudley. The right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Defence at the time, and he does know what happened.
    Mr. Wigg: Whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington was Minister of Defence or not, the facts are that in Korea the Americans were on their way out and had to come back. They had a much greater area when they came back, after those disastrous months at the end of the year, as their strength was built up.
    So far as we were concerned, it was at the other end of the world. It was an obligation that was never on our list, and was never one of our commitments. We got together a brigade group. It went in, and discharged its military obligations. We did all that, of course, because we were not in the same position as we now are. Let the hon. and gallant Gentleman remember what the Prime
    736
    Minister said, and what the real indictment of the Government is. This is the Prime Minister, in the debate on the Queen's Speech on 31st October, 1961. He was dealing with this Bill, and he said:
    "In the first place, whatever the size of the Army next year, it will not, and I admit it, be properly balanced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st October, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 35.]
    That is the fact. We have no medium artillery in Germany. The balance as between the various arms of the Services is out of balance, and the Bill will not bring it back. It will not even begin to do it. Clause 1 is an unfair expedient to which the Government are driven because they have no possible alternative but to break faith with these young men.
    The Secretary of State told us that in this particular category he does not intend to play around with much more than 25,000 men. On that strength, it will give him between 170,000 and 180,000, which is suspiciously near the figure which most of us have always thought he would want to get a balanced force. Of course, there is another factor, and, here again, I have the greatest sympathy with the Secretary of State for War. When the present Secretary of State goes and another one comes, whether from this side of the House or wherever he comes from, he will be faced with the same dilemma.
    The Army maimed itself—it had to—in July, 1957, when it reorganised. It carried through a major reorganisation. Nobody in the House knows better than the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood the effect upon the Army of the cutting down that followed that reorganisation. Other hon. Members may suggest that it is possible to cut a few battalions of infantry and to get rid of a few regiments of artillery and of the Royal Armoured Corps, but the hon. and gallant Member knows what this means to the Army. It means asking the Army to discharge its obligation with 60 battalions of the line whereas before the war it was 128 battalions plus the Indian Army.
    If we are to depend on the Actuary's figure of hoping to be able to recruit about 165,000 men, we cannot sustain 60 battalions and at the same time service them. It cannot be done. Therefore—and this is the appalling dilemma

    737
    —what ought to be done is to carry through another reorganisation, which the Army would find it difficult to do.
    I could sit down and write a paper, at least for my own edification, about the steps which should be taken. There should be a corps of infantry, of course, Again. I know the difficulties of carrying through such a step, particularly overnight and in the wake of a reorganisation which the Army thought would be the last only four years ago.
    Again, the Government are hampered because at every stage, from the Prime Minister downwards—I think that the Secretary of State for War is an honourable exception—the country is not told the truth. There was a letter just a week ago from Colonel Henriques in The Times which aroused by sympathy because it was what I have been trying to say, that having spent vast sums of money we could not put a brigade group into Korea, and we could not do so now.
    Today is 8th February. Hon. Members on all sides, can contrast the behaviour of the House of Commons. This afternoon, the Prime Minister came down to a packed House about the bomb. This is the defence subject. This is the item on the defence agenda that interests every hon. Member, on which almost every hon. Member is a great authority, the issue of being either for or against. This afternoon, the House was crowded.
    Tonight we are discussing the other aspect of defence, perhaps the real aspect, the aspect of flesh and blood, the aspect which may be put to the test. We have a comparatively full House of 30 or 40 Members.
    Mr. Shinwell: We had only six earlier.
    Mr. Wigg: Yes, and yet this afternoon, if one had put to the Prime Minister, as I tried to do, the question that really matters—I should have thought that behind this afternoon's announcement one really gets down to it—nobody would have been interested.
    My conception of what happened this afternoon is neither for nor against the bomb. I should like to know what really is behind it. I venture my guess. I believe that the Russians have taken the lead in the anti-missile field and that it will require the maximum effort on
    738
    the part of the West to overtake them. I believe that the last few vehicles which have been put into space within a few minutes of orbit have gone silent——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is getting rather wide of the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. Wigg: I quite agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am trying to deal with the subject in a whole way. We had one aspect of it this afternoon, we have another aspect of it now. I certainly do not want to abuse your kindness, but I do not think it right that when we get sensational headlines, about which passions are aroused—whether one is for or against Wolverhampton Wanderers, West Bromwich Albion, Tottenham Hotspur or Chelsea—people rap each other's throats either across the Floor of the House or in a room upstairs, whereas when we come down to realities, when we can count on the fingers of our hands the things that really matter and the things that may be put to the test, the House of Commons is empty.
    This has happened time and time again and this is the basic cause of our defence troubles. As Colonel Henriques said in his sober way in the columns of The Times, with our defence at present this means that at every stage we are becoming weaker and weaker. The House of Commons for political reasons does not want to admit it. The people in the country do not want to admit it because it is a disturbing thought. But, as Colonel Henriques has pointed out, and I have tried to point out, these facts are known to the Soviet Union and the Pentagon and in the quarters where power is assessed, and this means that the influence of this country which ought to be at the maximum at present does not count.
    Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington really think that the United States Government will go on month after month inducting 10,000 and 13,000 and in April next 6,000 young Americans in perpetuity into the armed forces to defend us in Europe while Britain is the only country in N.A.T.O. that has no conscription? If he does, he is living in a dream world. Does he imagine that Germany will accept

    739
    eighteen months' service and provide twelve divisions while we have three skinny divisions which could not knock the skin off a rice pudding, and that they will not demand the position of influence which we now hold? This is the price of shilly-shallying and mucking about and arguing about atomic weapons when what we should have been looking at are the terms of service, infantry weapons and basic training. Those things are not here in this four-page essay and exercise in semantics which dodges every live issue and ends the way with a pious hope.
    The country, having failed to get the men through the recruiting offices, is now committed to put its money on its reserve forces. But when the Army General Reserve has expired in 1964 and the part-time National Service men have gone in May, 1966, what happens them? For the steps now taken in the Bill cannot be repeated in two or three years' time. All the National Service men's obligations will have run out by 1966 and the only hope then is that the "Ever-readies" policy will have paid off, and then we shall have something like 60,000 men available as a reserve. It is not for me, and it would be an unkind and unfair thing to do, to denigrate in advance what the "Ever-readies" may do. As far as my voice is available, it is at the service of the Secretary of State to make the "Ever-readies" a success, and from the bottom of my heart I wish him well.
    But what are the qualifications? These young men must have one years' service. They must have done one camp. They have accepted an annual bounty of £150 taxable and a £50 tax-free bounty if called up. Then they are to be taken overnight and put in the ranks with a Regular unit. I have had some of that, and I know what it is like to go from one unit to another, and so have hon. Members in all parts of the House. If people believe that it is possible to take men with this limited training and fit, say, 200 of them into an under-established regiment on the eve of active operations without affecting the regiment's efficiency, they are living in a dream world.
    Then there is the other aspect that half of them will not be square pegs in
    740
    round holes. The Secretary of State said exactly the opposite. They will be the round pegs in the round holes which the Secretary of State wants, for half will be in administrative jobs. Thus we will have poor chaps, never having done their share of "square-bashing", knowing only one camp, suddenly picked up and put into key jobs on which the efficiency of an army on the edge of active operations will depend. I do not know what the War Office assessment is behind the scenes, but I can guess the assessments in the Pentagon and the Kremlin.
    This is a short-term policy. The Government are borrowing from tomorrow as an act of expediency to help them out of their difficulties today. They have no follow-up policy—except. of course, that the Secretary of State hopes that he will be taking a holiday on the Riviera when the day of reckoning comes and that some poor mug from these benches will then be carrying the can, when we shall have Motions of censure three times a day because the Labour Government are failing to solve overnight the problems left by ten years of Tory rule.
    That is the only hope behind this Measure. I have said before that the Prime Minister is the smartest operator I know. One thing certain in his policy at the present time is his absolute certainty that when the cheques are presented he will not be there. That is the cynical aspect of the Bill. It does not even pretend to deal with the basic problem which faces the country and the Army. At its best, this is a very thin sheet of political ice spread over troubled waters to get the Government out of an extremely difficult situation. What makes me so sad is that I believe that the margin between success and failure can be counted on the willingness of the Government and of the Opposition to tell the people the truth.
    I have sufficient faith in democracy and in my fellow countrymen to believe that that applies not only to defence but to our economic life and to colonial and foreign affairs. Tell the people the truth and there is a chance that the Government will get an honest response on which they can act. But if the people are led from one piece of political expediency to another, what chance have

    741
    they of coming to the right conclusions? None at all.
    I shall go into the Lobby against this Bill, although I realise that Clause 2 would have to be put through by some administration. But I have no faith in Clause 3 and the "Ever-readies" as a permanent solution. This is a short-term measure. I wish it well, for I am as disinterested now in these matters as I was when I first came to the House. I repeat that anything any of us can do to make this pay off will be worth doing, because it will save not only the Government but, what is more important, the country and the Army from having to face a very difficult problem in the future.
    9.20 p.m.
    Mr. Kershaw: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that if the people are told the truth they will react in the necessary way, but I do not think that the Bill hides any reality of the military situation which it ought not to do. The first charge against it is that it is unfair. Some hon. Members have agreed that it is unfair, and I agree with that verdict myself. But that is not sufficient reason for the House to reject the Bill, because every form of conscription is unfair. Even the most universal National Service which it is reasonable to impose is bound to be unfair to some extent.
    As has been said during the debate, the sort of National Service which we have had up to now has been no more than selective service, because so many exceptions were quite rightly made. Even National Service as it has existed until very recently has been an unfair system. It is certainly no fairer to exclude the exceptions than to make it complete and universal in the way that France does, not even allowing conscientious objectors to be exempted. None of us would think that fair.
    Reference has been made to the unfairness of the pay for those who are recalled or retained compared with what is to be paid to Regulars. We ought to reflect that if we have conscription and a very large Army, the pay of those called up is bound to be lower, because to some extent the larger the Army, the poorer the pay, as nowadays countries cannot afford to pay armies very much. What would be very unfair would be
    742
    to take soldiers who were not needed for military purposes merely in order to seem fair to those who were needed. I agree that it is fairest to take the fewest number and fairest to take the best-trained, because in that way they are kept for a shorter period, as they are not required for long training.
    I have already mentioned the question of pay and hon. Members have asked whether it is fair to pay retained and recalled National Service men at the three-year Regular rate. This is a difficult decision. I shall not be too dogmatic about it, but I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) say that the three-year men would not mind too much if National Service men received more than they did. I would have thought that as a trade union leader he would have had the theory of comparability of pay very much in his mind. I think that they would mind and that this is a consideration to which my right hon. Friend and the House ought to pay attention. While the matter is obviously not beyond doubt, the blow to the morale of the three-year men is certainly a factor to which not enough attention has been given during our debates.
    Several hon. Members have said, and the hon. Member for Dudley has repeated it, that the measures which the Government are taking are in some way almost a breach of contract with those who were led to believe that they were to serve for two years and who are now to be condemned to serve for two years and six months. However, one could say with equal logic that any conscription is a breach of contract with the nation. But that is not the contract. The contract between the Government and the people is that the Government should take the necessary steps, and take them in time, to defend the country properly.
    It does not matter whether their actions are popular or not. There can be differences of opinion about whether conscription would be more or less popular than the Bill. As a matter of fact, I think that the House might be surprised at the result if we ever had to make the choice. But that does not make any difference. It is the Government's duty, which they cannot shuffle on to anyone else, and it is that duty which they are now trying to discharge.

    743
    It has also been asked why we alone find it necessary to take these measures. But it is not only ourselves who are altering the terms of military service and arrangements. Germany has added six months to its terms of service, incidentally with the agreement of the Socialists in the Bundestag, and in France and the United States much more use is made of reservists who are recalled to the colours when required. It might be thought that that is extremely unfair because some are recalled and some are not according to qualifications. In passing, I may say that the eulogies which are bestowed on the United States system of selective service are not quite so justified as might be thought, because 83 per cent. of the United States Army is volunteer, as is all of the Marine Corps, the Navy and the Air Force. Therefore, the United States selective service impinges on very few people.
    Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member ought to go to the United States and have a course on this subject. It is the genius of that system that there are no permanent deferments, so that the American authorities get a high level of voluntary recruiting just because of the existence of selective service.
    Mr. Kershaw: I agree that selective service is a factor in voluntary recruitment, but a volunteer is a volunteer, so that the number of people who go into the American Army very much against their will is nothing like as great as has been suggested.
    It is not odd that each country should have a different system for its own reserves and terms of service. Each of us has different problems. Those of us who know it much admire the Swiss system of the national levy, but it would be utterly unsuitable to this country, which is a maritime and imperial country. It would not work at all here. It would not solve any of the problems which we have been discussing. I do not believe that large armies, suitable for continental Powers, are suitable or necessary for us.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North made one or two comments about Western European Union about which I would like to say a few words. He said that I had said that we had 64,000
    744
    men in Germany, but I was not adding up the N.A.A.F.I. girls in that figure. I included the Tactical Air Force and the Berlin troops, who are the best equipped of all. To say that we are handing over our front in Germany because we do not have the troops to defend it, is by no means the whole truth.
    The British Army in Germany is sitting on the obvious corridor of advance from the other side. It is Flanked on the left by much more defensible country and in the south by the hilly country in the middle of Germany, where far more troops are congregated. It has been a matter of international jealousy that America and Germany have not hitherto been willing to take over part of this dangerous front in Germany.
    To complete his question, the hon. Member for Islington, North ought to have said that only we have undertaken the obligation to keep a stated number of troops in Germany. Some play was made of the fact that France has brought back two divisions from Algeria, but they are weak in numbers and badly equipped and, anyway, are not located on the central front. Our obligation, which is beyond the obligations which our allies have taken up, ought not to be forgotten, but I take this opportunity of repeating that to keep large numbers of United Kingdom troops in Germany for reasons other than military is wrong. It might lead to military mistakes which would cost us very dear in influence in other parts of the world where the military danger is much more great than it is in Europe today.
    Turning to the permanent part of the Bill, dealing with "Ever-readies", I, like every other speaker on Third Reading, welcome it. I agree that there is the problem of training, but, from my knowledge of the Territorial Army, I think that it can be overcome. The problem, to which I have already alluded, is the danger of two categories of troops serving in the Territorial Army, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do what he can to avoid that. I believe that his figure of about one-third of "Ever-ready" troops in any Territorial unit is too high and makes it more difficult to run it, but I am sure that it will do good for the morale of the

    745
    Territorial Army to have "Ever-readies" amongst it.
    The Territorial Army will be delighted to train for war rather than Civil Defence and as disaster squads, but it must be prepared to do that as part of its training as well. The Regular Army, during the last few years, has spent much of its time running schools, soup kitchens, acting as wardens and doing other very unmilitary duties. Unless the Territorial Army can have the incentive to train for what interests it, it will not be available to undertake these other duties as well, and very useful duties they are.
    Since the Secretary of State came to the War Office we have seen a steady rise in the number of Regular troops. We have seen a rise in the morale and certainly in the efficiency and equipment of the British Army.
    I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be the first to pay tribute to his predecessors, for this was not accomplished overnight. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has been responsible for some of this work, and he is entitled to take credit for what has been done. The Bill will not shame my right hon. Friend in any way. I think that when it has been worked out and we see it in practical operation, we will find that it has been good for the British Army.
    9.31 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: This Bill has not had a very happy passage. When it was introduced, it received the most savage criticism that I have ever heard of a Government Measure by Privy Councillors on the Government side. We had the speeches of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), and the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), and the criticisms, which have been repeated today, of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who was formerly Under-Secretary of State for War. Certainly the reputation of the Bill has not improved as it has gone through its various stages.
    The more the House has seen of the Bill, the less it has liked it. Indeed, the only consistent support which the right hon. Gentleman has received is that of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) who has risen on every conceivable occasion, however impossible
    746
    the position of the Government, to give loyal support from that signal quarter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get his reward, but on this I am not too optimistic, because in politics there is more rejoicing and more reward for the lost sheep that returns than for the ninety and nine which remain straight and go into the Division Lobby throughout.
    Mr. Kershaw: If I had known that the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to indulge in polemics I should not have allowed him 35 minutes in which to speak. What does he propose to say in the time at his disposal? He has done a lot of talking during our discussions on the Bill.
    Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman will find out if he waits a moment.
    The Bill is a result of an idea of the Prime Minister. It is the result of an idea born at the time of Suez. After Suez the right hon. Gentleman did not think much of armies. He did not think that the Army was much good in modern circumstances, so he decided that it should be cut down; that it should be the old professional Army which he remembered from his Edwardian days; and, above all—because, remember that this began as an economy move—that it should be a cheap Army.
    The right hon. Gentleman did not act on advice, because all the advice that he received was against it. He had the resignation of Viscount Head. All the advice from the War Office was against it. He did not act on a review of the commitments of the Army. This is the extraordinary thing for, once the decision was blindly taken to halve the Army, nobody considered that there might be a consequent necessity to reduce the Army's tasks. The commitment was not considered, nor was there reallocation amongst the Services. Above all, there were no consultations with our allies or the Commonwealth. Indeed, it is difficult to realise the utter frivolity with which decisions are taken by the Prime Minister, and have been taken by the Government. But that is the manner in which this decision was taken.
    The present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was given the task. He was the almost ideal instrument. He combined both the will and

    747
    ignorance that was necessary. His august father-in-law once described him as having a mind like a rat-trap. It was an extremely good description, because it is a powerful but unresilient mind. It fastened on to the proposition that conscription was to go and that there was to be a professional Army. The tasks were not considered; the needs were not considered, and the commitments were not considered. Not even our treaty obligations were considered. Instead, the actuaries were consulted.
    And remember this: the decision to abolish conscription was taken before the actuaries were consulted. It was taken even before the sum was done, and before anybody knew what the answer would be. That is the way the Government took their decision, and we are now reaping the consequences. The actuaries arrived at a figure of 160,000, and so 160,000, plus the big bangs—the atomic weapons which were to be a substitute for troops—was decided upon. The Army has always ignored that figure.
    Since then, a whole series of figures has been given. There was the figure of 165,000. I do not know where that came from. It was merely 5,000 added to the actuaries' figure, and was fought for by the then Secretary of State for War. In 1959, because recruitment had taken an upward turn, out came the figure of 180,000. The Hull Committee then considered the matter and, for the first time—long after the decision was originally taken—did so in terms of the commitments and tasks that the Army would be required to undertake. The Hull Committee came out with a figure of 200,000, on the basis that only 45,000 would be required for B.A.O.R.—which we know is not correct—and of 220,000 in other conditions. I know of no reason to depart from that idea of 220,000, given our present commitments.
    Despite all this, as late as June, 1960, the present Minister for Commonwealth Relations was saying that the Government had never said that they needed 180,000; that the target set in the 1958 White Paper was 165,000, and that our target for our future Regular Army remained unchanged, at 165,000. But the target never was 165,000. That was a figure which had never existed anywhere except in the rigid mind of the right hon.
    748
    Gentleman, The reorganisation of the Army was not based upon a figure of 165,000; it was based upon a figure of 182,000. The figure of 165,000 has never been anything else than a fictitious one.
    Next April, when the Bill is to be brought into operation, the figure will be about 184,000. Is that pure coincidence? The Berlin crisis has nothing to do with the Bill. In fact, since the war we have been so far from a crisis. This is the first time since the war that we have not one man on active service. In Berlin we are performing little more than half of our treaty obligations which existed before conscription was abolished and which exist now. We are performing little more than half, and nobody anticipated that the situation would get better. Every indication was that it surely must get worse.
    This Bill is designed to hold the figure of 182,000. That is how it works. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) pointed that out during the Second Reading debate. Let us look at the figures. When this legislation comes into operation—when the men who otherwise would be going out are impressed; that is, when the Army reaches roughly 184,000—we shall have about 159,000 Regulars and about 25,000 National Service men. Of these, enough will be kept to keep the figure at roughly 182,000. If recruiting goes on as is forecast, in January, 1963, the Regulars will come up to the 165,000 figure. Then this Bill will be required to keep the figure up to 182,000. And so it will go on, until the Regular recruitment, as anticipated, somewhere about the begining of 1965, reaches 182,000, which is the object of this exercise.
    This is being done in the unfairest possible way. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said that he would not call this conscription. Nor would I. The expression conscription "gives the impression of an element of universality; some sort of sense of fairness to deal with a national crisis. This is not conscription—this is press-ganging. This is just the arbitrary seizing of a small body of men who are helpless, and utterly ignoring their rights because they are few. Why is it being done in this way? Because the political figure was 165,000, but the Army figure was 182,000. It is

    749
    because of the political refusal to face what had been the military decision——
    Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman calls 182,000 the military figure, but surely is the political figure, too. The Army used it for purposes of reorganisation. It was never a really serious military target.
    Mr. Paget: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am saying that for this purpose—and I will come to its adequacy—the Army was reorganised at 182,000. But this Bill is designed to keep the figure at 182,000. If the political figure had been 182,000, we should have postponed the abolition of conscription and tapered it off to the point where conscription stopped with the Regular Army at 182,000, with something to spare. That is what would have been done, if the political figure had been the same as the figure of the military reorganisation. Because it was not; because lip-service was still being paid to the political figure of 165,000, upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations had based his defence policy and to which the Government were committed; because those two figures were never brought into relation, this unjust method has been adopted. That is the sole reason for it. There is no other reason.
    Under this system the burden is cast on those who have already done most and those who have sacrificed most. At this end-period of conscription we have in the Army a higher proportion than ever before of people who have postponed their National Service and made sacrifices of earning capacity in order to acquire qualifications for greater earning capacity in future. It is that greater earning capacity which the Government are receiving on the cheap. These very men who have prepared themselves for careers are being heaved out of those careers in order to make good the mistake—the deliberate political posture—of the Minister of Defence in the adoption of this policy.
    In spite of the fact that this injustice is so utterly the fault of this Government, so unnecessary, such a wrong way to do it, such as unjust way to do it, there has been a consistent refusal thoughout these proceedings to do anything what-
    750
    ever to mitigate the injustice, or even to remove the anxiety from groups subject to recall who, in all human probability, will not be recalled without Proclamation. There is refusal even to pay these men who are being recalled the same amount as the man in the next bed, the Regular doing the same job, will be receiving. We have a bogus figure based on a non-existent engagement adopted in order to pay them less than the man in the next bed doing the same job during this period. There is this utter disregard of justice or any attempt to mitigate injustice.
    After all this, will it work? First, we shall have in the two years referred to the pressed-man period. Almost the sole reason why I have supported going over to a professional Army is precisely that I do not believe a professional and a pressed man mix. I believe the whole morale of a force is injured by the man who has over his bed a calendar on which each day is marked off and counted to the time when he will get out. Over and above that—because in a sense conscription was regarded as fair—these men are being retained and arbitrarily heaved back. These men whose hopes and expectations have been unjustly interfered with and who are to be retained in the forces will have a bitter grievance against the Army. That will not do the Army any good. I do not believe it will work even in the short run.
    How will the "Ever-ready" period work, the period when we run out of pressed men? A number of people have cast doubt on that. Of course we all hope that it will work. But the more I see of it, the more I think about it, the more I discuss it, the less likely do I think it is to work. Let us look first at the effect on the Territorials. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood said that it would be a shot in the arm for the Territorials. It is more likely to be a shot in the head. Let us see what the position will be.
    The Territorial Army is a very strange and a very unusual thing. It is fashionable—I do not know why—to jeer at amateurism, but if I had to take one single quality from the English genius which I think is the most peculiar to the British people and probably the most important, it would be the talent for

    751
    amateurism. The greatest part of our justice is conducted by amateurs. Out local government is conducted by amateurs. Here, in the House, we are not far from being amateurs. The real expression of this genius for amateurism finds its expression in the Territorial Army. The number of people who make the Territorial Army their hobby and the main interest in their lives, and the degree to which they devote themselves to it, and the sense of proprietorship which they feel for a unit, is remarkable.
    We are to insert into this unit a number of people who have no real interest in the unit because they will never serve in it. Long before the Territorial battalion can be embodied, these men will have been heaved out. That is why they are there; that is the reason for the "Ever-readies". In the twilight period, long before embodiment, they will have gone.
    The Territorials know that when the day comes for which all these preparations have been made, these men will lot be there, and the men themselves know that they will not be there; and neither has an interest in the other. If these men are not supplementary to the establishment of a Territorial unit, then by their extraction at the vital period they will leave the Territorials inefficient in the very job for which they were trained. The Territorials will not like or wish for people who will leave them—and who will leave gaps which cannot be filled at the critical time. I cannot believe that this is good for the Territorial Army or that it will work or that either of these two groups will like the other or be of much use to the other.
    Let us look at the effect on the Regulars. When we have National Service men who have done two years or maybe even two and a half years on whom to draw, I concede that these men may be of value; they will be of value precisely because they were trained, if not in the unit, at least in a similar unit to that into which they will be drawn back. But when this period is over and when we are no longer drawing on National Service men, when instead we are drawing on men who perhaps have done a fortnight's camp and a few
    752
    drills, what use will they be if they are suddenly pushed into key jobs in Regular units? If these men are to be any good at all, they should be withdrawn and separated from the Territorial Army. These are men who ought to be training with, and be attached to, at least the type of unit in which they will serve, doing the job, or at least the type of job, for which they will be required. Unless they are properly trained they will be of little value. Anyway, will they even be there?
    The system to be adopted is precisely to make this attractive in inverse proportion to the requirement. A retainer of £150 a year is very nice—as long as one is not called upon. It is nice for the first year and it may be all right for the second, but will it remain all right when the prospect of being called up comes along; of actually having to do the six months? What will happen in 1966 when all the reliance may be on the "Ever-readies?" Is it attractive for the right man? For the man earning £10 or £12 a week another £3 as a retainer is attractive, but we have been told that specialists are required. Do the Government think that another £3 will be attractive to doctors, with the prospect of being heaved out of their activities for six months of the year? Will it be attractive to radar technicians and men earning £20 or £30 a week?
    Here is a form of incentive which is attractive at the time—when it is not wanted and for the men who are not wanted. It will not be very attractive when it is wanted for the men who are wanted. In any case, I do not think that it will work. I hope that I am wrong. It seems that the wrong sort of training is contemplated and that the inducement is all wrong.
    Even if it works and gives us the 182,000 men for which it is designed, will it be sufficient to meet our existing commitments? At the beginning of this year we had 208,000 men, all trained, because every one of them had been in for over twelve months. Despite that, we found that there was under-establishment everywhere. We found "Spear-point" and its tanks with just a driver, one man representing sections and sections representing platoons. It was a humiliating experience. May I cite the case of my father's old regiment, the

    753
    2nd Battalion Scots Guards? Is that up to establishment? Are there 800 men there? Is it even up to the low establishment introduced to fit the figure of 635, which was rejected after the Cyprus experience as being quite inadequate? Is it up to 500? Is it 400, 300, or even 200? How many battalions are under 200 today? I hope that we can be given the answers to these questions.
    Will this solve the problem of sections masquerading as platoons, as platoons standing in for companies and undersized companies mustering as battalions? That is the position with 208,000 men. By what magic, with 30,000 less, do we deal with these problems, which are so patent? Will our commitments stay as conveniently low as they are at the moment? Will N.A.T.O. continue to be satisfied with 51,000 men from us, scarcely more than half our treaty obligation?
    Since July, the Americans have put in 40,000 more men and eight more squadrons, 250 planes and six more divisions at the ready. The French are coming back from Algeria, realising the need, and two more divisions are coming. The Germans have stepped up their period of conscription and their divisions are coming forward. It is realised that S.A.C. cannot hold Europe but it must be held on the ground. When all our allies are exceeding their treaty obligations, how long will they tolerate our falling so short of ours? How far, and for how long, do we have to stay behind, let us say, the Italians? The right hon. Gentleman's Government talks about going into Europe. At what sort of bargain-basement price does he think they will get there if they are falling short of these obligations?
    Will the Bill solve these problems? I do not for one moment believe that conscription is the answer. What we must decide is whether we are a European or a world Power. We have 40,000 men at the moment spread out in bases throughout the world acting as auxiliary policemen. There are five battalions in Hong Kong because we have not prepared a gendarmerie.
    There is nothing new in this. For five years, I have been urging, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has been urging, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee,
    754
    West (Mr. Strachey) has been urging that our commitments must be adjusted to our strength. The 130,000 men in the Royal Air Force cannot be occupied principally in preparing to deliver an independent nuclear deterrent the use of which is almost inconceivable. The 88,000 men in the Navy are not properly occupied trying to convoy ships into ports which will not exist. Four hundred and ten thousand professionals rationally used in a unified Service can provide for our real needs and fulfil our treaty obligations to N.A.T.O. I believe that that can be done, but it can be done only by a real organisation.
    We shall do what is necessary and proper to discharge our responsibilities. That we shall do. But this Government
    "have never had any kind of system, right or wrong, but only invented occasionally some miserable tale for the day, in order meanly to sneak out of difficulties into which they had proudly strutted."
    Those were the words used by Burke of Lord North's Government. They are words equally appropriate to this.
    This is a shoddy, dishonest and unjust Bill. Above all, it is a feckless Measure which solves nothing. We shall have no hesitation in voting against it.
    10.4 p.m.
    Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in the middle of his gusty speech—[An HON. MEMBER: "A good one, anyway."]—I did not say that it was a bad one: I said "gusty" speech—said that it was now a fashion to sneer at the amateurs, Nobody would sneer at the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was very professional all the way through his speech, getting more so towards the end of his peroration. I had an idea that he would have been just as effective and just as good if he had been briefed to defend the Bill.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman made a very great point about trying to persuade the House that this Measure had been brought before us so that we could retain about 182,000 in the Army. He produced all sorts of figures, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) produced a different set of figures, and we have had two or three other sets of figures, to try to show that what is being done in the Bill is not being done for the

    755
    purpose of which I told the House, but to try to play the numbers.
    Let me take the hon. and learned Gentleman's configuration. He referred to a figure of 165,000 plus 15,000. I have given the figure of 15,000 to be retained as the nearest estimate that I can give of the number that we may have to keep back, but I have made it perfectly clear that it may be less than that or it may be more than that. The fact is that if it is 15,000, it is 15,000 over the whole period of six months. Therefore, it is no good trying to add 15,000 to 165,000 and getting 182,000.
    This is the way in which the Opposition think that they can persuade the House and the country that it is for reasons other than those which I have given that the Bill has been introduced. The Bill has been introduced for one reason only, namely, so that we may carry out our obligations and may safeguard our position in case recruiting for the Regular Army does not go as well as I hope it will go, or in case the situation in Europe or in the world deteriorates. I believe that they are perfectly honourable reasons for bringing this Measure before the House.
    The hon. and learned Member for Northampton, again being carried away with his argument, said at the beginning and forgot it later—the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) made the same point in an interesting speech—how could we try to defend the Bill if there was a crisis, or how could we say that we were producing it because of the difficulties in Berlin? The fact remains that there is a crisis in Europe. The hon. and learned Member produced the answer himself, because he gave a whole list of the things which the Americans, the French and everyone else were doing. What were they doing them for if it was not because of the situation in Europe?
    Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose——
    Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Gentleman has left me with only twenty minutes in which to make my speech. Let me finish my argument.
    The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that he would like to know the facts about numbers in
    756
    Europe. He went on to say that we were probably doing much more than we have been given credit for and wished to know exactly what the French were doing. We have put further troops into Europe. He asked why it was that, if this was such an important Measure, we do not propose to do anything about it until April. It is because the troop movements which we have carried out from here to B.A.O.R. will manage to hold the situation at 51,000 until the beginning of April. Only then will the numbers begin to run down.
    We are doing our share in Europe. We have obligations not only in Europe. They go wider than Europe. They are world-wide, and we must continue to carry them out. That is one of the reasons why we have produced this Measure. It is because of the sudden impact of a crisis in Europe at a time when our recruiting figures are mounting and the run-out is going at full speed that we must take steps to safeguard the situation.
    Now that our discussions are drawing to a close, I should like to say this. I am glad to see that more hon. Members are now coming into the Chamber, but throughout the Committee and Report stages there has been only a handful of hon. Members on both sides present. Those who have been here have shown a real and genuine interest in the Bill and I pay tribute to them for that.
    Our discussions may have been prolonged, but, at all events, they have shown that all hon. Members wish to safeguard in every possible way the men who will be kept back in the Army or those who might be called back. They wish to protect the rights of those who may be affected by the Bill. I have listened to the arguments of hon. Members with close attention, and I assure them that if I have not been able to accept Amendments it has been for one reason and one reason only.
    Despite what some hon. Members opposite have suggested, we did think the Bill out carefully before we brought it to the House. We thought about the difficulties, troubles, privations and hardships which would be caused, and we put into the Bill every provision we could to protect those affected by it commensurate with the objects of the Bill.

    757
    In the time at my disposal I should now like to comment on some of the Clauses. I wish to repeat a pledge which I have given before. It is that no one will be retained under Clause 1 who is not strictly needed for military purposes. The provisions of this Clause relate to our present commitments to N.A.T.O. and have nothing whatever to do with our recruiting campaign, which, I am happy to tell the House, has gathered momentum. I was pleased to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire say that we would reach our target. There was a time when Members on both sides of the House said that we would never reach our target. Now, the cry is that when we do reach the target it will not be enough. Let us first reach the target and discuss the second part of the criticism afterwards.
    Sir F. Maclean: I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that I have always said that I thought we should reach the target, and have always said that I thought it was insufficient.
    Mr. Profumo: I know that my hon. Friend has said so, unlike other hon. Members, who have been sniping at us, saying that we should not reach the target. I hope and believe that we shall be there or thereabouts.
    The provisions of Clause 1 relate to our commitments to N.A.T.O. The hon. Member for Islington, North tried to suggest that the announcement which appeared in the newspapers about the possibility that a German commander would succeed General Cassels had something to do with the fact that our numbers were not right and that we were unable to carry out our commitments.
    The House must know that the Northern Army Group is responsible to N.A.T.O. for the defence of the northern sector of the East-West German border. It is composed of army units from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic, Canada and Belgium, and the Commander has always been British. Any plans to change the dispositions in the Allied Command, Europe, would primarily be a matter for the Supreme Allied Commander, if he were to consider that he could improve N.A.T.O.'s capacity to carry out the task assigned to the forces concerned.
    758
    I know of no firm plan to this end at present, although deployment plans are, of course, always being reviewed by N.A.T.O., and the gradual increase in the Federal German Army to meet N.A.T.O. requirements must clearly, eventually, lead to some re-examination of the deployment of forces in Germany. I repeat that no decision has been taken either on redeployment or about a successor to General Cassels, German or anyone else, and Her Majesty's Government would, of course, be consulted in the first place before anything happened.
    If our present commitments to N.A.T.O. were to change or if the position in Europe were materially to alter, the provisions of Clause 1 which are permissive, would certainly be reexamined by Her Majesty's Government, but, as things are, I shall have to operate this power, although I cannot at present foresee to what extent, nor I am afraid can I tell the House with any honesty what the categories would be which we felt we had to hold back. These would depend on shortages at the time, month by month, when we have to hold them back.
    I can and will give an indication, if the House wishes, of the costs of the various sections of this Bill, for which I have been asked all the way through the various debates. To take Clause 1, for every thousand retained men whom we have to keep for six months, it will cost £330,000. Under Clause 2, where we are talking about recalled men, it will cost £350,000 for every thousand of those recalled for six months, and this additional cost arises because recalled men are to be given a £20 gratuity. In so far as the "Ever-readies" are concerned, every thousand of them will cost about £250,000 in a full year. That is our rough estimate, but the House has been anxious to ascertain to what extent we shall be involved in costs.
    I am anxious to reduce hardship as much as possible. I have said so again and again on all the proceedings of the Bill. That is why I have taken special measures—and they are measures which hon. Members opposite did not see fit to take when similar cases occurred and they had to extend National Service in 1950. I am not making a party point; I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley knows me better than that. I am trying

    759
    to persuade the House that we have gone as far as we can to consider the special hardships which will fall on people under both Clauses 1 and 2.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Will the administrative practices under the National Service Act, 1948, and under the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Act, 1950, applying to conscientious objectors, be maintained under the Bill?
    Mr. Profumo: The existing administrative practice and arrangements for conscientious objectors will continue to hold good for all those who are involved in the Bill.
    The Advisory Committee will bring sympathy, insight and judgment to these problems. The Committee, whose composition I announced to the House the other day, is now, I aim glad to say, ready to operate. I shall see all the members of the Committee next week and we will talk about how they will operate. The moment that cases begin to come, the Advisory Committee on Hardship will be ready to start its work. I hope that the House will allow me to take this opportunity of expressing at least the thanks of the Government, shared, I believe, by hon. Members on both sides of the House, for the public spirited action of its members in agreeing to come forward and serve on a committee which will necessitate a considerable amount of time and detail.
    Some hon. Members, inadvertently, have criticised the Chairman of the Committee, General Denning. They have said that he is a general and is connected with S.S.A.F.A. He retired from the Army sometime ago after a distinguished career. As he is Chairman of the whole S.S.A.F.A. organisation, it seemed to my colleagues and me that there was no one better suited to head the new Advisory Committee to consider the hardship of men who were to be retained or recalled to the forces. I should like to pay tribute to General Denning and his colleagues for the work that they will do.
    I was glad that hon. Members opposite have at least given a good reception within the limits at their disposal for our plans to try to deal with the compassionate cases. I was extremely grate-
    760
    ful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) for his kindly commendation during the course of his interesting speech.
    Clause 2 covers a somewhat more remote contingency. As I said on Second Reading, I doubt whether we shall need to use these powers, if we need to use them at all, before next year. As I recognise that individual disruption would be even greater under Clause 2 than under Clause 1, since it will affect men who have already established themselves in civil life and who have commitments to themselves, to their families and to the community, I intend to see that these powers are used as sparingly as possible, if they are ever used at all. I recognise that, even more than Clause 1, Clause 2 is bound to leave uncertainty hanging over the part-time National Service men. This point has been made by many hon. Members in our debates.
    If, however, we did not make these provisions, we would be much more likely to have to resort one day, if tension rose, to declaring a national emergency. This is one of the things we wish to avoid. Hitherto, we have been impeded in the use of our reserve forces by not being able to use them unless we declare a state of imminent national danger, with all that goes with it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken about this and considered it during the summer. Hon. Members know quite well the implications of declaring a national emergency. We are looking to periods in the time ahead when there may be increased tension and when, by calling up men to strengthen the deterrent of our manpower, we may be able to avoid a situation of national emergency, which often leads to an international emergency.
    If we did not take this action, we would be much more likely to have to declare national emergencies from time to time. This would affect all part-time National Service men, since they are all liable to be recalled at whim without any sort of gratuity if a national emergency is declared and the reserves have to be called up.
    I wish that I could predict the chances of our exercising these powers, but I cannot do so. I can give the House no prediction of what we might have to do,

    761
    or in what circumstances we might have to call these men up. It could be no more than crystal-gazing and it would be wrong for me to indulge in that.
    I have been encouraged by the way that the House has looked favourably at the creation of the "Ever-readies". I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) at least gave them his limited blessing. He was doubtful, as some hon. Members are, whether we shall be able to make a go of this.
    I should like to say a word about our plans for recruiting "Ever-readies". I shall start recruiting as soon as the Bill becomes law. I shall have two lots of pamphlets. One will be circulated widely to employers, telling them what the "Ever-readies" are intended to do, the conditions under which they might have to be recalled and, generally speaking, appealing to employers to allow their employees to join and become "Ever-readies".
    Another set of pamphlets will go round and will be widely distributed among the Territorial Army and among the reserve people, the part-time National Service reserves. This pamphlet will have a section for the wives and will explain to them what their rights are under this scheme. I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) would like that and would not wish me to leave them out. This is to try and tell the wives what their rights are if their husbands are called up, and it will show the "Ever-readies" what their terms of service are. I am absolutely convinced that this is something which will catch on and serve our nation well.
    As to training, I have already said in Committee that it is my belief that we shall have enough equipment to train these "Ever-readies" perfectly well. The Territorial Army does very
    much more training than some hon. Members give it credit for and I believe that where we have not the equipment we need it will be perfectly all right to train the "Ever-readies" with sections of the Regular Army. As to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that the Territorial Army is the wrong peg on which to hang this, if he fears that the Territorial Army will not like it he need not bother any more about that. From the very inception of this scheme I have taken the Territorial Army Council into consultation and throughout it has given me its blessing and has helped me and my colleagues to arrange it.
    If I may adapt a famous phrase, when a man knows he is about to be guillotined it concentrates the mind wonderfully. I realise that the Bill may not be very popular, but I am convinced that it is necessary. I am encouraged by the polite things which hon. Members have said about the way in which the War Office treats these hardship cases. It is no tribute to me and my Ministerial colleagues. It is a tribute to the permanent officials of the Department, and the Army, who have done this for a long time and will continue to do it. The Bill will not be popular but if it serves its purpose it will turn out to be a good Measure and in that spirit I ask the House to speed it on its way.
    Mr. Paget: Will we be told the strength of the Scots Guards?
    Mr. Profumo: If the hon. and learned Member does not know and wishes to know the strength of his father's old unit, I will tell him after the debate.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 129.

    Division No. 80.]

    AYES

    [10.28 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Bishop, F. P.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Bossom, Clive

    Chataway, Christopher

    Allason, James

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Box, Donald

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Barber, Anthony

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Barter, John

    Brewis, John

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Batsford, Brian

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter

    Cole, Norman

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Collard, Richard

    Biffen, John

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Buck, Antony

    Costain, A. P.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Campbell, sir David (Belfast, s.)

    Coulson, Michael

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Roots, William

    Crowder, F. P.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Russell, Ronald

    Curran, Charles

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Seymour, Leslie

    Dance, James

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Shaw, M.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kirk, Peter

    Shepherd, William

    Deedes, W. F.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Doughty, Charles

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Drayson, G. B.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stodart, J. A.

    Emery, Peter

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    McLaren, Martin

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Errington, Sir Eric

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

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Farr, John

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Teeling, Sir William

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maddan, Martin

    Temple, John M.

    Eraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Gammans, Lady

    Marshall, Douglas

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Gardner, Edward

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Mawby, Ray

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Glover, Sir Douglas

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

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Mills, Stratum

    Turner, Colin

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Goodhow, Victor

    Neave, Alrey

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Green, Alan

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Gresham Cooke, R,

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

    Gurden, Harold

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Walker, Peter

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Partridge, E.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wall, Patrick

    Harvey, John (Waithamstow, E.)

    Peel, John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Hastings, Stephen

    Percival, Ian

    Webster, David

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Whitelaw, William

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Pitman, Sir James

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pott, Percivall

    Wise, A. R.

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

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Hobson, John

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Holland, Philip

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Woollam, John

    Hollingworth, John

    Quennell, Mice J. M.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hornby, R. P.

    Ramsden, James

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Jackson, John

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Mr. Michael Hamilton.

    James, David

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Fitch, Alan

    Jeger, George

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

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

    Baird, John

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Beaney, Alan

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Benson, Sir George

    Ginsburg, David

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Blackburn, F.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Blyton, William

    Grey, Charles

    Kelley, Richard

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Bowles, Frank

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Boyden, James

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    MacColl, James

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hannan, William

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Harrison, Brian (Malden)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Callaghan, James

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Hilton, A. V.

    Millan, Bruce

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Holman, Percy

    Milne, Edward

    Darling, George

    Holt, Arthur

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Deer, George

    Hoy, James H.

    Moody, A. S.

    Diamond, John

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Morris, John

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Driberg, Tom

    Hunter, A. E.

    Oram, A. E.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Owen, Will

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Padley, W. E.

    Evans, Albert

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Paget, R. T,

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Pargiter, G. A.

    764

    765

    Parker, John

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Warbey, William

    Parkin, B. T.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Weitzman, David

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Peart, Frederick

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Pentland, Norman

    Small, William

    Wigg, George

    Probert, Arthur

    Sorensen, R, W.

    Willey, Frederick

    Redhead, E. C.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Reid, William

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Stones, William

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Rhodes, H.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Willis, E, G. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, w.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Woof, Robert

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

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

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Ross, William

    Thornton, Ernest

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Tomney, Frank

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Short, Edward

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Mr. Lawson.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  MISS AUDREY BONSER (DEATH)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I want to raise the case of Miss Audrey Bonser, who was a constituent of mine and died of cancer on 26th December, 1961. Two days ago, before I had time fully to examine this case, I felt that a recital of the facts and a few observations might be sufficient to do justice to this case, but since then information has been sent to me about this and other cases which make me feel much more truculent.
  Miss Bonser went to the doctor for the first time last July. She was being treated for nervous disorder and received medicine for some time. On 17th September, she signed on as unfit for work. The doctor said that he diagnosed nervous disorder, but that he was not quite sure and if a period of rest did not cure her trouble she might have to go to hospital for a much more detailed examination.
  On 16th October, she was sent to the regional medical board and was examined by a doctor. She told him that she had been suffering from pains which had increased in intensity over a period of time, and that her abdomen was swollen. In spite of this, the doctor recommended to the insurance officer that she was fit for work, and Miss Bonser was therefore pronounced guilty of virtually sponging on the National Insurance Fund.
  She continued to visit the doctor, and went to work for a couple of days, but found that she was unable to carry on and stayed at home. She received no benefit at all while she was at home. She was then sent to a nerve specialist, and after, according to her, precisely the same kind of examination as she had been given by the regional doctor, she was told by him that she would have to go to the pathological department.
  When she went there, it was found that she was suffering from this incurable disease, that it was in an advanced stage,
  768
  and that it must have been in an advanced stage when she was originally examined by the regional doctor.
  After she died, her father came to my home and reported the matter to me. He also got in touch with the Press. I asked him to put the case on paper, and I sent the letter that he wrote to the Ministry of Health for its comments. I wanted to get my facts right and not say anything that was out of place.
  I am not saying this disrespectfully, but the letter that I sent to the Ministry of Health was treated almost like a shuttlecock between the Ministry of Health on one side and the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance an the other. I eventually received replies from both Ministries. They were totally unsatisfactory both to me and the girl's father. In the father's opinion, and I agree with him, both letters avoided giving direct replies to the questions that he had asked.
  I wrote to the Ministry of Health and expressed my dissatisfaction with the reply I had received and gave my opinion of the case. I asked that the doctor who had been engaged to examine patients at the regional board level should be removed from that task. I go further tonight. I repeat that request, and I ask publicly that his name should be given. I do not know his name, nor the name of the panel doctor who first prescribed for this young lady.
  I make those demands, first, because the girl's abdomen was swollen and it therefore must have been obvious that she was in no condition to work, and secondly, because the second examination was similar to that which she underwent at the hospital.
  The examination of the regional hospital doctor was exactly the same as that of the nerve specialist, and the father suggests—and I agree—that if the latter examination revealed that there was something of a very serious nature, the other one, made a short time before, should have revealed the same thing. In the opinion of the father, for whom I am speaking tonight, this was clearly a case of incompetence by the regional hospital doctor. I also want to discover whether the panel doctor was incompetent. I understand that when a patient is examined by a regional hospital doctor a report has to be submitted by the panel

  769
  doctor who examined the patient previously, and I should like to know what was contained in the panel doctor's report on this occasion. It would help in understanding the case and also in apportioning blame, if any has to be apportioned.
  Where do we go from here? The girl is dead, and we cannot do anything about that. I do not suggest that the regional hospital doctor or the panel doctor could have saved her life; that is beyond the bounds of possibility. But I assert, whether the Ministry likes it or not—and whether the B.M.A. likes it or not—that the examination of patients by regional hospital doctors leaves a great deal to be desired. It is shockingly bad. In many cases I submit that it is bad almost to the point of criminal neglect, and I am not saying that merely because of the evidence in this case.
  It was, perhaps, fortunate that the first people to know of this case were the Press. It was the Press who made it public. My name was used by the Press, and the result has been a spate of letters dealing with all kinds of cases. The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that it has been impossible for me to examine them all in such a way as to be able to come to a conclusion whether they justify being mentioned in a report to her, but I have examined two cases in detail, both concerning patients who were sent back to work by regional hospital doctors but who died within a fortnight.
  We cannot allow this situation to continue. I am not blaming anybody for making a mistake; it is very easy for a doctor to make a mistake. But where, as in the case of Miss Bonser and the two others to which I have referred, there is at least a prima facie case for absence from work but the panel doctor nevertheless recommends to the insurance officer that the patient concerned should return to work, that panel doctor should answer for the consequences.
  I think that this case should be examined. I will go further, although this may not be to the liking of the British Medical Association. I think that there should be a responsible body in this country, apart from the B.M.A., which could examine these cases, to
  770
  ensure that when such complaints as this are registered, the patient gets a fair deal. That happens in the case of dentists. I will not go into the details, but an examination takes place in relation to dentists. I do not think that it would be out of place if some Ministry of Health regulation provided for the setting up of a body to inquire into cases of this kind.
  Miss Bonser is dead, and we can only express our sorrow to her parents. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the pain and suffering caused by this case extends beyond the family of Miss Bonser. Although I concede that this type of examination is necessary, these events have caused anxiety to many people who are concerned about the hasty way in which the examinations take place. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will inquire into the matter, if only to allay the fears of some people regarding the regional medical board particularly in the Sheffield area.
  10.53 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): This is a very sad case, and I appreciate the very natural desire of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) to try to help the family of Miss Bonser. As he has said, her death was unavoidable. But I realise that her parents are troubled by the fact that while she was ill under the care of her own doctor, and away from work and drawing sick benefit, she was referred for independent medical examination and considered fit for work, despite the fact that later events proved that even at that time she must have been suffering from cancer of the stomach.
  In order to help, I must explain what happens. Doctors from my Ministry's regional medical service provide an independent medical referee service for certain Government Departments, including the Ministry of Pensions and National Service. The Ministry of Pensions and National Service refers cases for advice on the insured person's fitness for work. This work is the responsibility of the whole-time regional medical staff of my Ministry, assisted as necessary by part-time medical referees. This service is not new. It was established as long ago as 1920 to

  771
  meet the need for an independent referee service to help approved societies in the administration of the sickness benefit then available under the old National Health Insurance Scheme. It was continued under the present National Insurance Scheme which began to operate in 1948. I think the hon. Member would agree that it is an important and necessary measure for safeguarding National Insurance funds. I need not emphasise that the selection of patients for this further opinion is the responsibility of the Ministry of Pensions and National Service.
  References are generally made where the illness shown on the medical certificate is normally one of short duration but has continued longer than usual. This is the normal method of dealing with short-time claims. Before a person is called for examination by one of the examining officers of my Department, the general practitioner is asked for an up-to-date opinion on the condition of the patient, whether the patient is fit to travel and whether the general practitioner wishes to be present at the examination. This is to protect the patient. Where the general practitioner says that the patient is not fit he or she is not called for examination. The opinions given by referees are entirely their own independent professional judgments and are given in an advisory capacity only. They report their conclusions to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and the patient's own doctor. This again, I stress, is an important point. The general practitioner is under no compulsion to accept these views about his patient. He is entirely free to maintain his own opinions and may—and sometimes does—continue to certify that the patient is not fit for work.
  To come to the particular case of Miss Bonser. As the hon. Member said, the first certificate for her was dated 19th September, 1961, and it showed the illness as nervous debility. She was referred under the arrangements I have just described, by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for a second opinion on her capacity for work on 4th October. This was because the illness shown on her certificate was normally one of short duration. She was seen and examined on 16th
  772
  October. Her own doctor had been advised and asked for a report and—this answers the point the hon. Member has put to me tonight—this report indicated dyspepsia of nervous origin. It made no reference to any hospital investigation or proposed reference to hospital.
  The reports which I have examined show that our examining officer made a most careful examination with a view to ascertaining the precise cause of her symptoms. His responsibility, as I ask the hon. Member to remember, was to give an opinion on her capacity for work, and he reached the conclusion that at that date she was fit for her normal occupation of a clerk. The records show that nothing abnormal could be discovered on examination of the abdomen. Miss Bonser was described as of average height and build and her weight was normal at the time of examination. There seems no doubt that the examining doctor gave his opinion in good faith.
  I am advised—and I made careful inquiry about this—that the diagnosis of carcinoma of the stomach is notoriously difficult in some cases where the characteristics of the disease do not show themselves outwardly. The notes made at the examination show that this was unfortunately the case with Miss Bonser, and her age was another reason which added to the difficulty of diagnosis. Cancer of the stomach apparently is most unusual at this comparatively early age of 31. Following this examination, Miss Bonser went back to her doctor who had been advised of the conclusions of the examining doctor. He, her own doctor, decided that she was fit for work and he gave her a final certificate on 17th October, 1961.
  Mr. Winterbottom: Was that her own panel doctor?
  Miss Pitt: Yes, indeed. That is the general practitioner, her own family doctor. He gave her a final certificate which brought sickness benefit to an end. Sickness benefit had been paid from 18th September to 17th October. Her own doctor told Miss Bonser that she could appeal if she were not satisfied, but she said that she did not want to appeal and would rather go back to work. I think that the hon. Member

  773
  understands the appeal machinery of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
  Her return to work, therefore, was on the responsibility and the certificate of her own doctor. Her case did not go to the insurance officer, the first of the independent authorities who decide claims, or any of the following machinery of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, and even had it done so the responsibility would be on the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and not on the examining doctor.
  Three weeks later Miss Bonser went to her own doctor again, with her mother, and her mother said that she was not satisfied.
  Mr. Winterbottom: She had been every week in between.
  Miss Pitt: This is the information which I have gained of the interim between her being signed off and eventually going to hospital for the consultations which the hon. Member described.
  She went to her own doctor with her mother, and her mother said that she was not satisfied. Her doctor then sent her to a consultant psychiatrist who said that she was suffering from nervous dyspepsia. A week later her own doctor found that she had free fluid in the abdomen, and he sent her this time to a gynaecologist on 14th November. The specialist said that he could not tell whether this fluid came from the pelvis or higher up, and she had an operation, and the rest of the story we know, because the hon. Member explained it tonight.
  The hon. Member referred to the question of sickness benefit. A further claim was made for sickness benefit from 13th November, when the certificate showed hospital investigation, and payment continued to the date of her death on 26th December. She therefore had payment of sickness benefit for the two periods for which certificates were presented. I gather that the hon. Member is worried about the intervening period, after she had seen the examining doctor and then her own general practitioner and had been signed off, and the date subsequently when she went to hospital. I have made some inquiries in order to try to help him, and I am
  774
  told by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance that if in that intervening period she was not at work and if the father likes to put in a retrospective claim, it will be considered.
  The hon. Member raised the question of giving the name of the doctor, but I think that such a question does not arise. The responsibility does not rest on the examining doctor for any of the relevant actions, and therefore I do not feel that his name should be given here tonight. But, of course, I have looked into the general position in Sheffield—another point which the hon. Member raised—in order to satisfy myself that the machinery which my Department operates as agents for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is providing a proper service.
  First, I would say that I am unable to discover any previous complaint from the Sheffield area. The hon. Member has said tonight that he has two other cases, and if he likes to send them to me or, more properly, to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, who is sitting here tonight, we are certainly prepared to look into them.
  Mr. Winterbottom: There is only one from my division.
  Miss Pitt: Perhaps the hon. Member will observe the courtesies of the House and send the other to the hon. Member concerned. In any event, it can be looked into. I want to reassure the hon. Member about his own area. In the past six months, 1,848 persons have been examined under this machinery in the Sheffield area. Of these, 30·9 per cent. were considered fit for work following the examination, and this figure is approximately the same as that for the country as a whole for 1961. This does not suggest that there is anything different in Sheffield. In fact, in the East Midlands division for the six months to 31st December, 1961, the appropriate corresponding figure was 34·29 per cent. Therefore, Sheffield is lower than the general figure for the East Midlands, though on a par with the country as a whole.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of policy—deliberate or otherwise—of doctors of the regional

  775
  medical service in Sheffield or elsewhere trying to send back to work people who are ill or unfit to resume their normal occupations.
  I find this a sad case. I understand how the parents feel to lose a daughter at this age, and I can appreciate why the hon. Gentleman is so anxious that they should understand all that preceded
  776
  her death. I am aware that sympathy is not enough. I have tried to make inquiries, and I hope that the explanation I have given tonight will be of some comfort to the parents of Miss Bonser.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Immigrants (Health)
  Immigrants (Health)
  Commonwealth Exhibition
  Commonwealth Exhibition
EAST AFRICA
  Naval Ratings (Re-employment)
  Naval Ratings (Re-employment)
SWAZILAND
  Deaf Children (Schooling)
  Deaf Children (Schooling)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Constitution
  Constitution
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Goods, Hong Kong (Indication of Origin)
  Goods, Hong Kong (Indication of Origin)
  Export Licences (Indonesia)
  Export Licences (Indonesia)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Jury Service (Women)
  Jury Service (Women)
  Prison Visiting Committee (Peter Ingram)
  Prison Visiting Committee (Peter Ingram)
  Remand Homes
  Remand Homes
POST OFFICE
  Member's Telegram
  Member's Telegram
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
  Air Trooping
  Air Trooping
  Thor Missiles
  Thor Missiles
  Skybolt
  Skybolt
  Personnel, Singapore (Leave)
  Personnel, Singapore (Leave)
  Blue Steel
  Blue Steel
  AS-30 Missiles
  AS-30 Missiles
  Aircraft (Avro 748 and Handley Page Herald)
  Aircraft (Avro 748 and Handley Page Herald)
  APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES (ADVISORY COMMITTEES)
  APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES (ADVISORY COMMITTEES)
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Judicial Appointments
  Judicial Appointments
NATIONAL FINANCE
  National Economic Development Council
  National Economic Development Council
  Trustee Savings Banks (Limited Cheque Scheme)
  Trustee Savings Banks (Limited Cheque Scheme)
  UNITED NATIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS)
EDUCATION
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House, that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on disarmament and nuclear tests at an appropriate moment after 3.30 p.m.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Some weeks ago, when I was approached to move the Second Reading of the Bill, I thought it my duty to give the Manchester Corporation an opportunity of putting their proposals before Parliament. I did not then anticipate that the opponents of the waterworks clauses would circularise your Lordships by practically every post and flood the Press with propaganda, some of it inaccurate and most of it highly-coloured.
To give a few examples, in last week's New Statesman Mr. Paul Johnson, who is a very adroit journalist and who can turn his hand equally well to an article on the Royal Family or on Suez, stated that Manchester proposed to turn Ullswater into a reservoir. Now as I understand the waterworks clauses in this Bill, this is not at all the case. What is proposed is that water should be extracted from Ullswater and taken to Haweswater, which is already a reservoir. Then there was an article in yesterday's Daily Mail which stated that the scheme for Ullswater would raise the level by 3 feet. Where they got this figure from I do not know, but the Pro-
210
moters of the Bill contend that the effect of the weir will be to raise the average level of the lake by only a few inches. Then the National Trust sent out a circular stating that the Bill will give the Corporation powers to acquire compulsorily all the land in the vicinity of the lake. In fact, the only land in the vicinity of the lake which the Bill will give the Corporation powers to acquire is the specifically defined area of 28·9 acres near Gale Bay.
My Lords, wild statements of this kind have tended to make sensible appreciation of the waterworks clauses extremely difficult. I am sure that your Lordships who have taken part in this debate have read the statement issued on behalf of the Promoters, so I will only briefly summarise their proposals, which are, indeed, difficult to understand without the aid of maps.
At Bannisdale it is proposed to construct an impounding reservoir and intake weir at Huck's Bridge. The only land to be acquired is a small site for the weir. Also, a treatment works will he built to purify the water, and, as a result, there will be no need to impose any restrictions on the life and enjoyment of the Bannisdale Valley. Then, in order to take water from Ullswater, the Corporation are asking that they should he empowered to construct an intake below the surface of the lake, an underground pumping chamber beneath the land which abuts on Ullswater, and an underground aqueduct. The Corporation also wishes to construct a weir in the River Eamont, at Pooley Bridge.
The Parts of the Bill other than those dealing with waterworks are unopposed, and I think that when the Lord Chairman of Committees speaks he will confirm that they can safely be given a Second Reading. As your Lordships know, it is very unusual in this House not to give a Private Bill a Second Reading. I would refer your Lordships to some remarks on this subject made by the late Lord Drogheda, when he was Lord Chairman of Committees. It was during a Second Reading debate, and this is what he said: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201, col. 1115].
" It is, of course, very unusual not to give a Private Bill a Second Reading. Opinions on this Bill "—

211
that was the Liverpool Corporation Bill—
" are very strong and very divided, and it is extraordinarily difficult to deal, on the Floor of the House, with matters that may be discussed for days and days in a Select Committee, with evidence before them. What we generally wish to do, I believe, is to let the Bill go forward to a Select Committee. There is nothing final in what we do to-day. We can discuss it all again on Third Reading, in the light of the Report of the Select Committee ".
This sensible advice should, I submit, be followed by the House to-day, and I feel confident that the present Lord Chairman will advise the House in the same way as his predecessor did on the Liverpool Corporation Bill.
Whatever criticisms may be levelled against the details of the waterworks proposals, I want to make it abundantly clear that it is essential for the Manchester Water Undertaking to get more water from somewhere. Manchester have to look after the water needs not only of the city population but of many local authorities and bulk suppliers, amounting in all to 47—and they include such sizable towns as Bolton, Macclesfield, Preston and Stockport. The total demand on the Manchester Water Undertaking during the year ended December 31, 1961, amounted to an average of 105 million gallons per day, about 50 per cent. of which went to industry. What is going to be the position in the future? The Federation of British Industries inform me—and they support this Bill—that the industrial demand is going to increase by 5 per cent. per annum, and they emphasise that by 1970 the situation for industry could well become critical. So the Corporation must look for large, additional supplies of water. By 1965, when the Wet Sleddale Reservoir is completed and brought into use, the available yield will be 126 million gallons a day, but by 1970 a further 40 or 50 million gallons a day will have to be provided, and I submit that the requisite powers for this must be granted without delay.
My Lords, I hope I have established the case that there is a real need for further large supplies of water. The opponents of the scheme suggest there may be alternatives to the Corporation's scheme, but they do not say what they
212
are. My information is that the underground sources of water are already being seriously depleted and supplies of surface water are already heavily committed, so the present proposals offer the only prospect of covering the future demand. The F.B.I. have also pointed out to me that in many sections of industry, such as chemicals and food preparation, a very high standard of purity is required, which precludes the use of secondary sources such as can be obtained from rivers and canals. Even if this were not so, the extraction of large quantities of river water would be unjustifiable since further heavy demands would reduce flows and concentrate pollution. I should like to point out that industry is already making substantial efforts to conserve supplies. Water required for cooling purposes is, where possible, drawn from secondary sources, and large quantities are re-circulated and re-used where possible.
Finally, there is the question of cost. Anything that could affect costs, and ultimately water charges, would have a serious effect on industry, and it is the contention of the Promoters that the scheme set out in this Bill is the most economical. But I have seen it seriously cited as an argument against the Corporation's proposals that it is the most economical—as if that were a sort of dirty word. The opponents of the Bill have made great play of the fact that Bannisdale and Ullswater are in the Lake District and a National Park, but it is nonsense to suggest seriously that, because this Bill seeks to authorise development in a National Park, it should automatically be rejected on Second Reading. I can give your Lordships many precedents where Parliament has authorised developments in National Parks, and in no case has either House of Parliament ever rejected a Private Bill on Second Reading just because the Bill sought to authorise development in a National Park.
Just to give a few instances, the North Wales, Hydro-Electric Power Act, 1952, authorised the construction of a generating station, a reservoir and an aqueduct for the extraction of water in the Snowdonia National Park; the Liverpool Corporation Act, to which I referred a little earlier, authorised substantial water works in the Snowdonia National Park; and the Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge

213
and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Act, 1958, authorised the construction of an impounding reservoir in the Peak District. I could continue for quite a long time, but I hope that by now I have made my point clear.
It has also been said by some of the opponents of the Bill that there has not been sufficient consultation with the various interested parties. My Lords, let us look at the facts. The Town Clerk opened discussions early in July of last year with the Cumberland Water Board; in August there was a Press conference, giving full details of the proposals; and since then there has been a succession of meetings with the various interested bodies—county councils, district councils, the National Trust, the National Parks Commissioners, et cetera.
Another argument used against these proposals is that the City Council have "jumped the gun": that the matter must await the formulation of a national water policy. Your Lordships may have seen that during this last week there has been published the Final Report of the Central Advisory Water Committee. It remains to be seen whether Her Majesty's Government will eventually follow its recommendations, which were not unanimous. In any event, it is likely to be several years before legislation is introduced, and Manchester simply cannot wait. But I should like to point out that if Royal Assent is given to this Bill in July of this year, it will take the Corporation all the available time to carry out the work necessary to have the extra water needed by 1970.
My Lords, to sum up, the Manchester City Council fully appreciate that they would have to satisfy the Select Committee, first, that the increasing demand for water makes it necessary to secure other sources of supply; secondly, that there is no feasible alternative to the proposals in the Bill; thirdly, that the proposals relating to Bannisdale and the adjoining valleys will not militate against the enjoyment of those valleys by the public, or interfere with agriculture more than is absolutely necessary. Lastly, the City Council realise the importance of Ullswater as a place of beauty and recreation, and they desire, and have pledged themselves to ensure, that it shall remain so. Therefore, I trust that your Lordships will reject
214
Lord Birkett's Motion and allow the Select Committee, in due course, to get on with the work of considering the watercourses, and, having heard the evidence on behalf of the Promoters and Petitioners, to report back to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Jessel.)
2.52 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, in this Bill there are 77 clauses and four Schedules. I should just like to point out to the House that these are divided onto eight Parts, of which it is, I suppose, only Part III that is really the subject of debate this afternoon. I mention that because it is important for us all to realise that there are a great many Parts to this Bill in addition to the very controversial one which we are now discussing. On the Order Paper your Lordships will see that there are two Motions for to-day. If the second of these Motions—that is, the one in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett—is carried. Part III will, in effect, be denied a Second Reading in this House. The whole Bill may have had a Second Reading if the first Motion is passed; but, as I say, in effect, if the second Motion is also passed, Part III will be denied a Second Reading.
My Lords, I concede that to refuse a Private Bill a Second Reading is constitutional. It has been done on a number of occasions, but not frequently; in fact, it is rare. It was last done in 1937, on the North Devon Electric Power Bill and the North Devon Water Bill. It has been done four times only in this century. To pass a mandatory instruction, such as that in the name of the noble and learned Lord, is also rare, though constitutionally quite possible. The last time this was done was also in 1937, on the Poole Corporation Bill; and it has been done seven times in this century. As I say, to Give a mandatory instruction to a Committee has the same effect as refusing a Second Reading.
I should like to emphasise here that in giving a Second Reading to a Private Bill the House is doing something quite different from what it is doing in giving a Second Reading to a Public Bill. When your Lordships agree to the Second

215
Reading of a Public Bill, you are approving the general purposes of the Bill. But when your Lordships give a Second Reading to a Private Bill, it amounts, in effect, merely to a decision to refer all the questions on the Bill to a Committee. The Committee deal not with details but with the whole policy of the Bill. So, if your Lordships reject the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, you will not be deciding to allow the waterworks which are the subject of Part III of this Bill; what you will be doing is merely to allow the case for the Promoters to be heard. On the other hand, if you pass the instruction in the name of the noble and learned Lord, you will, as I say, be denying to the Promoters the customary right to present their case to this House.
My Lords, may I here mention a little piece of history? I think it is not unimportant to remember that until the year 1820 (which in the history of this House is not a very long time ago) it was the universal practice, and the right of the Promoters of every Private Bill, to come and stand at the Bar of this House and present their case; and, so far as I know, that right was never denied them. Thereafter, for reasons which will be obvious to all of us, the custom had to he altered, and the machinery of the Select Committee was then invented, and has taken the place of the custom since that year. The Select Committee, of course, is a semi-judicial body. It hears evidence and decides upon the evidence, and only upon the evidence, just as does a court of law; and I venture to think that it is, on the whole, an effective way of dealing with these matters.
My Lords, this is an opposed Bill, as I think most of your Lordships will by this time be aware. It is opposed in the sense that there are Petitions deposited against it. There are, in all, eighteen Petitions against this Bill, of which seventeen are against Part III and one against some other Part of the Bill. Just as a matter of interest, I counted up the number of bodies and institutions which are numbered amongst the seventeen Petitioners, and they total no fewer than thirty-one. Many of them have joined together, most sensibly, in presenting a joint Petition. So, my Lords, you can be sure that,
216
if a Second Reading is given to this Bill, and if this mandatory instruction is not passed, there will be full discussion by the Committee upstairs. Of that we can all be sure. If, on the other hand, the mandatory instruction is carried, discussion will be wholly prevented on this part of the Bill, and the evidence would not be heard.
My Lords, I should like to ask the House this question. Is it right that we should refuse to hear the case for this Bill? I will leave your Lordships to answer that question for yourselves. I concede that it has been done before. No doubt we shall be told that; and it is true. And I concede, further more, that it would be right to do so if, but only if, no matter what the evidence to be presented, no matter what the arguments in support of the evidence, no matter what the local circumstances might be, it was in the national interest, or for some other equally good reason, to throw out this Bill on Second Reading, or to carry this instruction and prevent the case from being heard.
My Lords, can that be said to-day? I venture to think that it is at least premature to answer that question in the affirmative, and even if it can be said at all, can it be said at so early a point in the proceedings as we have reached this afternoon? If your Lordships are with me so far, you will gather that in the opinion of some of my predecessors, and of other Members of your Lordships' House, no doubt, this House traditionally does not like mandatory instructions to Committees. I think the reasons for that will be by this time fairly obvious.
The objectors also have a case, which I venture to think ought to be heard as well. I go so far as to say that, in the public interest, it would really be better to hear not only the Promoters but also the opponents of this Bill. I think that the whole country would be in a better position if both sides were allowed to present their cases to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I concede another thing, which is this. The opponents of Private Bills, in this case as in all others, are often in a difficulty. They are so often told on Second Reading—I have no doubt they will be told to-day—that they must give the Bill a

217
Second Reading in order that the argument may be heard upstairs and then, when the argument has been heard upstairs and the Bill comes back to your Lordships' House with the controversial part allowed to proceed, they are told that now that the Committee has had this Bill before them and heard the argument, really they must not upset the decision of the Committee.
I say that because I sympathise with the dilemma, as I call it, in which the opponents of all Private Bills which are controversial are often placed. I have tried to see what can be done to resolve this dilemma in the fairest possible way. I think that every fair-minded person—and I am sure that all your Lordships are that—would concede that there is this difficulty in which all the opponents of Private Bills are placed.
I have tried to think of the best course to adopt and in doing so my eye alighted on Standing Order No. 94 of the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills. In this connection, I should like here and now, without any reservation or ambiguity, to give your Lordships this undertaking: that, if two things happen, I will move a Resolution on the Floor of the House under Standing Order No. 94. The two things are these: that the mandatory instruction is not agreed to today, and that Part III is allowed to procede by the Committee upstairs. What I am saying now is totally ineffective unless those two things happen in the event. I am not making any conditions. I am not entering into any sort of bargain with any Member of the House. I want to make that perfectly plain, and also that I am doing this entirely on my own initiative and not as the result of any pressure from anybody. But if those two things in the even t happen, and, of course, they may not, I give an undertaking here and now that I will move in this House, That this Bill be recommitted after Report to a Committee of the Whole House.
That is an unusual procedure. It has not been done since 1882, but the Standing Order, after considerable revision, is still in the Book and for my part I do not see why this is not the very case when such a practice might be put into effect. In fact, I do not think that I can think of a situation in which it is more called for than now. That would take
218
place, if it did, after the Report stage, which in the case of a Private Bill is purely formal, and before the Third Reading. I cannot promise, of course, that my Resolution will be carried. I can promise only to urge your Lordships to carry it.
What are the pros and cons of this procedure? I have tried to think them out. I begin with the disadvantages, which I think are that a little more, though not very much, Parliamentary time would be taken up on this Bill. We might have to ask for another day to be taken from Public Business and devoted to Private Business. But the cost of the proceedings would be very small indeed. Another possible disadvantage would be that we might be told that it was wrong to upset the decision of a Select Committee, as we have been told in the past; and, of course, I admit that, as a result, it would be possible for the whole House to wish to reverse the decision of the Committee upstairs. That, I think, must be faced. Again, that would be perfectly constitutional, and no doubt may have been done before.
What are the advantages of this procedure? First and foremost, the Promoters would be given an opportunity and allowed to state their case before this House, and I put that very high in my list of advantages. So can the Petitioners. They also would be allowed and enabled to put their case before the House. Any Member of the House, whether he be on the Select Committee or not, could obtain a copy of the transcript of the shorthand note of everything that was said in Committee upstairs. That would entail a little extra cost in printing, but very little. So all your Lordships would be enabled to take a real interest in this Bill and discuss it after and not before the case had been put to the House in complete detail.
Furthermore, the Members of the Select Committee, whoever they may be—and, of course, it is not decided yet who they will be, if they are appointed at all—would be able to come down here and advise your Lordships, to speak in Committee of the Whole House, and help the House with their advice and the knowledge they had acquired in Committee upstairs. A more doubtful adantage, some may think, would be that every Member of the House could speak

219
as often as he wished in Committee of the House.
Of course, the procedure would be very simple. No doubt an Amendment would be put down, either by the noble and learned Lord or some other opponent of the Bill, to leave out Part III, and that would be treated exactly as any other Amendment is treated in Committee of the Whole House, and there could be any number of other Amendments put down by any Member of the House. I feel that in this way the House would be better equipped to decide this extremely important and very controversial issue, for I think that we must all agree that this matter has acquired an almost nation-wide importance because of the great interest taken in it up and down the country. For my part, I feel that this is the best way in which your Lordships' House will really be able to deal with it.
I may be told—I expect I shall—that a great deal of public money would be saved by finishing the discussion this afternoon and not allowing this Bill to go upstairs at all. That point is a valid one, but it could be made about every opposed Private Bill, and if it were made about every opposed Private Bill, then I submit that the Public Business in your Lordships' House would be so choked that the procedure and machinery would tend to break down altogether and the whole point of sending Bills upstairs in order to clear the decks and save time downstairs would be lost. So, although that is a point, I feel it is really of very little value, because it is one which is quite impracticable as a method of dealing with Private Bills which are opposed and controversial in this House.
Finally, I would ask your Lordships to believe me when I say that, in saying what I have, I am not taking sides on the merits of Part III of this Bill. I am not saying to your Lordships that the waterworks ought to be made or that they should not be made. I believe it is my duty—and I welcome it—to take no part whatever in that controversy. But I also believe it is my duty (I hope I am correct in this) to give some advice to the House on these procedural matters. It is my duty, as I conceive it, to provide smooth working machinery for the passage of Private Bills through
220
this House, if your Lordships desire them to be passed, and only in that event.
Therefore, if I may venture to do so, I would respectfully advise this House to-day to pass the first Motion on the Order Paper and not to pass the second Motion. Indeed, I very much hope—it may be a forlorn hope, and I rather think it will be—that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, may, after all, not press his Motion to a Division, if he can be assured, as I hope he will be, that he would have an opportunity of discussing the whole matter in Committee of the Whole House. I would most respectfully suggest to him that a Committee of this House would be a better battleground for taking a decision on this important controversial matter. I appreciate that the opponents of the Bill are anxious—and I cannot blame them—to have what I might call a "showdown". I would only say that I think a better time and place for a "showdown" would be provided by a Committee of the Whole House than is available to us this afternoon.
3.13 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord who is to speak next addresses the House, I think it might be convenient if we agree about procedure. There is at the moment one Motion before the House, which is the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has a Motion for a mandatory instruction in his name. What I would suggest to him and the House is that the general discussion should take place on the Motion at present before the House, and if at a later stage, after the matter has been fully debated, the noble and learned Lord wishes to move his Motion formally, then a Division could be taken on that at the appropriate time. I do not know if that is convenient both to the noble Lord and to the House.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, or the Lord Chairman of Committees who has made maters so clear to us, one thing on which I think the House would like to be clear. Supposing

221
the House were to decide to pass the mandatory instruction standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, which would cut out this particular Part of the Bill, would there be anything in our procedure which would prevent the Manchester Corporation, after fuller consultation with the different authorities, from the beginning of the next Session of this Parliament presenting either the same Bill over again or an amended Bill?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, there would he nothing to prevent the Manchester Corporation from presenting a similar Bill in the next Session of Parliament.
LORD MORRISON of LAMBETH: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the Lord Chairman of Committees in the clear speech he made, but I rather gathered (I hope I am wrong) that his case was that if the Select Committee were to leave Part III, then the House could debate it and do what it liked about it on Committee stage on the Floor, but, as I understood it, that if the Committee upstairs struck out Part III, the Committee of the Whole House would not, under his proposed Motion, have the opportunity of putting the clauses back. The Lord Chairman confirms that interpretation of what he said by a nod. But if we are to be fair, as we must, to the opponents of the Bill and give them a chance to strike this Part out on the Committee stage on the Floor, must we not equally give a chance to the Promoters of the Bill to propose to put the clauses back, if they so desire, on the Floor? Is it not the right of the House in Committee to decide the matter not only one way, but the other way, if it so desires?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I must confess that I was not prepared for that eventuality, but I think it certainly would not be appropriate for Part III to be put back into the Bill by the procedure which I have outlined. I had thought that an Amendment might be moved at that stage to leave out Part III; but, as I say, I do not think it would be constitutional (I may be wrong about this) to carry out the reverse procedure.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would it not be open to any Member of the
222
House, when the Bill comes back to us from the Committee, to move that the House go into Committee on the Bill—in other words, that it be recommitted? And when it is recommitted, would it not be open to any Member to move Amendments to reinsert these provisions?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, Standing Order 94 specifically says that "The Chairman of Committees may" move this Resolution. But I did inquire this morning how many times this had been done, and I was told that it had not been done since 1900. And, curiously enough, the last time it was attempted was by a Member of the House who was not the Chairman of Committees. His Resolution was defeated. All the other occasions when it has been done were in the last century, and the Resolutions were all moved by the Chairman of Committees. The last time it was done prior to 1900 was, I think, in 1882. It looks from that as if it is strictly possible for any Member so to move.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, in support of what has been said by the two noble Lords opposite, surely the analogy in this case is exactly what we have done before in this House when we have moved to recommit a Public Bill. If the House agrees to a Motion to recommit a Public Bill, then the whole Bill is open in Committee before the House in exactly the same way that it is on the ordinary Committee stage, and it is open to any Member to move any Amendment he may choose. With respect, I should have thought—it is difficult for the Lord Chairman, being taken by surprise over this—that the parallel must be exactly that we have a Motion to recommit and the procedure and powers of the House on recommittal must surely be the same, whether the Bill be Public or Private.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, with great respect to your Lordships, may I say one thing about that? The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is perfectly competent, but it assumes what I think would be quite impossible in your Lordships' House—namely, that on recommittal your Lordships' House would consent to insert in a Private Bill a large body of unconsidered legislation. It would be a

223
most difficult thing to do. I think it is 44 clauses, and I believe your Lordships' House would be slow to do that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there is one point that I should mention to my noble friend, although I do not claim any expertise in this matter. I think he should bear in mind that Standing Order 94 specifically says:
"But no Private Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House under this Standing Order shall by reason of such recommitment be allowed to proceed as a Public Bill."
I think that, this, taken together with what my noble friend Lord Saltoun has said, does constitute a powerful argument the other way.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion, but the Lord Chairman of Committees has put to us that if my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett will give way, he will put a Motion before the House. Surely, whether the Leader of the House is right or Lord Morrison of Lambeth and I are right in our construction of the position, before we take a vital decision we must know what is the procedure of this House, and to what we should be committing ourselves, or what we should be denying ourselves, if we agreed to the Motion which the Lord Chairman proposes to move.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I put this point, either to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, or to the Lord Chairman? I am not disposed to dispute with the Leader of the House that there is a distinction in Standing Orders between Public Bills and Private Bills. What I am worried about is that this is a House with a considerable reputation—a good reputation in the handling of Private Bills—and I do not want us to drift into a situation whereby it is apparent that we are not allocating or conferring natural justice on both parties to a dispute. It seems to me that it would be wrong and indefensible that one side should be able to move something in Committee in one direction, if the decision goes in a certain direction in Committee upstairs, but that the other side to the controversy should be denied that opportunity in Committee of the Whole House.
224
It is simply a question of natural justice, and I wish the Lord Chairman of Committees would undertake at any rate to give the matter further consideration in the light of the points that have been raised.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should certainly like to consider this point further, but I should like to add this. I hope I made it clear in my speech that this undertaking would operate only if Part III had been allowed to proceed by the Select Committee. The Bill would then come back to your Lordships' House as a whole, with Part III in, and there would then undoubtedly be an Amendment to leave out Part III. The question I am asked is: What about the reverse possibility? I hope I made it clear that, if Part III was not allowed to proceed upstairs, my undertaking would not operate and would not apply. The question I am asked, as I view it, is: Can any other Member of your Lordships' House—because I would not do it—move that the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and could any other Member then move in Committee that Part III be re-inserted in the Bill? The more I think of it, the more I feel that that is an unthinkable procedure.
The final question is: Would it be fair? We could have a Committee of the Whole House only if the Promoters had so far succeeded—that is, in keeping Part III. It would happen only in that event, so they could not be, I should think, distressed by the proceeding. If the Promoters had not succeeded, and if Part III had for any cause by that time disappeared, then surely the question would not arise. Your Lordships may say: Would somebody appear on behalf of Manchester and try to get it in again? I think that is almost unthinkable. It would be quite a misapplication of the whole procedure on Private Bills.
3.24 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT LORD BIRKETT had given Notice of his intention to move, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Bill may be committed to leave out Part II (Waterworks) of the Bill. The noble and learned

225
Lord said: My Lords, I have been waiting, I must say a little eagerly, for the moment when I could rise and say that I rose to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, and to make it quite plain that the opposition is confined to Part III, the waterworks clause. I hope that it will be seemly on my part to say to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that he is to be congratulated upon the fairness and moderation with which he stated his case in introducing the Bill. The only reply that I can make to him is to say that he will hear no highly coloured propaganda from me, and I hope that the rebukes which he has administered to other people will not fall upon deaf ears.
I am conscious that my task this afternoon has been made very much more difficult by the speech from the Lord Chairman of Committees to which we have listened. I must deal with it, but I should like to say at once that I am personally very much indebted to him during these last weeks and days for the personal help and advice he has given to me on matters of procedure. I hope to make, in the course of my observations this afternoon, a convincing reply to the various points which have been raised.
I should like to make it clear to the House, to show that there is no misunderstanding, that the course which I am about to suggest is the clear, definite course for to-day. I say nothing about the future. I am entirely of the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, that the procedure to-day, so far as I am concerned, would be this. I shall oppose, and the friends associated with me will oppose (because I am not in isolation in this matter), the Second Reading. But we shall not divide upon it, which means that, if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, the clauses with which the opposition is not concerned will be at the disposal of the Corporation of Manchester. But if the House does give a Second Reading to the Bill, I shall move the mandatory instruction which stands in my name upon the Order Paper and divide the House upon it. That, I think, is a clear statement of the procedure which is due from me, because of the statement made by the Lord Chairman of Committees, in fairness to all parties.
The first thing I want to say is that this procedure which I am suggesting has been carefully considered by all who are opposed to this Bill. It is the means by which public opinion, as represented in this House, can best be made known. I should like, therefore, to say just one word about the procedure itself, because I am most anxious not to lose the support of anybody, in any quarter of this House, due to any belief that in some measure this procedure was in defiance of custom or offended against those traditions which it is the duty of all of us to maintain and to preserve. I was therefore grateful to the Lord Chairman for the concession, as he termed it, that this procedure, which I am suggesting is the right procedure, was perfectly constitutional and perfectly in order. If there is any doubt about that, there are many precedents which can be cited. My noble and learned friend Lord Chorley, who has looked most carefully into the precedents, will he able to deal with that matter if it should arise.
My Lords, I am going to suggest to the House that the course I suggest is the only reasonable, sane method by which this House can control its own affairs. If a Private Bill which was filled with obnoxious matter were to come before this House is it to be said: "You must give it a Second Reading and send it upstairs to the Committee"; and that this House is not to say, "No, our duty is to say Thus far and no further; we will destroy the obnoxious matter to-day'"? That is an extreme case. But, surely, a great deliberative assembly like the House of Lords must retain its final power to say upon a Second Reading: "We will not permit a Second Reading to the Bill," or, "We will support the mandatory instruction to remove some offending portion." It is consonant only with the dignity of this House that such procedure not only should be constitutional, but should be the accepted procedure of the House itself; and it always has been.
From 1925 to the year 1937 there were no fewer than ten mandatory instructions put upon the Paper such as the mandatory instruction which stands in my name. Eight of them were carried on a Division, or were agreed to without a Division. Therefore nobody in this House, I think, would object to the

227
procedure which I am suggesting, merely on the ground that it might offend some custom or some tradition, which it does not. As I say, I was grateful to the Lord Chairman for making the position abundantly plain. I will not detain the House long upon this aspect and I hope not very long upon the whole Bill, but it is important, and I would mention two matters on procedure.
In 1923 the Croydon Corporation had a Private Bill, and one of the clauses in the Bill permitted the Croydon Corporation to take, compulsorily, the Whitgift Hospital. The Lord Chairman of Committees of that day advised the House that the Bill ought to go to a Select Committee, as the Lord President has advised here to-day. But the Leader of the House on that occasion happened to be Lord Curzon, who said, "Oh no, this is clearly a matter for the good judgement of the Members of the House itself; and." said he, "I propose to vote for the mandatory instruction". The result was that the mandatory instruction was carried without a Division.
In the very following year (the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth will be interested in this matter, I am quite sure), the London County Council had a Private Bill before this House containing a clause which would have enabled them to run a tramway past the Royal Waterloo Hospital. A mandatory instruction was put down to remove the clause. It was put down by Lord Denman and the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Government, through the Leader of the House, both said, Let it go to a Committee; it is the procedure best to be followed ". But Lord Denman refused to do so; took it to a Division and carried it by a pretty large majority, supported by Lord Buck-master, seven Law Lords and some ex-Lord Chancellors; and the only two who voted against the instruction were Lord Haldane and Lord Parmoor, both members of the Government. So let every Member of this House be quite satisfied in his own mind that there is nothing in the procedure which I am suggesting on the part of the opposition which offends in the smallest degree against those customs and those traditions of this House, which it is the duty of every one of us to support to the very last.
That is all I want to say upon the bare matter of procedure, but perhaps I might just reinforce it by one or two quotations; there will not be many. In the Guardian newspaper—which is of special interest in Manchester, if I may say so—the leading article headed "Storm over Ullswater" concluded with these words:
" The final decision ought probably to be taken not so much on these as on larger issues."
they had been discussing the proposals of the Promoters—
" Ullswater is in a National Park, and is indeed one of the most beautiful parts of that park. It must remain unspoiled. Manchester has gone a long way towards making sure that its scheme will do little damage—much farther than its critics acknowledge—but is any damage acceptable? Surely not. What is more, Manchester and the areas it supplies are only one group of water consumers, though an important one. For Manchester to obtain supplies from Ullswater is only a temporary solution of a single part of a growing national problem. Some of the outflow from Ullswater must eventually be taken from a point downstream, but the taking ought to be part of a national scheme."
That is my theme this afternoon, and I hope to make it convincing to the House.
Your Lordships will have seen in The Times of a few days ago the letter signed by four distinguished Members of this House, which concluded
" But we wonder whether they have made "—
that is, Manchester—
" any really serious attempt to search for alternative sources outside the National Park for the water which they reckon they need: and we hope that a decision may be taken even now that they should undertake this as a next step and that, until this water problem can be looked at as a whole, their present proposals, for which there would appear to be no imperative urgency, should not be proceeded with."
The last quotation I should like to make is from the very valuable letter, I thought, of the noble Earl. Lord Woolton, in The Times of this morning, and the passage on this point is as follows:
" There is another aspect of this problem which closely concerns Parliament. Water is one of the essentials of our lives and the more we improve our standard of living—and particularly our sanitation—the greater will be the demand we make on water supply and the keener will be the competition for the easy sources of supply.
" Are these issues to be left to the chance of who gets in first? If it is true that the Government proposes to introduce legislation

229
dealing with this subject, ought not Parliament to tell the public water authorities to wait until we get a comprehensive scheme, and is not this particularly the case where a National Park is involved, and where all the public authorities of the neighbourhood concerned are objectors?"
Those very valuable words, I must say, reinforce the argument which I am putting to your Lordships' House, that the procedure I suggest is more consonant with the dignity of the House and is more consonant with the public welfare, looking at the matter as a whole, than the way which has been suggested this afternoon of sending the Bill to Committee and returning it to a Committee of the Whole House. My Lords, I will leave the matter there, though there is very much more that can be said, but I hope I have said enough to convince every noble Lord in every part of this House that, on the grounds of procedure, there ought to be no feeling in anybody's mind that the suggested mandatory instruction is in any way contrary either to constitutional practice, or to the usages with which this House is so concerned.
With regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, your Lordships will notice that from time to time he put in words to the effect that Manchester cannot wait; that this must be done without delay; and I was very grateful, if I may say so, to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who interposed with that most valuable intervention—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Noble Earl.
LORD BIRKETT: I stand to be corrected on every question of fact and procedure. I beg the noble Earl's pardon, but it does not detract from what I was about to say, of my gratitude to him for that intervention. It was perfectly timed and, so far as I am concerned, was most welcome. Is there anything to prevent the Manchester Corporation at a future date from coming back, after a suitable opportunity for consultation and reflection? I think that is a most important matter for the House to consider and I propose to say a word or two about it later.
Let me say this now. When the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, was saying "Without delay; this is a matter of urgency", I dare say that he had in mind paragraph 69 of the case for the Promoters which has been freely circulated. The noble
230
Lord spoke about the propaganda which had been circulated by one side, but in that document which they sent out there was, in paragraph 69, a piece of pleading to which I want to draw attention. It is said in paragraph 69, that No. 1, it is a matter of urgency; No. 2, that Parliament has imposed upon them burdens for supplying water; No. 3, that it is their desire to discharge those great responsibilities, and No. 4, that the Lake District is the only place to which they can look to fulfil all those conditions.
With very great respect, I would say that this is not an urgent matter, and I say it deliberately and advisedly. And to put as a matter of pleading to this House, "Let us go with this measure to a Committee upstairs at once" is quite misleading and quite wrong. The supplies of water from the Longdendale scheme, which was the first scheme Manchester undertook in the Peak District, with Thirlmere and with Haweswater—from all those sources—are 126 million gallons a day, available to the Manchester Corporation. The noble Lord said that when the works near Widderswater were completed it may very well be that the figure would be larger. But in the Promoters' own case there are available 126 million gallons a day.
It was stated at the Town's meeting in Manchester that 104 million gallons per day—it is given as 105 million gallons in the Promoters' case—are used by Manchester and the waterworks allied with Manchester. The rate of increase, which is purely an estimate and possibly may be larger or a little less, is 3 million gallons per day per year; and on that footing every additional drop of water which is sought by this Bill by the Manchester Corporation is not to be used at least until 1970. On their own case, they do not need any additional water until 1970. What is the use of coming to this House and pleading this as a matter "of urgency; there can be no delay; it is vital if we are to fulfil these obligations which Parliament has laid upon us"?
Of course Parliament laid upon them obligations. It was one of the terms by which they got their immense power. Parliament said, in effect, "We shall not let you take the water from Thirlmere unless you undertake to supply, as you can quite conveniently, people

231
en route". And now they put it as a kind of virtue, "It is urgent to look at what we have to do by way of responsibility", when it was a condition by which they had to do it. And they say, with pious hope, "We so earnestly desire to fulfil these needs". Of course they do; they must. And then they say, at the last, "In all these circumstances the Lake District is our only hope".
I have heard some specious pleading in my time, and made it, I freely acknowledge; but that has also given me the experience to recognise it when I see it. I suggest that paragraph 69 of the Promoters' case and the note of urgency imported into the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is merely pleading. They do not need the water until 1970. If they get the 40 million or 50 million gallons under this Bill, and it begins to be expended in 1970, by 1985 or thereabouts they will want more water. Where are they going for that? Ullswater? The Chairman of the Waterworks has given an undertaking, I understand, that they will seek no more from Ullswater. It is like the extempore speech of which Lord Hewart used to speak; it is not worth the paper it is written on. The Manchester Corporation can no more bind its successors than anybody else can. I observe that even the Guardian the other day suggested there should be covenants written into the Bill. Of what use are they?
Let me say this by way of an aside. There is a volume, which is very difficult to obtain but I am sure it is in the archives of the Manchester Corporation, a book written about the history of Thirlmere. It was published in 1875. The Chairman of the Waterworks at that time, 1877,said: (it is all in the book; it is in an appendix):
" It is true that Ullswater was at first recommended to us, but it was found to be beset with difficulties not one of which exists at Thirlmere, At any rate, the imaginary possibility of some such application is the absurdest reason that can be conceived for not granting this "—
at Thirlmere. In other words, "We shall not go to Ullswater again". And here we are to-day! There was a voice speaking in that appendix, that of Miss Octavia Hill, one of the founders of the National Society, greatly to be honoured. She spoke in a sustained satire which is perfectly delightful to read. The Chair-
232
man of the Waterworks said: "Thirlmere will not be damaged; it will improve the district", and her satire about Manchester Corporation being able to improve on nature is really worth reading. It is apposite to-day, because that is exactly what Manchester is saying now: "Give us the powers, let us do this, and the amenities of Lakeland and of Ullswater will be quite untouched and quite undiminished".
There was a phrase used by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, the other day in a debate in this House when his speech was so properly and so richly praised by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, a view with which I entirely concur. The phrase is a biblical phrase and very effective:
"By their fruits ye shall know them".
We have only to look at Thirlmere as it is to-day; we have only to look at Haweswater as it is to-day. Both lovely lakes have been murdered. They are now dead water reservoirs: no human life; sterile shores; why! even the afforestation of the Manchester Corporation prevents proper access to the fell-side until intervention is made in that behalf.
And they come to this House with this Bill now and say, "We are only going to destroy a valley, if you can call it destruction; in Bannisdale, we are going to build a huge reservoir with a mighty dam; but it is a secluded valley, very few people go there "—as though seclusion and solitude was not one of the things people wanted! They say, "We are only going to take up our weir from Ullswater; we are not going to damage the amenities; you need have no fear." Whereas we know in truth and in fact that if you raise the level of the lake and hold it there fifteen days there may be a flood. I defy those Members of your Lordships' House who have read this Bill to understand Clause 24. But Clause 24 says that the discretion about holding the water at that level is in the hands of two people only: one the engineer to the Cumberland Water Board and one the engineer to the Corporation. Not a word is said about what is to happen if they disagree. Under this Bill it can be taken for a certainty—everybody with any experience of Lakeland knows it—that these lovely shores of Ullswater, where

233
people picnic, where the ponies come down, will be just sterile shores like one sees at Thirlmere.
What I am saying therefore about this matter is this. I fully agree that in the ordinary way it is wise and prudent and right for most Private Bills to go to a Select Committee. There they can be investigated and probed, as they can very well be upon the Floor of the House. I concede that most Private Bills are in that category. But there are some that are not, where the point of principle is so grave and so great that this House ought not to derogate from its power and say, "Let it go to a Committee". Everybody knows that we are not debating the merits this afternoon. It is implicit in most arguments that nobody is debating here this afternoon what effect the raising of the level of Ullswater three feet above Ordnance Datum will mean. We pretty well know what it will mean, but nobody is going to debate the merits here this afternoon. We are not debating here the merits of a scheme for Bannisdale or the raising of part of the River Eamont or the amount to be taken from Ullswater by the weir. No. If we were, it would be necessary to go into the matter in great detail. We are not.
May I suggest what is the question your Lordships will be asked to determine? It is a simple one. It is: at this moment, February, 1962, shall the Manchester Corporation be permitted to invade Lakeland for the third time, to impound its waters, to pour them into its aqueducts, or not? That is the question of principle about which your Lordships are asked to make up your minds. It will have been debated quite fully on both sides of this House. It is not a question of saying, "Ah, you are asking people to come to a decision without hearing the evidence". We are doing nothing of the kind. We are not debating merits this afternoon. It would be impossible that we should. What we are debating is principle; and the great overriding principle which never operated before in the case of Thirlmere or in the case of Haweswater arises now—namely, are we going to allow this in a National Park?
The noble Lord who moved this Second Reading was right to say, "Look at what has been done already in the
234
National Parks!" He recited it and said, "I could go on". I felt great shame too. The National Parks were set up so that the scenic beauty should be preserved and that the enjoyment of the parks should be for all people in all times. That is the principle which is before your Lordships here this afternoon. To say "There have been many invasions there. Here is one more", is a pitiful argument. Your Lordships could, I think—and before I sit down I shall make one plea that your Lordships will—assert that Parliament has said that these areas, few though they be, in our land shall be preserved inviolate; that they shall not be invaded by this or the other undertaking; that that principle shall be maintained in its fullness by the Members of this House.
I know perfectly well what people feel about it. We are unaccustomed to use words such as
" This precious stone set in the silver sea ".
We think it, but we rarely say it. I am greatly tempted when it conies to defending the beauty of the English Lakelands—so small, so lovely, so vulnerable upon that account—to call to aid the great Wordsworth, the great men who have lived there and who have had the power to set down upon the printed pad what scenic beauty can mean to the individual life and to the life of the nation. So far from saying in this House "It has been done many times. Let it be done once more", surely the argument should be, "It has been too many times already; do not let us add to it". That is the point of principle which is involved in the procedure which I am suggesting here this afternoon.
I am sorry to have taken so much time. I have not said a quarter of what I had intended to. But there are many speakers and I am anxious that nobody should say "Why, he took far too much time and people did not have a chance!" I do not want that to happen. But there are two things I do want to say before I sit down. I want to make it quite clear that the opposition here are not saying that Manchester shall not have the water. The opposition here say that Manchester must have the water. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, will pardon my referring to a private conversation that I had with her the other day. Then she said, "You do

235
not mean that they can have the water and can go to Lakeland?" I said, "No, I do not quite mean that. They must have the water and I will go to this length: it may very well be that they will have to take some from Lakeland." May I be pardoned for one more quotation to sustain that particular argument?—it is again from the Guardian:
" Until there is a national water policy, no individual authority or group of authorities should be allowed to pre-empt Ullswater. A proper survey of resources in the north of England, as elsewhere, must be made first. Future demand must also be examined. Only then can it be judged who should draw on Ullswater—and even then, if anyone should, it must surely be done at a point below the outflow from the lake. Manchester has thought hard about how to preserve the peace, beauty and amenity of Ullswater; but a still wiser scheme … ought surely to begin not with an intake on the shore of Ullswater itself but with an intake downstream of Pooley Bridge. That would leave the lake entirely in its natural state."
So I want to make it clear to every Member of the House that the opposition are not seeking to deprive Manchester of water which it will need in days to come, and which it must have in days to come. It may very well be that some will have to come from the North-West of England. But it ought not to come at the present time.
My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire will, I think, deal with the point that there has been a lamentable lack of consultation in the past on a Bill of this kind, with all its complications, with all the machinery available through the county councils and planning boards—scarcely any consultation whatever—the Lake Planning Board, in particular, having special reason to feel a grievance. I think I am right in saying that the first public notice of this measure was given somewhere about October, 1961—and we are only in the following February now. There could have been, of course—I know not—long days spent in preparing the clauses of this Bill. That may be so; but, if that is the fact, we should have known about them. The other alternative is that the matter has been put forward with undue haste. If your Lordships will to-day accept the Motion which I have upon the Order Paper. that it be an instruction to the Committee to omit Part III, Manchester will then have to enter into those consultations which
236
it ought to have entered into long before this Bill was introduced.
Let me say just this. I should not like by any word of mine to alienate any possible sympathy in any quarter, but I think I may say that a Select Committee of this House (the Members of which, fortunately for my argument, have not yet been named, so I am free to speak) are not the kind of Committee which are at this moment required. What is needed is something on a much larger scale. We have had the White Paper, and it would appear that a Government scheme is certainly in contemplation. I think a central authority is envisaged, and certainly it is suggested that all the water supplies of this country should be surveyed and a national policy created.
Let me enumerate, very simply and without elaboration, one or two of them. We are not satisfied at all that Manchester has made any real effort to find alternative sources. If it has, then we ought to know about them. We do not know whether resources which are being utilised at the moment are being utilised fully. We do not know what steps are being taken to economise in the use of water. Is water being used a second time? Is there re-circulation? These are very important questions.
There is a further one which I think is even more important. What steps are to be taken in regard to the distillation of seawater, which may be something which is just around the corner? In October, 1961, the English Journal of the British Waterworks Society, in a very illuminating article, explained the processes of the American plant that is already at work distilling seawater and producing water for industrial and domestic purposes. Its purport was, quite shortly, that by that process water would be available as cheaply as is any natural source now in being. I am also told by that same article—beyond which my knowledge does not go—that the Channel Islands are already experimenting with a scheme for the distillation of seawater. All these things may be a little in the future, and that is why I emphasised as strongly as I could the fact that there is no note of urgency about this matter at all. If there is a note of urgency, it is that the Government should produce, at the earliest possible moment, that national survey

237
and that national policy about which everybody seems to be agreed.
My Lords, I suppose that to-day we have a House which is as full as any I have had the privilege of addressing, and I suppose this would be the moment for what I would call my peroration. I leave it on one side; I do not feel equal to a peroration on a theme like this at this moment, and will content myself by saying this. Your Lordships will have a great opportunity this evening when the Division is taken—it may be late I am afraid, but their devotion to this cause might persuade Members to undergo a little inconvenience in order to stay and vote—the first opportunity you will have had on this matter, to vindicate the right of the House to say on any measure such as this, "Thus far and no farther. Go away. Come again another day, if you will. But in the meantime, do that which ought to have been done before. Produce the hydrological data on which the House can come to a proper decision. Until that is done, you have no right whatever to invade the sanctity of a National Park". That principle will be invaluable if it is established by the House. And it involves this other principle, too. It will urge upon the Government the immediate necessity of producing that national scheme which, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will give natural justice to every interest. My Lords, I beg to oppose the Second Reading.

DISARMAMENT AND NUCLEAR TESTS
4.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, perhaps this would be the best moment—I hardly say a convenient one—at which I could now repeat, with the permission of the House, the statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will now have made in another place, on the subject of disarmament and nuclear tests. The statement is as follows:
" As the House knows, successive British Governments have, since the last war, devoted major efforts to the attempt to reach disarmament agreements. We have tried broad negotiations, such as those in London from 1954 to 1957, and again in Geneva in
238
1960; we have tried narrower negotiations on specific points like the negotiations which took place in Geneva from 1958 onwards about nuclear tests and those about surprise attack measures. We have attempted, as regards the narrower negotiations, to begin with technical discussions like the 1958 Conference of Experts on nuclear tests, in the hope that these would clear the ground in advance of what I might describe as political discussions. In addition to these international conferences we have also discussed disarmament frequently at private meetings as during my visit to the Soviet Union in 1959 and in my talks with Mr. Khrushchev in New York in 1960. So far, as the House knows, although there have been ups and downs and even moments of hope, we have as yet achieved nothing. Indeed, since the dramatic failure of the Summit Meeting in May, 1960, the general international climate has deteriorated to such an extent that the prospects of any agreement about disarmament between East and West have seemed more remote that ever.
"Last autumn, this situation was reflected in the massive series of Soviet atmospheric nuclear tests. After these had taken place I explained to the House on October 31 last the position of principle as regards further testing which Her Majesty's Government had felt bound to adopt. President Kennedy made a similar statement of the United States' attitude on November 1. It was against this background that President Kennedy and I met just before Christmas in Bermuda. As the communiqué issued after this meeting explained, we there considered the position both as regards the military situation and as regards the future of, disarmament. Since our meeting in Bermuda, the President and I have been in close touch about the situation and about the future of Western policy in these fields.
"In my statement I said that the West would conduct further tests only for compelling military or scientific reasons and that if possible these would be made underground. The United States has, in line with this principle, for some time been conducting a series of underground tests of

239
nuclear devices. In this connection
we are now satisfied that substantial technical and military benefits can be obtained by testing one particular British nuclear device underground. The United States Government have agreed to make available suitable facilities in the United States so that this test can be conducted there in the near future.
"At Bermuda, we also discussed the question of atmospheric tests about which the House, I think rightly, feel a more lively concern. President Kennedy explained that in accordance with his statement on November 1 he felt it militarily necessary now to make preparations for a limited series of atmospheric tests for specific purposes. In the world of ballistic missiles offensive power remains far ahead of defensive power, and we know that some most formidable practical problems stand in the way of devising a defence against missiles. Yet, while the arms race continues, we dare not fall behind in the struggle between offensive and defensive capabilities with their increasingly complex systems of counter-measures and counter-counter-measures. We must bear in mind the claims, true or false, made by Russian military leaders at the time of their nuclear test series last autumn that they have solved the problem of destroying ballistic missiles in flight. As I said in my statement of October 31, I conceive that 'we have a duty to maintain the balance of power in the world and to ensure that the security of the free man is not overthrown because an aggressor suddenly becomes possessed by an overwhelming advantage'.
"I felt myself bound to accept, therefore, the military and scientific arguments in favour of preparations for a resumption of tests, and when President Kennedy asked for the use of facilities at Christmas Island for them, Her Majesty's Government thought it right to agree. Accordingly, an agreement is being discussed in Washington at the moment under which Her Majesty's Government will allow the United States the use of facilities at Christmas Island for a limited period and for a specific programme of tests with which we shall
240
of course be associated. On this point the following announcement is being issued immediately in London and in Washington. I will quote it textually:—
'It is the joint view of the United States and the United Kingdom Governments that the existing state of nuclear development, in which the recent massive Soviet tests are an important factor, would justify the West in making such further series of nuclear tests as may be necessary for purely military reasons.
'The United States and United Kingdom Governments have therefore decided that preparations should be made in various places, and as part of these the United Kingdom Government are making available to the United States Government the facilities at Christmas Island'."
That is the end of the text. My right honourable friend went on:
"While our two Governments have reluctantly accepted the need to prepare for further nuclear tests, both President Kennedy and I were deeply distressed at this necessity and at the future position in the world if a halt cannot be called to the nuclear arms race. When I was in Bermuda, I made this point strongly to the President, who was very receptive, and accordingly on my return after consulting my colleagues I made a definite proposal to President Kennedy that the Western Powers should make another determined effort to reach some agreement with the Soviet Union on the question of disarmament. We have already agreed to join in the work of the Committee of Eighteen which meets in Geneva on March 14 and I believe that this will offer an opportunitly for renewed serious discussions. I am glad to say that President Kennedy very much welcomed the idea of trying to give special impetus and effectiveness to this Conference. Accordingly the two Governments have to-day communicated with the Soviet Government, and have invited them to send their Foreign Minister to a tripartite meeting to assemble before the Geneva meeting and to begin this meeting also at the level of Foreign Ministers. I have addressed a personal letter to Mr. Khrushchev appealing to him to agree to this proposal and President Kennedy has done the same. It is our hope that a preliminary meeting of Foreign Ministers may reach broad

241
agreement on the type of work which could be studied in the Committee of Eighteen and that the presence of Foreign Ministers at the start of the meetings of the Committee will give an impetus to its work. In order to record this agreement, the following announcement is being issued at this moment in Washington and London:
"'The two Governments are, however, deeply concerned for the future of mankind if a halt cannot be called to the nuclear arms race. The two Governments are, therefore, determined to make a new effort to move away from this sterile contest. They believe that a supreme effort should be made at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee which will begin meetings on the 14th March at Geneva, and that the Heads of Government of the United Kingdom, United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics shoud take a direct personal interest in these negotiations. The President and Prime Minister have, therefore, addressed a joint communication to Chairman Khrushchev, proposing that this meeting be initiated at the Foreign Minister level and that their Foreign Ministers should meet before the conference starts and also be prepared to return as personal participants in the negotiations at appropriate stages as progress is made.'
"That is the announcement.
"I earnestly trust, as I am sure does the whole House, that this new initiative will be fruitful."
4.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, for the trouble he has taken to put to your Lordships' House this statement that the Prime Minister has made. There have probably been few statements of this nature, in the last two or three years of trouble in this matter, which were much more important than this one. It is a matter of great concern to the people of the country at large, as well as to every Member of both Houses of Parliament.
I see that the statement divides itself, mainly, into two parts. One part sets out the reasons for, and the actual announcement of, the decision to agree with the United States of America with regard to preparations for the resumption of these tests in the atmosphere. At this stage I think we have all to be very careful to choose our words about that particular decision. I think that it is essential first to look at the second part of the statement, and I believe that every
242
Member of the House, whatever his views may be on this great and throbbing issue of the use of nuclear power, will welcome this statement in an attempt to achieve success by a new initiative in the realm of disarmament.
I welcome the decision to try to agree with Moscow that, when the Committee of Eighteen meets, the discussions should be preceded by a meeting of Foreign Ministers; and that, certainly at the opening parts of the discussions of the Committee of Eighteen the Foreign Ministers, should remain in charge of the operations of their particular delegations. I am quite sure that we shall all wish that that may become the practice agreed to by Moscow, as well as by the Allies, and that the discussions will be completely successful.
That leads me to ask whether any final decision, about putting into operation what is included in the first part of the statement, in relation to the tests at Christmas Island, will be delayed until the result of the new initiative at the Committee of Eighteen has been reached and made known to Parliament. That is the first question that I want to ask. Then, in view of the nature of the first part of the statement, may I put this further question to the noble Viscount? Can we clearly understand the whole nature of the association between the United States and ourselves in the decision which has been arrived at as set out in the first part of the statement? I am certainly not going to criticise that to-day. I do not think this is the time or place to criticise it; and anybody who has had responsibility for the defence of the country knows how carefully one has to examine the detailed arguments, which are included in the first part of the decision, before coming to a conclusion on the decision which has been taken. But may I ask: Will the final decision actually to put those tests into operation be taken only after detailed consultation with this country's Government, and will the decision, in its final form, be a joint decision of the Powers concerned?
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Viscount answers and I am not going to ask him any more questions—may I say that I think the whole House would agree with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition in saying

243
that no good would be served at this juncture in going over old ground again. What we hope is that the sad experience of the past will not lead to a discouragement about the future, but may lead to a hope that this new meeting at Foreign Minister level will be really successful. If I may, I should like to offer our own Foreign Secretary the best wishes of everybody, I am sure of every Party.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the good will with which they have received the announcements of the initiative which my right honourable friends and the American Government are taking. I, for my part, I need hardly say, wish for its success with my whole heart.
My Lords, no final decision has yet been taken about the resumption of tests, and there will, of course, continue to be continuous and close consultation between our two Governments, both on the scientific and on the political aspects. I do not know that I could go further than that in answer to the specific questions which the noble Viscount has put to me to-day. Obviously, I suppose that if we could agree that further tests can be postponed we should all heave a sigh of relief; but I feel that I should rather like to think more deeply about the actual form in which the noble Viscount has put his questions. I must make it quite clear to the House that we have, in fact, reached agreement in principle about the moral justification of further tests, and neither Government would stand in the way of the other if, in the end, they felt that further tests were militarily necessary.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, as Minister for Science, how he regards the increase in radioactive material in the atmosphere which will inevitably result in consequence of these tests?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have already dealt on two separate occasions, I think, with the results of the Russian tests, and I do not think that the results of these will be anything like so serious.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount could tell us: Why is it that new territory has to be sterilised, as presumably it will be as a result of these tests, and why cannot the same areas as have been used in the past, the atolls that the Americans have used previously, be used again?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, to answer that would take me a little wide, but I think there are various reasons why it would be worse to use the atolls than the territory of Christmas Island, which the United States have put before us. I should be prepared to give more detailed reasons for that, but I should like to consider rather carefully before I chose my words.
LORD FARINGDON: The noble Viscount must realise that to a great many of us this is a very vital question.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, my Lords. On the other hand, I am sure the noble Lord will agree, as a matter of principle, that we must choose the better of the two sites, the one which is likely to do the least damage and to be the least open to objection, whichever that happens to be. Of course, it is open to argument which that is; but, if I were pressed about that, I should like to consider what I said. However, I think that, as a matter of principle, there would be no difference between the noble Lord and myself.
LORD FARINGDON: I take it that the noble Viscount would be prepared to answer a Question on the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should like to see it before I undertook to answer it.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
4.26 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it would be difficult at the best of times to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, in the kind of speech which he from time to time makes in this House; but with the intervention for over twenty minutes of a subject which is quite alien to the one we are discussing, my task is even greater. It is added to also by

245
the fact that my speech happens to commence at a time when, by tradition, this House tends to empty itself for refreshment. Nevertheless, I feel, for a number of reasons, that I have a duty to say what I have to say to this House.
The first reason is that I, like many other noble Lords in this House, have an interest in the Lake District. I have not the same kind of interest as the noble and learned Lord, or as a number of others who have come here to-day specially to listen to or take part in the debate; that they reside there or have property there, or something of that kind. But the Lake District is a National Park, and (though I do not wish to be invidious) one of the most popular of our National Parks. I imagine that more people—more holidaymakers, more tourists—visit the Lake District on holiday than visit any other of the National Parks. All my feelings and all my instincts, therefore, are to avoid doing anything that would injure the public enjoyment of that park, or spoil its beauty or amenity.
My Lords, I cannot speak with the eloquence and the persuasiveness of the noble and learned Lord. I am accustomed to putting my case, such as it is, in a simple and plain way, without any of the arts of advocacy of which the noble and learned Lord is so great an exponent. I suppose he could be regarded as one of the leading advocates in this country of the last generation, and this House has had the treat of hearing him, with all the arts of advocacy of which he is capable, in putting his case. But I would ask the House not to be led away by emotion, or by the kind of advocacy which we might have if we were serving on a jury, but to look at this case objectively and impartially.
With a good deal of what the noble and learned Lord said we must be in complete agreement. Of course it is wrong that the water of this country should be the subject of grab, of "first come, first served"; that there should be no co-ordination of the availability of supplies at all, and so on. I agree with him that it is high time that there was a national water policy. Indeed, I have a Motion on the Order Paper directing attention to this matter and, but for the intervention of the Report of the Committee
246
which has just been published, I might well have anticipated this debate by having a discussion on water policy. So I am sure he is, so far as I am concerned, preaching to the converted in saying that there ought to be a national water policy.
But, having said that, we cannot dismiss from our minds altogether the fact that Manchester has a duty to provide water for itself, for its citizens and for its industry, and a duty to provide water for a number of other local authorities. It is all very well for the noble and learned Lord to say that they asked for this duty to be imposed upon them as a result of something, but I do not think we are concerned with that. The people of Preston, the people of Oldham, and the people of all the other areas who have to be supplied with water, look to Manchester to provide the necessary water to-day; and Manchester, being in the position in which they are, could do no other than come to the House with provisions for securing their water in what they thought was good time.
Now, this House has to judge whether the application they are making is a timely one or not. We have been offered a tremendous amount of advice on this problem from many quarters. I have it here in front of me. I have tried to read some of it, but I am sure that no noble Lord in this House could possibly digest all the material that is available to enable him to form a judgment on the many controversial issues which the noble and learned Lord has himself raised to-day. Nor do I think that at the end of to-day's debate we shall be in a better position to form a judgment than when we began. I would say that we all ought to start off with a bias against interference with a National Park. But that does not mean to say that in no circumstances can a National Park be used for the provision of water. The Manchester Corporation, in one of their memoranda, have paid me the honour of quoting something that I said on the Second Reading of the National Parks Bill. I am not going to repeat that, but broadly what I said was that these National Parks were not to be regarded as museum pieces; that they constituted part of the life of the country; that in total area they represent about 10 per cent. of the whole country,

247
and we could not afford to sterilise 10 per cent. of the country and prevent any kind of development from taking place within that area. So we have to accept the fact that, in certain circumstances, though we may not like it, though all our feelings and all our instincts are against it, nevertheless some portion of a National Park may have to be used to provide the means of living for the people of this country.
Now may I just deal with some of the points which the noble and learned Lord has made? First, he rather challenged Manchester and its area's needs for water, at any rate at the present time. On Manchester's case, they may not need this water till 1970. I think that the question whether Manchester really needs water, or will need it in 1970, is a matter which a Committee ought to consider. I think this House ought to be advised on this matter. I do not think we ought to take it for granted that 1970, or any other date, is the right date; or that there is a growing demand amounting to 5 per cent. per annum for additional water. This is the kind of matter which ought to go to a Committee, and we ought to be advised on it. It may turn out that these estimates are completely false and that Manchester does not need any more water, or that it can carry on until the year 2000. But I should not like to form a judgment on that point, certainly not on the statement presented by Manchester, nor on the statement made by the opposition.
When do they need this water? There, again, 1970 has been the date that has been stated. It would appear, if that date is correct, that there is ample time, and that there is no need for this House to rush in and give them the necessary powers. But how long does it take, after powers have been granted to them, for them to make the necessary preparations? My Lords, I do not know. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord—
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me? In the statement of the Promoters, that period is given as five years. But, of course, Manchester, with the facilities already existing in the Lake District, could make it very much less.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I would say that if they got their powers towards the end of this year, and they thought they might do it in five years, they were cutting it pretty fine, and that there was very little time to spare. If, by any chance, their estimates were false, we might find that they were becoming short of water. But, of course, what the noble and learned Lord is asking is that we should wait until the Government have digested the Report of the Committee, which, as he says, is not a unanimous one. The Government have to make up their minds which of the various views expressed in that Report, if any, they will adopt, and what action they are going to take on them. Then they have to take action, probably by legislation. And even when they have the legislation, they then have to set up various bodies and machinery to implement that legislation.
At the very best, I should be most surprised—and judging from experience I am sure I am right—if it were not five years before that machinery could be set in motion. If that is so, surely it is not premature for the Manchester Corporation to be seeking their powers today in order to ensure that, when the time comes, the water supply will be available. I am not advocating that case; I am merely putting one side of it in order to put to the House the view that this is a matter which ought to be looked into by a Committee. I may be quite wrong. It may be that Manchester has ample time. I doubt it, as any other noble Lord may doubt it or take a different view; but surely this is one of the things which only a Committee, after hearing evidence, and after hearing evidence perhaps from Her Majesty's Government as well as from experts in the supply of the necessary facilities for providing water, can provide the answer.
Are there any alternative sources of supply? I do not know, but is not this a matter which ought to be threshed out? Suppose it turns out that there are no alternative supplies. If it were so, would the noble and learned Lord then be prepared to say that Ullswater should be used? Suppose that we were faced with the position that Manchester, having their need established, either had to go without the necessary water, or had to go to Ullswater. If that were possible, as I understand it is from the

249
noble and learned Lord's speech, Manchester would simply have to do without. But ought we not to find out if there is an alternative source of supply available? Are there any means by which water can be conserved or economies secured in the consumption of water, which would make it unnecessary to proceed with this Bill? Only a Committee can answer that question. None of us here, I imagine, can give an answer to-day.
It might well turn out that some of the experts can come forward and make suggestions about how sufficient water can be conserved, at any rate to make it unnecessary for this Bill to be proceeded with for the time being. On the other hand, they may not come forward. And the advantage of the Committee procedure is that all this evidence can be tested. There is no need to rely on statements of the noble and learned Lord or on my statements or anybody else's statements. Expert witnesses can make their statements and be examined and cross-examined by the Committee, which is an experienced body. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord appeared to have little confidence in them. But we have a very experienced body of noble Lords and, I hope, of noble Ladies sitting on these Committees, who are accustomed to hearing evidence, weighing it up and coming forward with most valuable recommendations. I think that that is the right way of doing things.
The noble and learned Lord made a great point of the fact that if this Bill goes through, damage will be done to the amenities of the Lake District; that in due course the public will be excluded, certainly from the borders of the lakes, and that, whatever undertakings may be given by the present Council, they will not be observed, judging by past experience, and, in any event, these undertakings are not binding on future Councils. But is it not possible to provide built-in assurances in the Bill itself? May I make one suggestion which might possibly meet the noble and learned Lord's difficulty? Supposing it were provided in the Bill that there should be no interference with the right of access of the public except with the consent of, say, the National Parks Commission and that, in the event of any dispute, that dispute should be
250
settled by the Minister. Would that not be an effective way of ensuring that the public were not deprived of the right of access to this lake? At any rate, something of this kind could be provided for in the Bill itself to make sure that nothing in future was ever done merely by the ipse dixit of the Manchester Corporation itself.
I have dealt with merely some of the points, but I hope that I have sufficiently impressed upon your Lordships that this is not a matter which can be dealt with just in the course of a few hours' debate on statements of noble Lords, and particularly on statements of noble Lords who admittedly have a love for the Lake District and an interest in it, but who are not prepared to give the matter the consideration which I think an important subject of this kind ought to receive. I do not dispute the fact that the procedure of the noble and learned Lord is perfectly regular and that it has been adopted in the past. He is not offending against the custom of the House. But I think that to accept this instruction, while not offending against the custom of the House, would be offending against the sense of fair play and justice which everyone expects from this House. It would be judging a cause before the facts had been established. This House would be making a decision—and I hope that I do not say this at all offensively—largely on the advocacy of the noble and learned Lord, and everybody knows that that is very powerful, indeed.
I feel that before we finally take a decision, we ought to have as many of the facts as it is possible to elicit before us. The suggestion of the Chairman of Committees, Lord Merthyr, will give us that opportunity. If the House is so minded, after it has all the facts, it can take exactly the course that we are being asked to take to-day. If, in spite of all the facts that are brought out, the House feels that we ought not to allow Manchester the right to take the water from Ullswater, then there is no reason at all why noble Lords who come from the Lake District should not make another journey to the House and speak their minds on that occassion.
In conclusion, may I say that I read with great interest the letter of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, in The Times?—and I agree with a great deal of it. I thought that he made a complete case

251
for what I am urging now—namely, that there are a great many matters that require investigation. I think that the best way and the fairest way to carry out this inquiry is to allow this Bill to have its Second Reading, let it go to the Select Committee, and then let it come back to the House with the Report of the Committee and with the right of the House, if it so desires, to strike out the objectionable Part.
4.48 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, the case in opposition to the Part of this Bill which seeks authority to utilise certain parts of the Lake District for the increase of the water supply to the City of Manchester has been most eloquently put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, and will doubtless gain force from many of your Lordships who are yet to speak. I think that it is obvious that there are no Party loyalties or affiliations involved here: all of us: as I do for one, speak entirely for ourselves and not for our Parties. In addition to the advocacy still to be heard in this Chamber to-day, there is, I think your Lordships will agree, a truly formidable array of public and private bodies who are lined up in most deeply sincere opposition to Part III of this Bill. No doubt many of your Lordships have received literature from a number of these bodies, asking for your support in their deeply felt antagonism to Part III, and who, like myself, have found it quite impossible not to he impressed by the weight of authority which the bodies carry.
Among the eighteen organisations mentioned by the Lord Chairman who are united in their objection and apprehension it is very striking that no fewer than ten of what I would call the senior and representative ones, including both of the county councils involved, those of Cumberland and Westmorland, the National Trust, the Water Boards and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, have decided to petition against the Bill in Parliament and to he represented by counsel, as they say, "at all stages, whatever the expense involved". That is taking a very strong stand.
Even a comparatively minor organisation, if I may so call it, an organisation of local people called the Ullswater Preservation Society, has, in that sparsely
252
populated area, collected well over half a million signatures to their petition of protest. I think that any of your Lordships who was trying to raise a petition in his own part of the country for anything would realise that to get 500,000 names means something pretty big. And there must be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people like myself who know and love the Lake District, particularly those parts of it which have so far escaped excessive exploitation, who are not officially concerned and yet feel most strongly that this proposed scheme must not go forward.
On the other side of the picture, the Manchester Corporation have put forward a very reasoned case for the need to increase their water supply for the future; and I have personally received clear and courteous explanations and amplifications from the Town Clerk of the City of Manchester. But, apart from the merits and demerits of the Manchester project, which to many of us seem very much out of balance with each other, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion, looking at the timetable of events up to now, that the impossibly short time given to the opponents of this scheme before presentation of the Bill to-day to your Lordships for Second Reading can have been engineered only with a view to rushing the matter through before public opinion could be properly formulated on this proposed use of a National Park area, contrary to the very conception of the National Parks Act; or, perhaps, that the long-awaited coordination by the Government of a national water plan was threatening to materialise and, in materialising, would or could involve Manchester in a much more costly and much less convenient solution of its problem than is suggested in Part III of the Bill.
In either case there is one colloquial phrase which I think sums up both conclusions (I think it was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord in introducing the Bill), and it is "trying to beat the pistol". I hope that I am not being unfair in giving that interpretation. We who feel that we have a direct or a moral responsibility for preserving certain places of great beauty against the thin end of any wedge of industrial exploitation take grave exception to "beating the pistol"; and we ask your Lordships not to allow this to be done.

253
Clause 37 of the Bill does indeed seek to give reassurance about the preservation of scenery and amenities in the National Park area—and that is the area with which we are particularly concerned; but I suggest that there are three good reasons for finding that clause inadequate and, indeed, unacceptable. In the first place, while it may be comparatively easy to tabulate certain damages and spoliations which it is proposed to avoid, it is quite impossible to tabulate consequent or related or possible future damage which may arise from known or unknown loopholes in that particular clause. Indeed, I have little doubt that, even as it stands, there could be found ways and means of driving a coach-and-four through Clause 37.
Secondly, the clause does not protect (because it cannot protect) the desecration of certain beauties which have been our heritage for century upon century, for the simple reason that every other clause in Part III has as its object change from natural to unnatural configuration; and we know from the irreparable ugly damage done to Thirlmere and Hawes-water by this same water authority, and also from the proposal to extinguish and submerge for pure expediency the lovely and treasured little valley of Bannisdale, that little or no comfort or confidence can be drawn from the soothing noises which are unconvincingly thrown into Clause 37 of the Bill.
My third reason for discounting the value of Clause 37—it has been touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett—is that no person, no body, no authority, can bind its successors: once the foot is in the door the open breach is established, and there can be nothing to stop this same water authority from coming back to Parliament in the future with another Bill to revoke and nullify some or all of the safeguards or reassurances which might he thought to exist in the present Clause 37. We are promised that they will never come back again for further powers of what I call exploitation—and I make no charge of bad faith. But the Manchester City Council are in the same position as your Lordships are personally in being quite unable to say whether a grandson or great grandson will be a bad lot or a good lot or just a different lot. Anything may happen.
254
My Lords, I am not going to recite or analyse in detail the many objections which we have to Part III of this Bill. But although many of us are not experts on water conservation and water supply, we remain totally unconvinced that alternative schemes have been adequately explored; and we shall remain unconvinced until the present absence of any detailed or argued case has been remedied, preferably, I would suggest, through a disinterested organisation such as a new National Water Authority might be.
The rivers and underground water supplies which, as a result of scientific study, are coming into increased use by water authorities throughout the world would seem in this Manchester problem to have been given so little constructive attention that we are not at all convinced that Manchester's difficulty is unique and that it can be solved only in one way. I have no doubt that this Bill may provide for Manchester the cheapest and most convenient solution, for we understand that over the years Manchester has, with foresight, had plans by which their existing Lake District water supply could comparatively easily be increased by the introduction of such a Bill as this. But I doubt profoundly whether it is the case that no other scheme, leaving out our Lake District, is practicable.
In addition to the under-employed waters which lie on or under the earth, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, mentioned, there has been developed, particularly in the United States, and, I am told, on a full commercial scale, a process by which seawater can cheaply be turned into serviceable fresh water. Surely it would be infinitely better that the North Sea or the Irish Channel, rather than the limited and vulnerable Lakes of Cumberland and Westmorland, should supply this industrial city with its 170 million gallons a day, or whatever the figure is—and I think that is about the top figure. This utilisation of seawater is not a fantasy, my Lords: it is, I understand, a developing and practical business, which presumably will have extremely far-reaching results all over the world, chiefly perhaps on land-based users of water in large quantity, but also, of course, and perhaps more dramatically, on ships and seafarers, to whom the supply of fresh

255
water has been a vital problem from time immemorial. If we are coming to such a solution of water problems in general—that is, using the seas—surely the vast water requirements of industry should be the first to be brought into the picture of unlimited supplies of fresh water drawn from the vast oceans of the world, whose area, as your Lord-shins know, exceeds by threefold the land area.
So far, my Lords, I have spoken of the past. For thousands or millions of years our limited demand upon natural water resources has fallen far short of what bountiful Nature has made easily accessible. It is only since the last century that a new and thirsty consumer has come upon the scene. That new and demanding consumer can still be considered to be in its infancy, for the industrial world is progressing rapidly from invention to new invention. Already the smoke and the grime and the slag-heaps and the hideousness of the coal age and the iron age and the steel age are coming under control, because modern efficiency repudiates wastage. And since all ugliness is wastage, and all wastage is ugliness, we are indeed approaching—however slowly—a new era where labour and beauty are no longer sworn enemies.
With the rapid advance of scientific achievement, I conceive it to be well within the realms of possibility that fairly soon we shall be able to extract from the atmosphere, laden as it is with humidity in vast areas, all the water that mankind needs for all its requirements. If we can do this, we shall not need any longer to ravage the remaining beauties of nature to satisfy the early and clumsy and adolescent needs of a mechanical age. The needs of the mechanical age are still new and out of focus. The needs for natural beauty and solitude and repose are age-old, and absolutely essential to human life; and yet it is more and more difficult to find places of peace unexploited by man. I therefore urge most strongly that we should not lay the hand of man, for the sake of a possible few decades of experimental industrialisation, upon one of the few remaining oases of unspoilt natural beauty. If we cannot immediately find an assuagement for this enormous demand of Manchester for water consumption in the years to come
256
—and we must remember that the problem, as has been pointed out, is not an immediate problem; it is in the future—should we not look to the ingenuity of our geologists and our scientists in the greatest detail before abandoning for ever thousands of years of natural loveliness in favour of a fairly recent industrial era, which may already be changing its pattern and ending the old consistency of Victorian impact?
There is, I think, one aspect of this matter which is much broader than the detail before us in this debate. It is the attitude of tension and of haste and impatience which has spread a sort of evil mantle over the whole world since the war, and doubtless because of the war. The long view and wise deliberation are to-day at a discount, because the pace of modern competition is so fierce. We see nations, particularly the newer ones, as well as individuals, who are unwilling to exercise restraint and self-discipline in the interests of ultimate greater benefit in the future. They must grab and consume now in immediate self-indulgence, with, perhaps, a subconscious feeling that there may be no to-morrow. It is surely a philosophy of cynicism and despair if planning for the future is to be increasingly sacrificed to a passing clamour for immediate gratification.
But it is not only in political connotations that we see this tendency. It is apparent in the race to get rich quickly, with no constructive ideal and greatly diminished consideration for those who may suffer as a result of that process. It is apparent in to-day's lowered sexual morality of young people who, we are told, are physically two years older and mentally two years younger than their counterparts of two generations ago, and who refuse to wait for the mental and spiritual maturity which, I think, can alone guarantee deep happiness in marriage. It is apparent in today's popular music, where an undisciplined reversion to primitve jungle rhythms and jungle stridency gives an immediate physical thrill, bypassing the mental and æsthetic depth of acquired and educated appreciation. It can even be seen—if I may Quote a very different sort of case—in the plans to plant a new monster Colonial Office building slap on the doorstep of Westminster Abbey, discounting or ignoring

257
both the past and the future meaning of that great national treasure.
All these impatient manifestations are without the justification either of history or of tradition. They have developed only with civilisation's recession to material opportunism in the industrialisation of the last century or so. I would ask whether we really intend to encourage this attitude of, "Eat, drink, and be merry; for to-morrow we die". And I suggest that within the Bill before us to-day there is, on these same lines, a rather ugly element of aesthetic irresponsibility.
I have only one more point to make. The Lord Chairman, with his habitual clarity and courtesy, has put before us the dilemma of this House if, on Second Reading, it refuses to put Part III to the Committee. I confess that that aspect of the matter has given me some anxiety, as I am sure it has given other of your Lordships some anxiety. But the proposal that we should again debate in general Committee the controversial Part III after it has been accepted or, presumably, amended by the Select Committee, seems to me to involve no less discourtesy to the Select Committee to whom it should have been submitted. I am convinced, after thought, that the course proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, to instruct the Select Committee to leave out Part III, is the correct one. In the first place, this proposed course is, as we have heard, supported by precedent in a good many instances, and we shall be interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, tell us more about those.
Now I am reluctant, as I am sure most of your Lordships would be, to allow any recent absence of the use of a legitimate procedure to lead to a rule of veto on one of the traditional rights and established procedures of our Chamber here. Secondly, and I think more importantly, this Bill, the Manchester Corporation Bill, seems to me to be a good Bill, worthy of acceptance, except that it contains this unacceptable Part III, totally unrelated to the rest of the Bill and so much a separate part, a separate conception and a separate aim, that this section, this Part III, should, in my opinion, stand on its own feet as a completely different Bill, separately introduced to Parliament for consideration on its own merits. Part III is a
258
matter of national principle, and as such I suggest that it cannot possibly be wrapped around with local Manchester matters and smuggled through in their Bill as if it, too, were purely of domestic Manchester civic interest, because it is not.
I therefore strongly support the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, but I would say to your Lordships that if you think that Part III of this Bill—which, of course, concerns every one of us and all our descendants—cannot be excised from the Bill in the manner suggested by the noble and learned Lord, and if you think his Motion is likely to be defeated, then I suggest, with regret, that we ought to consider rejecting the whole of the Second Reading here and now, so that The Promoters may take it hack, break it down into its two unrelated objectives, and then return to Parliament with two separate Bills to be separately considered on their separate merits.
5.7 p.m.
LORD MACANDREW: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships for the first time, I respectfully crave your indulgence and apologise in advance lest anything which I say may be considered to be too controversial for a maiden speech. My excuse for addressing your Lordships is that in another place some 300 Private Bills were put under my care and supervision, and I am therefore not altogether without experience of the questions now under consideration. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has made it perfectly clear to your Lordships that there is no constitutional or procedural reason why his mandatory instruction, which I for one support, should not be agreed to. There has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about that, but I think it has been made perfectly clear that we are quite within our rights to support it.
The Ministry of Housing and Local Government have been examining the problems of water conservation at a national level for a great many years, and I sincerely hope that the Government will introduce a Public Bill next Session to deal with the conservation and supply of water. A Memorandum by the Ministry, of April, 1961, states:
" There is, of course, a large overall surplus of water in England and Wales for nearly 90 per cent. of the rainfall is never used at all."

259
The final report of the Central Advisory Water Committee's sub-committee on The Growing Demand for Water, published the other day, among its principal conclusions and recommendations says, in paragraph 136:
"…it should no longer be left to independent initiatives to develop the country's water resources according to their separate needs …".
Again, in paragraph 148 it says:
"We consider that a separate central authority, accountable to the Minister, should be set up to promote an active policy for the conservation and proper use of the country's water resources."
My own feeling is that a Public Bill, dealing with the supply of water, is in every respect preferable to Private Bills dealing with water in a haphazard way.
If the mandatory instruction is defeated, I hope the Government will not think it is an excuse to delay further what is a definite matter of urgency from a national point of view. The Manchester Corporation admit that water consumption will not exceed the present consumption until after 1970, so from their point of view there is really no urgency for the passing of Part III. The water provisions in Part III of this miscellaneous powers Bill are so far reaching that they involve a question of principle. It must be conceded that the Ullswater proposal involves a question of principle and goes far beyond what might be classed as a Committee point.
Your Lordships have been supplied with a great deal of evidence by local authorities and others vitally interested in this Bill. It is not sworn evidence, but the local authorities who submitted it and praying to be heard were well aware that if the water clauses are referred to an Opposed Bill Committee they will be called upon to confirm their evidence on oath. I therefore feel confident that it is reliable evidence. Another small point is this. If these water clauses are referred to a Committee the seventeen bodies who are petitioning against them will be involved in great expense, which will, of course, not arise if the mandatory instruction is carried. I think it is untrue to say that your Lordships' House, which has been thoroughly briefed, is less qualified to decide what is a matter of principle than are the five Members, not yet
260
appointed, who will serve on the Committee upstairs.
I do not imagine that ever before, certainly not in the North of England, have so many people been interested in and felt so strongly about a Private Bill and wondered what your Lordships are going to decide. At Parliamentary election meetings I was often asked questions which were critical of your Lordships' House, such as "What is the use of the House of Lords?" I sincerely hope that to-morrow many thousands of people, not only in the Lake District but all over the country, will see no reason to ask that question, but instead will say, "Thank God for the House of Lords!"
5.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, the honour befalls me of expressing congratulations to the noble Lord who has just delivered a maiden speech, which I am sure all of us enjoyed and at the conclusion of which we applauded vigorously. He showed great discretion, after all the experience he has had in another place, in coming here to-night to make a maiden speech on an issue which is—perhaps I ought to speak only for myself—full of confusion and full of contention. The only satisfaction one can get from it is that at any rate there are no political Party issues involved; and that, of course, was doubtless the reason why the noble Lord chose this subject as the occasion of his maiden speech. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we are grateful to have his expertise in this House as well as his vast experience of other things.
I almost apologise for speaking. I have not ventured to address your Lordships for over two years. You had quite a surfeit of me in earlier days. On that last occasion I broke into something approaching eloquence, I believe, on the subject of the Liverpool Water Bill. On that occasion there was an extraordinary outburst of "nationalism" and fervour such as I never expected to find anywhere about water, and your Lordships were good enough, in spite of much eloquence that was heard from Benches on the other side, to give Liverpool the water that it so badly needed. Stimulated, doubtless, by some reference to that occasion, the Town Clerk of Manchester wrote to me

261
and asked me whether I would try to do for Manchester the same sort of thing that had happened on a previous occasion. I wrote back and told him that he was exaggerating any influence I might have on your Lordships, because you are a very practical body of people, and that I was sure you would be much more influenced by facts and by knowing what was the purpose of this Bill and why it was necessary that its contentious clauses should be in this particular form.
It is quite an extraordinary thing that a Bill about water should have caused so much wrath and emotion as this Bill has, with half a million people signing forms about it. That indicates that there is very deep feeling involved, and I must say I am very glad about it. I have the same deep feeling, the same emotion and the same general feeling in that I wish they would leave the Lake District alone. I have lived there for a long time; my family have been brought up there, and I am proud to say that I own just a little part of it, but a lone, long way from Ullswater, and therefore I am not speaking with any financial interest. It is a place of such beauty and, as perhaps your Lordships know, it is a place that makes you feel when you get older, as I unhappily have done, and think about all the beauty you have seen when in your youth you walked or cycled (or, if you were prosperous enough, motored) over it, that it is right to ask the question, "Need Manchester attempt to do this to the Lake District? "
And when you talk to the people, as I have done during this last week—because they have been ringing me up on the telephone and telling me to do my duty—you wonder whether there is anything behind it. I found a strange resentment against Manchester authorities. I greatly regret this, because the Town Clerk of Manchester is one of the ablest public officials that I have had the pleasure of working with and meeting. But there is a feeling that, somehow or other, the Manchester Council feel they own the place, and that, when they want more water, that is what God made the Lake District for. And it is not true—there are other reasons. And when one reads—I must not use the word "propaganda"; so let me say explanations, that have been put for-
262
ward on behalf of this Bill, what a singular gaffe it was to talk about Bannisdale as a remote and secluded valley, seldom visited! Why! this is the very first thing that those who live in the Lake District were looking for all the time. We wanted the places that were seldom visited, rather than the motor highways.
Then there is Ullswater—I can see it before my eyes now, in all its beauty on an autumn night; "Queen of the Lakes" it was called—a National Park. What do we mean by "park"? To me a National Park means a place which has freedom of access, a place to which people can go, a place in which they can walk, somewhere where they can enjoy without restriction all the beauty of the place. We shall not get that if Manchester Corporation takes over Ullswater, because almost inevitably—at least, one fears almost inevitably—they will do with Ullswater what they have done with Thirlmere. They have made it into a sort of little picture. There is the lake; you can look at it from a distance, framed as it is with trees. I beg your Lordships' pardon if you are responsible for it, but if you are you ought to be ashamed. It is framed with trees in order to help to attract more water to the place. But it is no longer a park.
I am not for one moment going to say that that will necessarily happen with Ullswater; but having looked at Thirlmere—and, let us face it, Manchester Corporation are very proud of their handiwork there—I think it is reasonable that we should ask: "Are Thirlmere and Haweswater good examples of what will happen to the rest of the Lake District which the Corporation now propose to take in?" if so, it is a great pity. They say that they are not going to do that. That is some consolation. But, my Lords, there is no binding clause that will prevent them from doing it. I do not know how anybody is going to wander, as I have done with great pleasure, along the shores of the Lake of Ullswater when once it comes under the control of these engineers.
I find the problem extremely difficult because, passionately interested as I am in the Lake District, I also have obligations and interests in the City of Manchester. I cannot agree with noble

263
Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett, when they condemn Manchester rather for the fact that they looked forward so long ahead. It is very important that local authorities with great responsibilities should look forward and know where they are going to. Is it all that far off? It is only about five years since, during a drought, Manchester found it very difficult to supply its population with the water they needed.
Here we must face a problem which is perhaps as near to the hearts of most of us as the problem of beauty in the Lake District, and that is the problem of the housing of the people of this country. One of the great social advances that has been made during the last quarter of a century has been in housing of people; and that housing has been associated all the time with increased water supplies. I remember years ago saying to the late King, when I was Minister of Reconstruction, that I looked forward to the time when we should have a tap in every home. I remember so well seeing him shake his head. He said, "You had better get a plug in every home". The difference between a tap and a plug, when it comes to the question of the consumption of water, is very considerable indeed.
There is the problem with which Manchester is faced. The extensive demands for housing, rehousing, accommodation, impose a great strain on the Corporation's resources, and I find myself in considerable difficulty in trying to face unemotionally this question of the struggle between sanitation and the housing of the people, on the one hand, and the preservation of the beauty of Ullswater, on the other. I was carried away of course, as I always am, by my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett. I went out and had a cup of tea afterwards, just to get over being carried away by his oratory.
But, my Lords, there remains the problem that this is a matter of urgency. I do not think we can just satisfy ourselves by saying, "Thank God, we can put this off for another five years or so, because Manchester does not require it urgently". I know that there is also the commercial side of water, though I am more interested in the domestic side.
264
I think that we might ask the Manchester Corporation, not by vote but by expression of opinion in this House, whether they could not think again.
It is a great pity that this city, which is quite famous for its technological science, does not produce any of the new ideas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Is it impossible for them to get water from the sea? What are they doing to preserve their own magnificent rainfall, which is famous all over the country? Are they just wasting that? Is it not possible they might somehow collect it? I should have thought that it would provide a great many taps and a very large number of plugs. When I was Minister of Reconstruction I was told that there were vast underground sources of water in this country. The Minister for Science may perhaps be able to tell me why it is that Manchester cannot get at those sources. The Town Clerk told me, in correspondence, that these underground sources were drying up, and that commercially they were not so good as they used to be because of increased salinity. But there is no difficulty about separating salt and water. It has been done for many decades in this Lancashire area, and I wonder whether it is, in fact, true that it is impossible to use underground sources of water for commercial purposes.
I have tried to indicate that there is something more that we in this House ought to be thinking about than just a problem of our emotions about beauty in the Lake District: we have an obligation to think about the health and sanitation of the people in Manchester for whom, so rightly, the Corporation produce a Bill. Your Lordships ask me what I think we ought to do. I personally am very grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees for the advice that he gave us. I hope that the Government, who cannot escape from this question of delay (and perhaps I may address the question personally to the Minister for Science), will give us some guidance as to when they propose to tackle this problem of water on a national scale, instead of leaving it free to the person who gets in first. That requires statesmanship and a real water policy. But it is not a White Paper that we want; it is action. This problem has been discussed for

265
70 years by Governments, but little action has been forthcoming.
For my part, my Lords, I am sorry to say that I shall not find myself in the Lobby with my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett. As he went on I almost tried to convince myself that it was the right thing to do, because I was carried away, not for the first time, by his eloquence. But the problem of the city of Manchester is one of urgency; the problem of water there is one which we ought not to try to shelve to-day. For my part, therefore, I shall find myself voting for passing this Bill, and I hope that the city of Manchester will remember all the unpleasant things that have been said about it in the House to-day and that those concerned will mend their point of view.
5.31 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I feel it might be helpful if at this stage of the debate I were to give your Lordships some indication of the Government's views on this important and, it would appear, somewhat contentious Private Bill. Before doing so I should like—I do it with diffidence as rather a new boy to an older boy from another place—to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord MacAndrew, on his maiden speech.
I assume that it is Part III of the Bill—that part of it which concerns waterworks—which has had this magnetic attraction to-day for so many of your Lordships. The Bill as a whole, of course, concerns my Department. We shall be reporting our views on it to a Select Committee of the House if, as we hope, the Bill is given its Second Reading unemasculated to-day. But on one point I feel I should put your Lordships' minds at rest straight away. I do not think we shall be offering any great objection to Clause 61 of the Bill. This, as your Lordships well know, provides that from now onwards the Superannuation Fund of Manchester Corporation shall be known as the "Pension Fund".
From the placid calm of Clause 61 I now step, rather more gingerly, into the rougher waters of Part III. May I say, without further ado, that this afternoon I will not come down either way, for or against, the proposals embodied in this
266
most important part of the Bill. The Government fully recognise the strength of the arguments deployed against these proposals—so ably and attractively deployed, if I may say so, by the noble and learned advocate Lord Birkett. As I understand them, these arguments may be summarised as follows. Manchester's proposals may do grave damage to a National Park. The National Parks tdeserve special protection from alien intrusions, and in this National Park, and indeed in this country, Ullswater is something uniquely beautiful. Moreover, even if the present proposals might not do grave damage, they merely represent the thin end of Manchester's wedge.
Again it is argued that there may well be alternative possibilities, that there has been inadequate time to consider these, and that there has been, on the part of Manchester, quite inadequate consultation with all the local interests involved. Finally, it is suggested that, with proposals for a more comprehensive national water policy in the offing, Manchester's proposals are in any event premature—that Manchester has been "jumping the gun," as was said this afternoon. These views, and their many variants, are undoubtedly held with great conviction and total sincerity. We have naturally not failed to observe the remarkable intensity and extent of opposition which this Part of the Bill has attracted.
On the other hand, my Lords, the arguments of the Promoters of this Bill—the arguments which my noble friend Lord Jessel has deployed—appear no less weighty and no less substantial. It is argued that Manchester and the area it supplies stand in urgent need of the assurance of further water supplies. Manchester, as I would remind your Lordships, is the second largest water undertaking in this country and the largest bulk supplier. Not only does the Corporation provide water for the citizens of Manchester and the industry on which Manchester depends but it also provides water for a large area outside the city's boundaries, spreading, indeed, over much of Lancashire and into Cheshire, Derbyshire and Westmorland.
It is claimed on behalf of the Promoters of the Bill that in fact these proposals will do little, if any, damage to the beauties of the Lake District and

267
that if at some future date Manchester requires further water, then Manchester will have to come back into Parliament to ask for it. It is pointed out that there are no alternative supplies of sufficient magnitude and that there is, in Manchester's view, no economic alternative to the present scheme. The existing network of aqueducts has a potential surplus capacity and it is argued that it would be absurd not to take full advantage of space capacity.
These, broadly speaking, as I understand, are the arguments for and against. I would at this stage only wish to repeat and re-emphasise that on their substantial merit, one way or the other, the Government are at present totally uncommitted. Before coming to a final conclusion on those contentious and complicated issues we should wish to weigh very carefully the views expressed both inside and outside your Lordships' House and to pay close attention to such detailed evidence as may, we hope, be submitted to, and weighed by, Parliament.
My Lords, if you give this Bill a Second Reading this evening, and if the Bill as a whole—and by that I mean unemasculated by the noble and learned Lord—goes to Select Committee, it will fall upon my Department to report in writing to the Select Committee on the Bill. Our report will naturally cover Part III of the Bill, and I think it will be reasonable in the circumstances to expect that on this Part of the Bill we shall offer detailed views. I think it might possibly be helpful to your Lordships—again without wishing to sway you either way on the merits of this Part of the Bill—if I were to give you an indication, in preview as it were, of the line our report will take on two or three of the more important factors involved.
The first concerns need. We have naturally sought the best advice available to us on this. I can confirm that the advice which we have received completely confirms the estimate that more water resources will be required by Manchester, and by the areas which Manchester Corporation serves, by 1970. I understand that the need for the additional water asked for in the Bill is based on the experience of the con-
268
sumption in the areas supplied by Manchester. My advice is that these estimates of future consumption have been made on a normal and accepted basis, that they are justified by the general rate of increase in water consumption throughout the country, and that it would be unwise for us to question them. Indeed, I am advised that by 1970 the demand for water in the region would be pressing, or is likely to be pressing, right up against the ceiling of availability. It is even possible, given a run of exceptionally dry years, that this position could be reached in 1969.
The second factor concerns alternatives, which will be covered, as it were, in our report to the Select Committee, if a Select Committee is charged with considering this Bill, or this Part of the Bill, in detail. Broadly speaking, I am advised that there are no reasonable alternative sources to those envisaged in the present proposals, which would produce the quantities of water required in these areas. There have been a number of long-term submissions put to your Lordships' House this afternoon. The distillation of seawater has been suggested. On that subject, since the Report of the Sub-Committee on The Growing Demand for Water has been mentioned a great deal this afternoon, I should just like to read to your Lordships a sentence from paragraph 42 of that Report. It reads:
"This method"—
and this is referring to water from the sea—
"may find some application in coastal areas of low rainfall, but, in general, it is likely to be more economical to transfer water from other catchments to the extent to which it is available."
I know that Manchester is relatively low-lying. I am not aware, however, that it is an area of low rainfall. I think that our information on these matters is that in the long term this method may be suitable in the Texases or Kuwaits of the world, but that it would need to be a long time ahead before it would be applicable to the Manchesters of this world.
The third factor concerns the amount needed. Again, my Lords, we have sought, and received, expert advice on this matter. As I have just said, we accept the fact that beyond 1970 Manchester must be assured of further water

269
resources. The proposals contained in Part III of this Bill would bring in an additional 40 to 45 million gallons a day. I think that a question underlying part of your Lordships' debate this afternoon has been whether sanction for all of this is really required in this Session of Parliament. Our expert assessment does not provide a complete affirmative to that question. We believe that if Manchester could this year be assured by Parliament of a further supply of, say, 15 to 20 million gallons a day by 1970, this would deal with the problem of immediate urgency. That, of course, is the sort of amount which the Bannisdale scheme would produce; and I understand that, in any event, it is proposed that, for technical reasons, the Bannisdale scheme would come in first.
Our assessment, in brief, is that the problem of immediate urgency could be dealt with if the Bannisdale scheme were sanctioned by Parliament this year, and in fact the Bannisdale and Ullswater schemes are separable technically. This would permit further consideration to be given, after full consultation with all concerned, to the proposals for Ullswater. But I would stress, my Lords, that this estimate is merely our estimate. It ought to be tested in our view, as all the other estimates should be tested, by the Select Committee. I should also add that the question whether there is any need to defer the Ullswater scheme for further consideration ought itself to be tested by that Committee.
The fourth factor concerns uncertainty. There are two special issues on which my Department is quite frankly unclear at this stage. First, there are the possible effects of the proposals on the appearance of Ullswater's shore line and on the vegetation which surrounds it. As all your Lordships who know this lake will know, this does much to lend this lovely lake its peculiar charm and beauty. I should myself be inclined to agree with an article that appeared in last week's Country Life, which stated that this is
" the most important effect upon Ullswater which would follow the passing of the Bill."
But what we do not yet know is what would be the precise effect of the scheme in this particular respect.
The second point about which we are not at all clear is what the effect of the
270
Ullswater proposals would be on the pasturelands surrounding the lake. Would the proposed weir lead to a rise in the lakeside water-table, and would that put the useful in-by land, as I think it is called, out of commission? We are studying these two issues with all the expert advice available to us, and would hope to include in our report to your Select Committee an expert assessment of these two not unimportant points, as well as the other much more important points upon which I touched a moment ago. I wish now to leave the merits of the issue, again emphasising that the Government's attitude on this is one of, if I may use the term, positive neutrality.
I come now to the question of procedure: how best your Lordships' House should handle this difficult matter. You have had the benefit of the advice of the Lord Chairman of Committees on this subject; you have also had the benefit of the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett. No doubt you will have the benefit of much more advice on it, and perhaps my noble and learned Leader will also be able to advise your Lordships on this aspect of the matter. As a layman in these delicate matters of constitutional nicety, I would merely say that it is my understanding that the precedent is that your Lordships would not normally reject a Private Bill on Second Reading, or indeed emasculate it, unless it was felt that the Bill, or part of it, was so objectionable in principle, and so clearly seen to be so, that no considerations which might be adduced to a Select Committee could in any way override the fundamental objections. It is also my clear understanding, which has been confirmed by what the Lord Chairman of Committees said, that with Private Bills approval on Second Reading by your Lordships in no way implies approval of the principles of the Bill itself.
I understand that some of the opponents of the measure now before your Lordships' House would claim precisely this: that there are at least two fundamental questions of principle which demand the rejection of this Bill or the removal of these vital water clauses, here and now. I think it is the theory of "obnoxious matter" touched upon by the noble and learned Lord. In the first place, it is claimed that the water

271
clauses of this Bill will do irretrievable damage to a National Park. My Lords, I would straight away make it perfectly clear that the Government have taken the view that they would be quite wrong to allow any substantial intrusion on a National Park, unless there were some overriding national reason which made this unavoidable. So much is clear. But what is not clear is whether these precise proposals would do real damage to a National Park. The opponents of the measure say, with great sincerity, that they would. The proponents of the measure claim the precise contrary. Surely there is a question of fact here as well as a question of principle. The facts need to be established, and surely that is precisely what your Select Committee is there to do.
It is also claimed that there is another point of fundamental principle involved: that is, that the mandatory instruction should be accepted because we require a national water policy, and that meanwhile and in default of such a policy it would be quite wrong for Parliament to give their blessing to the desires of water undertakings to obtain further access to distant sources of water. It is argued that this principle has been highlighted by the recent Report of my right honourable friend's Central Advisory Water Committee. That Report has called for a more comprehensive policy for the conservation and distribution of the nation's water resources. My Lords, this Report is indeed an important one. It will receive the Government's close attention. Indeed, it is clear from a Memorandum which my right honourable friend, the Chief Secretary, circulated last year (and which leaked out, incidentally, in the Guardian) that the Government are in agreement with many of the recommendations embodied in the Report. We agree that at present there is no adequate machinery to enable my right honourable friend to discharge all the responsibilities laid upon him by the 1945 Water Act. We would agree that wider and stronger water authorities are required. We would agree on the importance of conservation measures, and we would also agree on the urgent need for increased hydrological research in this country. Indeed, a number of detailed hydrological surveys have
272
already been completed under the auspices of my Department.
I would not disguise the fact that it is our hope to lay before Parliament, in the not too distant future, legislation embodying these principles. We are not delaying this matter. I would merely remind your Lordships that it was Mr. Henry Brooke himself who set up a Committee which has now reported. But, my Lords—and this brings me to a point touched on by the noble Lord. Lord Silkin—even if we were able to secure legislation to this end in the next Session of Parliament, it would in our estimate be at least four or five years from now before these new and strengthened water authorities could be in a position to formulate a considered policy. I completely agree with the estimate of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on that point. I hope it will be clear from what I have said earlier, that the Government feel we really dare not hold off for as long as this before authorising Manchester to get at least some additional water.
Another argument has also been used in your Lordships' House this afternoon in support of the view that there is no urgency here. It has been claimed that a decision can be held off until 1964 or 1965. That is a comfortable and a comforting argument, my Lords, but I feel that it needs a moment's examination. I have already stated that we believe that Manchester requires more water resources by 1970, or just possibly even earlier. What does this mean in terms of the real time factor? What are the facts, the facts about which my noble friend Lord Woolton asked?
Take the Bannisdale scheme. That scheme is a big one, with a dam 140 feet high. But it does not comprise only a clam; it also includes ancillary works, like the aqueduct, the intake tower and the treatment works. Careful preparation for a major engineering undertaking of this sort will obviously be needed. I am advised that, if and when the Parliamentary powers now sought are granted, the site investigations would nave to be completed before the line of the dam was finally determined. Specifications would have to be prepared. Pressing ahead with all speed, we estimate that it would be at least one year before the necessary tenders could be advertised.

273
My Lords, how long would the work of construction itself take? Again I am advised—and we have sought expert engineering advice—that five years for construction would be the barest minimum. As those of your Lordships who know the Lakeland are aware, in an area such as Bannisdale weather conditions may be expected to delay building works. We also know from past experience that, once orders are placed for equipment and pipes—which have to be specially made—delivery may take anything between six and twelve months. These are not theoretical figures, plucked out of a hat; they are estimates based on practical experience.
To summarise: so far as we can see it this would be the position. If, for the sake of argument, powers for the Bannisdale scheme alone were granted in July or early August of this year, tenders could not be advertised until August or September next year, at the very earliest. This would mean that the contractor could not "get cracking" until the winter of 1963–64—not a very good season to start work in the Lake District. Progress would therefore necessarily be slow until the spring of 1964; and all experience shows that on work like this allowance must be made for inescapable and unforeseeable delays. Even if all went well, and if everything were pushed forward with the utmost rapidity, on the advice I have received the Bannisdale scheme could not be completed until the middle or the end of 1969, if authorised in this Session of Parliament. Therefore, the argument that we can delay with impunity would lead to an exercise in "brinkmanship" in which I wonder whether your Lordships really wish to indulge. These are not theoretical and remote issues, my Lords. I would merely remind your Lordships that, in the drought of 1959, five local authorities neighbouring Manchester applied for emergency orders for the use of standpipes.
Having said that, I would stress that we have taken the best advice available to us. Certainly I do not claim infallibility for myself; nor do I claim infallibility for those who advised me. But I do say that the time margins appear so narrow that this is surely yet another matter which should be examined in detail in Select Committee. I would
274
stress this, too. I am not even going to say to your Lordships that the Bannisdale scheme ought to be approved. I hope I have made it quite clear that at this stage the Government have a completely open mind on the water clauses. But what I am absolutely clear about is that the Bannisdale scheme ought to be examined this Session, and in detail, by Parliament. Indeed, I myself believe that both schemes ought to be so examined. I suggest, deliberately and advisedly—to use the words used by the noble and learned Lord—that there is, whether we like it or not, a real element of urgency here.
Those, my Lords, are the reasons why I urge upon your Lordships that there are really solid grounds why this House should not accept the noble and learned Lord's mandatory instruction. Indeed, I would, even now, express the hope to the noble Lord that, having heard these arguments, which I have endeavoured to put forward as objectively as I can (and to do anything else would have been quite wrong), and in view of the fact that on the substance of the proposals I do not wish to commit myself or the Government either way, he may perhaps see his way to not pressing his instruction. Perhaps I might just add this further comment? Why, indeed, is it necessary far the noble Lord to press this intruction, in view of the assurance he has received from the Lord Chairman of Committees, that if the Select Committee report out Part III of this Bill substantially unamended, the Chairman will move, under Standing Order 94, that the Bill should be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
I remember, my Lords, an evening a year ago when I found myself for the first time speaking from this position. It was on the issue of whether or not we should accept a Private Bill promoted by Plymouth Corporation, to establish an aerodrome at Harrowbeer, within the Dartmoor National Park. I was there urging on your Lordships precisely the same argument as I am urging now: that whatever your Lordships felt about the merits of the Bill you should follow our normal procedure—and I do not doubt that there is another less normal procedure for which there are precedents—and allow the Bill to go to Committee. I would merely remind the noble and

275
learned Lord, Lord Birkett, of what happened on that occasion. Your Lordships followed your normal precedent, and Plymouth Corporation's Bill, after thorough examination, was rejected by the Select Committee.
It will be equally open to the Select Committee, my Lords, to reject Part III of this Bill, or indeed any part of it, after careful examination. But if they do not, your Lordships will have a perfect right in Committee of the Whole House, or again on Third Reading, to debate this Bill and, if necessary, to amend or reject it. But in that event the position will surely be rather different from what it is now; then, my Lords, you will be taking a decision in the light of all the facts.
I do not deny for a moment that the principles underlying, this debate are very great. But surely it is better that your Lordships should decide these great issues and, if necessary, amend or reject the Bill, a Private Bill, in the light of the facts, rather than reject the Petition of a great city out of hand, as it were. I feel there is an element of natural justice and a sense of fair play in that proposition.
My Lords, a speaker in the debate on the Harrowbeer aerodrome proposal (and I quote from Volume 228, column 792, of Hansard of February 14, 1961) said this:
"For all these reasons, I would venture to submit to the House that, whatever decision your Lordships may take—whether or not you will say, 'We will not grant this Bill a Second Reading', which I think would be a difficult decision to make in view of the quotation from Erskine May and in view of the desire of the Corporation to have its case heard fully—I hope it will be felt that the House is quite free at any stage to mark its displeasure, even on Third Reading, by rejecting the Bill."
Those words, spoken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, only last year, seem to me to contain eminently sensible advice.
I know that strong feelings have been aroused by these proposals. I know that quite contrary opinions on them are entertained with equal sincerity. But we have normal precedents, based, as it were, on natural justice and our sense of fair play, to guide us. Surely we should follow those precedents in foul days as well as in fair; surely we should
276
be guided by them, not only on the simple issues, when no great passions are aroused, but also on big and complicated issues like this, which quite clearly arouse deep and sincere emotion.
6.3 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, the whole of the Lake District lies within my diocese, and during the last fifteen years I have had ample opportunity of appreciating and enjoying its beauty and wonder, and the friendly, reasonable and even generous spirit of its people. I want to emphasise that in the past two months great anxiety, sorrow, great feeling and rising anger have possessed the hearts of those people because of what they regard as the demands and the dangers in the Bill which is before this House to-day. I think I ought to make it clear that I have avoided any personal involvement in organised opposition to Part III of the Bill, and I represent here to-day only myself, though I believe that in what I have to say I reflect the mind of the Church of England and probably that of all sections of the Christian Church in the area.
It took me a considerable time to decide to speak here to-day, for my reaction to this whole problem was that, if I have to choose between providing for human need and preserving amenities, I must choose the former and provide for human need. I believe that the Promoters of the Bill have tried hard to devise a scheme both to secure the water their people need and, at the same time, to preserve the beauty and amenities of Ullswater. I want to give them full credit for a genuine desire to achieve both ends. I say that after having, carefully studied their statement; but I have come firmly to the conclusion that, genuine as is their effort, they have failed.
My Lords, in my submission, this scheme could be justified only if it could be convincingly shown that it is the only way by which an adequate supply of water can be secured for the people of Manchester. If it were shown convincingly that it was the only way, I could not oppose it. But I submit that at the present time no one is in a position to say that this is the only way. I personally do not believe it to be the only way, but the point I would emphasise

277
is that nobody really knows. There have been hints of inquiries about other sources, but no mention of where and with what thoroughness they have been investigated.
The statement issued by the North Regional Council of the Federation of British Industries, which noble Lords may have received, is interesting and throws some light, I think, on the subject. I should like to correct, if it is necessary, the impression given by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that this statement is by the Federation of British Industries. It is a statement by the North Regional Council of the Federation of British Industries: there is no indication that it has the support of the Federation as a whole.
This is what the statement says, in the third paragraph:
"The present proposals offer the only prospect of covering the growth of demand which amounts on the industrial side to some 5 per cent. per annum."
It is said that this is the only way. That is a strong statement. I ask: who investigated all the sources of supply in the district? Has any authoritative, impartial inquiry been made into all the resources in the North-West region? And has any inquiry been made into the needs of the whole region? This statement does not answer that point, but it gives a hint of an answer to the question of why it says that this is the only way. I invite your Lordships to look at paragraph 6, where I think we may find enlightenment—and I quote:
" Any alternative would increase costs and ultimately water charges."
Is that why alternatives must be ruled out, and not even investigated?
My Lords, we all appreciate the importance of industry for the welfare of our people. We are also aware that industry is facing great competition, which compels careful examination of costs of all kinds. But many people are a little apprehensive—indeed, a little suspicious—of statements of this kind put forth by industry, for in the past industry has left many ugly spots on the face of this land just because industry found it cheaper to make black spots than to preserve beauty spots. That may not be a popular statement, but if anyone were to say that it is not true I could not agree with him.
278
But, if industry is concerned, what about one of the industries of growing importance, which brings so much to this country every year—tourism? I should say that, as I go to and fro in the district during the spring, summer and autumn, I see hundreds of thousands of people. Only a short time ago, in the summer, I stood by a great company of Americans who were looking at Ullswater towards Patterdale. I joined them, for they are a friendly people, easy to converse with; and I could not help hearing one of them say, "Well, George, if we had this outside New York, it would sure be worth some dollars". Tourism is a very important industry. Have reliable inquiries been made as to whether or not there is wastage of water in Manchester, either in industrial or domestic use? I know reference has been made, and it intrigued me, to the article in the Guardian of yesterday. I should like to quote a passage for the benefit of Members of your Lordships' House. It asked:
" Domestically, must Manchester sanitation experts insist on water closets which use 2½ gallons every time the plug is pulled. when other areas manage with 2 gallons or 1½?"
I do not want to know why the cisterns are larger there than elsewhere, but it does prompt one to ask: is there any curtailment at all on the use of water in Manchester? Inquiry as to wastage is as relevant to the problem as inquiry into the sources of supply.
My Lords, there is one other aspect of this Bill which greatly disturbs me, and that is the haste with which it has been presented, without due notice to, and consultation with, responsible statutory and other bodies, both local and national. I am informed, and reliably informed, that the first the County Councils of Cumberland and Westmorland knew about this scheme was from a statement in the Press on September 1, 1961. The two County Councils and the Lake District Planning Board immediately asked for a meeting with the Promoters, which was held on October 18 last. Five weeks after the meeting, on November 27, all the plans and all the books of reference were deposited in the County Council offices—everything cut and dried. Scarcely could you call it consultation at all. The plans must have been in course of preparation for several years, and yet no notice was

279
given, and no consultation was offered or asked for. My Lords, nothing has hurt local feeling more than this inconsiderate procedure. I could enlarge upon it, but when I think of the content of this Bill, and some of the consequences of it, I must regret that my office has put restraint upon my tongue.
I believe that a grave error in judgment has been made. The Scheme is disliked because of its dangers, but the procedure by which it was prepared is disliked intensely. Manchester is a powerful and great Corporation. She is drawing from the Lake District at this moment 100 million gallons of water a day. She wants another 40 to 50 million a day. Why did she not consult with responsible bodies? I must confess that I think the Lake District authorities have been treated with, putting it very mildly, scant consideration. Manchester is, as I say, a powerful Corporation. The others are weaker, much weaker; and though it was never intended by Manchester, I am quite sure, it looks as if Manchester believed that she could ignore these lesser folk and grab what she wanted. That is the local feeling. It is that which has so deeply wounded the people of the Lake District.
Now, my Lords, if, as I believe, a grievous mistake has been made, it would be far better to admit it and to start again. I hope I am not being presumptuous—I do not mean to be—but I venture, even at this late hour, to make an appeal to the Promoters (if it is in order and procedure allows) to withdraw this Part of the Bill. I believe that nothing would do more to clear the air, relieve tension, and heal wounds, than for Manchester to withdraw this Part of the Bill, and give everybody the chance of starting again. It would give time for the objective inquiry which is essential. It would enable the whole thing to be considered regionally or nationally, and it would give statutory and other bodies the chance of being in at a very early stage, if not at the beginning. If the Promoters cannot, or will not, take this course which I believe wisdom indicates, then I must declare that it is with regret, but with strong conviction that I am doing the right thing, that I must vote for the
280
Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett.
I know it can be said that this will all be done if it is referred to a Select Committee, that they will be a responsible and a judicial body. As the Lord Chairman of Committees said, the Committee will sift evidence. My trouble is that I believe the evidence is not there to sift. The information which is needed is information which the scientific and technical people can discover only after a considerable period of investigation. We want to know, what are all the resources of water in the region; what are all the needs for water in the region? Is there waste anywhere? What about its relationship to the whole nation? Your Lordships might say that a Select Committee could ask all these questions. I know they could. But I should like these inquiries to be made by a broad-based Committee, or several Committees, who would be seeking answers to these questions without any relation to this Bill, which is merely to meet Manchester's needs. Then this Committee, or these Committees, could provide impartially, objectively, the evidence required to form a judgment, and then a Select Committee, which acts judicially, could pass judgment upon it. But I feel that the only way in which that can be done is by Manchester's withdrawing this Bill, or else by our voting for the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett.
The people of the Lake District recognise that Manchester needs water. They are not threatening this hope by wanting to wreck the Bill itself. They recognise that these needs should be met. I venture to make that suggestion to Manchester, because I want to make a positive contribution to the healing of this breach, which has gone deep, between Manchester and her northern neighbours. I dislike intensely seeing sections of the people of England separated and fighting one another. Of course, that is due to my unbringing in Ireland.
I believe that, if Manchester could only act generously and say that, in the light of what has been said, she will withdraw Part III, get all the information required, and then work with others in a reasonable way, she would get full co-operation from the people of

281
Ullswater, who recognise her need. Ullswater is an integral part of the National Park; Ullswater is one of the glories of Britain; Ullswater is one of the treasures of nature. We regard ourselves as guardians of this lovely place. Let me say simply, but very sincerely, for God the Creator's sake and for the reputation of man, who does not live by bread alone, or even by bread and water, help us to guard it well!
6.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, it is with great regret that I find myself on the opposite side to Manchester. Manchester is very near my old home, and very near my heart, and I have had the closest and happiest dealings with the city for the better part of my life. I feel that Manchester has made a great mistake. I feel that it is wrong in its proposal and I am certain that it is wrong in the way that it has presented its proposal and handled the matter. I cannot help feeling that the suggestion which has just been made is a very wise one: that Manchester might be well advised to withdraw Part III of its Bill in order to give time for feelings to calm down and for consideration of the innumerable points which we have not had time or been able to study. The possibility of this seems to me all the more reasonable in view of what we have been told by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that apparently the Bannisdale and Ullswater parts of the Bill are in a sense separable and that the Bannisdale one is the more urgent of the two. If Manchester would consider this I feel it would be acting with great wisdom.
I rise also to associate the National Trust with what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett and by my noble friend Lord Rea, and others. As many of your Lordships know, we are a private body of 100,000 private subscribers, of whom no fewer than 120 are Members of your Lordships' House, but we have a statutory obligation to hold and preserve intact for the public and for all time the most beautiful parts of the countryside. Therefore, it is very natural that we should have our greatest concentration of properties in the district which we are now discussing, because I suppose that that dis-
282
trict is incomparably the most beautiful, the most varied and the most vulnerable area in England—I think, as a Scotsman, I might even dare say, in the British Isles.
This unique quality is recognised locally by the people who live in the district, by the landlords who, in order to preserve it, have made great and heavy sacrifices of their own personal interests, by the joint planning boards of the three county councils, who take a very special view of their duties, and by Government hoards, such as the Electricity Board and the Forestry Commission, who, I might add, in recent years have begun to look upon this as an area to which they must pay special attention by not planting in an unseemly way and by putting their electricity wires underground.
It is also recognised from the national point of view because Parliament, as we have heard and as your Lordships will remember, created this as a National Park. It is recognised as of special quality by the public, who in vast and ever-increasing numbers come from such towns as Manchester and Liverpool for their holidays and for refreshment and recreation in beautiful surroundings. Not least do they come to Ullswater because it is perhaps, of the larger lakes, the least touched by the heavy hand of man, and perhaps because access is very easy. They come in such numbers that the shores of Ullswater are overcrowded and in holiday times the National Trust are faced with a very serious problem.
This obligation to preserve our properties—and in the Lake District we own or are responsible for something like 130,000 acres—is one which we accept, but it is also one which we try to discharge with sense and flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, talked about museums and sterilisation. Of course, what he referred to is the last thing the National Trust or the National Parks do or wish to do. I might add that while we are opposing this business of Ullswater, we are at the same time entering into negotiation in order to allow water to be taken from another take only a mile or two away at Ennerdale. We are in no way rigid and inflexible and I hope in no way insensible about these matters, but we believe the case of Ullswater to be quite different and therefore we oppose it.

283
We do not accept the dictum of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, that the alternatives are either no water for Manchester or the destruction of the beauty of Ullswater. That, I think, with all due deference to the noble Earl, is a completely misleading idea. What we think is that other alternatives, which may be more expensive, should be considered in the first place. As it is, we oppose this Part of the Bill not only because we believe it would injure the beauty of the five miles of shore and 2,500 acres which we own, and the views from them, but because it would injure our interests; and our interests are disinterested and they are national. We believe it is wrong that wild country should be tamed; that another lake should become a reservoir, and what to-day is natural should become artificial, unless it is proved, and proved up to the hilt, that it is absolutely necessary.
We do not really know what will happen. A mysterious floating dam or weir is to be erected at Pooley Bridge. We do not know whether that is a practical engineering proposition. We have not had time, nor has anyone, to make inquiries. We do not know what effect this proposal will have on drainage. We do not know what will happen when the water is held high at a time of natural flood. That is not our ignorance alone, because no one knows; and Manchester does not know either. But we do know that this dam will raise and control the level of the lake, and that the dam itself will be raised and controlled by the magic wand of two officials. We know that elsewhere the effect of holding water at an unnaturally high level for too long a time is quite devastating to the shores of these lakes; and the Department of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, which he says is ignorant of the effect, would be well advised to go with any member of the National Trust or anyone who knows the Lake District to see for themselves precisely what it means. It means that trees and vegetation die; it means a scummy, muddy bank; it means the spoliation and destruction of these shores which are the most popular places for picnic and enjoyment of hundreds of thousands of people every year.
284
These things, if not known now, can easily be found out.
We have had assurances from Manchester that Ullswater will not be nearly as bad as Haweswater or Thirlmere. Well, I can believe that. It means that Manchester will not deny access to the Fells; that they will not, as at Thirlmere, spatter the place with "Keep out" notices, with locked gates, hedges and fences. It means that at Ullswater access will still be possible and it will not become a magnificent municipal park. We have had assurances from them, too, that they will need no more water from Ullswater. But they make it clear that elsewhere in the Lake District their territorial ambitions have not yet been satisfied; and I hope that this is the last we may ever hear of the argument, so well criticised just now, that because a valley is remote and far from a bus route no one cares what happens to it. If it is remote and unused, so much the better in a country like ours where these things are rapidly disappearing.
I believe, because I respect and admire the Manchester Corporation, that these assurances are given in complete sincerity. But any sincere assurance on these points must surely be coupled with another sentence: "But we speak only for ourselves and not for our successors, and in other Acts of Parliament there are already the powers for us to do the things that we say we are not going to do". We have had assurances also that water has been sought elsewhere. But I cannot take it from Manchester, or indeed from the Front Bench, that every proper source has been sought, because neither Manchester nor any Department in this country can give the answer to that. We do not know that water has been sought everywhere; we do not even know that it has been sought in the right place. What we do know is that it has been sought in the place where it will least inconvenience Manchester. These questions no one can answer before the comprehensive survey which has been referred to by several noble Lords has been undertaken.
I detected from the Front Bench no sense of urgency about going ahead with this survey; yet I think we should all be well advised to look upon this as a matter of considerable urgency. Does it

285
make sense that great depredations such as are now proposed should happen before, rather than after, the facts are known? A similar position has arisen recently in Scotland where damming and hydro-electric work are, of course, on a vastly larger scale than in this country. The Hydro-electric Board has the duty of providing cheap electricity for Scotland, and far many years it has done its work very well, taking also into account its obligation to preserve, as far as possible, what are called by that horrible word the "amenities".
But recently some anxiety has been expressed, and this anxiety came to a head when it was announced that a public inquiry was to be held in order to dam Glen Nevis. Representations were made to the Secretary of State for Scotland pointing out that piecemeal development of this kind was unwise and that it was improvident; that it was wiser to see the whole picture before destroying part of it when it might well be proved later on that that destruction was unnecessary; and therefore that there should be a review of the whole picture on a national basis about the needs and resources of water and electricity in Scotland. That has been accepted by the Secretary of State. The public inquiry has been postponed and the inquiry into the whole of these resources is being looked into. I think I have stated those facts correctly, although in detail I may be wrong. In other words, in Scotland the decisions will be taken when the facts are known. Is there not really some good sense in this? Is it not a case where England might follow Scotland?
I do not believe there is urgency about this matter; I cannot believe it. If there were urgency, why has Manchester not proposed these schemes a year ago? I cannot accept that this matter cannot be delayed, because it seems to me to stand contrary to reason that the matter must go through now. I have one last word and it has been said in almost every speech. It is that this lake lies in the heart of a National Park—the great British National Park. These Parks are increasing in importance with the growing use made of them by the increasingly urbanised population. They are being whittled away, and in whittling them away the will of Parliament
286
is also being whittled away. I feel that only an overwhelmingly strong case can justify a sectional interest, however important, in overriding a national interest. Hitherto that case has not been made and is, moreover, premature. What is cheap for Manchester in this case, I think is too high a price to pay for the rest of the country.
6.41 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I would congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on a very powerful and well-delivered speech. His impartiality was the kind of impartiality which on this occasion I much respect and admire. He put the case very well, and I do not think it is easy to answer the arguments which he has put before the House. It is with great regret that on this occasion I disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett, whom I have known for many years. He was a Member of the House of Commons when I was. I have noticed his brilliant advocacy in the courts, and his great work as a Judge. He was also a great help to me when I was Home Secretary in handling some of the problems where I had enormous powers which could be a danger to civil liberty but which danger we tried to avoid. Therefore, if I disagree with the noble and learned Lord it is not with pleasure but with regret. He certainly made a great speech. It was a very able speech of persuasive argument. In fact, during the first half I found myself half way into the other Lobby. In the second half, I got back again into the first Lobby; but it was a very fine speech which I greatly respected.
The noble and learned Lord said that we ought not now to consider the Bill in too much detail. With that I agree, and that is a good reason for its going to a Committee upstairs where it is their primary duty to consider it, certainly on principle, to see whether the Preamble is proved, and then in considerable detail when they will hear a great deal from counsel and expert witnesses, and then come to their conclusions. I think the question before the House is not merely a question of detail. The noble and learned Lord said that we should judge it on principle and not on detail, and there is something in that. He also said that Manchester must have water. I

287
think the problem before the House is: Is this such a bad Bill? Is Part III so clearly and obviously bad that the Promoters should be denied the opportunity of putting their case to a Committee upstairs—and, indeed, that their opponents should be denied their opportunity of putting their case upstairs as well? I admit that if a Bill is so bad in principle that you hate it from the first page to the last—that the whole thing is bad and evil—Parliament has a right to reject it on Second Reading, or to carry an instruction that vital things shall be removed from it. But if there is an element of doubt about that big issue; if in fact in the course of debate we are driven to consider details and particular things, then I think the case for Parliament's wrecking the Bill in these respects on Second Reading is weakened.
I sought to get the rejection in another place of some Bills called the London Traffic Co-ordination Bills, which would have handed the London County Council tramways over to the traffic combine. There was a legitimate case to throw those Bills out on Second Reading. Indeed, ultimately I succeeded, but I had become Minister of Transport by then and was in a better position. That was a fair case. On the other hand, there are cases where it is not fair. Sometimes it is right. When a Bill is regarded by its critics as fundamentally bad and evil, they have a right to move the rejection on Second Reading.
There is no particular reason why I should come to the rescue of the great city of Manchester, which I have often visited and for which I have a respect, if, as I strongly suspect, the Manchester City Council representatives supported the Association of Municipal Corporations when that great organisation went forth to support the County of London Conservative Party in their plot against the London County Council because the people of London had dared to elect the wrong majority. I suspect that Manchester went wrong about that point. But I have a Christian spirit tonight, and I will not try to be revenged on that great city of the North, which has been very kind to me. One of the things I have sympathised with is that it is an admitted fact that Manchester must have water. Do not let us under-estimate the point that it is a vastly greater area than
288
the city of Manchester itself with which we are concerned. It goes long distances. There are many municipalities who receive water from the Manchester supply and, indeed, I believe there are statutory rights among local authorities on the road the water takes to the city of Manchester; I believe they have a statutory right to demand a supply and get it. Therefore we are dealing with a considerable area which could almost be called a region, and they must have water. They need water to drink and they need water for industrial purposes.
What has been conspicuous in the debate and in the agitation (if I may so call it with every respect, if it is not an improper word) is that I have not noticed any proposals as to the alternative sources of supply which Manchester could use. I have not heard it in this debate, and I submit that if it is argued that Manchester could find water somewhere else, then there is an onus upon the critics to put up ideas whereby the water can be found somewhere else. We have had an idea about sea water. I think it would be a great thing if we could get the salt out of the sea water and make pure water of it, and maybe some day we shall. But it is no good dealing with a Bill of this character on the basis that pure water from sea water is just around the corner, because it is not, so far as we know. It would not be fair to the Promoters of the Bill to say, "We reject your Bill because we have a vague idea and theory that pure water may be extracted from sea water." Let us hope it can be, but there is no evidence at this point that it can.
Moreover, if it is argued that there are other soirees of supply, then it will be competent for the opponents of the Bill, in the Committee upstairs, to say where those alternative sources of supply are, and, if they can show it, that will be evidence. But if they cannot show it, then to that extent their case is weakened. I do not know what the facts are about Manchester's not consulting the county councils and other authorities in the Lake District, or perhaps the folk who are legitimately interested in the amenities of the Lake District. If they did not do so as soon as it was practicable and thereby try to get either agreement or at any rate understanding—this is disputed of course—then I think Manchester was

289
wrong. Consultation does not hurt; it helps, even if you disagree. But I am told by the Chairman of the Manchester Water Committee that they did in fact—it may be argued it was not as early as it ought to have been; I do not know—go North to meet the local authorities and others. There was apparently some difficulty between the county councils and the county district councils meeting together, which is very sad but not unknown in our local council history, and the meeting of the enthusiasts became something like a Donnybrook. That is a pity, because I should have thought that the right thing for Manchester to do—because they can do things in style, these great municipal corporations of the North—would be for the Lord Mayor to invite these local authorities and representative boards to a nice lunch at the Town Hall, give them a real slap-up lunch, and when the Lord Mayor got to the cigar and liqueurs stage—
LORD BURDEN: Water.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: —water for those of the Lakes enthusiasts who wanted it—then let him start the discussion. By that time there would be a pleasant atmosphere and the probabilities of agreement would be good, Mind you, some people would call it corruption; but they do these things in the North, to some extent. The London County Council would not dare to do a thing like that and would not have thought of doing it. I think that might have been a good thing, because they are not unused to these pleasantries of life. I have received much kindness and hospitality from Provincial municipalities and also in other parts of the Kingdom. Consultation does not hurt on a big issue, especially When it is as clear as daylight that a row is going to emerge directly a Bill is introduced into Parliament.
Now it may be possible that while the Committee is deliberating upstairs, or at some stage, they will be able to say to the parties that they have reached a certain point, and now cannot the parties go away and see whether they can agree in the light of the argument which has taken place? I do not know. That may not be possible, but it is worth thinking about.
One aspect of this subject to be con-
290
sidered is that of amenities. I have been in a number of fights about amenities. I think I have won every one of them. I do not say that boastfully but simply to show I have no grievances. I never regretted it when I was criticised by enthusiasts on behalf of public amenities. When trying to do something which may be held to threaten public amenities, it is a good thing to have these enthusiasts and to have a first-class row about it and have them oppose you. I have never resented it and I hope Manchester will not resent the argument which is taking place on this subject.
I have experienced Bills with instructions something like this one, whereby something was to be struck out. I think the thing is known in another place as "The Committee has power to strike out so-and-so", which means the same thing. We had the Waterloo Bridge matter, when there was a Conservative County Council, and a Conservative Parliament, I think, cut it out of the Bill once or twice. Then they made a mistake and cut it out of a Labour County Council Bill and we found a way round it perfectly consistent with the Constitution and the Law. We had a number of rows, and they were interesting and useful. It would be quite wrong on the part of any public authority to resent agitation and argument arising about an amenities case. It is a good job that there may be someone there ready to raise it.
It has been alleged that Manchester has been too speedy. On the other hand, the noble Earl who spoke last and has a family tradition of interest in amenity matters of great value, said to Manchester: "Why did you not come last year instead of this year?" So poor Manchester has its work cut out to please everybody. It is both too soon and too late.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, I was suggesting that Manchester could not have it both ways.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am suggesting that the noble Earl and his friends cannot have it both ways either. On that principle, I think we are agreed.
I want to join with others in asking that the Government should expeditiously prepare legislation on the whole of this water problem. It really is silly

291
that we should be here arguing to-day without knowing too much about what we are talking, because we cannot be technical experts upon this matter. What I want the Government to do, and to do this Session, with a Bill—it will not be a very troublesome Bill; some of the other legislation the Government are talking about is much more troublesome—is to set up a National Water Authority to give technical advice about matters like this; to be constantly studying the problem; an Authority which should acquire the bulk water supply. I do not want it to distribute the water to the consumer; that can quite as well be done, and probably be better done, by local authorities such as counties and county boroughs. It may be that these arrangements need not be like those between Manchester and the other local authorities. However, we ought to have a national authority which should be well served technically, able to advise on matters of this sort and responsible for getting hold of the bulk water supplies and handing them over, in bulk, to the local authorities, who would be, so to speak, retail distributors.
The Government should do this obvious thing, which in one way or another has been urged from all quarters of the House to-day. They should get on with the Sub-Committee's Report—it will apparently take some time—and produce some national water policy. In the meantime, Manchester, it may be urged, had better wait. But that is a risk which Manchester would find it very difficult to take, and I think the Government should—and I beg the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to consider this sympathetically, as it is not really a Party political matter—consider whether something could not be done with regard to national water legislation. This Bill could come back—the undertaking has been given by the Lord Chairman of Committees—and be recommitted. I still have doubts about the natural justice of giving free rein to the opponents of Manchester and not free rein to Manchester. However, no doubt the matter will be looked into. You know, at the end of the day we are a little short of absolutely solid and reliable facts—it is not lack of literature; we have had plenty of literature, which, frankly, I have not been able to read
292
except for one from each side as the only way to preserve my open mind—and that is why I want this water authority.
That being so, and there being real doubts in the minds of many noble Lords, surely it would be right not to pass this instruction to strike out Part III, but to pass the Bill without instruction. The matters can then be argued by all the interests concerned through learned counsel, expert witnesses and so on. Then let the Committee report to this House; and the Lord Chairman of Committees has undertaken, if necessary, in appropriate circumstances, that the Bill will be recommitted.
This House has a considerable reputation for fairness and impartiality in Private Bill legislation. I cannot of my own knowledge assert that this has always been so; but I would say that, in discharging other functions outside, I was often advised, "This is a tricky Bill, and the best place to start it is the House of Lords, because it is then assured of a reasonable, judicial consideration." The House of Commons is very good too, but there is a little risk of strong feelings or politics coming into it in that place—I say that in no way wishing to denigrate the House of Commons, which has a good reputation. My noble friend reminds me of 1924, but his reference is to Public Business when this place was not as impartial as it might have been; but it was better next time. But it has a good reputation, and I think if this Bill were thrown out or if the Instruction were carried it would not be fair to the city of Manchester or to the opponents of the Bill.
I would therefore urge upon the House, and I would urge upon my noble and learned friend—but I do not think he would accept this—not to press his Instruction. However, I expect he will, and it is a free country and he has a right to do so. But I rather think that the duty of the House is to give a Second Reading to the Bill—the Committee can take note of the debate; we can take note of the Committee—and thereby not deny to Manchester what I think morally is its right to appear before a Committee of your Lordships' House.
7.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence after the weighty and experienced speakers who

293
have gone before me. As your Lordships will have gathered from all that has been said, it as a debate of unparalleled importance in many respects and of very great interest, and unparalleled as regards the post-war practice in your Lordships' House. We have not had a Motion such as the Motion of my noble and learned friend before us since before the war. I feel that it is an occasion, it is an issue, which perhaps comes only once in twenty years, once in two decades, where your Lordships' House should give very serious consideration to supporting my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett, as I do with deep conviction.
Lord Birkett and I are both lakelanders born and bred. We have in our bones a feeling in this matter which does not perhaps apply elsewhere in the House. We have in our bones a love for the Lake District, for its mountains and all that it stands for. We have in our bones, as all the 360,000 inhabitants of Cumberland and Westmorland have, a love for our own land—not a preemptive right to own it, to call it our own, to keep it selfishly and jealously, but a love for our homeland, and that we must defend. If it could be shown to our satisfaction, the satisfaction of all lakelanders, that Manchester had looked at this properly, carefully and seriously, none of us, no local authority, none of the dozens and dozens of organisations, would have uttered the expressions of horror that there have been. This Bill has been put before your Lordships in what can only be termed as an utterly obnoxious fashion. I think that if it should go to the Committee the Committee would feel it needed to look into this.
It was, I believe, not until quite late on during the last year or two that Manchester really got down to detailed planning of this matter. I believe they have only in the last few months drawn up their plans for Ullswater, and it was because of that that they were unable to consult; they did not have time to prepare. It was not until the end of November that the details and the plans were put before the local authorities, not, I venture to suggest, because of any design but purely and simply because they were not ready as they had been so hastily prepared. Had they been prepared further in advance proper con-
294
sultations could have taken place with all the responsible authorities. All the bodies interested inside and outside the Lake District, in its amenities, would have been able to make constructive criticism, constructive suggestions, prepare constructive opposition. But all the opposition of all the Petitioners is of necessity destructive because they have not had time to find details.
We have heard of this great Corporation, this second greatest water undertaking in the country, with all the resources of a huge water department, dozens of water engineers and immense rate income. They have knowledge; they can make plans; they can find out facts which the little authorities with small incomes in the North-West cannot do. Had there been time many of the local authorities would have pooled their resources and conducted their own independent survey of the alternatives available. They have said so. There is not time.
I have asked in private whether, if these water clauses go to Committee, there is any opportunity for the Committee stage to be delayed some time so that three, four, perhaps six months could be given to the Petitioners to find facts by their own survey. But your Lordships have heard and you know—your experience is greater than mine—that there are set dates when the Committee stages of a Bill have to be taken, and that the set date for the Committee stage of this Bill is quite soon, a month away. In that month the Petitioners cannot hope to collect sufficient facts and suggest proper alternative sources.
I have some suggestions which I will put to your Lordships, from which I hope you will decide there is adequate time available, if these water clauses are postponed until another Session. But they cannot he Manchester's wishes. The Government feel that Manchester shall have these powers granted to them in this Session. The concession of the Government is very welcome in one respect and in one respect only: the concession that Ullswater and Bannisdale could be looked at separately, that if Manchester can have Bannisdale now they will be content to think about Ullswater later. Hitler said—did he not?—"If I can have Austria now that will be the last demand." Hitler went to Czechoslovakia. That was the last.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl is not accusing Manchester of being a Hitler.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: I would not accuse, and have not accused, Manchester of being a Hitler. I was just saying that the Government perhaps, in giving room for a division of this issue, are merely begging the question and to some extent postponing the day when Manchester again have to think in terms of Ullswater.
I should like to say a word or two about the Petitioners. They are both the county councils who cover the area, the Lake District National Park Authority, and three of the four urban district councils of the area concerned. We shall find only two on the Petition, but much work was done by a third, whose preliminary work has been absorbed by the Lakes Water Board which came into being only on February 1. The preliminary work on it had been done for an organisation which had no statutory power until February 1. The Petitioners also in, elude the South Westmorland Rural District Council and the Kendal Borough Council within this new Lakes Water Board, both river boards which cover the area, the river board in the south and the river board in the north. Those are the main Petitioners.
Then, of course, there are the four important national organisations which one would always expect to meet on these occasions—the National Farmers' Union, the Landowners' Association, the National Trust and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. Under the umbrella of the latter there are no fewer than ten outdoor organisations, ranging from the Workers' Holiday Travel Association to that remarkable organisation which has done so much in Lakeland, the Friends of the Lake District. Quite apart from the actual Petitioners, there must be over twenty—in fact, I have counted 26— separate organisations, of varying stature, ranging from the British Federation of University Women, through the National Federation of Women's Institutes, to the Westmorland Liberal Association, to the British Sub-Aqua Club, and so on, which have come to my notice as having written letters to one Petitioner or another asking for help or assistance. The Carlisle City Council, who looked at this
296
scheme most carefully, also wished to petition but were advised that they had no locus standi. Their reason for wishing to petition is that they feel so concerned about the amenities of Ullswater which are enjoyed by so many of their inhabitants.
As the venerable Member, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, nobody as yet has truly tried to answer the question: what other alternatives are available for Manchester? We in Cumberland and Westmorland feel that alternatives are, or may be, available. In a statement at their town meeting Manchester has said that alternatives are available. They have looked at other alternatives, but the Lake District is the cheapest, the cleanest and the easiest to get. That is the essence of it.
But let us have a look to see what we can find for them. If this Bill goes to a Select Committee everybody will hear a lot about the Vail Report. I know it, because I was a member of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House in 1954 which studied the then current Manchester Corporation Bill. I was interested to hear the Lord Chairman of Committees say that any Member of your Lordships' House could have the Report of any of these Select Committees. Since 1954 they have been gathering dust in my office—though neither they nor the Vail Report have been gathering much dust this last month.
The Vail Report was commissioned by the Minister of Health, who was then responsible for water supplies, and also, at that time, responsible for implementing the 1945 Act, in 1948. It states that along the Pennines numerous narrow valleys at high altitudes offer sites for impounding reservoirs and gravity supplies. The Report says, in regard to Lancashire and Cheshire, that 56 million gallons might be obtained from this source. It would be expensive. The Lake District water is cheaper. Amenity costs nothing to rob. Mr. Vail again suggests that in Lancashire and Cheshire there is virtually no prevention of wastage. Let us hope that since Mr. Vail published his Report in 1950 the Corporation have done something to set up a service on lines operating in many other parts of the world. One of your Lordships told me yesterday that this applies quite extensively in Scotland. The Vail Report said—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder if I may interrupt my noble friend for a second. Mr. Vail told me only this morning that the arrangements which the Manchester Corporation make in order to prevent wastage are on the whole now extremely good.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: I thank my noble friend. I am most grateful to him for rising to say that, because I said that I hoped matters would have improved since Mr. Vail made his Report in 1948. Anyhow, that is not a source to which we can look. The prevention of needless waste is perhaps not such a source; but in the right reverend Prelate's half a gallon per pull of the lavatory chain there might be something.
Is it impossible that bulk storage could not be provided in a much more extensive way? Mr. Vail again suggested in his famous Report (he is, I gather, very much with us; indeed, I know he is, because he is now a member of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government) that there was a shortage, and sometimes a complete lack, of storage provided by some authorities in Lancashire and round Manchester. Mr. Vail said that there was a shortage or a complete lack of storage by authorities who were dependent on bulk supplies and major acqueducts. This fact would appear before the Select Committee if your Lordships allow this Bill to go to such a Committee; but I am saying that there is no necessity to let it do so, because time is available to Manchester.
We have heard that about 1970 Manchester will need more water. I do not deny nor doubt that that is so. But under the 1879 Act they have existing powers over Thirlmere, and under the 1919 Act existing powers over Hawes-water. They have existing powers to construct further works in those areas which they already own in the Lake District, which will be sufficient to give them a few more years' breathing space. They can obtain an extra 4 million gallons from Thirlmere and 6 million gallons more from the Haweswater area if they construct at Swindale the dam which they shelved originally, and which they still presumably intend to do, as is shown in the statement put before the bulk water suppliers on January 12 of this year. That would give them another 6 million gallons. That is the difference between the 1954 Bill and all
298
the figures then quoted and the figures quoted now. That would give them another three or four years. This time is available to them. They have the power. They need not go anywhere or ask anybody, except to seek advice on how and where they should site their works. That would give them four years to 1975. Surely during the next five years (if it takes five years for the National Water Conservation Authority to be established) some plans could be made for Manchester's needs beyond 1975.
My Lords, there is another curious, fact. I am glad to hear, and can understand, the noble and gallant Earl's suggestion that the Ullswater and Bannisdale schemes might be separated. At this same meeting that I have mentioned the Corporation talked to their bulk water suppliers and put this statement before them. They stated that they do not intend to complete their works on the first phase at Ullswater (that is the creation of the pumping installations) until 1979 or 1980. They do not even give a date beyond that for the second phase of the Ullswater works, the construction of the weir. If this Bill goes through, Cumberland and Wesmorland are going to have to live for the next fifteen or twenty years with the knowledge that Manchester, at any time the whim takes them, can come and start on these constructional works. My Lords, quite apart from the 10 million gallons that would give them leeway, why could they not also use the considerable amount of wastage from the existing catchment areas? I live above, beside, on, in, and around the River Lowther, which flows from their headworks.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, my noble friend says he lives there. In fairness to him I think that, quite accidentally, he did not inform the House of his interest.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, and I apologise to your Lordships. I have written down pages of interests to disclose to the House. I am, of course, deeply involved, as a Lakelander; and, having connections with many aspects of public life, I have a responsibility towards the public bodies with which I am associated. But, in a personal

299
capacity, let me make it perfectly clear that by taking the stand that I have, I have probably done so to my own detriment.
Clause 39 refers specifically to my estates and it provides for a better regulation of the compensation water down the River Lowther. Experience of the last twenty years has shown that the way in which this is provided under the terms of the 1919 Act is not entirely satisfactory. The clause provides for the Cumberland River Board and my estates to agree with the Manchester Corporation a new plan. In fact, it would improve the fishing in my river, so that in opposing Part III I am opposing my own personal interest. Quite apart from that, there are so many conceivable ways in which it could be construed that I have an interest. I have thought about this Manchester Bill for some months, and have searched my conscience to see whether there was any way in which my own personal interest might be involved in this opposition. I can assure you, my Lords, from the depths of my heart, that I have a clear conscience on this matter, and that I am representing public feeling and my own personal feeling as a Lakelander.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships for very long, but, when I was interrupted, I was developing the point that the existing, catchment areas could be used more fully. It is a magnificent, wonderful sight to go to Haweswater during the wet season (and the Lake District can be wet), and see there a veritable Niagara. It is also a wonderful sight to see my own river charging down in spate, many feet high. Indeed, during these last few months I have stood on the terrace of my house, looked down at the river and thought to myself, "There go many millions of gallons of water that Manchester could be using. Why cannot they take that, instead of going elsewhere?" Is it beyond possibility for them to heighten the dam, or for them to build a new one to hold more? They raised Haweswater 95 feet—the level varies only 20 feet or so in any year.
There have been three dry years out of the last twenty—in 1941, 1949 and 1959—when the level dropped further.
300
Incidentally, it was only then that people went to Haweswater out of curiosity or sentiment, to see what the waters might uncover. Otherwise, it is normally a dead place, and nobody goes there. There is a Corporation hotel there, which I think is visited by Corporation councillors, but by hardly anyone else; and rarely is it full. The valley of Haweswater is a sad and sterile place. My feeling is that millions of gallons are going to waste over the spillways of these dams on frequent occasions during wet weather. If your Lordships follow the history of the Thirlmere Act, to which my noble and learned friend referred in his brilliant opening speech, the like of which I am sure you have not heard for many years, you will see that the history of Hawes-water, written by the Chairman of the Waterworks Committee, includes in it all the negotiations, all the correspondence, all the Petitions against the Bill, as well as all the speeches made in both Houses.
My Lords, it also includes a report by a water engineer employed to advise Manchester, which says that the Thirlmere dam could be taken to any height as the rocks on both sides are of an impermeable nature, but that for Manchester's needs it is only necessary to make a dam 50 feet high. As your Lordships know, to-day, some 80 years later, 36 million gallons per day are taken from Thirlmere. Why not raise the dam a further 20 feet? The water engineer suggested that if it were made 10 feet higher it would give another 10 million gallons a day.
However, while these are all possibilities, they are not really pertinent to much that has been discussed, though they are, in my opinion, very pertinent to my noble and learned friend's Motion. His Motion is that Part III of the Bill be sent back; that Manchester should examine this matter and think again, and that the Government should perhaps have a fresh Vail Report on the whole North-West of England, including in it an amenity aspect. When Mr. Vail reported the first time there was of course no National Park in existence. My Lords, with deep sincerity and deep conviction, having listened to the advice which has been given to your Lordships'

301
House, I, for one, support my noble and learned friend, as I hope, indeed, do your Lordships as a whole.
7.29 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed us is the hereditary admiral of the coasts of Westmorland and Cumberland. His ancestors did great work, not only in defending the coasts from invaders, but also in defending those border counties against marauding Scots. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Crawford and Balcarres was leading them on that occasion. It is a new phenomenon, in a way, that the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, should be turning towards the south to defend his native land against marauding Mancunians, as he is on this occasion. I have no doubt my own ancestors from time to time enlisted under the Lowthers in that distant past and fought under his banner, and it gives me very great pleasure to be once more in that position to-day.
I should like to say that the noble Earl has undoubtedly earned the respect and affection of all the people in the Lake District during these last weeks and months, when it has become known to everybody that he has been a great stalwart on the side of Ullswater, and indeed of the National Park of the Lake District as a whole. I do not want to follow much that he said in his excellent speech, the sincerity of which I am sure appealed to everybody, but he referred to 1780 or thereabouts. I think the point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, that even if Manchester gets the whole of this water it will last them only into the 1980's, which is not very far away. This is a sort of hand-to-mouth business which, obviously, is no long-term solution to this problem of Manchester's water, which everybody admits is a real problem. It seems to me that it is quite typical of the whole business which we have had before us this afternoon that, suddenly and without proper thought or consideration, they have come along with this Bill and asked us to give it a Second Reading, without their seeing to it that long-term plans and proposals were made.
I was very interested in what the noble and learned Lord said about a book written by the Chairman of the Man-
302
chester Waterworks Committee at the time of the Thirlmere Bill. It is a very honest and fair book, if I may say so, and it puts the case made against Manchester in a very fair way. Although I do not want to spend much time on it, it is very interesting, and I think we can draw a lesson from it. The problem of preserving the beauty of Thirlmere was very much before the country, and before the Houses of Parliament, at that time; so much so, that it was decided to have a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to hear the evidence and to go into the whole problem. It is very interesting to see that, in spite of the obvious keenness which the Members of that Joint Select Committee displayed in their job, they failed almost completely, notwithstanding all the assurances that Manchester gave at that time, to preserve Thirlmere as a place of beauty.
The noble Lord said that the water is dead, and I am sure that anybody who has been there in the last few years must agree with him. The interesting thing is that the Select Committee were—I will not say they were taken in, but they obviously failed to provide the necessary safeguards. For instance, they said that a Mr. Broderick Thomas, who gave evidence on behalf of Manchester, and who had much experience as a landscape gardener (this is in the book, and I have also looked at the evidence on this in the Victoria Tower) expressed the opinion that the enlarged lake would enhance the beauty of the scenery; and the Select Committee accepted that view. I hope that all of your Lordships who have been into the Long Gallery have seen the picture of Thirlmere, with its ghastly shingle bank which emerges every time there are two or three weeks of dry weather. If only the ghost of Mr. Broderick Thomas could be brought back to see how completely his prognostications have been falsified by the event, I am sure that if a ghost could blush his ghost would be blushing all over.
It was also argued that the new road which the Manchester Corporation agreed to build and which, in fact, they did build, would enable the scenery to be opened up for the enjoyment of a much larger number of the general public. Well, of course, they no sooner

303
built the road, than they planted on both sides of it a thick screen of conifer trees which nobody who goes along that road can see through. I defy anybody to say that by that road the beauties of the scenery, such as have been left, are open to the general public at all.
There had been this question of the shore line which would be left, and the Committee went on to say that they were satisfied that the level would never fall more than 8 or 9 feet below the new level which the reservoir would have when it was made. They said that even that would be very exceptional, and would occur only in times of exceptional droughts of continued severity. So far as their 8 or 9 feet are concerned, I was there a few years ago and after a time of very considerable drought I estimate that the fall was more than twice that amount.
If your Lordships care to look at the photographs which the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, has provided for us to see in the Royal Gallery, you will see a sight which is familiar to anybody who has been along the side of Thirlmere at any time after there have been two or three weeks of fine weather; and we do from time to time in the Lake District get periods of two to three weeks of fine weather. That shows that the confident expectations and, indeed, the promises of the Select Committee were falsified by the event.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett has kindly referred to the research which I have carried out into the subject of refusing Second Readings of Bills of this kind and the passing of mandatory instructions. As this debate has gone on, that matter has not developed the seriousness which at one time it appeared to be doing. I feel a little resentful that, shall I say, people in the establishment should have spent the last week or two trying to get us to agree not to go on with this sort of Motion, on the ground that it was contrary to the traditions of this House. The noble and learned Lord, the noble Earl, and others, including myself, have a very considerable feeling for the traditions of this House, and it worried us a great deal. It was not until I went into these cases and saw what had happened, that I realised that in fact there
304
was no tradition of this kind at all. I am sorry that I feel very resentful about this, and I think it is rather typical of the way in which the Government have been dealing with this matter on the basis of the so-called neutrality to which the noble Earl has previously referred, but of which I could not find a trace in his speech, which seemed to me to be a speech very strongly on the side of the Manchester Corporation and their Bill.
I do not now want to go into all these cases in the way that I had proposed to do, but some of them throw a great deal of light on the sort of attitude which this House has taken in the past, and which I submit it should take again whenever the occasion calls for it on a Bill of this kind. It is true that we have not normally rejected any of these Bills on the Second Reading, but there are two or three cases where this has happened and I want to refer to them, because in my submission they will help us in coming to a decision to-day.
There was the Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill in 1931, which came to your Lordships' House twice. That contained a proposal to extend the boundaries. On the face of it, it appeared to be an ordinary extension Bill such as comes here all the time; but what in fact it proposed to do was to take in a very ancient borough, the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. Practically everybody in Newcastle-under-Lyme was opposed to this, and they made their views about it known to a substantial number of Members of your Lordships' House, so that a rejection on the Second Reading was proposed and very strongly supported at the time. The reason was that it was quite clear that this was contrary to the wishes of practically everybody in the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. That is exactly the situation which exists in the Lake District at the present time, with Manchester coming in from outside and, in effect, "collaring" a large section of the Lake District.
A correspondent of The Times who wend up there specially for two or three days to see what was the local feeling, says in his article, which I am sure your Lordships have read:
" The men and women of Westmorland and Cumberland and their neighbours in north Lancashire and across the Pennines in

305
Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire are hard-headed, and fair-minded folk, not quickly given to declaring that an attempt is being made to put a fast one over on them. But that is what they are now saying with remarkable unanimity".
That is exactly the reaction shown by the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme when Stoke came in and tried to make them part of that county borough. The interesting fact is that the proposal was decisively defeated on Second Reading of the Bill—indeed, twice.
Another case during the same decade before the war was that of the North Devon Water and Electric Bill, which in my submission is even more significant, because the rejection of that Bill was moved on the specific ground that the scheme, which was a reservoir scheme combined with an electricity scheme, and which was to have been built on the edge of Dartmoor (now itself, of course, one of our most important National Parks), was likely to injure the natural beauty of that lovely piece of country. That was the substance of the case against the Bill. That argument, in which the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, whom I see sitting on the Cross-Benches, took an important part, was accepted by a substantial majority of the House, and the Bill was refused a Second Reading. That refusal was based on the grounds of the destruction of the beauties of northern Dartmoor.
My Lords, is it not interesting that vast subterranean reservoirs of water have now been discovered under the headwaters of the Tor, which I understand it is thought are exploitable and which will provide that water which, on the basis of the scheme which your Lordships' House rejected, could have been found only by damaging, if not destroying, the beauties of Dartmoor? So those of us who are concerned over these matters do good in this way. It may well be that, if this Manchester Bill is postponed as we have suggested, an altertive method will be found. I want to say a little more in a few minutes on this question of time, because I am absolutely certain that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl are right in what they have said—and, indeed, in what was said by Lord Strang (whom I see now sitting on the Woolsack), as Chairman of the National Parks Commission, in a letter to The Times only
306
the other day. But I will come back to that in a minute.
I agree entirely with everything that has been said about its being right, in the ordinary way, to send these Bills upstairs—when it is a question of evidence and argument by learned counsel, and that sort of thing. But in these cases in which mandatory instructions have been given (the noble and learned Lord has referred to the Croydon case and to the London County Council case, and I do not want to say a great deal about most of the others) the interesting thing is that in practically every one of them the Lord Chairman of the day has advised your Lordships' House not to accept the mandatory instruction. In fact, I think there is only one case when he did not do that. So the advice is not peculiar to the noble and learned Lord whom we admire so much and who occupies the Chair to-day. My Lords, if there is a tradition in this sort of case, it is that the Chairman of Committees should advise your Lordships to send the Bill upstairs and not to send a mandatory instruction with it; and if there is another tradition it is that we have almost always not accepted his advice—though, very often, as it has been this afternoon, his advice has been supported by the Government, too.
Now, my Lords, there are several more of these interesting cases. There was one in the House of Commons on amenities, when it was proposed to build a bridge across Poole Harbour which would have destroyed the beauty of that lovely area of water and made it exceedingly difficult for yachts and boats to get in and out, and, indeed, would have upset the whole place. That Bill was rejected in another place on exactly the same grounds. It was rejected on no other ground whatever but that it would have destroyed the amenities. It was not given a Second Reading there; so they do it and we do it.
I should also like to refer to the Poole Bill of 1937, which is another of these cases. I think that was a case in which the Lord Chairman agreed that it would be all right. The interesting thing about the Poole Bill was that at the time it was coming up there was an outbreak of typhoid in those parts, and the local authority felt that it would be very useful if they could get a statutory

307
authority to insist on the pasteurisation of all the milk. They therefore included that in the Bill. I think that the Lord Chairman said that that Bill might go upstairs: that it was rather an experiment which it would be quite useful to have carried out in that way. This was before pasteurisation was considered natural. However, the Government themselves said that a Select Committee of the House was not the sort of Committee that was best adapted to deal with the question of the pasteurisation of milk, which the Government regarded as a national problem which ought to be dealt with by a properly constituted Government Committee, selected on the basis of expert knowledge, and that sort of thing.
I would again submit that there is a very distinct similarity here, because the kind of considerations involved in the question of making water available on a national scale and in making it available from different sources are the same considerations as have been under consideration by an expert Committee. It is obviously very much more within the competence of a Committee like this to handle such considerations than it is for five Peers who are selected in the way we know. They do their work in a very conscientious and a very able way, in so far as it is a question of dealing with proposals in regard to local matters and private interests, but, as with compulsory pasteurisation of milk or the provision of large quantities of water, they are not adequately equipped for handling a problem of that kind. So I do suggest that the case has been completely made out by the noble and learned Lord in regard to this particular aspect of the matter.
My Lords, I said that I should like to add a few words on the question of time, on which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, took a very strong line on behalf of the Promoters of this Bill, the Manchester Corporation. Indeed, he took a much stronger line than they themselves have taken in their own case, which they have so very candidly circulated to us—because it is a fair document and one which gives a great deal of useful material in a comparatively small compass. I would certainly congratulate the Town Clerk of
308
Manchester on the admirable way in which that document is framed.
But the question really is how urgent this matter is. We have heard that Manchester themselves say that the demand will overtake supply in 1970. This estimate, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, is based on a rise in the use of water of 2 per cent. per annum. My Lords, they take as a datum line the consumption in 1961, which they give as 105 million gallons per day, and they say that the total available is 126 million gallons. Now that takes them really beyond 1970. It takes them, in my submission, as a mere matter of arithmetic, pretty well to 1971. So, instead of to the beginning of 1970, in my submission we have already got to the end of 1971.
In the past, Manchester have always pitched their case very much too high. When the Haweswater Scheme was before the Select Committee in 1919, their engineer stated that their need for this Bill was absolutely urgent, and that they were on the point of being short of water. Indeed, if there were three dry seasons, he said they would be short. A great point was made of that statement, when the Bill was before the Select Committee, in order to enable them to get their Bill; and the Promoters got their Bill in 1919. I have here an interesting document which was prepared by the Water Committee of the Manchester City Council for a visit of the City Councillors to Haweswater in 1958. This is interesting because it says that it was not until 1925, which was nearly six years after they got this Bill, which they told your Lordships' Select Committee was so urgent that they must have it at once, that they began to make detailed surveys for the Haweswater reservoir. They go on to say that the first instalment of works was completed in October of 1941. That is no less than 22 years after the time when their engineers had given sworn evidence to the Select Committee of your Lordships' House that they must have this Bill urgently. I submit that that is typical of the sort of way in which they have conducted this business, and it shows that you really cannot accept au pied de la lettre everything that they say in regard to this sort of matter.
I find it very worrying when the representatives of the Government come here

309
and, in effect, say that unless they start carrying out construction of this scheme by the end of 1964 they will not be ready by 1970, when the Manchester Corporation themselves, in the document they have circulated to us all, say that 1965 is the date by which they have to carry out their construction. Surely, that is a very pessimistic estimate of the time in which to do work of this kind. The great Jhelum Darn, now being constructed in Pakistan, which involves the construction of a darn very nearly two miles long and making one of the greatest reservoirs in the world, has an estimated period of construction of just over five years. The great Kariba Dam on the Zambesi River was constructed, if my recollection is not at fault, in a period of five years. Yet the Minister conies here and tells us that they must have five years to build this compartively small darn across the comparatively narrow exit of a small valley in the Western Lake District. I must say, when I hear that sort of thing, that it really makes me wonder how seriously the Minister rates the intelligence of the Members of the House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think this is a little unfortunate, if I may say so. My noble friend, who is not here at this moment, tried to put before the House a résumé of the information obtained by his Department. He did it as a courtesy to the House. He has no bias in this matter at all. I think the House would have felt properly affronted if the Minister had refused to disclose the information in the possession of his Department; and to suggest that, in doing so, he was under-rating the intelligence of the House, or acting on behalf of the Promoters of the Bill, is the exact contrary of of the truth. Of course, it is for the House to attach what importance it likes to the information in my noble friend's possession, but I think that this kind of statement really is not up to standard. I feel that it is an unworthy attack on my noble friend and ought not to be made. Of course, what the Minister says is not sacrosanct; but to suggest that he is biased in some way, or desires to under-estimate the intelligence of the House, seems to me to be quite wrong.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl is not here, because I should have liked him to hear
310
what I said and reply to it. It is most unlikely, in my submission to your Lordships' House, that the Manchester people have not allowed themselves enough time. I will read to your Lordships what they say in a statement which they issued. I am quoting the exact words:
" The Corporation should put in hand further constructional works in 1965 …"
It is within the recollection of your Lordships that the noble Earl said that they must be put in hand by 1964. In other words, he wants to give them a year more than Manchester themselves are asking for. It seems to me that that is typical of the attitude which the Government have taken. I would much rather they came out and said, "We want Manchester to have this Bill", and be honest about it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is really rather too bad. There is no question whatever of the Government's wanting or not wanting Manchester to have the Bill; my noble friend made that abundantly plain. The addition which the noble Lord has now made only suggests that the Government are not being honest about this matter. We have sought, in every way at our disposal, to give the information in our possession. The Government as such have no view about it, apart from the fact that it will be their duty to supply the Select Committee, if it goes so far, with information in their possession. I really must ask that the noble Lord should not impute motives of dishonesty to members of the Government. I do not think he advances his own case by doing so, because I am sure that if the House were asked to decide the question whether the Government were acting honestly or dishonestly in a matter of this kind, it would decide that they were acting honestly. I really must ask the noble Lord to moderate his language in some way, and not to make accusations of this kind. It seems to me to be wholly out of keeping with the nature of the discussion upon which we are embarked.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may interrupt my noble Leader for one moment? I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, really said that the Department was wrong, and that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in trusting to his Department, was in error. As a matter of fact, the Government may be

311
wrong, and I can give the noble Viscount a concrete example, on paper, in black and white, of a Government Department's assuring the House of one thing, and then, when the very same people were put on oath before a Commission, they said the opposite. That does happen. It may be very wrong, but it is a thing that the Government may be caught out by.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if all that the noble Lord meant to say was that the Government might be mistaken, and from time to time Departments err, I should be the first to accept that evidence, although I should also think that the true moral of what my noble friend said was that Select Committees were very good organs for finding that out. But what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said was that the Government were not being honest about it. That I objected to, and I think I am entitled to object to that.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl, of course, was just putting forward the report which had been received from the Department. That is his job. He cannot be an expert himself, and obviously he will not be putting forward his own views. He puts forward views prepared in the Department. But I do suggest that you really cannot accept them, when Manchester are really going to give themselves all the latitude they can. If you find the Government Department saying that Manchester need a year more than they themselves have asked for, surely it makes the whole thing look quite "phoney".
My Lords, I should like to finish. I am sorry this speech has gone on so long; it is largely because I have been interrupted so much. In this memorandum for the visiting Councillors at Haweswater, it is pointed out that in 1948 the Waterworks Committee decided to increase the size of the tunnels included in the second instalment of the works from 7 ft. 7 in. to 8 ft. 6 in. That is the aqueduct to Manchester. At the same time, they increased the capacity of Haweswater Reservoir by 50 million gallons per day. Is it not perfectly clear that, by going well beyond the amount of water which they claimed in 1919, about this time they began to say, "We are going to make ready now to
312
take water from Ullswater"? They built this aqueduct and now one of the strongest arguments they have in favour of the Bill is that it is going to be a tremendous saver of money; they are ready to take this water and they ought to be allowed to use it. That is what The Times calls, "jumping the gun." That is why the people of the Lake District think that "a fast one" is being put across them.
It might be said that it is now 1962 and that is a long period, but why did it not happen before? That is a question which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, asked. I submit that when, in April of this year, the Ministry circulated to local authorities what in effect was an advance appreciation of the Report of this Committee which has just come out, drawing to their attention the fact that in future these matters would have to be dealt with on a national basis, it was at that point that the Manchester people said, "Obviously we have to get this scheme through at once". That is why they went ahead in this rather hurried and muddled way, without proper consultation with the interests concerned and without any real attempt to put things on a proper basis. That is what we call "jumping, the pistol". What happens when competitors in a race jump the pistol is that it is the starter's duty to bring them back and start them off again. I suggest to your Lordships that in this case we are the starters and that it is our duty to see that Manchester Corporation are not allowed to jump the gun in this way but are brought back so that they can start fairly. If it is a question of fairness and natural justice, we should make sure that it is done in this case by voting for the Motion so eloquently put before the House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett.
8.4 p.m.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, it is getting rather late and I do not wish to waste the time of the House. The only reason for my addressing your Lordships is that I have been asked by the National Trust to do so. My noble friend Lord Crawford and Balcarres has put the case for the National Trust exceedingly well, as everyone would expect him to do. I should like to emphasise one or two points which he may or may

313
not have mentioned. One is that I cannot quite understand why the Corporation did not suggest taking the water from Ullswater downstream from Pooley Bridge so as to leave the shores of the Lake untouched, and thus meet an argument against this measure.
The other point I should like to make is one which many speakers have mentioned: the fact that alternative supplies of water have not been suggested or, if they have been suggested, have not been sufficiently emphasised. For instance, it has been suggested that the River Lune, the Ribble and possibly the Irwell, with proper safeguards for decontamination, might be used for both industrial and human purposes. I read that a few years ago the Cumberland County Council drew attention to the fact that, as everybody knows who has travelled there during the wet season, there was a large amount of water available in the county which runs to waste largely through an inefficient system of conserving it.
We have also read in the Corporation's own Memorandum that they make certain promises for the future. It has been already suggested, and I repeat, that they cannot bind their successors, and, if I may say so, their reputation has not been enhanced by Thirlmere, which has been inundated by a 90-foot high dam, habitations dislodged and sheep farms largely replaced by commercial afforestation. In one case of afforestation complaint was made and it was suggested that there should be some ornamental trees planted, but the forestry people put in exotic trees, which made the place look even worse. Haweswater has been transformed by a dam nearly 100 feet high and the village of Mardale Green has been destroyed. In both these cases—I hope the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—the public has been denied access to the shores in spite of the Corporation's legal obligation to the contrary. I should be pleased if the Government could deny that, because it is a very important matter. Wet Sleddale is being flooded by a 70-foot high dam, and Swindale is likely to be flooded by a 130-foot high dam, in spite of the Minister of Housing and Local Government's hope that an alternative reservoir might be found.
We have all listened to a debate which
314
I think has been exceptionally interesting, started by an absolutely brilliant speech by the proposer of the Motion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, in favour of the protection of our national amenities. I hope that his speech will be widely reported and widely read, because we have already gone too far downhill in destroying our amenities, in particular the National Parks, which we created by law in 1951. It is all wrong. We should go in reverse now. And I hope that this debate will bring the attention of the country to the urgent necessity of insisting on the National Parks and the land in the hands of the National Trust being preserved for posterity and not only for ourselves. In destroying them, we are destroying the very object for which they were created, the amenity of the working and other classes in the big industrial centres. To destroy them strikes me as lunacy, and it should be stopped. This is a case where such a strong body of opinion, particularly local opinion, has rejected this proposal that I, for one, will certainly vote for the Motion of my noble and learned friend.
8.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: My Lords. I find myself in a somewhat unusual position, because I could be expected, I suppose, to have a foot in both camps. I have spent much of my life in industrial Lancashire. All my working life I have been associated with industry in Lancashire, and still am with the wool industry, the cotton industry and the chemical industry. Therefore, I am acutely conscious of the tremendous importance of water to industry. Not only must it be cheap water and in adequate supply, but it must also be clean and of a fairly constant analysis. I will not develop that problem now. It has been extremely well put in paragraphs 127 and 134 of the report of the Supervisory Water Committee, which has been referred to on a number of occasions this afternoon. Therefore, with this background, I hope your Lordships will agree that it is not unnatural when I say that I am in difficulty over this question of water supply.
It is not only Manchester itself that wants water, but also many of the local authorities on the way there, and a great proportion of that water—my noble

315
friend Lord Jessel said something in the order of 50 per cent.—is industrial. Therefore my natural instinct, based on my own practical experience, would be to feel a definite degree of understanding and sympathy for the efforts that are now being made by the Manchester Corporation to safeguard its ability to provide adequate supplies of water in the future. For that reason, also, I do not quibble with the fact that the North Western region of the Federation of British Industries has taken a line in this. It is doing the right thing to see that its members' interests are properly put before the public. That is one side of the picture.
But I can see the position from the other side, too, because I happen to be one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who live in the Lake District, and I am also Vice-Chairman of the Lake District Committee of the National Trust. Therefore, I am in a rather exceptional position to see the matter from both sides. Here, lest there be any misunderstanding, I may say that I have no interest whatever to declare in relation to the particular clauses of the Bill we are now discussing.
I do not question for one moment that Manchester has a real problem in regard to the provision of water; of course it has. I do not question that by 1970, and increasingly so from then on, this problem will be even greater; and it will be necessary in good time to see that steps are taken so that water may be available in adequate quantities when it is required. The two questions, however, that arise in my mind from that background are these. First, is the problem being approached in the right way? And, secondly, what are the alternatives? As regards the approach (and I am not referring to Parliamentary procedure) I feel completely out of sympathy with the idea that once Parliament has decided—which it did with, I think it may be said, the unanimous approval of all Parties—that there should be National Parks the conception of National Parks should be undermined (or further undermined, because we have already been told that there are cases where undermining has already started) by a Private Bill. That seems to me to be entirely wrong.
It may be that in the course of time it will be necessary for National Parks
316
to develop as sources of water for the great industrial areas of the country. That, I suppose, is a possibility one cannot entirely rule out of one's mind for all time, however regrettable it may be. But surely a decision of that nature should be taken only after a most searching inquiry, as a matter of general policy, to be settled by Parliament in a Public Bill, with the Government lending a lead, bearing in mind that every time the National Park is breached there is no going back. At least there is no going back in this century, although in centuries to come it may become natural again.
I recognise, also, that it may be argued that National Parks are a luxury; it may be said that we are a small country, none too wealthy these days, and it may be in time to come we shall not be able to afford that luxury. I sincerely hope not, and certainly that position has not arrived yet. But, in my view, the important thing is that we should have a decision on general policy before we take any decisions on the particular. Listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, I found myself in complete agreement with him in this point.
It seems to me that there are two questions of general policy that have to be settled. The first is aimed at making it quite clear to everyone that the National Parks are, as one noble Lord described it earlier, being whittled away, and Parliament wants to pronounce on whether that whittling has gone far enough and should be held—I doubt that it could he easily reversed. That is the first matter of general policy I want to see decided. The second matter of general policy, which has been mentioned by a number of your Lordships, that I want to see is a general national water policy. As this was also referred to by the noble Earl speaking from the Front Bench, I am encouraged to think that some thought is being given to it. When we have these two general principles settled, then they can be used as a background against which a Select Committee can have the pros and cons of these particular water clauses argued in front of them. But until we get the general principle as the background, I think we are merely wasting time by committing this section of the Bill to a Select Committee.

317
That leads me to my second question: What are the alternatives? So much has already been said about this that I can be quite brief in what I have to say. However, I was surprised that one or two noble Lords stated that the alternatives should be suggested by the opponents. I should have thought that the alternatives should come from the Promoters, and then we can see what the case for them is. But there are no alternatives of any substance, so far. I think your Lordships have a right to be told to what extent alternative solutions really have been gone into thoroughly. I find it hard to believe that there are no possible alternatives for providing, if not the whole, at any rate part of the water. The fact that we have not been told of alternatives leads me to feel that there has been a quite immodest degree of haste and lack of consultation, which, coming from the Lake District, I feel I must repeat—I know that other noble Lords have said it—has created a most astonishing degree of indignation. I regret having to say that.
I have a statutory position in the cotton industry; I have an office in Manchester; I have many friends in Manchester and I have a great affection for Manchester. But I must say, although I have found many of my business friends in Manchester very much opposed to the water clauses in the Bill—which is, I think, of interest—that it seems to me that Manchester has done itself less than justice in creating the impression that it has. I say that because I take very much the point that the right reverend Prelate made on the importance of trying to get a degree of harmony back into the situation. Sooner or later Manchester will need to get more water supplies, and it will inevitably have to co-operate with other authorities; and the fact that it is thought in Westmorland and Cumberland that they have acted in a cavalier way cannot help the co-operative work that will be necessary if some new schemes are to be worked out.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, made a suggestion that the Lord Mayor of Manchester should invite the local authorities from Cumberland and Westmorland to a magnificent banquet in the town hall. With the utmost respect, I would suggest that
318
psychologically it would be much more telling if the Lord Mayor of Manchester would be willing to eat a degree of humble pie and propose to visit the Lake District.
I am not going to say anything about the technical details of the scheme because, as was said earlier, this is not the time for that to be discussed. But I want to say that I accept entirely the assurances which Manchester has given with regard to the access and enjoyment as assurances given in the utmost good faith. I am sure that that is so, but, as other noble Lords have said, no assurances they give can bind their successors. It may be that in a year or so there will be another drought such as we had in 1959. With every year that passes a drought is bound to be greater in effect because more water is needed. If there is a drought and, the thin end of the wedge, these schemes we are now considering have been started, obviously the Manchester Corporation will seek emergency powers under the 1958 Water Act to get further emergency supplies, and I have no doubt whatever that they would be granted those emergency supplies.
I have one other point I should like to make. I am quite sure that there may be some people, not necessarily your Lordships, who would say, "Those of you who live in the Lake District are very fortunate, and you should not complain if the district is spoilt a little here and there". Indeed, we are extremely fortunate, and we recognise it. But I think it would be entirely wrong for people to go away and think that living in the Lake District is entirely "jam". If you are an owner—I am not talking about a great landowner—of a bungalow, a cottage or a little plot of land which you want to develop, by living in a National Park under stricter planning control you may have to spend much more money in doing what you want than would be the case if you were outside a National Park. Again, if you happen to be a farmer, living a rather rugged existence in one of the remoter parts of the Lake District, it may well be that you will be denied for a long time some of the usual amenities of life. I have in mind electricity, and I could think of many villages to which electricity has been denied for decades, simply because

319
it was thought, and reasonably so, that pylons would spoil the beauties of the National Park which had to be preserved.
For whom is the National Park being preserved? It is being preserved for the nation. In other words, to a large extent it is being preserved for the city dwellers. Surely it is rather hard on people who are made to spend extra money or to forgo amenities, when they see the city authorities coming along trying to set aside safeguards which have been placed on the Parks in order that city dwellers can benefit and enjoy them. Is it any wonder that there has been a marked degree of embittered feeling? The last thing I want to do is to add to that. But I think your Lordships who do not live in that part of the world have a right to realise how intense that feeling is, and anything we can do to mitigate it should be done. In the light of that, I am now perfectly clear in my mind as to the line I want to take. The line I would take would be to ask the Government to proceed with the utmost expedition with regard to National Parks to see whether they are being whittled away without Parliament realising that the effect of what they have said is being gradually reduced.
I want also to see a national water policy. I do not think that need take too long. Surely, the Department has a host of information put on one side that it could work on. When those two points have been settled, let Manchester, Liverpool or London come back for water and see how their requirements fit into the national policy. For those reasons, I shall feel no hesitation whatever in supporting the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett.
8.26 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate on this subject, relatively free from acrimony, in spite of occasion when heart and emotion have been in conflict with logic. During the course of the debate many questions have been posed. Indeed, I would suggest that there have been more questions posed than positive statements supported by technical information. Thinking of that caused me to realise, as I looked around the House, that at this moment it is de-
320
cidedly "thinner" now than it was an hour or two ago. That serves to indicate that there must have been many speeches made which some Members of this House, including myself, have not heard. But I am quite sure that when the time for a Division comes along, everyone in this House will vote, indicating a fundamental difference between our handling of this case and that which would be given by a Select Committee. I am quite sure that the members of the Select Committee would sit through all the evidence, hear all the statements that are made, and perhaps be in a far better position to adjudicate, calmly and dispassionately, upon this subject than, with all due deference, I think we are.
I shall endeavour (I know your Lordships will be pleased to hear this) not to repeat any of the arguments that have already been advanced this afternoon and tonight, or at least those arguments which I heard. But there is one fundamental issue—and it is the only one, so far as I can see; and that is, whether or not this case will be heard by a Select Committee. I know that a love of the Lakeland (and my love of the Lakeland is as deep as that of anyone else) causes one to feel a justifiable desire to keep out any possible activity that may encroach upon those amenities. I know there is that aspect. At the same time, there must be a recognition of the rights of a community as vast as that, not only of Manchester, but of the tremendous area which the Manchester Corporation supply. Manchester is "carrying the can"—in this particular case the water can—but in fact it is operating on behalf of a very wide area.
I cannot for the life of me see why those who are so strenuous in their opposition to the case put up by the Manchester Corporation, if they have confidence in their own beliefs, are not prepared to argue the case impartially, or have it heard before an impartial tribunal. There is at least one statement which received a fairly high degree of unanimity, and that was on the recognition of the vital need for more water. I am not going to argue whether the need will arise in twelve months, or whatever it may be. There is no doubt—and this has been recognised by opponents of the scheme—that Manchester will in the near future be in need of

321
more water; water that is essential not only to the health of the community but also to the industrial development of that area. And that aspect is important.
We can all recognise the necessity for preserving the amenities of Lakeland, which is a national heritage, and it becomes our responsibility, not only in this House but outside, to do all in our power to preserve such national assets. But it is also our responsibility to make sure that all our national assets are used to the widest possible extent and to the best advantage of the community. The principle has not been advanced by anyone, so far as I have heard, that in no circumstances whatever must the Lakes be touched. Nor is there any challenge to the principle that there is a right, in given circumstances, to employ national assets in the best interests of the people. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, in his powerful and eloquent spech, sustained by his deep love of Lakeland, posed a number of questions and made one or two statements. He said that it was not an urgent matter, as regards the supply of water, but I would suggest, again with all due deference, that we had better have this matter settled by the presentation of facts rather than by the expression of eloquent speeches.
Questions have been addressed to this House as to whether there are alternative sources of supply. There may or may not be. In all honesty I cannot answer that question. But I should like to know the answer; and I know that I should have a better chance of receiving that answer if the scheme in the Bill went before a Select Committee. That would be, I believe, in the interests of both parties. I should have welcomed the opportunity of dealing in great detail with the Manchester case, but that has already been done. However, as I have said, I want to emphasise my own simple faith in the Select Committee. I believe that there will be opportunities far greater than this House can employ to consider all the aspects. I recognise that decisions relating to progress naturally depend upon a balance of conflicting claims, and they cannot be decided in an atmosphere that is charged with some small measure of emotion.
322
I would say, in conclusion, that it is indeed a strange justice to prevent a plaintiff having his case heard in an impartial court. And that, in my opinion, is the only thing we have under discussion this evening. I hope that your Lordships will recognise, in the interests of fair hearing, the necessity for the scheme in Part III to go before a Select Committee.
8.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has been outside just recently, but if he were to go to the Dining Room he would find there a large number of Peers having dinner. He remarked that the House was thin and that is my answer to him. I think he will find that a large number of those noble Lords will come back when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House gives us his answer.
LORD PEDDLE: My Lords, I am not blaming their Lordships for being absent; I am merely indicating that, for one reason or another, they have not heard all the speeches. In the case of a Select Committee I would assume they would be present during the period when the evidence was being presented.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: I accept the noble Lord's point hut I still make my remark. Again, if I may refer to Lord Peddie's speech, I do not know whether he was present when the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party referred to this Bill and made the suggestion that the Bill—I think I am right in saying this but I have forgotten his exact words—should not be read a second time, or that these water clauses should be withdrawn and that the Bill should be divided into two and a completely separate Bill be introduced into the House for the water itself. My Lords, I, for one, have pleasure—while I fully respect Lord Jessel's point in drawing Lord Lonsdale's attention to the fact that he had not declared his interest—in saying that I have no personal interest or connection whatsoever with the Lake District. I speak as a complete outsider.
In his most admirable speech, which I think is one of the best we have ever heard in this House, the noble Lord,

323
Lord Birkett, referred to the article in the Guardian of January 25. I, too, should like to do the same, but I should like to take one or two different points from those with which he dealt. I have that leading article in my hand, and it starts off by saying that there is no easing of the storm over Ullswater. In fact, there have been more articles since, but I am dealing only with this particular article, which adds:
" Manchester's opponents may well deserve to win on the merits of their case, but they are not publicising it well."
I feel that the opponents have put their case very well this afternoon, and, for my part, I hope to refute that very statement with a few words. The amount of literature we have had on the subject has been referred to by a number of noble Lords, and I would just say this: that the main theme running through this literature is, first, that the Bill was announced only on September 1, and, second, that there has not been enough time—I emphasise the words "enough time "—for consultation with the other authorities concerned. I understand that consultations of a sort have gone on since October, but more time should be allowed in this case for that consultation. The Bill itself was not published much before Christmas—I think about a fortnight or three weeks; I am not certain of my dates, but I think that is correct.
Much reference has been made to the question of a new national water policy. I was going to say something further about that, but I will only say this that I am one of those who feel that Manchester is, I was going to say, trying to get ahead of such possible new legislation; other stronger terms have been used. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, referred to the assurances the Corporation have given that there would be no interference with the amenities of Ullswater or its shores or on the land surrounding it. The Guardian in that same article says:
" To continue the argument without reference to them …"—
to those assurances—
" … only weakens the case."
I am referring to them now and would say, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, and others have said, that such
324
assurances cannot be binding on its successors. The Chairman of the Manchester Waterworks Committee at a public town meeting some time ago said:
" Do not let us delude ourselves. In order to provide for the shortage of water resources and the rising demand over the next 25 years there will have to be many waterworks constructed in National Parks."
I understand that Manchester could have powers under the 1945 Act, if they so wished, to restrict access by means of viaducts. They can do this under Section 18 (l) of the Water Act, 1945. I was going to quote it, but the hour is late and I will not do so. It so happens that two days after the Guardian printed its article on January 25 the Economist printed an article supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, and it seemed to me a complete answer to the Guardian article. I wonder whether the editor of the Guardian has read it.
May I turn for a moment to the question of Bannisdale, which has been referred to so much to-day? If the building of the Bannisdale dam takes place, two farms there will be submerged. Is this necessary when so much agricultural land in this country for one reason or another is disappearing? I have here a Petition of a private landowner in the Lake District who is petitioning against this particular point, and I have been asked to make the observation. This is that where you have ten acres of hill farming, sheep, you need one acre of meadowland to feed them on. If this particular action takes place in Bannisdale this will disappear. These farms are hill farms and have been receiving hill farming grants. It seems to me that one Ministry is opposing the other. I regret that I did not give notice of this particular point I am making, but I received it only this afternoon.
Many of your Lordships have stated that you recognise that Manchester needs the water—starting; if I may say so again, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, and many others of your Lordships have said so too. Many references have been made to Petitions and protests that have been made. I have here one resolution that I should like to refer to, and in this particular

325
case it was made by the Cumberland (North and East) Boy Scouts Association. It reads as follows:
" Provided all other possible sources of supply have been frankly explored without financial cost being the main consideration.
Provided the reasonable needs have been proved We recognise the paramount necessity for controlled water abstraction subject to conditions—

(a) Free access to all gathering grounds of lakes and reservoirs,

(b) Free access to all lakes and reservoirs of a capacity of (say) 300 million gallons and upwards,

(c) Payment of a royalty for every million gallons of water abstracted from all in paragraph (b) to provide such a sum as shall be ample for the administration of an adequate warden's service to preserve the condition of every lake and reservoir."

The pith of that resolution is in the first proviso (the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, referred to this point): provided all other possible sources of supply have been frankly explored without financial cost being the main consideration. May I conclude by saying that a very large number of your Lordships obviously agree with the noble and learned Lord who is to move the instruction?—and I shall have very much pleasure in supporting him in the Division Lobby.
8.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, at this late hour I shall be very brief, and all I wish to do is to register my support of certain views. When I was connected with the Ministry of Agriculture what always struck me was the tremendous demand for land in this country. Land is one of the things which is getting shorter and shorter; good agricultural land is very hard to keep from depredators; beautiful land such as the Lake District is even scarcer. I should like to call to the attention of your Lordships the fundamental fact in this debate, which is that you have here a question of principle. It is not only facts balancing facts but there is a big principle involved, and I think the principle is this. In this very small and possibly over-populated island we have very little beautiful natural ground for people to employ their leisure, to go on holidays to enjoy themselves in—people from these big industrial cities of the North. We have very little land, and the Lake District is, as everybody would agree, one of the great places that we have for recreation. For that reason it has
326
been made a National Park, and it seems to me that the principle behind the whole thing is this: are you really going to preserve your National Parks or is the making of a National Park just a mockery, an empty gesture? Because unless we preserve them it is no use our making them. Having preserved them, are we going to keep them in their natural state of beauty?
I do not want to pursue what has been said many times this afternoon, but certainly Ullswater is the most unspoiled and beautiful of our lakes in one of the most lovely districts in England, and I should have thought it would be terrible if this House allowed the principle of the National Parks to be invalidated in this way without far more research into it. I think the whole thing has been pushed through very quickly, and it would be a terrible loss to the nation if we began to take away from the beauties of this district. There are two arguments. There are those who say that this scheme will not spoil the Lake District at all; that you can alter the level of the water of this huge lake, you can build dams, you can flood a valley, you can enclose all the land round, which you have to do when you have flooded the valley so that the water is pure, for you cannot let people or sheep go near; that you can have pumping houses and cables across the countryside—and all this is supposed not to spoil the natural beauty and amenity of Ullswater and the district around it. I think that is, with due respect, nonsense.
Let us face the thing as it is honestly, for the only real argument, and it is a powerful one, is that we are asked to sacrifice this Park to the needs for water of a big city, or not so much the need for the water as to save the expense of getting the water from other sources, the cost of which might be so high that we should feel we ought to sacrifice the principle of the National Park. That seems to me the great point. That is the true reason. I think our whole policy in regard to water should be a national one. It is no good trying to nibble at it in pieces; we must get a whole national scale plan for this. I believe it would be absolutely deplorable if we allowed this scheme to go ahead under the present conditions and really neutralised the great conception of the National Parks for the people of this country.
8.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Huntingdon, I intend to be extremely brief. The pros and cons of this matter have been so exhaustively debated that there is little left for the nineteenth speaker in the debate to say. But one overriding consideration makes me align myself with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, who has moved the rejection of this Bill. I strongly feel that at some time, which must be soon, we must call a halt to this continual encroachment on the beauty spots of our country. There are not a great number of them, and in this crowded island there is little room for manœuvre. We must remember that the scale of scenery in Great Britain is much smaller than that on the continents of Europe, America and Africa, and therefore it is so much more easily damaged.
What will Parliament be doing if it allows this Bill to pass in its present form? True enough, with one hand it will be giving water to the industrial areas, but with the other hand it will be taking away the means whereby the population of those areas can go out in their leisure hours and enjoy themselves in the fresh air of the country. It is no use pretending that the scenery will remain unspoiled. We know perfectly well that there is nothing compatible between a reservoir and a natural lake, except that they both contain water. In Scotland, many of our finest lochs have been dammed. Years ago we fought the battle against the hydro-electric scheme. We thought that it would spoil the scenery. I cannot say that it has improved the scenery; but, at any rate, in the urgent public interest these lochs were dammed up to provide electricity; and it was not until every avenue had been explored to look for alternative sources of power that the National Trust and the amenity societies withdrew their objection. I think that is perfectly true.
I have heard this called the thin end of the wedge. But the thin end of the wedge was driven into the Lake District years ago when these two fair valleys and farmlands were submerged. Now it is proposed to flood another one. We are getting to the thicker end of the wedge, which is being driven in harder. It seems to me that logically such exploitation can have only one end:
328
eventually the whole of the Lake District will be one vast waterworks. My Lords, I have nothing more to say. I am a little too young to remember what Mr. Gladstone said in the 1880's; but I often wonder what Mr. Wordsworth would say if he were living in 1962.
8.55 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I intervene at this late hour with mixed feelings. Like many of your Lordships, I am a member of several of the organisations which are united in opposing this Bill. Although I cannot claim an intimate knowledge of the Lake District, I know it well enough to be as concerned as are most people that nothing avoidable shall be done to mar its outstanding beauty or to impair the public enjoyment of that National Park.
I must declare an interest. I am chairman of a statutory water undertaking which operates in the West Country. I do not consider that that interest is necessarily inconsistent with the concern that I have referred to, for in these days water undertakings can, and do, consistently with the interests they serve, reduce to small degrees the marring of the beauty of the countryside; and they even on occasion add to its beauty. Although the Mendips are a long way from the Lake District, and I do not seek to establish a connection or a comparison, there can well be raised, as there have been occasionally in this debate, questions of principle or practice affecting statutory water undertakings. It is for that reason that I feel it proper to declare that interest.
I have listened to, and been profoundly moved by, the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett and of many others who have supported him. But on the simple issue of whether or not these proposals should be excluded from examination by a Select Committee, I have no mixed feelings and no doubts. I think they should be thoroughly and critically examined by a Select Committee. I confess that that was my feeling before I came to this House this afternoon. Having heard the debate, I am confirmed in that feeling.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, at one point in his speech, if I heard him aright (I tried to take it down at the time), said that the real issue

329
was whether Manchester was now to be permitted to invade Lakeland. But the assurance which we have had from the Lord Chairman surely means that, if the matter is referred to a Select Committee, thereafter the Whole House will be able to consider the purpose of the Bill. Moreover, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said, it will be able to express its views on the basis of a great deal more information about the facts than we have to-night.
Like many others who heard him, I was greatly impressed by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, whose local knowledge is so great. He made one point of which I hope note may be taken: that conceivably, as things stand, local interests and local authorities might not have sufficient time in which to prepare the information required by the Select Committee. Surely a Select Committee will make allowance for that and see that reasonable time is given.
I should like to confirm and reinforce the point which Lord Lonsdale made. As has been clearly pointed out, the opposition to the proposals of the corporation are under three headings: first, the non-acceptance of the Corporation's claim of urgency; secondly, the non-acceptance of the Corporation's statement that there is no alternative, and thirdly, the possible prejudice to what are called amenities and the further invasion of a National Park. I do not pretend to know all the relevant facts. I have attempted to obtain information on many of them, but the hour is late and I feel that, in the interests of the common good, I must scrap a certain amount of my speech.
But I will very briefly summarise by saying that, on such knowledge as I have, the claim of urgency is not ill-founded. I would agree with the summary given by the noble and gallant Earl of the evidence collected by his Department. The years 1963 to 1969, if the Corporation are to be in a position to do what is necessary in 1970, are not too long off for, according to my own experience, the plans, the invitations to tender, the ordering of specialised equipment, much of which is of long delivery, and the actual construction of some of the major works, such as the Bannisdale Dam, would take up a very large part of that six years. Therefore, I would,
330
agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, on that.
As regards the Corporation's estimate of consumption, I can only say that, from our experience, current consumption is rising annually at a rate appreciably higher than the 2 per cent. which Manchester have taken. The figure of 2·4 has been the national average, and they have worked on a basis of 2 per cent. Averages are dangerous things. Nature has an uncomfortable way of not understanding averages, and sometimes even departs from what experience has suggested might be her traditional form. Therefore, although Manchester may be covered as regards the peak demand, I do not think they are over-insuring so far as the steady growth of consumption is concerned.
As regards the amenities, my Lords, I do not have sufficient knowledge, but, from what I have heard and seen of the actual proposals of Manchester, at least there is a case that they have to put to a Select Committee to establish facts. As regards Ullswater, there really is nothing to be seen as a result of their works, except perhaps one small building on the 120 foot frontage, and it is only in respect of that frontage that the public are, so to speak, denied access to the actual border of the Lake. The pumping station will be underground, covered by grass; it will look like a low grass mound. The little building I mentioned could be made to look like another boathouse, and would certainly not mar substantially the amenities.
On this point of alternative sources, surely this is a question which is ideally suited for detailed examination by a Select Committee. The Manchester Corporation will be able to explain exactly what examinations they have made as a result of the Vail Report, and it will be for the Select Committee to judge. As regards their waiting until there should be a national water policy, I agree with what the noble and gallant Earl said about the timetable in that respect, too. If, by some very fortunate chance, we could get legislation this Session, if it is to be realistic it would still be two or three years before the bodies which were set up under that legislation were working in a way which would make any contribution to the solution of the problem which we are discussing tonight.

331
Therefore, my Lords, with all the sympathy in the world for those who are fearful of the results of this scheme, I still feel that it would be unwise, as well as perhaps a reflection on the traditional fair-mindedness of your Lordships' House, if proposals that so greatly affect the public interest in a variety of ways were not examined with the utmost care. Therefore, I, for my part, would urge with all the emphasis I can command that they be thoroughly examined by a Select Committee upstairs and that an informed judgment be arrived at which can be debated in due course by your Lordships in this House on a basis of fuller information.
9.8 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, since a great deal of this debate has been necessarily controversial, and since, undoubtedly, many of my remarks will also be controversial, I should like at the outset to do what I know will command the universal assent of the House; and that is to congratulate most warmly my noble friend, Lord MacAndrew, on his maiden speech. Many of us knew him for years as a great Parliamentarian in another place. We realise to-day how much he will enrich our debates in this House.
My Lords, I have been continuously in my place here since half-past two this afternoon and I have been very much struck, as we have all, by the strength and sincerity of conviction of noble Lords who take opposite views on what should immediately be done to-night. I wondered how most usefully I could sum up the debate (if that is the right term), from the point of view of those who support my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett. I thought that the most useful thing I could do would be simply to state quite clearly, and I hope reasonably briefly, the considerations which in fact convince me that we ought to support my noble and learned friend in the Division Lobby tonight. Of course we shall all assent to the first Motion before the House, that the Bill shall have a Second Reading. I think we all agreed with the original proposal of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, that the convenient course was to discuss both Motions together, so that the subsequent
332
Division could take place after the Motion for an instruction had been formally moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett.
Now let me start with the first proposition that I think important. It is that, unless Part III of this Bill is deleted, an irreparable injury will be done to one of the glories of England. Let me give two examples which I think are not seriously disputed. The first is the shore of Ullswater itself. I believe that anybody who knows the Lakes and loves them, and who has eyes that can see, recognises that the great beauty of Ullswater is the immediate shore of the lake, and the way in which flowers, and the sites so much loved by the public, go down to the very shore of the lake itself. I would thank the Press—in particular, Country Life, The Times and the Daily Telegraph—for the admirable photographs they have published. Perhaps the best, not surprisingly, are those which appeared in the article in Country Life last week.
I ask any noble Lord to look at the shore of Ullswater as it now is, and then to consider it as it will be if the level of this lake is raised over appreciable periods. I am not going to labour this point, because I am glad to say that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe himself expressed agreement with the point which I am now putting. I am not quoting his exact words, but he said that the Government were deeply concerned about Ullswater.
Now let me come to the other unquestionable injury to the Lake District—what is proposed in Bannisdale. One or two noble Lords opposite have spoken as though what happened at Bannisdale was not going to injure the public in any way. But after all, if you submerge a few farms and flood a most beautiful valley, you are interfering with things a little. I ask noble Lords to look at the picture of Bannisdale in Country Life of last week, and see what it is that is going to be submerged.
Then—and I do beg to draw this to the attention of the House—let us see the importance which the Manchester Corporation attach to this proposal. It has been quoted by many speakers in this debate, but I am going to quote it again. Unfortunately, for the last few I weeks I have been incapacitated by

333
illness, but that gave me a better opportunity to read all the documents that were sent to us, and a great many newspaper cuttings and the like which my noble friend Lord Lonsdale was good enough to send to me.
My Lords, this particular defence of what the Manchester Corporation propose to do to this exquisite valley is one with which they are so pleased and delighted that they have stated it in numerous speeches. The representative of the Waterworks, no matter whether he is speaking in Manchester or at a meeting elsewhere in the Lake District, repeats it. So pleased with it are they that the Promoters set it out verbatim in paragraph 40 of their case. Let me read verbatim the delighted remark of the Promoters of this Bill. Paragraph 40 says:
" At present Bannisdale is a remote and secluded valley which is seldom visited."
That is the importance which they attach to the destruction which they are proposing. When they say that it is "a remote and secluded valley which is seldom visited", what they mean is how different it is from the centre of Manchester! My Lords, that is the first of my propositions: that the Part of the Bill which we propose to delete will do irreparable and admitted injury to one of the glories of this country.
I now come to my second point. On the admission of the Manchester Corporation themselves, if they got everything for which they are asking in this Bill, it would do the trick, from their point of view, for fifteen years and no more. On their own estimate of the rate of increase of demand, fifteen years is the only relief that it will give, and then something else will have to be done.
Again, I am going to quote verbatim from the Chairman of the Waterworks Committee, Councillor T. Lomas, and I must express my gratitude to him for the constant way in which he blurts out the truth. This is what he says:
"Do not let us delude ourselves. In order to provide for the shortage of water resources and the rising demand over the next 25 years, there will have to be many waterworks constructed in National Parks and after that we shall probably have to use seawater after removing the salt."
I am glad that he is going to remove the salt, and I am glad that he has learnt what is fairly well-known in other coun-
334
tries, and what is known on board every liner, that you can extract salt from seawater and make it drinkable. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, pooh-poohed the idea of seeking to use seawater. But this is not a thing suddenly proposed by the opponents of the measure; it is a thing mentioned by the Chairman of the Waterworks Committee as something that will be necessary in any event.
The real difference between my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett—and those of us who follow him in this matter—and the Manchester Corporation is that they think that the Lake District is the first place to which they should go in seeking an increased water supply, and we think that it is the last. It is as simple as that. We say, "Let them go there if absolutely necessary". They say, "We will consider alternatives only when we have finished with the Lake District". That is the perfectly simple issue that we have to consider.
Noble Lords know that I have concerned myself with amenities over the years, in a good many places. This particular thing reminds me of a procedure with which 'we have become sadly familiar. When there is intolerable traffic congestion through the middle of some ancient and lovely town, the sort of town that was described by G. K. Chesterton as one of the Crown jewels of England, they say, "The first thing to do is to destroy the High Street. Broaden the High Street, destroy the eighteenth-century houses, and then go through the middle rather fast." Of course, that is completely futile, because they have in the end to have a by-pass. I suggest that 'the by-pass should come before you destroy the centre of the town. In exactly the same way, in the case of water from the Lake District, instead of exhausting the Lake District and then going elsewhere, as the Manchester Corporation have publicly stated they will have to do, I say let them examine the alternative courses first, before they demand the right to ruin the Lake District.
Now, my Lords, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, for whom I felt some sympathy this afternoon, because I know that his heart is in the right place, and how much he cares for the beauty of town and country, said (and I agree with him) that

335
what Manchester was proposing might be the most economic or the cheapest way of doing it. Yes, my Lords. But cheap for whom? Cheap for Manchester, or cheap for England? There is a difference. If Manchester gets its cheap water supply by destroying or doing irreparable damage to the greatest of our National Parks, it will not be cheap for England: it will be most expensive, and disastrous.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder whether I may interrupt my noble friend just for a moment to get this quite clear. In that respect, I was merely repeating, or echoing, the arguments of the proponents of the Bill. Just immediately before I had set out, as I understood them, the arguments against the Bill, and I was then rehearsing the arguments in favour of it. I was not endorsing them.
LORD CONESFORD: I think that is an absolutely fair comment, and, in so far as I even temporarily implied anything to the contrary, I should like to withdraw and apologise. I have no complaint at all of anything that the Minister said in his speech. On the contrary, knowing the enormous difficulty of setting out controversial arguments on both sides, I thought he had very considerable success. I am sorry; I was carried away for the moment. I was talking rather of the arguments, and wrongly ascribing them to my noble friend.
Now, my Lords, I come to the next point. I have spoken of the irreparable damage, and I have pointed out that it will give only the most temporary relief even if they get everything for which they are asking. I now come to a point which I do not think is at all unimportant. It was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett and, I think, by my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire. In this case, there has been absolutely no consultation of any kind with the other local authorities principally affected, or with the interests that are so deeply concerned. Why should Cumberland County Council and Westmorland County Council be thought unworthy of consultation? I wonder what the citizens of Manchester would say if the Cumberland and Westmorland County Councils promoted a Private Bill in Parliament in order to take over and submerge the
336
centre of Manchester. My Lords, it would bring about a much greater improvement to the amenities; but I wonder whether we should then be told by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—"Send it to a Committee". Of course not. Everybody knows that a proposal can be so contrary to the public interest and so nonsensical that this House would intervene to stop its going to a Committee, and so save the time of the Committee. If I support my noble friend Lord Birkett, as I shall in the Division Lobby, and as I hope the majority of this House will, it is not because we fear what the Committee would do if they had to consider the matter. I think they would do their duty, after having put a great number of not very rich authorities to a great deal of expense.
My Lords, I come now to my last question: What ought this House to do? Now it is universally admitted—in fact, it is not a thing that can be disputed—that at some point this House must be entitled to pronounce on this matter as a matter of principle. It must be for this House to say: is this tolerable or is it not? At what point should this House say that?—and here, I agree, there is an argument for various courses. One piece of advice has been given us by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, who always advises us so admirably and so clearly, and in a way for which the House is always grateful. He has suggested one way. The other method, of course, is that we should support a long-established practice, not for every case but for a certain number of cases such as this, of passing a mandatory instruction to the Committee.
As between those two courses—the mandatory instruction to the Committee, which my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett suggests and which I support, and the possible alternative method suggested by the Lord Chairman—I agree differing views may be taken as to which is the better. But of this I am quite confident: if we follow my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett, as I suggest we should, we shall be taking a course for which we have more precedent than we shall have if we follow the advice given us by the Lord Chairman of Committees this afternoon. I agree that both are possible courses,

337
but I say that the one which I believe to be more in accordance with frequent precedent of the House is to pass this mandatory instruction.
My Lords, in conclusion, may I say that this is the twenty-fifth year in which I have had the honour of serving on the Executive Committee of the National Trust. Of all the matters that have come before the Committee of the National Trust in those 25 years of which I have had experience, I do not think that there has been one which has caused us more concern than the proposals in Part III of this Bill. My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crawford and Balcarres has this afternoon stated, and admirably stated, the case for the National Trust. I remember, in the early years of my membership of another place, that the first time the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and I were associated in debate was in defence of the Lake District, on that occasion against some afforestation programme.
I wonder whether I might, in conclusion, repeat a truth which, over the years, I have tried to bring home to both Houses, and to numerous meetings in all parts of the country. This is a very crowded island. We have not a great deal of land to spare, yet we have a variety and richness of scenery of quite incomparable beauty. But that beauty is uniquely vulnerable. You can indulge in the wildest folly in the Rocky Mountains of Canada, and what is done by man will be on such a tiny scale that, though it may be foolish, it will do no permanent harm. But that is not the case with such lovely things as the Sussex Downs, or with such lovely things as the Lake District.
My Lords, it is customary for all political Parties, indeed for all politicians, often to talk of improving the standard of living. All good luck to them! We all wish to do so. But the standard of living is not measured entirely by figures of the cost of living, or figures of wages, or even statistics of housing. It can be affected by the amenities of our surroundings. Over the years since I have been in political life, I have seen great improvements in many aspects of the standard of living, but a fairly steady deterioration in our surroundings, in what we have been doing to the dignity of our towns, the loveliness of our villages, and the peace, beauty and
338
serenity of our countryside. My Lords, I believe that to-night, if we carry the mandatory instruction of my noble and learned friend, we shall be striking a blow in a noble and splendid cause, and I beg to support it.
9.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise at "the beginning of the end", as it were, of this debate, before the Leader of the House replies. I think it is rather a pity that we have been treated to such a kind of speech as the last speech which was made, because during most of the debate, as the speaker himself said, good nature has been expressed and displayed. I did not feel at all happy about the references which sought to get cheap laughs at the city of Manchester or the leader of the Manchester Water Board; I did not like that at all. The sneers at the city of Manchester which were made in that speech did not cheer me up a bit. I will tell your Lordships why. It certainly was not the great working class of this country who were responsible for making Manchester. I should like to find how many more examples there are, in the industrial areas of this country of ours. Of places whose ugliness, whose bad housing, whose lack of opportunity to their workers to go out into the open spaces, would have to be attributed to capitalist practice and capitalist ideas. So I wish the noble Lord could have spared the great city of Manchester, which has meant so much to the trade and commerce and exports of this country, jeers of that kind.
Secondly, I should like to say that I was, of course, very impressed by the oratorical performance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, who spoke to us with such power this afternoon. But did not hear any argument from him as to how the water required for this water undertaking, and for those other water requirement areas which they are bound to supply, and which he emphasised they were bound to supply under contract, was to be provided by means of an efficient alternative. I have heard arguments from many people, who were no doubt moved by great emotion, concerning the preservation of the beauty of this particular part of the many beauty spots in our English countryside. I understood the emotion. But I also

339
know that both our industry and our household population will require continuously increasing supplies of water. And I also know perfectly well that up till now, 1962, there has never yet come before the country a proposal, such as we have discussed in Labour circles and put into a programme, to have a real national water supply scheme. We have never had it; and what we have heard in our debate to-day certainly proved the necessity for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who has just spoken, made a very nice appeal at the end of his speech, but he did not make any suggestions as to exactly how this could be done. What I, as an ordinary Member of this House of Parliament, want to know is, what is there to fear, in this highly technical matter, in sending this Bill to be properly examined, in the usual course of procedure with Select Committees which handle Private Bills, so that every one of these technical questions can be decided upon in the Committee and reported to your Lordships for further discussion, and where each of the technical points, which will be covered not only by the views of the Promoters but by every one of the Petitioners and their Counsel, under cross-examination individually, can be fully investigated? If that were done, then when we came to the later stages of the Bill in this House it would enable your Lordships to make up your minds on proper information, and to be able to do the right thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, quoted two precedents of the power of your Lordships to deal with such matters as this right off on our own. He quoted the year 1923, and I think that he said that the last precedent for throwing out a Bill, in effect, by this procedure of passing an instruction to the Committee was in 1924. There may have been some other major ones, but I will deal with the ones the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, mentioned.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House at all, but what I did cite was 1923 and 1924. But I said that it continued up till 1927.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The year 1924 stands out in my memory; I was an Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade in the Gov-
340
ernment. There was a Labour Government in office, and there were fewer than 200 Members in the House of Commons; a tiny minority in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said to your Lordships to-day that only two Ministers were to be found in the Lobby to vote against the instruction which killed that Bill at first instance. What the noble Lord wanted to-day was that your Lordships should show your power to kill in this House any Bill of this kind; that is what he asked us to do. It is not exactly the right introduction for your Lordships to make to the new discussions on the constitution of the House of Lords and its future powers. It is not the spirit in which to arrive at such a matter. I felt as I listened—I took no notes—that he made my heart burn within me.
This Bill is supposed to be proceeding along the ordinary path of examination under Select Committee procedure. Neither I nor any of my colleagues, who vary much in their views, wants to be committed on the final stages of the Bill. I want all these points which are so deeply felt matched against the economic circumstances and the physical requirements of the population; and, after being properly examined, I want the Bill to be finally decided upon in this House, and then in another place. I resent the idea that we should proceed to try to kill it in this unrepresentative House. I say: put it to the Committee; let it be brought here. Bring up all the counsel, perhaps as distinguished and experienced as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, himself, and have the matter fought out on that basis; and I shall be content to take the judgment of the House when, properly informed, we—all of us, not just a few who have been able to read this mass of stuff which is full of technicalities—have been able to debate what the result should be. I shall certainly support the people who take the view that we should send this Bill to Committee first, and have them report back to us.
9.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I confess at once that I have very great doubts, and still entertain some doubts, as to what my own duty is in this debate. To begin with, the Government are impartial on the merits of the Bill. My noble friend stated that it was his

341
duty to give what help he could to the House in matters of information, which he did without bias and, it seemed to me, in an extremely able speech. I had arranged for him to do so precisely because it is customary on these occasions, as I understand it, for the Government to give, if possible through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department concerned, help of that kind. Believe me, the Government truly are impartial upon this matter, and if it had stayed there I should have had no doubt at all that it would have been my duty to stand aside from this debate. But I felt, and I feel more strongly now that I have heard the debate, that if I did so I should simply be shirking my duty as Leader of the House. If I speak now, it is as Leader of the House, and not as Minister.
And I ask the House to believe, whether your Lordships accept my views or whether you reject them, which of course you are fully entitled to do, that I have one consideration and one consideration only in my mind, and that is the question: which of two alternative courses, both of which are perfectly open to the House to adopt if it thinks fit, is best for the reputation of the House?
If I should declare, and I do declare, that upon the merits of this controversial measure I am impartial, as an individual as well as a member of the Government, I hope that it will not be suspected that it is because I am indifferent to the Lake District. I have not visited it so much in recent years, but the mountains of this Island and of the Alps have been one of the great sources of inspiration and comfort to me throughout my life.
I am a member of the English Alpine Club, which I think is the oldest of the Alpine societies; and year after year before the War I climbed on Scafell, the Gable, the Pillar Rock and in Langdale, and I think that I know the Lake District—not so well, indeed, as many noble Lords who have spoken, but as well as most of the inhabitants of this Island. Only last Easter it was my pleasure to bring my two young sons to some of the scrambles in the Lake District which I love best in the area near Wasdale. Therefore, it is not with indifference to these scenes that I speak, because it is a matter very close to my heart. But I must ask myself and the
342
House which of two alternative courses is really more in our interest, from the point of view of our reputation for fair dealing.
There is one point that I must put, albeit I hope delicately. My noble friend Lord Crawford and Balcarres, in a speech to which I listened with great feeling and admiration, reminded your Lordships that no fewer than 120 noble Lords are members of the National Trust. This says a great deal for the interest of your Lordships' House in matters of the preservation of our Island. It does them nothing but credit. But I doubt whether 120 Members of your Lordships' House are members of the Manchester Corporation and if, in that situation, we are trying the case without hearing the evidence, what are people going to think about us?
My Lords, there are two alternatives before us. One is to pursue the course suggested by my noble friend, Lord Merthyr, the Chairman of Committees, who presented his course with his customary fairness and clearness, and, I thought, without any attempt at the trappings of advocacy, in accordance with his duty as Chairman of Committees. It is perfectly true, of course, that the House has often gone against the advice of its Chairman of Committees. On one occasion, to which the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches drew the attention of the House, and particularly my attention, it did so on the advice of the Leader of the House, Lord Curzon. But it is a serious thing to do. The Chairman of Committees is not a person who is the partisan of causes and his advice is conceived on a basis of long experience of Parliamentary procedure and of the experience of this House.
The second course is that proposed by the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches. His deeply felt and highly eloquent speech is still fresh in our minds. One who has known him, as I, though a much younger man, have known him, for more than 30 years now, at the Bar and on the Bench, cannot speak of his powers without deep feeling. At the Bar, he was one of the greatest of English advocates. One of my earliest and most dramatic memories is of hearing him in one of those great cases which secure a verdict that one had almost thought to be impossible. On the Bench, if he will allow me to say so, I felt for

343
him not only admiration but the kind of gratitude which only counsel can feel for a learned Judge who not only makes it a pleasure to appear before him but also, by numerous acts of personal kindness, has completely won one's heart. If I differ from him in this matter, it ought not to be thought, nor even suspected, that I desire in any way to diminish the immense reputation which he nationally enjoys.
Of these two courses, there is no doubt, as the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition has said, that the first, that proposed by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, is the more normal course. It is true, as my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford reminded us, that there are cases where the House has actually rejected a Bill after it had been through the Select Committee but that there are probably fewer examples in recent history than those the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches was able to adduce as precedents for passing a mandatory instruction. I venture to suggest that this is because the Select Committee is, in fact, a very good filter of Bills which are rightly open to objection, and if that were not the case, there would be something very wrong with the Select Committee procedure.
As the Chairman of Committees reminded us, this procedure is of relatively recent introduction in the history of your Lordships' House. The Private Bill procedure, which is one of the great rights of the subject, stems from the right of the subject, jealously guarded, to be heard by Parliament. The old procedure was for the Promoters of a Bill to appear personally or by counsel at the Bar of your Lordships' House, and to call the evidence in the presence of your Lordships. When the Private Bill procedure by way of Select Committee was introduced, it was done not in order to deprive the subject of a remedy, but to give him a greater leisure to deploy his arguments than he had before an overburdened deliberative Assembly. I think that it would be a serious thing if, as a frequent procedure, even as a normal one, this House were to refuse that right to Promoters, provided they come in good faith and seriously with a measure which deserves further attention.
344
This has been represented on both sides of the debate as a choice between a Select Committee and a decision by this House. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, suggested that the Select Committee was not really a suitable body to hear arguments of that kind. But this is not in fact the true choice. This matter is, as more than one noble Lord has insisted, one to be decided by this House. But what concerns me is the effect upon the reputation of this House of deciding it now, rather than after it had in its possession the Report of a Select Committee and the printed Minutes of Evidence. This seems to me to be the choice which the House has to make.
I ask myself this question, which seems to me really conclusive of the matter: which of the arguments deployed by noble Lords who feel so strongly on this matter could not be made as forcibly, or indeed could not be made even with greater force, when the facts have been sifted and reported upon than they can now when much must be left to conjecture? I have a rooted objection to trying cases before you have heard the evidence; and until to-day I had supposed that the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches shared my prejudice. I am wondering whether he was not more the advocate than the judge on this occasion. Small shame to him if he was, because this is a matter about which he feels so sincerely and deeply.
But we are told that this is a matter of principle which does not require any evidence to enable us to decide and adjudicate upon it. I was a little doubtful as I listened, first to the noble and learned Lord and then to his supporters, as to what the principle was. At first, I thought I had discerned it quite clearly. The noble and learned Lord at first appeared to be arguing—although I turned out to be wrong, because he was not—that the principle was that this was an attack upon a National Park, which must remain, according to his word, inviolate. And, of course, it would be true that if it were to be claimed that no change of any kind in a National Park was to be tolerated in any circumstances whatever, that would be a principle—although it is not, as a matter of fact, one which I could personally find myself able to endorse. But this is a principle which has been explicitly disowned, first by the noble and learned

345
Lord himself, then by the right reverend Prelate, and then successively by every noble Lord, almost without exception, who has spoken on that side of the debate. They have all conceded that the case could be made by evidence, by the establishment of necessity, facts, urgency and public need, to justify not only some changes in a National Park but even the particular change which was proposed. I found myself wondering, as I listened to these arguments, all so cogent, whether noble Lords really realised that the effect of what they were doing was to prevent the Promoters of this Bill from ever having a hope of establishing a case in the way in which Parliament had decided such cases should be established.
As the noble and learned Lord went on, I found myself wondering a little more about the principle. It is easy to support without evidence the principle that you should leave a National Park inviolate. It is less easy to suggest that one supports without evidence the suggestion that Manchester Corporation should take its water below Pooley Bridge, which was one of his arguments; or, to take one of the right reverend Prelate's points, that it might be a little more convenient if it reduced the size of its cisterns and water closets. This is not a great principle for which we can fight without evidence. On the contrary, it is just the sort of thing Select Committees were designed to deal with after hearing evidence examined and cross-examined. I should be the last to deny that matters of principle are involved in a case of this kind. The very fact of this debate and the feeling which has been evinced proves that matters of principle are involved. But I should have thought that one of the facts which your Lordships would take into account in coming to a conclusion about this choice between destroying the Bill at this stage and giving it a chance before a Select Committee, before finally pronouncing one way or the other, would be that noble Lords with the experience, for instance, of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, should have given reasons, which may or may not be sufficient, for coming to the conclusion that there was, at any rate,
346
enough to argue on the other side to allow the witnesses to be deployed.
I know that my noble friend Lord Jessel proposed his Motion with very great skill; but I should have said—and I think without any chance of wounding—that he would be the last to claim that Manchester Corporation had deployed their ease fully through his lips. They would want to be heard by counsel and to call evidence, expert and otherwise. What is proposed is that they should be denied that right. We are not prejudicing our right to decide the matter on a question of principle if we accept the course suggested by the Lord Chairman of Committees. He has undertaken—and the House will accept his undertaking—that should the matter emerge from a Select Committee, despite the formidable arguments which have been presented against it by those who know their case very well, the House will have it again to decide on this question of principle. But I could not. as I heard the various arguments deployed, resist the conclusion that in this, as in so many other cases in this life, questions of principle and questions of fact are very closely intertwined with one another, and that it is a remarkably difficult thing to decide questions of principle until you first know what the facts are.
My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, who spoke with deep emotion—although I share some of the misgivings, but not all, about his references to the city of Manchester expressed also by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition—put as his reason for the rejection of this Bill that irreparable damage would be done to some of the glories of England. Well, he may say that with the same force, and perhaps even greater force than beforehand, when he knows what the evidence is. I, for my part, should like to know to what extent it was true; to what extent the damage could be mitigated, and against what degree of public need this damage was to be measured. Knowing that, I might well decide in his favour. But to decide it in his favour before hearing the evidence would make me feel in my conscience that I was an unjust judge.
Again, it is said, of course, that the urgency is something which is largely

347
fanciful in the minds of the city of Manchester. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe gave the information of the Government Department concerned, in which he had to say that, according to the opinion of that Department, there was a degree of urgency. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Cross Benches could well be right; and we all know that Government Departments can be, and very often are, quite wrong. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford of Balcarres, said that he was not going to take it from the city of Manchester or, he added politely, from the Government that there was any urgency and that there were no alternative supplies. But nobody is asking him to take it from the Government or from the city of Manchester. All that is being asked is that the case should be tried; that the degree of urgency should be known and ascertained and reported upon; that witnesses should be called and cross-examined, and Members of your Lordships' House, chosen for their impartiality, should be allowed to pronounce some kind of provisional opinion. The same must apply to alternative sources of supply.
It is said, of course, that the Corporation had made insufficient investigations. I cannot say whether this is true or incorrect. I know that there is available to most people in that part of the world a very extensive survey of what are the supplies in the North-West of England. I have no doubt whatever that the Select Committee would have an opportunity of studying it. It was said, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, that the local bodies and others who wished to oppose the Corporation have not had time to prepare their case. But I thought the answer to that or, at any rate, a satisfactory answer, was provided by my noble friend Lord Rochdale, who was himself among the supporters of the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches.
The trouble is that the whole Select Committee procedure depends upon the proposition that it is for the Promoters of the Bill to establish their case. Competent counsel, properly instructed as to the inadequacy of procedure or consultation in the matter, could very quickly elicit these facts in cross-examination. The noble Lord will not
348
be able to brief the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches, who would be the best possible counsel to employ, but he will be able to find many competent and honourable members of the Bar. I can assure him from 25 years' experience that this is not the kind of cross-examination which is easily muffed if there is anything in the point which you are instructed to put.
Then, again, I should be sorry if in ten or twelve years' time the city of Manchester turned out to be short of water to drink because your Lordships had run away with the idea that there was a reasonable prospect of getting 40 million or 50 million gallons of water by the distillation of the sea (which was the noble and learned Lord's solution of the problem) or even from the air (which was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on behalf of the Liberal Party). As Minister for Science, I am all for new technology, but I do not wish to encourage wild-cat speculation, and I should have thought that a Select Committee, with a properly deployed number of witnesses, could have investigated exactly how reasonable these suggestions were. But when I see an advocate of the ability of the noble and learned Lord solemnly putting forward the distillation of sea water, and Pooley Bridge, and distillation from the air, as great issues of principle which would enable us to strike a gigantic blow for the glories of England, without hearing a word of evidence, then I am bound to say I thought I was listening to the advocate rather than the judge.
I can say only this. The Government Whips will not be on in this Division. I did not think it proper to suggest that that they should. But it would not be right for me to shirk my duties as Leader of the House simply because I thought that this was not a proper matter for putting the Government Whips upon the issue. My advice is that the House, in its own interests and in the interests of its reputation for fair play, should pass the Second Reading of this Bill, and ought not to give the mandatory instruction which the noble and learned Lord put forward. I may be wrong. I shall not be the first Leader to be disregarded on matters of this kind. But at least I ask the House to believe that I have considered the question from the only

349
point of view which to me is relevant, and that is the reputation of the House of Lords.
10.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him for guidance on one point? We are all worried about this Bill, and we want it to be properly investigated. We do not want to be discourteous to a great city like Manchester. But there are points like the distillation of sea water, the underground storage of fresh water, a larger area, and so forth, which are rather outside the clauses of this Bill. That would require examination by civil engineers which would be an expensive process, and also visits to the spot. Could a Select Committee of this House examine these alternative suggestions which are outside this Bill? Would it not be better for some other commission, with wider terms of reference, to make an equally impartial examination? I am asking for guidance because we want this thing to be examined in its fullest connotation, which I cannot help feeling that a Select Committee which is merely examining these particular proposals might, by its terms of reference and inadequacy of funds and so forth, be not able to do adequately.
10.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think there is any difficulty about the terms of reference or the inadequacy of funds at all. On the contrary, of all the procedures that I know for investigating the facts, the Select Committee is least bound by terms of reference. Probably objectors, representing the kinds of bodies who have spoken and the kinds of bodies who have issued these seventeen different Petitions—31 bodies in all—are not likely to be hampered by lack of funds. Whether the Select Committee does consider it depends upon two factors. One is whether the objectors think there is enough in the point to be worthy of investigation. If they do, and support it by cross-examination and examination of witnesses—if they can get an expert witness to support these things seriously—then the Select Committee would be bound to consider this. Moreover, members of the Select Committee would be perfectly free to investigate the matter from the experts called on behalf of the Promoters—of course,
350
if there is enough in these things for conscientious counsel to put them forward at all. All I can say is that it is open for them to do so if their instructions allow them to, and if they think there is anything whatever in the case to put forward.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
10.8 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, it had been my intention to move the instruction which appears in my name on the Order Paper formally, without any further word; and that is still my desire and my purpose. I must say, having listened to the whole of this debate since half past two this afternoon, that the closing stages have been the warmest of the whole time. One of the tragedies of my own life has been that, when I have espoused a cause in court, opposing counsel was accustomed to depreciate it by saying that it was pure advocacy. I never expected it in this House. But I must say with all affection—I hope I may use that term of the noble Leader—when he talks to me about advocacy (the House anticipates me by its laughter), "Physician heal thyself." It was the extreme charm and kindliness of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, which has placed me in a great difficulty. I do not propose to re-argue the matter. I hope the House will support me in this: that when I made my speech this afternoon I tried to make it clearly; I tried to make it forcibly, and I restrained myself from saying anything unkind about Manchester.
I had intended to say some very kind words about Manchester, because I am proud to be a Lancastrian, and Manchester, in my view, has been a great city and a great leader in many matters with which I myself am deeply concerned. I have for the great city of Manchester nothing but admiration, and I hope that that will be taken to my credit here to-day. When the noble Viscount said, "You should not decide a case until you have heard the evidence", I would reply (although I dislike the character of the man who used the words) "All these things have I observed from my youth up." And the last thing that I need telling is that you should hear both sides before making

351
your decision. I was at pains to say that at some length. We were not debating the merits of this matter here in this House this evening. What I suggested was that the point of principle was within the procedure of the House, the constitutional procedure of the House, and that it was right and proper in these circumstances that where a great corporation had not had the requisite consultation with the authorities, where it was seeking to do something in a National Park which Parliament had said ought not to be violated but ought to be preserved for the enjoyment of all generations—when these matters were propounded by sponsors of the Bill, I ventured to say this was one of the occasions on which this House might very well rely upon its great power and say it will not permit it.
My last word about it is this. I should be very sorry indeed to think that any act of mine had contributed in the slightest degree to any loss of prestige of this House, and I was rather grieved to hear the noble Viscount the Leader of the House say that the issue had now become an issue of what was the most dignified and proper thing for the House to do. I still say—and I hope the noble Viscount will permit me to say, with all respect and admiration for him and will all gratitude to him for the very kind things he said—that, for the House, the right and proper and the dignified thing to do is to support the instruction which I now venture to move.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask, before the noble and learned Lord finally moves it, what he is really afraid of in
sending this to be examined with full evidence by a Committee? What is he afraid of?
LORD BIRKETT: My answer is there is nothing to be afraid of at all. The supplementary question which was asked by the noble Lord on this side of the House was very pertinent, and if I must say a word about it I will. In my submission to the House, the Select Committee procedure, in the facts of this case, is wholly inappropriate. The investigation which is required in this matter will be extremely lengthy and extremely expensive, and it ought not to have been in that position and would not have been in that position if there had been the proper consultation. That is the reason, my Lords. I am afraid of nothing. I dare say that if the Bill went to the Select Committee they would say, "Take it away". I have every confidence they would. But what I am submitting to the House is that it is a much more dignified procedure that you should use the great power which you have, which will not derogate from any prestige which the House enjoys, and that you should support the instruction, the mandatory instruction, which I now formally beg to move as it stands in my name upon the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Bill may be committed to leave out Part III (Waterworks) of the Bill.—(Lord Birkett.)
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Colwyn, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Airedale, L.

Conesford, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Amulree, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Amwell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Astor, V.

Crawford, E.

Lawson, L.

Atholl, D.

Croft, L.

Long, V.

Bathurst, E.

Cross, V.

Lonsdale, E. [Teller.]

Birkenhead, E.

Darwen, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Birkett, L. [Teller.]

De Ramsey, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Bossom, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Methuen, L.

Brocket, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Molson, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Fisher, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Camrose, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Morrison, L.

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Gosford, E.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Grantchester, L.

Moyne, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Haddington, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Chorley, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Netherthorpe, L.

Newall, L.

Rockley, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Saltoun, L.

Terrington, L.

Portal of Hungerford, V.

Sempill, L.

Waleran, L.

Radnor, E.

Somers, L.

Wolverton, L.

Rea, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Robins, L.

Swinton, E.

Yarborough, E.

Rochdale, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Devonshire, D.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Dundee, E.

Newton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ormonde, M.

Ampthill, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Peddie, L. [Teller.]

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Henderson, L.

Perth, E.

Auckland, L.

Ingleby, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Brecon, L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Burden, L.

Jessel, L. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Carrington, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V.

Leconfield, L.

Walston, L.

Denham, L.

Lucan, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Resolved in the affirmative; Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.